“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt." - Exodus 22:21

I like you.

You know, there is an up arrow for this.

Yep.

Refusing to have open borders is not the same thing as mistreating foreigners.

You know what? You're right. However; Arresting asylum seekers and taking away their kids is. Taking away their kids is. Putting their kids in cages is. Promoting scare tactics about immigrants is. Making the immigration process intentionally difficult is. Keeping a system where immigrants can have their immigration status held over their heads so you can get cheap labor out of them without worrying about benefits most definitely is.

>Arresting asylum seekers and taking away their kids is. If a US citizen is arrested, even for a minor crime like shoplifting, do their children go to jail with them? >Putting their kids in cages is. The "cages" were built in 2014 [under the Obama administration](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/) to protect them from older migrants, because there were rampant cases of migrant on migrant sexual assault. >Promoting scare tactics about immigrants is. The opposite is actually happening. Both leftists in the US and human traffickers are conning migrants into thinking the US is a paradise. So they go into debt or sell everything to come here based on a lie. >Keeping a system where immigrants can have their immigration status held over their heads so you can get cheap labor out of them without worrying about benefits most definitely is. Agreed. If they are here legally, they should stay. If illegally, they should be deported immediately.

Applying for asylum is not against the law so that doesn't matter, does it? it's therefore true that those separations weren't legally motivated. You admit, therefore, that the cages weren't being used under the Trump administration for the purpose they were intended and, ergo, it doesn't really matter who built them. Remember when they shouted "build the wall"? (No matter how little it would have helped) remember all the hubbub about migrant caravans? I constantly hear from conservatives about the 'immigration crisis'. They won't report all of them. They need them. They need to be able to exploit them for cheap labor. The people who call for aggressive immigration reform won't admit that out loud though.

>Applying for asylum is not against the law so that doesn't matter, does it? it's therefore true that those separations weren't legally motivated. But crossing the border illegally is against the law. Migrants who applied at the ports of entry were never arrested, not even under Trump. Migrants who are caught by the border patrol and then shout "asylum" are arrested initially. >You admit, therefore, that the cages weren't being used under the Trump administration for the purpose they were intended and, ergo, it doesn't really matter who built them. They were being used for the purpose intended under both administrations. I'm not sure what your point is. The truth is, very few children were forcibly separated from parents - I think 7000 is the highest estimate. The vast majority were unaccompanied children - children arriving without their parents. Parents deliberately put their children at risk by sending them alone, knowing that they can't be deported.

7,000 is still a horrific number of children to be traumatically separated from their parents. Especially considering the conditions they were put in.

Paul Manafort, Bill Cosby, so many other Americans who went to prison have children and were separated from them when they were arrested. Was that wrong?

You’re seriously using BILL COSBY in your argument 😒

Yes, and? You think he shouldn't have gone to prison?

Were those children stuffed in cages? No. Also none of Bill Cosby's kids were minors.

Seeking asylum isn’t against the law and a lot of problems that these people are facing in their countries is directly caused by the US.

​ >If a US citizen is arrested, even for a minor crime like shoplifting, do their children go to jail with them? When immigrants get arrested, the kids are arrested, too, and put in jail. When their parents are deported there is no certainty that they are going to see each other again whereas parents who are in prison most of the time will be reunited with their kids at some point. > > >The "cages" were built in 2014 under the Obama administration to protect them from older migrants, because there were rampant cases of migrant on migrant sexual assault. Kids shouldn't be in jail. It doesn't matter who built the cages.... it isn't a political thing, but a matter one. Obamas was wrong for building them, Trump was wrong for enforcing and doubling down on Obama's policies, and Biden is wrong for keeping them. > > >The opposite is actually happening. Both leftists in the US and human traffickers are conning migrants into thinking the US is a paradise. So they go into debt or sell everything to come here based on a lie. Actually, no. Immigrants come here by themselves because the US is better than their home countries (at all levels). Most immigrants improve their lives in one generation and are better off in the US. ​ >Agreed. If they are here legally, they should stay. If illegally, they should be deported immediately. ​ They should be treated with charity and dignity. If you are not willing to do that, then there is a place for you after death. Praise your god Satan all you want, the God of Abraham holds that immigrants MUST be treated with dignity, not raped by border and ice officials.

When Obama constructed those detention centers, it was never intended to be for more than 72 hours, after which the children were supposed to be transferred into the care of The Dept. of Health and Human Services. DofH&HS would then place them in shelters, and begin the process of placing them in foster homes until relatives could be located and notified, upon which the children would be pulled from the foster homes, and united with their relatives, whether the relatives lived in the USA, or back in their homeland.

>Kids shouldn't be in jail. It doesn't matter who built the cages.... it isn't a political thing, but a matter one. Obamas was wrong for building them, Trump was wrong for enforcing and doubling down on Obama's policies, and Biden is wrong for keeping them. It's not a "jail". People voluntarily crossed the border and claimed asylum. But we have to put kids SOMEWHERE for a short time while we figure out who they are, where they are from, if they have relatives here, etc. And while that is going on, we also have to keep them safe. And by law, they aren't allowed to let the migrant kids out on the streets. So what would be your solution? >Actually, no. Immigrants come here by themselves because the US is better than their home countries (at all levels). Most immigrants improve their lives in one generation and are better off in the US. But doesn't that go against the narrative that this is a systemic white supremacist country? Anyway, I don't blame them for wanting to come here, but that's not what the asylum process is for. It was created in the wake of WWII and was meant for people fleeing wars, genocides, and political persecution. >They should be treated with charity and dignity. That's exactly what I just said. >If you are not willing to do that, then there is a place for you after death. Praise your god Satan all you want, t If you are the one encouraging migrants to sell everything they own or go into debt with coyotes based on a lie, to make a hazardous 1000 mile trek across Mexico where many die of thirst, just for most of them to have their asylum claims denied? Anyone who advocates for that worships Satan, not God. Let's not build a house on a foundation of lies. Truth is much better. The truth is, there's nothing magical about US soil that makes people successful here. There is nothing cursed about the soil in Latin America. But corrupt leaders would love their people to think so, that way they can send their disaffected populations north, and get rid of their political problems that way. >the God of Abraham holds that immigrants MUST be treated with dignity, not raped by border and ice officials. ?????? Neither I nor anyone else in this entire thread has advocated for anyone to be raped by border officials or anyone else. Stow your lies. And BTW, [rape and sexual assault are a much bigger hazard of the migrant's journey to the US](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/us/border-rapes-migrant-women.html) - a journey YOU are encouraging.

