Friday, August 28, 2015

Defining a Nation by Birthright Citizenship?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

This week Ira Mehlman, head of Federation for American Immigration Reform, told One News Now: "A nation is more than just a random collection of people who happen to have been born in a particular place or happen to share a defined piece of geography. There is a lot more that defines a nation and if we don't start recognizing that, we're not going to have a nation."

But what does God say?

Is the concept of "nations" important in God's purposes? If so, how does He define a nation?


Ira Mehlman also told One News Now yesterday that birthright citizenship---or anchor babies, as it is now called and practiced, is not provided for in the Constitution.

He said, " It's like saying a complete stranger walks into your living room, gives birth in your house, then suddenly that child is a member of your family, and that you are obligated to provide all sorts of things for that child."

Mehlman says Trump continues to surge in the polls because of his strong stance against illegal immigration.

The political problems other candidates are having is that, on this issue, they are not in touch with how Americans are feeling about it. Or are afraid to address it.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says the talk about all this is merely an "applause line."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says any discussion beyond merely securing the border and enforcing existing immigration laws is merely giving lip service to people who want to hear about it. The implication is that we should not be discussing anchor babies.

Sen. Ted Cruz says he supports the goal of eliminating the "anchor babies" concept, but that it will take years to change the Constitution.

Many, not a few, but many constitutional scholars believe the Constitution does not provide for what we know as "anchor babies" and would not have to be changed to stop the practice.

While the Trump's "anchor babies" focus has been on Mexico, Central and Latin America, it is also a flourishing industry in Asia.

The Los Angeles Times wrote an article Wednesday titled, "Asian 'Anchor Babies', Wealthy Chinese Come To Southern California To Give Birth."

They say the practice is getting more attention since Jeb Bush said Monday that "'anchor babies' were more related to Asian people" than to Mexicans.

The Times article outlines what they call "Tourism Birth" and how it has spread throughout Southern California and beyond with wealthy Asians coming to America to give birth, automatically making their child an American citizen---providing rights and privileges to the families they do not deserve, nor should they have.

The Times says authorities are trying to crack down, but "One affidavit related to that case quoted a law review estimating that about 40,000 of 300,000 children born to foreign citizens in the US each year are the product of birth tourism."

The birth tourism industry has created "birthing homes," "birthing centers," and even "birthing hospitals" dedicated to "Tourism Birth."

And it's creating a number of multi-millionaires among those who facilitate this industry---not unlike the abortion industry in that regard.

The Birth Tourism industry also impacts American taxpayers. The Times reports, as an example, a case at an Orange County hospital where one wealthy woman, after paying a huge sum to the facilitator, was charged by authorities but "only had to pay $4,080 out of $28,845 in hospital bills, while her bank account showed charges at Wynn Las Vegas and purchases at Rolex and Louis Vuitton stores."

We taxpayers picked up the rest of her hospital bills. That's just "one" case.

There's more in the LA Time's story. If you want to be informed, read it.

The religious left almost universally stand in favor of the anchor babies scheme and essentially open borders. They also stand, almost universally, in favor of so-called "sanctuary cities."

In both cases they claim they do so because it's biblical.

But it isn't.

Let's take a look:

In Deuteronomy 32:8 Moses tells us that just as the Lord separated the nation of Israel, so He also ordained the independent existence of all the other nations. "...When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam... He set bounds of the people..."

Here God legitimizes nationhood and national borders.

In Numbers 20 and 21 we read that the Israelites, traveling from the wilderness to the Promised Land, needed to pass through territory belonging to the Edomites and the Amorites. God's people were instructed to ask permission of the two respective kings to travel through their country.

Moses told the kings that his people would not stray from the main highway, or would not touch their crops, because those things did not belong to Israel. He even offered to pay for the water his cattle would consume while traveling across the country.

Moses observed boundaries and property. And he promised the Israelites would behave with deference to their possessions and laws until they had passed through the country.

Establishing borders and respecting borders is righteous behavior in the sight of God.

Deuteronomy 28 plainly teaches that nationhood is established by God for the purpose of social stability and lasting prosperity. While nationhood/ governments are created to serve certain interests of the citizens, it is His church that God has used to evangelize the world, and minister to those who are broken, bruised and in great need.

