President Bush has proposed to allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States to apply for legal temporary-worker status. I may surprise some people on this one. I agree with Presdient Bush, but I have some serious reservations on how the plan to welcome more legal immigrants should be streamlined. The availability of social welfare has to be first curtailed in order for any sane policy on immigration to work. The President has a Constitutional duty to guard and to protect our borders, including the regulation and qualifications of immigrants into the country. The Constitution Party’s platform makes this important point:
http://constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php#Immigration
Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many illegal aliens enter the United States. These immigrants – including illegal aliens – have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax burden, and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the American worker and the labor balance in our country.
Focusing on whether illegals ought to be granted amnesty if they meet certain qualifications is not the issue at all. The logical question to ask is this: What would happen to the numbers of illegals entering our country each year if housing, education, Social Security, and legal services were not made available to them at all. If the United States would return to a pre-New Deal social order, which would be closer to a biblical social order, “illegal” immigration would not even be an issue. Scripture states: “If a man will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10 ).
The problem is not illegal immigration. The problem is the New Deal and Great Society programs which have led an entire class of people into financial bondage and dependence on the “Great Savior State” socialist programs that drain the rich and keep the poor poor. If these programs were shut down, then there would simply be no problem with illegal immigration. If we allowed immigration rights to hard working people who want to succeed and pursue the American dream, then we would have the strongest economy in the world. But in order to do so, we would first have to know who these people are.
I’ve always thought it is ridiculous to require a green card and residency status first for people who want to work. All this does is ensure that the socialist programs will continue to threaten the financial security of our future. I propose allowing people to work in the country for a period of one year before they would be allowed to apply for residency. If they can show that they are able to work for one year with no financial asistance from the government and not violate any laws, then they ought to be given temporary worker status and the opportunity to apply for residency. If they work for two more years without assistance, they ought to be granted permanent resident status. If they continue for three years after that, they should be granted citizenship. But the qualification for that six year period ought to be the ability to support themselves.
I believe that some of the most honest and hardest working people in the country are the immigrants who come here out of a love of freedom and dignity. We ought to welcome as many of these people as possible. The logical transistion to this sane policy would be to grant amnesty to “illegals” who are otherwise law-abiding and hard working.
16 Comments
354.Not to settle idolaters in our land (Ex. 23:33) They shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to sin towards Me. If you serve their gods, then it will be a snare to you.
This would prove to me that the alien has to be a Christian. This would also shed more light on Ezra and Nehemiah otherwise you could accuse them of disobedience. You cannot argue with the fact that the alien has lead this country into idolatry. They should be sent back to Mexico or africa or wherever they came from just like they did in the days of Ezre and Nehemiah!
Look at the context of Exodus 23:23. "They" refers to the Canaanites the inhabitants of the land: "For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off."
God commanded Israel to completely drive out the pagan inhabitants of Canaan. This was because God knew that they would remain and lead Israel into idolatry. This does not mean that aliens from other nations were not allowed to enter and hear the Law. Saving faith was not a requirement to dwell in the land. Some foreigners dwelt in Israel but were not part of the covenant. They were contstrained to keep the Law but not all the ceremonial observances.
How can that be applied today? I don't think that foreigners need to pass a test in order to enter a Christian country and work. Maybe some type of Christian profession or knowledge could become part of the test for citizenship, but not for entry.
In all cases, foreign or national idolatry should not be allowed in any Christian nation. The question becomes, "What is the biblical definition of an idolater?" Idolater doesn't apply to all foreigners or non-believers. It means people who publicly practice idolatry and lead others into idolatry.
What would you have done with Ruth the Moabitess? What was Uriah the Hittite doing in Jerusalem?
The territory of the Moabites was originally east and north east of The Dead Sea. Moab's borders extended from the Arnon river on the south to the Jabbok river on the north. From the Dead Sea and Jordan river on the west to the mountains on the east. It was called Moab after the people who once lived there. This land kept that name for many centuries even after all the Moabites were long gone from it.
The Moabites were destroyed by the Amorites: Here's what happened. About 1450 B.C., the Moabites were conquered and driven from their land by Sihon, king of the Amorites.
It's in Numbers 21:26-29, "For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. (29) Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites."
The Amorites were destroyed by invading Israelites: The land of Moab, (now occupied by Amorites) was the first land conquered by the Israelites after leaving Egypt. It's in Deuteronomy 2:32-34, "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. (33) And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. (34) And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:"
The war continues in Numbers 21:30-35, "We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. (31) Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. (32) And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there. (33) And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. (34) And the Lord said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. (35) So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land."