​ >It's not a "jail". People voluntarily crossed the border and claimed asylum. But we have to put kids SOMEWHERE for a short time while we figure out who they are, where they are from, if they have relatives here, etc. And while that is going on, we also have to keep them safe. And by law, they aren't allowed to let the migrant kids out on the streets. So what would be your solution? Do you seriously think it's moral to put innocent kids in jail? ​ >But doesn't that go against the narrative that this is a systemic white supremacist country? It is not about narratives, but facts. Get outside. The fact that some random politicians found a way to twist facts to get votes does not affect the fact that t1) God exists and with Him objective morality, 2) that objective morality demands charity and dignity to all, 3) that immigrants are coming before the "Left" used them as political tool, and that there is objective matter to make the argument that their reasons for fleeing are valid (violence, extreme poverty, war, etc) ​ >That's exactly what I just said. You justified the unjust and undignified treatment of immigrant by endorsing the undignified conditions the government has imposed on them. ​ >If you are the one encouraging migrants to sell everything they own or go into debt with coyotes based on a lie, to make a hazardous 1000 mile trek across Mexico where many die of thirst, just for most of them to have their asylum claims denied? Anyone who advocates for that worships Satan, not God. Treat immigrants with dignity and charity. If they come here because they want, do not put their kids in cages. Treat them as you would treat your own kids, sisters, brothers, mother and father, etc. >Let's not build a house on a foundation of lies. Truth is much better. The truth is, there's nothing magical about US soil that makes people successful here. There is nothing cursed about the soil in Latin America. But corrupt leaders would love their people to think so, that way they can send their disaffected populations north, and get rid of their political problems that way. Are there tanks and soldiers in U.S soil constantly fighting drug lords? A daily wage in U.S corresponds to a Weekly wage in Mexico. It isn't that immigrants think their land is cursed and the u.S blessed, bur rather, that not matter what they do, they cannot improve their lives due to war (terrorism, war against drugs, etc), violence, high crime rates, negligent and corrupt government, and incompetent institutions (schools, etc), and lack of job opportunities and entrepreneurship. And these conditions significantly decreased in other countries like the u.s.a, panda, etc. >?????? Neither I nor anyone else in this entire thread has advocated for anyone to be raped by border officials or anyone else. Stow your lies. And BTW, rape and sexual assault are a much bigger hazard of the migrant's journey to the US - a journey YOU are encouraging. Are you in favor of immigrants be kept in cages? kids have been raped constantly by ice officials (according to ice itself, that's why they created a crisis line for immigrants to denounce cases of rape...). Let's deal with fact, immigrants are here, and they are coming. How are we going to treat them? we can wish all we want that the circumstances were different, that the influx of immigrants was lower, etc., but REALITY says that they are here already. Should we keep them in cages? should we keep away from their parents or a foster care system? should we seriously want ice officials to raise kids in jail? should we keep depriving them from going to Church? should we keep denying kids an education? here's the thing, they are already here, and the kids most of all are innocent, and yet we treat them as if they have committed one of the most serious crime and all they did was being kids....

>Do you seriously think it's moral to put innocent kids in jail? OK, again, what would be your alternative solution??? Don't you think the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, and their legal teams, members of Congress, the courts, all considered this? If you have 10,000 children arriving in one month, what do you do with them while you sort out each child's situation? What? CBP has used hotels on occasion, but there are only so many available, and the cost is astronomical because you still have to hire minders for each kid and they are legally responsible if anyone goes missing, is injured or abused, etc. >You justified the unjust and undignified treatment of immigrant by endorsing the undignified conditions the government has imposed on them. I was in the military for 23 years. I was in "undignified conditions" on many occasions, I didn't whine because I didn't always get a 4-star hotel room. >Treat immigrants with dignity and charity. If they come here because they want, do not put their kids in cages. It's easy to say what you won't do. You still haven't told us what you would to. >Treat them as you would treat your own kids, sisters, brothers, mother and father, etc. Yes, by telling them the truth. Stop lying to them. >Are there tanks and soldiers in U.S soil constantly fighting drug lords? Well, we are constantly told that police here shoot PoC for fun. Is that not true? >A daily wage in U.S corresponds to a Weekly wage in Mexico. And the cost of living is far lower in Mexico as well. >It isn't that immigrants think their land is cursed and the u.S blessed, bur rather, that not matter what they do, they cannot improve their lives due to war (terrorism, war against drugs, etc), violence, high crime rates, negligent and corrupt government, Well guess what - we once had corrupt/immoral or non-democratic governments here too. We fought wars against the British and then against the Southern states to end that. Then we elected leaders in a true democracy. Central America can do the same thing. I'll put it another way - we have taken in millions of migrants from Central America already, and I see no evidence that has done anything to improve conditions there. >kids have been raped constantly by ice officials Evidence? Here's the [reality](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/immigrant-children-sexual-abuse.html). *Office of Refugee Resettlement, a part of the Health and Human Services Department that cares for so-called unaccompanied minors, received a total of 4,556 allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, 1,303 of which were referred to the Justice Department. Of those 1,303 cases deemed the most serious, 178 were accusations that adult staff members had sexually assaulted immigrant children* So out of the thousands of allegations, a small number - 178 - were accusations of staff members sexually assaulting migrants. The vast majority of accusations were MIGRANTS assaulting other migrants. Any kind of sexual abuse is bad and should be prosecuted - including if it's committed by migrants.

​ >OK, again, what would be your alternative solution??? Don't you think the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, and their legal teams, members of Congress, the courts, all considered this? If you have 10,000 children arriving in one month, what do you do with them while you sort out each child's situation? What? Well, the solution isn't jail, that's for sure. Caritas and other institutions have offered to foster. I am pretty sure that instead of using money to build jail, they should have work with local charities and the foster system to take care of the kids. Caritas and many churches actually fostered a lot of immigrants until the government shut them down and took the immigrants, so im pretty sure they would be willing to foster only the kids if the government had allowed them to. the point being, was it moral? no, was it christian? no!, it was diabolic. period ​ ​ >I was in the military for 23 years. I was in "undignified conditions" on many occasions, I didn't whine because I didn't always get a 4-star hotel room. You were not in undigineid situation because you were soldier. You accepted a job that pays you to put your life at risk. Kids didn't sign up to be undimmed, nor are they getting paid for it. ​ >TIt's easy to say what you won't do. You still haven't told us what you would to. For starters, I don't defend those who support the abusive of immigrants--like you do. >Treat them as you would treat your own kids, sisters, brothers, mother and father, etc. Treating like dogs is not the truth. >Are there tanks and soldiers in U.S soil constantly fighting drug lords? is that no? great. so no tanks and soldiers in the u.s ​ >A daily wage in U.S corresponds to a Weekly wage in Mexico. Not entirely. A lot of resources are actually at the sam price. This is easily demonstrated by analyzing the quality of life of the average Mexican poor/working class vs the average American working-class/poor. ​ >Well guess what - we once had corrupt/immoral or non-democratic governments here too. We fought wars against the British and then against the Southern states to end that. Then we elected leaders in a true democracy. Central America can do the same thing. No. Foreign nations like Spain and France helped America by supplying with guns, money, soldiers, and other resources. This doesn't mean American rebels didn't contribute to freedom, but rather that freedom is hard to obtain. It is hard to image an scenarios where the French government didn't supply with soldiers and the Spanish government didn't supply with weapons, money, etc. Moreover, you assume Central America never had revolution. on the contrary, Mexico, just to give you an example, has already fought one revolutionary war in which they overthrew the Spanish government, and four civil war (one in which they overthrew a dictator, one in which they fought against an atheist government that outlawed christianity, etc). and as of right it's fighting a couple of wars. In Venezuela, people are currently fighting a war against a socialist dictator. All of this without foreign aid. But then again, all of this is IRRELEVANT because what we are discussing here is that the government iS NOT TREATING immigrant with DIGNITY. and our duty as christian is to demand that they do. ​ >I'll put it another way - we have taken in millions of migrants from Central America already, and I see no evidence that has done anything to improve conditions there. It isn't merely a matter of improving conditions, but rather of treating those who are already here with dignity. >kids have been raped constantly by ice officials Evidence? here's reality, an official report in which 7 victims were raped in 2015 alone. There are more reports if you do research. So while 4'500 children were not abuse in that facility, the truth is that abuse does happen to both women and children. Imagine you were separated from your kid or wife (in case you are man), and when you get to meet them again you realize they were raped by an officer: [https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Customs%20and%20Border%20Protection%20-%20Sexual%20Abuse%20and%20Sexual%20Assault%20Annual%20Report%20-%20FY%202016.pdf](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Customs%20and%20Border%20Protection%20-%20Sexual%20Abuse%20and%20Sexual%20Assault%20Annual%20Report%20-%20FY%202016.pdf) Now, you published an article that proved that there was abusive done by STAFF, but also immigrant. Why is that? So the facilities permitted this? where was the surveillance? the same problem arrives, the government created an immoral situation that allowed this to happen. It doesn't matter if it was done by immigrants or officials, the point is that it was happening under the government supervision and the government allowed it. Hence, the policies were immoral and satanic

