Thursday, March 29, 2018

Question, "Are You a US Citizen" Becomes "Un-Christian" And "Illegal"?

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

The fact that it is an issue is shocking---but it has become an issue. A big, litigious and moral issue.

So big that WA State A/G Ferguson is joining 11 other states in suing the Trump Administration to block them from asking it on the upcoming 2020 census.

The self-identified "religious Left," led by Jim, Wallis, says identifying illegals is un-Christian and anti-biblical.

However, the US has asked that question for nearly two hundred years, and the Bible actually teaches against open borders in favor of national sovereignty as useful to God's plan for redemption.


Trump's Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, Jr., announced this week that he plans to include a question on the 2020 census that was removed in 2010 by the Obama administration after having been on the census forms for more than 200 years.

"Are you a US citizen?"

Congressional Democrats and Left-wing activists like former US A/G Eric Holder---who became the first US A/G in history to be held in contempt of Congress---are outraged over the Trump administration's decision to re-insert a citizenship question in the upcoming 2020 census.

Townhall published a response yesterday. They say while it seems like a natural question to ask, "here we are, debating whether the government of the United States should be allowed to explicitly tally its own citizens."

Townhall then makes several relevant points. This is an overview of those points:

  1. Prior to 2010, which is the historical anomaly on this question, citizenship questions had appeared on US censuses dating back to the early 1800s.
  2. Critics, including some Attorney's General, including Ferguson of Washington State, are suggesting that the revived inclusion may "intimidate" both legal and illegal immigrants, resulting in systemic underreporting. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) says it is "an assault on the foundations of our country." That's crazy, and she knows it. The census is not asking, nor has it ever ask, if people are legally or illegally here in this country.
  3. The Trump administration's reasoning behind this move argues that having access to a thorough, comprehensive, and reliable headcount that accurately reflects the US "citizenry" is vital to enforcing a section of the Voting Rights Act.
  4. A number of Left progressives are pointing to a 2016 SCOTUS ruling that, unlike vote dilution cases under the VRA---Congressional apportionment should be based off total population, not citizen voting age population.

I personally believe that representation should be determined by the number of US citizens in a particular jurisdiction.

Using total population as the criteria can have the perverse effect of illegitimately over-empowering cities or areas that encourage and reward illegal immigration through sanctuary city (and state, in the case of California) policies.

The New York Times has interviewed illegals about the matter and has declared they will not participate in the census if "the two-hundred-year-old question" is asked.

This is the actual Census Department report on refusals to cooperate since 2000.

These numbers indicate that some immigrants are already not inclined to report to the census. In fact, these numbers show that generally more immigrants "refused" when Obama removed the question than before.

There must be other compelling reasons for citizen Ferguson and his colleagues to feel the need to sue the president.

Money. And Votes.


On Ash Wednesday, a group of religious Left leaders, headed by Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, met to discuss the moral crises in America. Following the day-long meeting, they issued a rather lengthy statement titled, "Reclaiming Jesus: How Confessing Faith Can Respond to a Moral and Constitutional Crises."

Much, but not all of the Statement affirms evangelical beliefs on the person and work of God, the Trinity, Creation, etc., however, their article III, turns Left.

They say, "We strongly deplore the growing attacks on immigrants and refugees, who are being made into cultural targets, and we need to remind our churches that God makes the treatment of 'Strangers' among us a test of faith (Leviticus 19:33-34). Protecting the poor is a central commitment of Christian discipleship, to which 2000 verses in the Bible attest."

This is true.

Then, quoting from Matthew 25, they declare, "How we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner is how we treat Christ Himself."

Biblical Evangelicals are well known around the world for their humanitarian work. Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse organization is one of the most effective, but there are many.

However, the Religious Left forsakes biblical teaching on this subject at this point.

The teaching of Scripture is directed to individuals---not governments.

One News Now published an article yesterday that reflected on this truth.

Richard Land, with Southern Evangelical Seminary, says all of this is right. We, as biblical Christians, in fact, do have a God-given responsibility to do all of the above. Land says the Bible is clear: "Serve them."

"But," he says, "when it comes to setting policy for the country, the US government has a different scriptural mandate."

He rightly says, "The government is there to enforce the law. One of the biggest problems we have with our immigration situation in the United States is that for the last half-century, the American government has not enforced the law."

"We have encouraged and aided and abetted law-breaking. It's the government's job to protect the nation's citizens, to guard the borders, to 'wield the sword'. I'm commanded to help those who are hungry and those who are thirsty---as a Christian. It is also my duty to insist as a citizen that my government enforces the law."

The great divide between the Religious Left and biblical evangelicalism involves both immigration and national sovereignty.