All the land of Moab was settled by the Israelite tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. Here it is in Deuteronomy 3:12-16, "And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites.
(13) And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.
(14) Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashanhavothjair, unto this day.
(15) And I gave Gilead unto Machir. (16) And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon;
By 1450 B.C. All the land of Moab was Israel territory. in 1142 B.C.. We have proof that, three hundred years later, the land of Moab was still Israel territory. The proof is in Judges 11:12-26, "And Jephthah (of Israel) sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? (13) And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.
This is like Russia wanting Alaska back. Mexico wanting Texas or even the American Indians saying, 300 years ago you White men took our lands, now give them back without a fight.
Jephthanah's answer, "No, The land of Moab has belonged to Israel for the past 300 years and you have no right to the land today" answer is in verses 14-26.
Also the Ammonite claim was fraudulent. Why? Because the Ammonites were not the Amorites. It would be like, 300 years from now, an Indian from India claiming land in North America because it once belonged to the Indians.
Ruth lived about 1322 B.C. That is right in he middle of this 300 year time of proven Israelite occupation of the land of Moab. In Ruth 1:1 we read, "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
Note the accuracy of the Bible, not "among the people of Moab," but "in the country of Moab." This is like saying, "Ruth lived in Kansas." The State of Kansas was named after a Siouan Indian tribe. In Ruth's time the land of Moab was occupied exclusively by Israelites just as Kansas is now occupied, not by Indians, but by modern day Americans.
Ruth 1:22, "So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest."
"Ruth the Moabitess" is like saying "Mary Jones the Californian" or "George Bush the Texan." Indeed it could not have been otherwise. All the people in The Book of Ruth were Israelites.
Long ago the Moabites had been exterminated by the Amorites. Then the Israelites drove out and exterminated the Amorites. The Israelites occupied the land of Moab for the next several centuries. So never let anyone tell you that Jesus Christ was only a mongrel or that The Book of Ruth justifies interracial marriage. Ruth was pure Israelite from the land of Moab, but not from the race of Moab.
In Ruth 4 there is an application of Israelite law to land inheritance. By Israel's law, only Israelites could inherit another Israelite's real estate. If Ruth were a racial Moabite, then she could have made no lawful claim on the land. It's in Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 27.
Ruth was not Moabite by race. Ruth was an Israelite."
Contagion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. R.J. Rushdoony
April 25, 2006
CA Farmer 234:10 (May 15, 1971), p. 23.
You can catch a cold from your friends, but can you catch good health? The answer is very obviously, no. As God made clear to the prophet Haggai long ago, holiness is not contagious, but uncleanliness and sin are (Hag. 2:10–14).
The fact is almost too obvious to be stated. Yet it must be repeated, because our generation has apparently forgotten that good apples can’t change bad apples, but bad apples can affect the good ones. Parents often allow their children to move in very unclean circles, morally derelict groups. Then they justify it, saying, “My child can be a real influence for good there.”
Can anyone be an influence for good when he is morally compromised to begin with? The degenerate philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once accompanied a prostitute to her room, undressed, got in bed with her, and then tried to lecture her on the evil of her ways. He was in the wrong place and the wrong position for any such preaching.
Evil is contagious. Man as a fallen creature has, at his best, enough sin in him to respond to evil if he allows himself too much contact with it. Righteousness, however, is not contagious. It is a product of saving faith and a steady growth in holiness, in a process known as sanctification. Righteousness is a product of faith, discipline, and work.
A beautiful house can burn down in an hour. It takes weeks to build or rebuild it. The ease of evil’s power is precisely in its destructiveness, and destruction is an easier process than construction.
It is for this reason that Scripture emphasizes godly discipline and, also, separation. We need discipline to school us in righteousness, and separation to avoid the contagion of evil.
There is no substitute for discipline. It is discipline which provides the muscles and power of moral character. Professional and amateur athletes alike require a disciplined training period in order to be able to compete successfully. We cannot expect less in the realm of morality. Spiritual exercises are as valuable in their area as physical exercises are to the athlete.
The idea, therefore, that contagion can produce health or character is nonsense. The Bible compares the discipline of faith and character to sowing a field. It takes time for the harvest to come, “but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward” (Prov. 11:18).
There is much false and incorrect information around on this topic, but Christians need to be familiar with true biblical teaching in order to correctly represent the teachings of Jesus!
Some say that when Moses is called 'perfect in his generations' (Genesis 6:9), this is a comment about purity of racial stock. But the Hebrew used in this verse does not suggest any reference to race, and the verse is rendered much more clearly in the NIV:
'This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.'