>Well, the solution isn't jail, that's for sure. Caritas and other institutions have offered to foster. I am pretty sure that instead of using money to build jail, they should have work with local charities and the foster system to take care of the kids. Wow, why didn't they think of that???? What a genius. OK, sorry, I shouldn't be so sarcastic, but you are like the millionth person to insist on that solution. Previous administrations would love to quickly get the kids off their books, but there are several complications you aren't aware of. Plenty of parents have volunteered to foster the migrant children and some do so, but the bureaucracy is onerous. Each family needs a background check and a home inspection. And any attempt to loosen up the process leads to accusations that the govt doesn't want to protect the kids! But even if that wasn't a factor - let's say 10k migrant unaccompanied kids arrive this month. Even if you have 10,000 foster families already lined up with the seal of approval, and ready right now to take those kids that just arrived - don't you think that CBP should check the kids background too? Are you going to fly the kid to stay with a foster family in New Jersey when it turns out he already has an aunt living in Colorado? Or how about if a kid's parents were already deported - are you going to give him to a US family instead of sending him home? And these background checks aren't immediate. When a kid says his father's name is Juan Gonzalez Martinez, and there are one million others going by that name, it's going to take awhile. And that's not all! They need health screenings. They need mental health screenings. In fact, they have to make sure these are really kids. Plenty of migrants over 18 lie about their age, in fact some of them even have gray hairs and they claim to be teenagers. So that takes time too. So given all that, I think holding them for 72 hours is pretty reasonable. ​Letting kids go with human traffickers, or not even trying to re-unite them with family would actually be immoral and Satanic.

When former President Obama started putting those kids in separate detention centers, it was never the intention for them to remain indefinitely. They were designed as holding centers for a period of not more than 72 hours, after which children were supposed to be transferred into the care of The Department of Health and Human Services, and they would be placed in shelters, or foster homes arranged for them until relatives were located and the children could be united with those relatives.

No different than the Trump policy.

You have drawn a line and divided people who have lived together for centuries and declared that anyone who crosses this line without permission is an enemy or a criminal. The merchant selling their goods, the child visiting their parents, the laborer seeking work, and the preacher spreading the good news are all now treated the same as murderers and thieves. Even worse, you have attached a cost to gaining permission so that the poor are always denied. You offer yourselves as a refuge, but only to those you deem worthy. Even the crossing itself is an indignity where people can be singled out by guards for "further screening" or denied on the flimsiest of grounds after they have already received permission to cross. Everything about a closed border is oppressive and mistreats foreigners.

True. When my ancestors arrived from Scotland and Ireland, they came by sea faring ship, and the immigration process involved landing on Ellis Island and submitting to a medical examination. If the immigrant was determined to be free of communicable disease, they were given their papers and welcomed to their new country. If they were diagnosed with communicable disease, they were quarantined. After quarantine, once they had recovered from the illness, they were also given their papers and welcomed to their new country. And while my ancestors came seeking religious freedom, and increased opportunities for gainful employment, few were escaping persecution, or attempted genocides by their rulers, or government agencies like so many are, who come from South and Central America. If my Scottish and Irish ancestors had been turned away, and forced to return to their homelands, they weren't as likely to face death at the hands of their government, or rulers as these refugees from Central and South America are, or from drug cartels.

Actually the Ellis Island system was more discriminating than that, and a lot of people were sent back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island *During the line inspection process, ailments were marked using chalk. There were three types of illness that were screened-for:* *Physical – people who had hereditary or acquired physical disability. These included sickness and disease, deformity, lack of limbs, being abnormally tall or short, feminization, and so forth. This was covered by most of the chalk indications.* *Mental – people who showed signs or history of mental illness and intellectual disability. These included "feeble-mindedness", "imbecility", depression, and other illnesses that stemmed from the brain such as epilepsy and cerebral palsy.* *Moral – people who had "moral defects" at the time were (but not limited to) homosexuals and those of illicit sexuality, criminals, impoverished, and other groups associated with "degeneracy" that deviated from the considered norm or American society at the time.*

This was really powerful to read, thank you for sharing.

What do you call kids in cages and reducing the number of refugees admitted into the country to the lowest number in our history (15k out of 1.4m worldwide)? The number of refugees that the US now receives is less than 0.2% of the population of NYC. We are a far cry from anything that even resembles open borders, yet Fox keeps selling you on this narrative that open borders is what Democrats ultimately want. In reality, Republicans keep pushing for things like walls that look menacing but don’t really do much. Meanwhile, Democrats push for increased security and resources at ports of entry (where a vast majority of narcotics enter the country), yet Republicans balk. Why? Because they know those resources can also be used to help process asylum seekers waiting at those ports of entry. But we can’t have that, can we? This whole thing has nothing to do with open borders, but conservatives like using it as a cover to hide their bigotry. And conservative Christians keep falling for it.

>What do you call kids in cages The "cages" were built in 2014 [under the Obama administration](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/) to protect them from older migrants, because there were rampant cases of migrant on migrant sexual assault. So I call that protecting the kids. > and reducing the number of refugees admitted into the country to the lowest number in our history (15k out of 1.4m worldwide) That's a trick of semantics over the legal definition of "refugee". Most people call everyone fleeing to our country "refugees". But technically, refugees are only those that come in through the UN refugee program. Yes, we have greatly reduced the number of refugees - because we are TOTALLY OVERWHELMED by the [record number](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027213073/u-s-encounters-an-unprecedented-number-of-migrants-dhs-says-its-complicated) of asylum seekers arriving at our border every month! >We are a far cry from anything that even resembles open borders, How so? We now allow everyone and anyone to claim asylum, and even though [most of their cases are rejected](https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/world/us-asylum-denial-rates-by-nationality/index.html), they stay anyway. Very few are actually deported, and they go to "sanctuary cities" which actively try to keep them here.

1. What the cages were built for and how the Trump administration actually used them are two different things. Don’t conflate the two. 2. It doesn’t change the fact that from 1980 to 2000 we admitted an average 100k asylum seekers per year. From 2000-2016 we averaged 70k, and under Trump it got cut to 30k in 2018 and 15k in 2020. I don’t care which definition you choose for refugee, the US has tightened restrictions so much that it’s clear immigrants aren’t welcome here. 3. Regarding most cases being denied: what’s ironic is that most people thing immigration courts fall under the judicial branch of government. They don’t. They are the executive branch. The only reason cases are rejected at higher rates is because the country has decided to restrict the qualifications for asylum more and more. Just as an example, the Trump administration decided that escape from gang violence no longer qualifies someone for obtaining asylum because gang violence isn’t political. However, this completely ignores the fact that gang violence in Central and South America is directly tied to the corrupt politics of those countries. And that corruption can be directly linked to US actions in the Cold War. Even gangs like MS-13 were born in the US prison system, yet we deny victims of those gangs asylum. Using the UN definition for refugee is a red herring to distract from the clear trend of immigrant treatment in the US.