In Genesis, God's Word tells how He confused the languages and designed the model of borders and language and nationalism as the remedy to Nimrod's rebellion. Deuteronomy 32:8 affirms the God-ordained existence of nations. God "set boundaries." Moses used terms like "your country" and "crossed his borders."

Preaching in Athens, Paul confirmed this biblical model. He said (Acts 17:26), "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings." (v27) "So that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him, though He is not far from each one of us."

I have addressed the biblical teaching on this issue several times, including in 2015 and 2016.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, "The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all peoples were made alike, with one character, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, they are its generalized personalities: the smallest of them has its own particular colors, and embodies a particular facet of God's design."

The progressive Left and the Religious Left are working tirelessly to create a nation without borders.

The secular progressives call it "progress." The Religious Left calls it godliness. I call it globalism.

The Bible calls it a spirit of rebellion.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.


10 comments:

  1. Apparently this Ferguson fella has lost his mind. Wasn't he the the one involved in supporting some thugs to force a flower shop into submitting unto another's immorality, as if people can't just say "NO." anymore? He belongs in jail for treason. Is he a terrorist? Seems like he fits the bill to me. He should be immediately fired. Doesn't the state require adherence to a constitution anymore? I'm thinking there should be a state investigation into seeing what terrorists have infiltrated our state government. Asking a few simple questions ought to be a good start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a embarrased Washinton resident, at least I live on the east side where there is a modicum of sense. We are SO grateful for west siders who are fellow Christian brothers and sisters such as Gary. However of the approximate 7 million residents in the state, about 6 million live west of the Cascades. Of these, 6 million 5 million are basically like Ferguson and voted him in place. I E what the minority on east and west side of the state want doesn't matter in the least. Oh for my childhood state of Idaho.

      Delete
  2. How can identifying something illegal be wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, so the question might offend somebody, and that is to trump anything and everything according to Ferguson? He is not fit to be serving in a state office, is he? He offends the people. At least the people have some sense, for the most part, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, OK, so Obama was offended by that question. Seems about right to me. Some say he filled out his own birth certificate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is why we can not allow any illegal to have all the rights of citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for your postings every day. I greatly appreciate them. I am wondering though if it is possible to get them in their entirety without having to go through two other pages to get to the full article??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen to Woodturner! I do not need the teaser, just put the link to the full story in the email.

      Delete
  7. The two clicks are not intended to be a teaser. The two steps include a protection for our web site and those who visit it from hackers and others who regularly try to disrupt this site and this ministry. Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is "lots" of comment participation on this one!

    Again, if we focus on "Truth" and endeavor to "simplify" rather than complicate our evaluation of this challenge, we can find the answer that answers all honest questions as well as the people and the bible.

    Perhaps a simple example helps: If I was to go across the Mexican (or Canadian) border in secret I would be breaking that country's law. In order to avoid responsibility for breaking their law I would then seek a kind Christian family or Church and humbly request sanctuary. I would point out to them that we are all "God's Children" and Jesus loves us all and has commanded those who are called by His name to have compassion and not to "judge" others who are poor but to serve them.

    In TRUTH...and in simplicity, what is happening?
    1. I am intentionally breaking the laws of another country in order to achieve personal gain and fulfillment of my personal desires. This is sin.
    2. I am encouraging Christians to join me in breaking the law by suggesting that Gods moral law requires that they break their own country's law, again to gain fulfillment of my personal desires.

    3. Now let’s say those kind Christians (or Church) decide I am right and so they make every effort to hide, feed and assist me financially, me and help me assimilate into the population.

    So what just happened?
    1. I decided to sin and what is worse I corrupted other Christians to sin by suggesting that God wanted them to sin also in order to help me get what I wanted.
    2. The Christians or Church that helped me allowed their own selfish desire to "see themselves as loving and caring people in God's eyes" to cause them to give positive reinforcement to my sinning and to justify sinning themselves.

    Satan is crafty, and this is but one of the ways He uses guilt and/or intimidation to get God's people to embrace sin because if "feels right and good" when viewed through a convenient perspective.

    What is the real obligation of us both here?
    * My obligation is to respect the laws of another country and especially not to tempt or coerce my brothers and sisters in Christ to join me in sin.
    * The Christian Family and/or Church have an obligation to “love” me. That is, as scripture prescribes, “not” to condone and encourage my sin but to warn me against it, then “in love” encourage me to repent. Yes, they can feed me and shelter me, but then insist that I return to America where God put me in the first place.

    BUT I am poor and needy and doesn't that mean that my special circumstances require a different response in God's eyes? ... The answer is clearly NO. God does not make allowances for sin...period!

    The rule: We don't make decisions about sin or obedience based on our "feelings'. God's word clearly honors national law and borders specifically, and our responsibilities regarding sin are clear.

    Truth is a lonely warrior,

    G>T>

    ReplyDelete

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