(Genesis 6:9, NIV).
Others say that when God forbad the Israelites to mix with the Canaanites this was for racial reasons. They are completely incorrect: it was for religious/cultural reasons! The Israelites were warned not to form alliances/friendships with the tribes within the Promised Land in order not to dilute/compromise their knowledge of the things of God which had been revealed to them.
The Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. It does, however, forbid a Christian from marrying an unbeliever: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). This Scripture starts to get to the root of the problem! The Bible never forbids interracial marriage but it does attack what the modern Western world calls 'multiculturalism'!
So, first of all, in what sense was Moses 'perfect in his generations'? As the NIV rendition of Genesis 6:9 suggests, this was a reference to decency of character:
Noah was a fine and decent man in that he was a decent husband, father and – most importantly – he walked with God: He believed that God had granted him his parents, wife, children and that to genuinely love is to love God. He wanted to obey God and we can be sure that he sought after God.
Secondly, does the Bible indicate a particular attitude towards interracial marriage?
Yes, it does. In Numbers 12:1-8 we find an account of Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman,
'And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman' (Num. 12:1, KJV).
The NIV refers to this woman as a 'Cushite.' The perceived wisdom of most scholars is that this woman was black, although she could have been brown-skinned. Now the LORD repeatedly asks Moses to be a faithful, consistent and obedient leader, but on this occasion, Moses is not challenged by the LORD, but by Miriam and Aaron! Miriam and Aaron were upset with Moses because he married a Cushite woman. This could have been an indication of racism by Miriam and Aaron, perhaps they had mistaken the LORD's 'mono-culturalism' for 'mono-racism' but in any case,if race was an issue, this would have been an ideal place and circumstance to set the matter straight once and for all. But the LORD showed anger towards Miriam and Aaron for their challenge to Moses over his non-Israelite wife! Read the whole Scripture!
'The anger of the LORD burned against them...' (verse 9).
We might also carefully consider the LORD's warning for the Israelites not to marry the tribes within the Promised Land in Exodus 34:10-16 and note how this is clearly shown to be a religious (or, cultural) matter – not a racial one:
'And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.' (Exodus 34:16, NIV).
In fact, any foreigners willing to accept the LORD and His revealed laws were always welcomed among the Israelites and we find several Old Testament examples including Rahab and Ruth!
What About Multi-Culturalism?
The multi-culturalism being strongly promoted in modern Britain and America, however, is not good! The LORD did not want the Israelites mixing with the tribes of Canaan for cultural (not racial) reasons; Multi-Culturalism says that all religions and all creeds may be mixed together – this is but one facet of Practical Atheism, since it is only concerned about harmony between peoples and assumes that religion is pretty much meaningless.
And another thing, has not Ezra, Nehemiah and the lessons from the tower of Babel tought us anything? Do you stand for amalgamation and the genocide of Gods diversity and his "boundaries of their dwelling" (Acts 17:26b)?
* Leviticus 19:34: "The stranger who resides with you ... you must treat him as yourself."
* Deuteronomy 31:12: "Assemble the alien who is in your town, in order that they may hear and learn and fear the Lord your God, and be careful to observe all the words of the law."
God has a strategic plan for everything He does. When He poured out His Spirit on the first disciples in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, He had a missionary purpose in mind.
Acts 2:5 tells us who was observing when the miraculous event occurred: "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven."
Few Americans realize it ... But today in the United States, there are over 7 million non-immigrant, non-tourist foreigners and 400,000 international students attending our colleges and universities.
If we believe that God is sovereign and that He works in the affairs of nations, we have to realize that He brought these foreign visitors to America for a reason. He brought them here to hear the Gospel.
I do not think that hearing the Gospel must be a prerequisite for allowing aliens into the land. That runs contrary to what scripture explicitly says.
This is insane, it make absolutely no logical sence whatsoever, our country is in a moral and spiritual disaster and is on the brink of an economic catastrophy and you want to bring in aliens and turn this country into a third world hell hole like Mexico or Africa.
Jay I have a lot of respect for you previous work and appreciate the fact that you promote theonomy, but I seriously think you need to reconsider your position on this issue. Like it or not this is the reason I became a kinist, they are the only ones that have any logical Biblical answers to these issues that make total sense, the rest of the "church" is not providing us with any real world answers on this issue. You are not providing us with any solutions that the pietistic evangelicals have been saying for the last 30 years. Insanity. PEACE.