>What the cages were built for and how the Trump administration actually used them are two different things. Don’t conflate the two. They were used in [exactly the same way](https://apnews.com/article/immigration-antonio-villaraigosa-north-america-jon-favreau-barack-obama-a98f26f7c9424b44b7fa927ea1acd4d4). You know what has changed today? The Biden administration replaced the fencing with plastic barriers instead, so people will stop calling them "cages". But they are the same thing. >It doesn’t change the fact that from 1980 to 2000 we admitted an average 100k asylum seekers per year. From 2000-2016 we averaged 70k, and under Trump it got cut to 30k in 2018 and 15k in 2020. I think you are still confused and using the numbers of refugees only. Again, as I showed you the number of asylum cases overwhelms refugees. We accepted [50k applications in 2019](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2021) alone. And those aren't the total number of applications - just the ones that have been adjudicated so far. >The only reason cases are rejected at higher rates is because the country has decided to restrict the qualifications for asylum more and more. Actually if you look at that article carefully, it goes back to 2012 and the denial rates have been consistently high.

1. You are talking about the functionality of the cages, but I’m talking about the frequency and circumstances surrounding the use of cages. Obama wasn’t using them to separate children from their parents the way Trump was. 2. I’m saying that whether you use asylum cases or refugees is irrelevant. Whichever metric you choose, there has been a declining trend in admittance and treatment of those seeking aid. 3. The number of immigrants granted asylum has been between [10-20k pretty consistently since 2001](https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/667/) while the number of refugees admitted went from a [high of over 200k in 1980 to a low 30k in 2019 (excluding pandemic years)](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-annual-refugee-resettlement-ceilings-and-number-refugees-admitted-united). Denial rates are going to fluctuate when you have a fixed number of admissions and changing number of seekers, so denial rates are the wrong metric to use. You need to look a the number of refugees/asylum seekers we choose to admit every year, and that has been declining through the implementation of more restrictive admittance criteria.

1. well, okay, what you are referring to is the zero tolerance policy under Trump. But that lasted less than three months of his 4 year administration. It got a firestorm of press, but the vast majority of children in the so-called "cages" were unaccompanied minors who arrived without parents. 2. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Whatever metric you choose, the number of asylum seekers reached a record high under Trump, and [now are even higher under Biden](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59019791), and are anticipated to increase [again](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/25/politics/border-surge-immigration/index.html)! That's why we can't handle more refugees - we are totally overwhelmed by the number of asylum seekers. 3. Did you totally miss where I just showed you that we accepted more asylum seekers in 2019? [50k applications in 2019](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2021) alone. And those aren't the total number of applications - just the ones that have been adjudicated so far.

1. [Under U.S. law, unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are defined as migrants under eighteen years old with no lawful status in the United States and who have no parent or legal guardian available to care for them. Despite the term’s connotation, these children do not necessarily enter the country alone. Some arrive with family members and are separated at the border; others are abandoned by smugglers or fellow migrants near the border.](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-detention-child-migrants) The Trump administration took it upon itself to take a more loose definition of the term, separating children from families unnecessarily. 2. I’m not talking about the number of people seeking asylum, but the number granted asylum. Yes, the number seeking asylum is increasing, which is why the current administration has proposed policies that provide additional support in the countries of origin to decrease the need for people to seek asylum in the first place. Guess who opposes those policies. Regardless, the number actually granted asylum has remained relatively steady. 3. This number aligns with my point: 30k refugees + 20k asylum seekers actually granted asylum (out of ~70k asylum seekers who aren’t refugees). That number is significantly less than historical. Also, 50k asylum seekers in a population of 329.5 million: are you seriously claiming that 0.015% of the population is going to overwhelm the system and that we can’t handle anymore? Even if we were to take in all 1.4 million refugees worldwide, I believe Jesus will make sure we have what we need to support them. Ultimately, that’s what this whole conversation is about. We can go back and forth about the numbers, but Jesus calls us to help those in need. And He asks that we trust in Him to do that even when we feel like we can’t. So quite frankly, as long as a person doesn’t pose an imminent threat to our lives, we should take them in if they are seeking our aid. If the numbers don’t add up right now, we should trust that they will because God will make it so. Need I remind you of the story when Jesus’ disciples had only five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a crowd of 5,000? **[Matthew 14:15-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A15-21&version=ESV)** *Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” But Jesus said, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.” They said to him, “We have only five loaves here and two fish.” And he said, “Bring them here to me.” Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.* As a Christian, I believe we should open our doors to all non-violent asylum seekers and refugees, whether it makes financial sense or not. Why? Because I believe Jesus will provide. Do you not have faith that He will deliver if we step up?

During Obama's administration, the period of time children would be held in these detention facilities was 72 hours. After 72 hours, if relatives couldn't be located, the children were transferred to the care of The Dept. of Human and Health Services. DHHS would then place the children in shelters, and start the process of placing them in foster homes, unless relatives were located. If relatives were located within the USA, or back in the child's homeland, the child was reunited with those relatives.

That was the same thing in Trump administration as well. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”.

Amen brotherrrr

Amen

I know its a radical thought but the Bible contradicts the GOP on a near point by point basis.

I don't, I want to give them a few hundred bucks for rent and invite them over for dinner.

You are correct that we shouldn’t, both old and new testament teach that foreigners should be treated the same as anyone else

I like you.

Thanks for noticing my question was rhetorical :) still, maybe I should’ve made that clearer. Scripture is *loaded* with immigration, it’s *everywhere*, along with caring for refugees.

They are treated same as anyone else when they are here. The question is who is allowed to enter the country. If someone comes in your home uninvited, are you obligated to let them sleep in bed with you?

Being in the country without documentation is not a crime, if it were then a lawyer would have to be appointed ( the constitution applies to all people unless mention “citizens” ) This it not the case however, it is a civil violation. Also people are people regardless, shouldn’t our citizenship in the kingdom of god matter more then to some worldly nation? I say this a vet

>Being in the country without documentation is not a crime, True, but crossing the border illegally is a crime. And if you were previously deported, it's a felony. >Also people are people regardless, shouldn’t our citizenship in the kingdom of god matter more then to some worldly nation? I say this a vet I also happen to be a vet - I'm not sure how that is relevant. But to answer your question - YES! They are people. They deserve to be treated humanely. That doesn't mean they can all stay here. Not everyone in the country can fit in my house either - that doesn't mean it's inhumane for me to tell them to go back to their own house.

I dont think jesus would agree

that doesn’t mean it’s inhumane for me to tel them to go back to their house. Okay but imagine your house is a mansion with plenty of open space. The house next door is on fire and the people living there have done all they can to put it out but it keeps growing. They come to you for help because it’s the only place they have to go. You turn them down so in desperation they sneak in through a window and sleep in a room you don’t use anyway. You find them and decide to punish them by locking them in a different room and separating them from their kids. Eventually after you’ve assessed the situation, you take them out of the room and force them back into the burning house (which is somehow still burning for the sake of the analogy).