Isaiah 13 and 23 make separate prophetic announcements concerning the futures of ten different nations.

It is not "un-Christian" to have a distinctly national perspective. And furthermore a nation ceases to be a nation if its borders are not controlled.

When Paul was preaching the gospel in Athens (Acts 17:26-27) he said God "has made us from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings."

The reason, Paul explains, is that they can find God and accomplish His purposes. Therefore nationhood facilitates evangelism.

Nationhood is God's direct response to rebellion against Him.

Genesis 11 describes a one world community, rather than distinctive national groups. The "one world community" rallied around the leader Nimrod and said, "Come let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

The Tower of Babel was their attempt to create an idolatrous alternative to God, and worship the creation--stars and heavens they could see---rather than the Creator.

God's response to their attempt to usurp His role was to confuse the language, so they could not understand one another (v.7) and scatter them over the face of the earth.

As early as Genesis 30:25, we read that when Rachel gave birth to Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, I need to leave and return to "my country." He had been living in Mesopatamia for 14 years and wanted to go home.

Jacob's return to Canaan was of course a very important part of God's greater purpose of redeeming the world through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Finally. What about the "Stranger" and the "One" in the teaching of Jesus and Paul?

It is clear that Jesus is teaching us that strangers, or foreigners, should be treated well. His point is that strangers are seen as vulnerable. They are. America has always treated these "strangers" with respect, dignity and compassion.

However, to argue from these "strangers" passages that it is immoral not to accept whole communities of aliens, or violent criminals is contrary to systematic biblical teaching.

Jesus was not confused, however, the religious left are on this issue.

The "stranger" passages were not directed at the mass illegal immigration that some are advocating for in the name of Christ. He did not teach that---- He was well versed in Old Testament teaching and often quoted the prophets. Why would He teach against the preservation of nationhood, this most fundamental component of God's purpose for mankind?

The religious left advocates, and the secular left embraces the notion that Paul's teaching on being "one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28) is justification to eliminate nationhood and national identity.

He is stating that men in every nation can partake of the covenant of grace---we are one in the spirit. That text has nothing to do with immigration.

Christianity and nationhood are compatible.

In Romans 9:14, Paul spoke of his sense of identity with his own countrymen.

Jeremiah did the same thing (9:1).

The Bible clearly teaches that God ordained nationhood and defined national borders. To reject that teaching is to promote an anti-God, tower of Babel, New Age world order.

That is not the mandate, nor the Great Commission for Christians.

John Wesley once wrote, "We feel in ourselves a strong...kind of natural affection for our country, which we apprehend Christianity was never designed either to root out or to impair."

Christianity is compatible with nationhood. Nationhood is compatible with God's plan for the ages.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Blessed.

3 comments:

  1. Thank you Gary! We, not just as a nations, but as believers, are in great need of learning to think Biblically and to apply "kingdom principles" to the issues of our day. I believe we have unwittingly let knee-jerk reactionaryism replace Biblically principled thinking, both on the left and the right. On many issues, the left is wrong, but the right is right for wrong reasons, or with wrong attitudes, that make our cause no more likely to be favored by God than that of our political opponents. We need to stop, check our policies against kingdom principles and check our attitudes with the inward witness and character of the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And often the left/right paradigm is just unhelpful these days. When the left advocates for compassion, great, but don't tell me that to be compassionate we must open the floodgates at our borders, when doing so is not compassionate, to all that live here and our children. It is compassionate to lift people up in their own lands - say with relief and development missions, and helping nationals start businesses - and Christians have done well at that, especially in the business as mission focus of late. I refuse the left's charge that Christians aren't compassionate if we have conservative views. Poppycock, I say. Look at the facts, and tell me how lifting people up in their own lands is not greatly compassionate. No, at that point the left is playing political games, which they're very good at, and they have co-opted the Christian left in this. We Christians, left and right, would do well to be wary of political movements period, but I'm afraid that many on the left have come to worship politics as an end, and not as a logical means. Christians on the right have done so too. And so the devil has us effectively divided. Sad, it's like a version of The Screwtape Letters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that people who wish to immigrate to the US are being used by some of our elected officials to destroy our foundations, who have some kind of twisted dream of changing America into something it isn't supposed to be. This needs to change.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.