God is sovereign, but he also Sovereignly ordaned Marylin Manson to become a transexual, he also sovereignly ordained the tower of bablel to be erected in order for it to be destroyed, he also sovereignly ordained Judas to steal the money, forgive me but I do not see the "gospel" logic. Would you argue that Israel was better of before Ezre and Nehemiah sovereignly threw out the aliens or after? PEACE.
What occurred in Nehemiah's time was that Israelites who had taken foreign wives were commanded to put them away. Those of mixed ancestry were not allowed to become part of covenanted Israel.
This was because God commanded the Israelites not to marry the Canaanites (See Ex. 23; Ex 34; Deut. 7).
In Malachi 2, those who married the daughters of the Canaanites were to be cut off from the people and temple.
But this does not apply to intermarriage between all foreigners, only to Israel and their cursed enemies, the Canaanites.
For instance, I was born in America, but my wife is a national Venezuelan. I would only have been prohibited in marriage to her if she was not a believer in Jesus Christ. And even then once we were married, our union became legitimate in the eyes of God according to 1 Corinthians 7.
Aliens and foreigners in ancient Israel could not become part of the "church" until they were truly converted, but the law of Moses explicitly commands us to welcome these people whther they be converted or not.
The Old Covenant commands that "alien and sojourners" in Israel, even those who were uncircumcised heathen, were bound to the civil law (Lev. 24:22).
Yet these foreigners were not required to keep most of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law (Ex. 12:43,44,48; 9:33; Deut. 14:21). Only the circumcised were allowed to participate in the Passover, the old covenant communion meal. The two "marks of the covenant" separated members of the "church" from members of the "state." There was also a separation between the priests of the ceremonial law, the Levites, and the magistrates of the civil law, the elders and judges (Lev. 14:35; 27:11; Deut. 1:16; 16:18; 19:12; 21:2; 25:1).
So even a casual survey of Old Testament Law disproves your conjecture. Foreigners may become part of a Christian nation, but not part of the church unless they are converted.
When all is said and done, the power of the Gospel to convert the heathen is more powerful than the threat of non-believers to the church.
"To answer your questions, we must first look at the Old Covenant distinction between the church and civil government. What occurred in Nehemiah's time was that Israelites who had taken foreign wives were commanded to put them away. Those of mixed ancestry were not allowed to become part of covenanted Israel. This was because God commanded the Israelites not to marry the Canaanites (See Ex. 23; Ex 34; Deut. 7). In Malachi 2, those who married the daughters of the Canaanites were to be cut off from the people and temple. But this does not apply to intermarriage between all foreigners, only to Israel and their cursed enemies, the Canaanites."
Jay I appreciate your scripture knowlege. I still have a lot of homework to do as far as the judicial and ceremonial Laws and their distinctions, but I will be working hard at that. I have a couple of questions. Are you saying the prohibition was just canaanites?
Ezra 9:1 ¶ And at the end of these things, the leaders came near to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, as to their disgusting things, even the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
What is your position on obvious interracial marriage? For example black and white?
There are several examples of virtuous people living within the borders of Israel who were part of the civil order --
Ruth the Moabitess and Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba -- immediately come to mind. Let's not forget that Jesus was a direct descendant of both Ruth and Bathsheba through King David.
I don't believe that the Bible teaches the concept of race -- only ethnicity. We are all children of Noah, either through Shem, Ham or Japeth, or a mixture of each. Through the sons of Noah, all the ethnic nations of the world arose.
Race is a big misnomer. For instance, I am half Portuguese and my wife is half Spanish, but we are considered different "races" by the U.S. Census Bureau. I am in favor of doing away with all concept of race in favor of ethnicity. I am an American with Swedish, Irish and Portuguese ancestors.
I am afraid that I am about to get into a "royal race of the redeemed" type debate. Suffice it to say that I won't argue with you about salvation according to ethnic background. In Christ, there is no distinction or preference of one nationality over another under the New Covenant.
But if you are looking for an example of a Hebrew-African union, see Moses' marriage to an Ethiopian woman. I will point you to this:
http://www.carm.org/questions/interracial_marriage.htm
The Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. It does, however, forbid a Christian from marrying an unbeliever: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14).
In Numbers 12:1-8 is an account of Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman. "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman" (Num. 12:1).
Some translate this as "Cush." Cush is the ancient location of Ethiopia. Miriam and Aaron were upset with Moses because he married a Cushite woman. Cush has also been considered to be the northern part of Egypt. Either way, it is very possible that Cushite woman was of a different race. God defended Moses for marrying this woman. If race were an issue, this would have been a great place to set the matter straight.
Also, people of different races were not mentioned as being among those forbidden by God for Jews to marry, see Exodus 34:11.