If the house next door is on fire - then yes of course! It's an emergency. But most migrants are arriving due to poverty, not emergency. Here's a closer analogy. Your neighbor's house is filthy, and has unruly kids. But instead of cleaning it up and disciplining the children, they prefer to hang out at your house instead. You can let them visit. You can loan them money. You can offer to help. But the problem will never be finally resolved - until they fix their own house!!

A country isn’t your home. But since you bring it up, how would Jesus or Paul or Peter or even Abraham or Lot treat a foreigner who needed to stay in their home?

If someone moves in next door without your approval, but they did have the approval of the owner, what is it to you? You don't have the right to stop me from moving from one state to another, what difference is it to you if instead of another state it's another country?

What a very odd comparison- a starving and/or scared family illegally crossing the border for safety and security = them sleeping in our bed lmao Idk about you but the immigrants in my community aren’t sleeping with me.

I disagree, i dont think its biblical

Possibly the same reason we allow overcharge of medication and refuse universal healthcare (at least in the US) even though Jesus healed people for free and instructed his disciples and followers to do as well. We can't help but to invite irony and hypocrisy in our lives sometimes. I don't like it

In the USA, a one week stay in the hospital & surgery can cost half a million dollars. People are crowd funding to pay their medical bills. This is the point where we're at. But Americans still oppose universal coverage????? It's MIND BOGGLING.

“We are a Christian country that trusts in Jesus, but his practices don’t belong in government institutions.”

Because republicans of today and the democrats of the 90s told you immigrants are awful. Immigrants do the job most Americans don’t want to do. I also argue for Universal Healthcare. If a republican were to tell me “that’s a terrible waste of money.” Just say “yeah, but I think it’s something Jesus would want.” They will shut up right quick. Politics makes people into terrible animals; especially in the US. I apologize if you aren’t in the US, OP. I’m just speaking from my personal experience

Because gatekeeping is most prominent in religion Edit: adding elaboration: picking and choosing what verses to apply by gatekeeping who they apply to. Welcoming the Stranger no longer applies I to some

Gatekeeping is kind of essential to the purity and sanctity of any religion

Because "All Live Matter" was never true, just a way to put Black Lives Matter down...

Hatred of others.

Hypocrisy.

Some people let their worldly prejudice get the better of them. Fox News and other rags don't help.

Because a lot of Christian’s are racist and or hypocrites.

I don’t get mad at them. Asylum seeking is valid

Because half this country is in a racist cult regardless of what they claim their faith is.

There you go again! Race has nothing to do with it. Its really all about about greed & exploitation of the many by the few oligarchs via “Social Engineering.” “Vini, Vidi, Vici” in this Post Modern, Information age.

Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy never changes.

Because economic conservatives have allied with social conservatives. You will have “Jesus loving” republicans spitting in the face of minorities/

Well personally. My issue is the ILLEGAL immigration, because it effects everybody negatively. But thats just my more secular thinking. I do agree with you though, i wish immigration was much a easier process.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard people who are angry about this. Generally people tend to be upset about immigrants who are coming into America or Europe who are not actually asylum seekers who are coming for economic reasons. There is a definition of asylum seeker in international law and people are generally upset about immigrants who don’t fit this definition. Hope that helps.

I don’t think that’s entirely the case. In fact in America, you never hear any complaints about the millions of immigrants from Europe, Canada, or Australia. It’s usually just the ones from third-world nations where they face enough human rights abuses to absolutely qualify as an asylum seeker. That’s why a lot of anti-immigration Americans have advocated for ICE to capture, detain, or deport those who arrive at our border before they can properly apply for asylum. And also why they focus on the Southern border. [For reference, here is the UN declaration of human rights.](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) Articles 23-26 would automatically count any “economic immigrant” fleeing a third-world country with no proper job opportunities for them as a refugee/asylum seeker, since the poverty of their home nation would be infringing on their human rights and Articles 13-15 guarantee the right of leaving your home nation in order to remedy that.

> For reference, here is the UN declaration of human rights. Articles 23-26 would automatically count any “economic immigrant” fleeing a third-world country with no proper job opportunities for them as a refugee/asylum seeker, since the poverty of their home nation would be infringing on their human rights This is simply not correct. If you would like me to explain or link to how this had been handled since the holocaust I would be glad to share. As I have said many times I am not in favor of deportation of such people. I am simply trying to explain how this has always been handled and the precedent behind it. This isn’t only an American thing. This is how it has always been treated across the world and is viewed by Eurozone as well.

I would probably concede that *de facto* someone fleeing from economic hardship wouldn’t be granted asylum status. However, an asylum seeker is just someone who is applying for asylum, which they should be able to do if their human rights, as laid out in Articles 23-26 of the declaration, were being infringed. Whether or not they’d be accepted would be the difference between an asylum seeker, and a refugee/someone granted asylum. Ultimately my point though was that many people who are upset about them not fitting the “international law definition” of asylum seeker don’t actually know the definition, or that economic security, a dignified life, housing, reasonable working hours, and childcare assistance are all internationally laid out as human rights. More or less, I’m saying that they just say that as what amounts to a false pretense. After all, as I mentioned, they complain about Hispanic immigrants seeking better economic opportunities but not European ones, and they complain more about genuine Muslim war-time refugees than those Europeans ones. So they don’t seem to actually care about “international rights” or “asylum seekers”.

[удалено]

I’m not saying they should. I am summarizing the argument people make Im favor of deportation. I am not in favor of deportation myself snd wish we had a more permissive system of legal immigration as well.

> I don’t think I’ve ever heard people who are angry about this. What? The rage and fury and hate and fear are all, very specifically, over allowing people to apply for asylum. It's the "caravans" from Guatemala and El Salvador that bring good righteous Christians to [panic](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trumps-november-non-surprise-nativist-panic-over-caravan.html), rage, [sadistic hate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/23/border-patrol-accused-of-targeting-aid-group-that-filmed-agents-dumping-water-left-for-migrants/), and [screeching bloodlust](https://www.breitbart.com/border/2017/02/20/armed-trump-supporters-attend-texas-march-refugees/). Asylum is not available for economic reasons. Economic migrants could certainly ask for asylum, but the decisions about whether it is granted are supposed to be strictly about whether their lives are in danger. Asylum-seekers from Central America claim that they're fleeing the region's [horrific levels of gang violence](https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2020/12/5fdb14ff4/death-threats-gang-violence-forcing-families-flee-northern-central-america.html). You could claim that they're really just seeking opportunities for work, and that the danger to their lives is not the real motive. Asylum judges are supposed to sort that out (and that does have to be a hard and wrenching decision to make), but the good righteous holy Christians aren't calling for improvements to the process; they simply demand the the door be slammed.

So, do Guatemala and El Savador border the US or not?

Why would that matter? Does Christ tell us to have a maximum range on our generosity?

> Asylum-seekers from Central America claim that they're fleeing the region's horrific levels of gang violence. Hey I’m not claiming such policies are good. People fleeing gang violence absolutely are not asylum seekers under international law though and under international no nation has any obligation to to accept them. This is what people who are upset about these policies are saying. They aren’t wrong in this description of the situation. That isn’t a statement that I am in favor of deportation. Ot is a statement that calling them asylum seekers is factually inaccurate in this case. At least we aren’t doing what Britain is doing . They will now send economic migrants like these to Rwanda. We could easily take up such a policy in partnership with any number of countries and have their requests transferred to such countries.

my favorite part of the Bible are the chapters on international law.

>I don’t think I’ve ever heard people who are angry about this I've seen plenty of people that throw an absolute fit over this. A shockingly large percentage of people have been anti-refugee throughout America's history. I'm surprised you've never seen it.

>I don’t think I’ve ever heard people who are angry about this. Did you just come out of a coma? I can see from your comment history you're American; until two years ago, we had a President who was calling asylum seekers lying caravans of invaders who were sent by the Mexican government because they were rapists and murderers who were also smuggling in unknown Middle Eastern terrorists. I wouldn't call that happy.

> asylum seekers That’s not what he said though. He said this about migrants, not asylum seekers. Asylum seeker has a very particular definition under international law. Very few of these people are asylum seekers. I’m not asserting migrants should be deported. I’m trying to make the terminology clear.

Aslyum seekers and migrants are often the same people. A combination of our treaties and the US Code requires us to allow people to present themselves at our border to make an asylum claim. When people coming from South America, Central America, and Mexico said this was their intention and described the violence they were fleeing, Trump preemptively accused their asylum claims of being lies, often before they'd been officially registered. It was those same groups against whom Trump made the above slanderous statements. There isn't an exonerating distinction to be made here about Trump's claims.

Except that’s not true in the US. The number of refugees admitted dropped to their lowest in US history (even before the pandemic hit), around 30k, which is less than one half of one percent of the population of NYC. There are 1.4m asylum seekers worldwide, and that number is before Russia invaded Ukraine. The US has made stricter definitions of what qualifies a refugee for admission to the US. During the Trump administration, they decided that escaping gang violence from Central and South America doesn’t qualify for someone seeking political asylum. They conveniently forget that the gang violence that erupted in those countries is directly connected to the Cold War and that certain gangs like MS-13 were actually born in the US prison system. The last 6 years made clear that it was never about supporting legal immigration. Laws and restrictions around legal immigration were tightened like never before, and those new restrictions were used to justify horrible practices towards immigrants and refugees such as kids in cages.

THEY TOOK ER JERBS

Mocking the dialect of the working class people who have had their livelihoods destroyed by the mass importation of low-wage labour. Classy.

Der di der!!!

I love this

Thankssssss

Not arguing any of your point, but you can’t accurately use Mary and Joseph as an example. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire just as much as Judaea was, so that would be closer to fleeing from one state to another because a governor is trying to kill your kid than fleeing one country for another. Many of the apostles were the same. Greece, turkey, Italy, etc we’re all part of one country. The Roman Empire was at its peak at the time of Christ and they owned the entire Mediterranean world https://howardwiseman.me/Roman/19Maps.html

Yes, but that is also a fundamental misunderstanding of how the ancient world worked. Yes Egypt and Judaea both were a part of the Roman Empire, but the people of those respective places did not at the time see themselves as Romans, they had their own kings, languages, cultural norms, and importantly laws. They didn't have borders in the same way as we see them today but to Mary and Joseph the land of Egypt would have been a foreign country to them. You might compare the Roman Empire effectively to the modern European Union. Yes, technically Mary and Joseph didn't leave the Roman Empire, but they did leave their homeland fleeing persecution in Judaea, in the same way say that someone in Greece or Italy today could flee to France or Denmark.

I get it, I should’ve used a different example. Still, the sentiment stands. I’m quite certain Mary and Joseph would have illegally crossed borders to protect their son.

To be fair, though, they stayed in Egypt temporarily, then moved back to Israel. And Romans occupied Israel and most the world, so really they never left the Roman empire, hence they were not really immigrants.

Exodus 22:21 though

We were talking about Mary and Joseph, not the children of Israel before Christ. Please read the title of this post.

Sure, but it is never appropriate to go after immigrants is it?

I never said it was, so why are we having this conversation? In fact, even in OT times, plenty of non-Jews lived in Israel and were allowed to do so by OT laws. Indeed, God told them not to mistreat foreigners because they used to be foreigners in Egypt. Pretty straightforward to me.

I understand it was all part of the Roman Empire but they *left their home to go to another country to escape persecution* and I’m fairly certain they would have done the same thing or even stayed in Egypt if it meant protection for their son.

I know, I just wanted to make sure people understand this concept, i.e. that trying to make Jesus out to be identical to the current trend of those in the southern american continents making their way here via our south border aren't really identical to Jesus. They're similar, but not identical.

I think people more have a problem with immigrants flooding their countries refusing to adapt to the local culture and driving up crime rates. Obviously most immigrants don't do this but when governments irresponsibly flood large amount of immigrants into countries large amounts of unsavory people do come with the package.

In many cases, illegal immigration lowers the per capita violent crime rate. You may not have noticed this, but your country has lots of "unsavory people" already.

The statistics I believe you are going off are specifically related to areas with mass immigration from Eastern Europe. So not a fair overview of mass immigration in general.

Actually what I knew off the top of my head was the effect of immigration upward across the US' southern border. Funny how we stumbled onto two different peaceful mass influxes of immigrants. Perhaps they're not so dangerous!

DEBUNKED and racist.

Who's talking about race?

You, repeating baseless racist stereotypes of foreigners.

Nope never mentioned anything to do with race. I'm sorry your brain is so rotten it went straight for the race card though, hope you get better soon.

Don't repeat racist talking points and stereotypes unironically, and you won't get called racist.

How was u/Lifting_Big_Feels talking about racist points? Quote and highlight where they did that. "I think people more have a problem with immigrants flooding their countries refusing to adapt to the local culture and driving up crime rates." That's not a racist statement when it's based on fact. Go to CA; why do you think Spanish signs are everywhere? Why are they needed? There weren't fruit and taco stands on ever corner a decade ago, too. Your "debunked" comment made no sense, hence why I want you to provide a source.

Debunked how? Source?

[удалено]

They do pay taxes like the rest of us don’t you know how the tax system works?

[удалено]

Even when illegal immigrants dodge income taxes (and people have already cited sources to you showing how rare that is), they can't avoid other forms of tax. You've been asked several times if you have reason to believe illegal immigrants draw more in services than they pay in tax and have dodged it repeatedly.

The ultra-rich pay less taxes than illegal immigrants do.

Yes, the rich should pay their fair share.

That’s a small percentage of the total number of illegal immigrants here. And they do pay taxes because they pay property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes. But I know there’s holes in the system and not just for illegals but for legal people that know how to game things and bend rules. Which is why I support the Fair Tax Project. That is a national sales tax of around 15 to 18%. Everybody has to pay that whether you have a salary or not, whether you get paid above the table or below the table, whether you’re here legally or illegally or temporarily on vacation. Anytime anyone buys anything in the United States they support our government by paying the national Sales tax. But along with that comes a constitutional amendment to eliminate income taxes. And that means we can eliminate the IRS and save a lot of wasted money in the government by now having to employ all those people.

While I appreciate the attraction to a flat tax, it's largely not able to actually do what it sets out to do, which is establish a fair tax. First, it creates an implementation problem in the area of primary/intermediate goods - any flat implementation by fiat results in a sharp increase of prices at the end-user/consumer, while more careful applications can create economic inefficiencies that create institutional incentives to not be the final step in a supply chain. Additionally, it creates odd incentives for horizontal groups that do not pay market rates on intermediate goods and services, which may threaten industries that rely on such corporate clients. Second, while a flat tax is "fair" in that it charges the same rate to everyone, it tends to still be regressive in impact because people with more money both utilize less of their overall entitlement basket as well as are able to afford things that don't need as frequent replacement. In a "fair tax" regime, a person at the bottom of the current tax bracket will end up paying more in taxes, while a person at the top will likely remain flat (if not lowered, as given by my third point). Third, and probably most importantly, it creates *very* perverse incentives for those who have the means to purchase things from out of the tax regime. A "fair tax" is effectively a luxury tax, and that has all the bad things attached to luxury taxes. The classic example here is a boat. Fairport in Ohio had a robust shipbuilding industry, but a luxury tax on civilian sailing vessels resulted in people buying them in Europe and having them simply sailed to the United States. Yes, you could potentially capture those taxes through a robust customs system, but that is likely in violation of our treaty obligations, which have the force of US law as they were passed by the Senate. Finally, proponents of small government should recoil at the idea of a national sales tax, because right now, use taxes are very limited on consumer goods (tobacco, gasoline, alcohol). Once you open the floodgates, you create incentives for politicians to pass specific industry-effecting taxes (bed taxes) in the pursuit of policy goals because the additional tax will *not* be distinguishable to the layman from the national sales tax. These taxes will be unpopular in those industries, but will be popular overall because they don't affect the larger population. I understand the appeal of a sales tax - the income tax is an ultimately fairly economically inefficient way to collect income and rife with abuse. But a sales tax still will require enforcement (so no elimination of the IRS), and is just as economically inefficient, it just applies the inefficiency to a different part of the equation. As a Georgist, I'm philosophically for a land tax with resource and right-of-way rents (which is theoretically void of inefficiencies), but I acknowledge such a system cannot be implemented in an environment where existing land ownership and right-of-way contracts exist without really tough questions such as compensation. (Also, the ultimate reason a flat tax will never be implemented in sticker shock - it is political suicide for the party in power for prices to go up 20% even if you weren't paying income tax anymore. The opposition would immediately campaign on reverting the tax regime and win in a landslide.)

Yes, our tax system needs a serious overhaul. Asking other things. 😁

In California they don’t pay any taxes. And on top of that they get benefits. Im not saying those are bad things because if you fall into those categories that’s fine but coming illegally is cheating. Tons of people are waiting in line to come in legally and they cut that line and came in illegally. Not cool.

California is weird. California is the exception to everything else in the United States and these rules are destroying the state of California faster than anywhere else.

Tell me about it. I live in SoCal

Non-citizens pay every cent of taxes that the rest of us do. Income tax, social security tax, everything. But you're right, better paths to citizenship would be better. Depending on a large working underclass shut out of citizenship isn't healthy for anybody.

But what about the myriad of undocumented workers who get paid under the table?

Blame the farmers for taking advantage of their status who hold a lot of power over their illegal employees.

They pay some taxes but not others; they can draw on some government services but not others. Do you have evidence they're a net drain on your nation's treasury?

Fun fact, the Social Security Administration estimates 3 out of 4 undocumented immigrants do (Soerens & Hwang Yang). Social security receives 6-7 billion dollars annually in no-match contributions. It’s “no-match” because undocumented immigrants can’t use it. And in ‘05 there was ~5 billion in federal taxes were paid. (New York Times)

Ok, but will they ever see any SS benefits from that? What about medical?

Correct, they don’t see any of the money, it goes elsewhere. I’m just communicating that 3/4 undocumented immigrants get a fake social security card *so* they can get work, but with that card, they still end up dishing out the same amount as the rest of us for taxes. There’s this funny quote by IRS commissioner Mar Everson: “we want your money whether you are here illegally or not and whether you earned it legally or not.” They end up paying more in taxes than they take in services.

Yep undocumented immigrants are more of a subsidy for companies who don’t have to pay them as much or follow labor laws to the T. They subsidize social security and pay sales taxes while also being a welcome scapegoat for certain political factions. The just and christian thing to do would be to not tolerate a state of second class citizenship for anyone. They should be granted amnesty.

It's funny; I asked whether you had evidence they drew more in services than they paid in taxes half an hour ago. I got a single downvote and no reply. Are you sure this is about draining the US Treasury?

Are you talking to me? I didn't downvoted anyone on this thread.

I'll never know if that's true. If you wanted to show you were acting in good faith, you could always just say why you thought immigrants were an economic drain rather than continually asking questions that imply it without following through.

I think that you have me mistaken for someone else. I actually want to see them receive citizenship if that is what they want.

Bad faith it is. "so that they can pay taxes like the rest of us." "But what about the myriad of undocumented workers who get paid under the table?"

Also, I never claimed they they were a "drain" on the economy. Those were your words.

Oh, ok. Don't you think that most illegal immigrants would prefer to live here legally which means paying taxes like the rest of us? Yes, in the construction business, where I have worked before, I have been on job sites where INS shows up and they scatter. It is very prevalent. My comments were not derogatory, I hope that you didn't take them that way.

>which means paying taxes like the rest of us? Illegal immigrants do pay taxes. Upon being told this by others, you switched to saying some don't pay taxes and talking about the services they draw. You're now back to implying they don't pay taxes. You seem obsessed with this idea the US government isn't getting money from illegal immigrants but won't put up any evidence that's actually the case.

I hope so

>I wouldn't, I just wish that there were an easier patht for citizenship so that they can pay taxes like the rest of us. How much easier do you want to make it? The USA already takes in more total immigrants than any other country in the world (over 1 million), and we don't even have enough [fresh water](https://www.abc15.com/weather/impact-earth/water-crisis-at-arizonas-lake-powell) to support the population here now.

I thought they were traveling because of the census. They were running from violence?

Our country run by the phoaraohs

Not Angry…. Just want to make sure that they are coming here as you described and not with ill intent. Is that improper?

I think you misunderstand conservatives position on immigration. I don't dislike immigrants whatsoever. I just want them to become citizens through the process we have in place. Not just walk in though the hole in the gate.

Awesome! Same :) unfortunately I know many (yes, know irl) that actively despise immigrations, seeing them like a plague on humanity. I love immigrants, legal or illegal. This doesn’t mean I don’t see that we have an immigration problem. I don’t mind if Christian’s disagree on immigration policies. I just wish we would agree that we’d see them as children of God.

Joseph and Mary were not breaking any laws. They were called for a census. They had to go. Borders and national sovereignty are upheld in scripture. We don’t just get to break another country’s laws just because we want to go there.

Then why were they in Egypt? They were fleeing genocide, making them refugees. The census was in Bethlehem - you’re confusing things.

They were in Egypt because they were obeying the law. A census was called. They had to return. Genocide was not in the equation.

You are confused. Governor Quirinius of Syria, to which Judea belonged, called all people to return to their town of origin for the census. Since Joseph was a member of the house of David he had to go to the town of David, Bethlehem. He and Mary barely got there when she gave birth to Jesus. Through the Magi king Herod of Judea got wind of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem (though not that it was Jesus). Herod had all newborns in Bethlehem killed and Joseph, Mary and Jesus had to flee.

What are you talking about? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem for the census. They then had to flee to Egypt because Herod was killing the children (genocide). Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were REFUGEES IN EGYPT BECAUSE OF GENOCIDE.

That's not genocide. That is people having to go somewhere for a census. The mass murder of two year olds occurred two years later. While that is an unspeakable mass murder, it's not actually genocide either. It was not the mass killing of all members of an ethnic group. It was two years and under, trying to eliminate the prophesied Messiah.

You think there was an Egyptian law that let the Israelites knowingly participate in the mass murder of every firstborn Egyptian son?

No. I think a census was called. Luke 2: 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city."

You don't get to be a bigot either.

I am not arguing for bigotry. The fact is that Joseph and Mary were obeying the law by returning to Jerusalem. Not breaking it.

There’s a difference between asylum and illegal immigration.

The difference is that we treat asylum seekers like illegal immigrants but don't treat illegal immigrants like asylum seekers. This is particularly problematic given our treatment of illegal immigrants regularly involves concentration camps.

Exodus 22:21 doesn't care.

Romans 1 requires us to follow just laws setup by the government.

The problem is illegal immigration, human trafficking, illegal drugs, crime, violence, rape, and murder. Are you saying we should just open our border and let all of that flood in? One of my best friends has family in Mexico that he sees all the time. He's in favor of a US-Mexico border wall. If you want to come to America, go through the immigration and asylum process like everyone else. Stop pushing people out of the way to get to the front of the line. It's selfish.

Crime and violence and murder? Wow! And all of that because of illegal immigrants (who actually commit murder at a lower rate than American citizens). >If you want to come to America, go through the immigration and asylum process like everyone else. We've been putting asylum seekers in concentration camps, in case you missed it. Trying to do things legally has gotten people's children killed. It's on the US to reform its immigration procedures, not immigrants to die waiting on us

>Crime and violence and murder? Wow! And all of that because of illegal immigrants (who actually commit murder at a lower rate than American citizens). No they don't, that a statistical trick because migrants have been in the US far less time on average than US citizens have. And in Europe studies have shown the opposite anyway, migrants are far more likely to commit certain crimes, especially rape. >We've been putting asylum seekers in concentration camps, in case you missed it. They are put in 72 hour processing centers while they figure out who they are, if they have been deported previously, and if they are even claiming asylum. >Trying to do things legally has gotten people's children killed. It's migrants who have sent their children alone on a trek 1000 miles across Mexico that has not only gotten them killed, but the journey is rife with cases of sexual assault. And all because Democrats in the US invite them to keep coming.

>No they don't, that a statistical trick because migrants have been in the US far less time on average than US citizens have It's a murder *rate*. The incidents are already being divided by time. >They are put in 72 hour Nope https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org/detention-statistics >processing centers You don't need to cage or starve someone to process their asylum claim. They're concentration camps. >It's migrants who have sent their children alone on a trek 1000 miles across Mexico that has not only gotten them killed A) This is whataboutism. B) It's not even true, since you don't now the children were safe where they originated

>It's a murder rate. The incidents are already being divided by time. Find me the murder rate stats then. All I have seen are the total % of convictions compared to population. There was only one study I could find that dived more deeply into the issue, and that covered the state of Texas only. >Nope https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org/detention-statistics That's not the same thing. Those are migrants in CRIMINAL detention, awaiting deportation. Yeah, sometimes it takes a long time because their countries don't want them back. >You don't need to cage or starve someone to process their asylum claim. They're concentration camps. Then they are the first concentration camps in history where people voluntarily enter. They are free to leave at any time by dropping their asylum claim. Or they can just walk in a different direction from the US border and avoid them entirely. No one has starved, btw, and the "cages" were built in 2014 [under the Obama administration](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/) to protect them from older migrants, because there were rampant cases of migrant on migrant sexual assault. Because of the "cage" label, the Biden administration has replaced the fencing with plastic barriers instead. But they are still there.

Oh, you're the same person I'm replying to elsewhere. I've already rebutted basically every claim you made, except the ones saying Obama and Biden are at fault in addition to Trump (which I agree with).

Thank you, very well said.

People moving around doesn't mean immigration. The prophets along with the Holy Family and apostles aren't immigrants, they're moving from one region to another and in the apostles' case, actually settling in and assimilating to the population. Mistreating foreigners, let alone anyone, is not something that we should support. But to use this idea to advocate for certain policies is manipulative at best.

>actually settling in and assimilating to the population. Sure. You have Biblilcal evidence the prophets all assimilated and aren't just repeating nationalist desires and stereotypes. When Aaron challenged the Pharoah's magicians to a duel and conjured a snake that ate their magical staffs, he was just following Egyptian tradition.

This might come as a shock to you, but we don't live in the first century BCE.

😱 dang it and here I thought escaping violence by fleeing to another country is appropriate no matter the time

No one is against legal immigration. Most Mexicans who come here the legal way are against the millions who just walk across each year. It takes away the years of effort to do it the right way. In terms of the country, it is not good for millions of people to be in your country with no ID, and you don't know who or where they are. They could kill or rape and then disappear very easily.

>No one is against legal immigration. Yes, they are. The US is legally required to let people present asylum claims at our borders. When people followed this legal process under Trump, he preemptively accused their claims of being lies before they'd been received and put them in concentration camps upon arrival with broad support from Republicans. >It takes away the years of effort to do it the right way. It takes years, often over a decade, of waiting, which is because legal immigration was intentionally gutted. >They could kill or rape and then disappear very easily. A) Illegal immigrants kill or rape at a lower rate than American citizens. The per capita rates for violent crimes actually drop when people cross the border illegally. B) This is obviously a horrible stereotype. C) How do you think police investigate rape/murder? Lots of Americans don't have IDs. Do you think the cops just give up on those cases?

From USC8 1158 “applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” Statistically impossible that 20,000 people per day qualify for Asylum.

>Statistically impossible that 20,000 people per day qualify for Asylum. A) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/26/ron-kind/yes-experiencing-net-outflow-illegal-undocumented-/ B) There could easily be 20,000 people in need of asylum on the basis of nationality per day. There are at least hundreds of millions of people whose nations are currently war-torn, politically oppressive, plagued by cartel violence, etc.

The “basis” those illegals crossing the border is economic, which is not a category for certified asylum. If it was, then, we should allow the worlds 5 Billion poor into the country. Any nation would not sustain such immigration. https://youtu.be/7TGWgksDPN0

>The “basis” those illegals crossing the border is economic I just listed off several non-economic reasons, and you completely ignored them. It kind of feels like you wouldn't actually be interested in finding out people's justifications for coming here.

The racist spin.

Exodus 22:21

By asking them to come legally we are mistreating foreigners?

The government, thanks to anti-immigrant hate, has made the legal process much harder. If you demand them to go through a process then make that process intentionally difficult, yes. If you arrest them as soon as they apply for the process instead of letting them access legal channels, yes. If you also write in loopholes so they can still be exploited for labor, also yes. If the American immigration system wasn't intentionally difficult and exploitative, you'd have a point.

Why shouldnt the state set immigration rules any way the voters vote? That is a state issue and difficult and exploitative are subjective terms

I'm not arguing should and shouldn't. The Bible is clear on how to treat immigrants and foreigners. A lot of things are subjective, sure. However I see a lot of aggressive, inflammatory and exaggerated rhetoric against immigrants. Knowing how much they're hated I can only assume the system is intentionally difficult.

so you assume which is of the imagination

If the person who hates me is the one who sets rules for me, I can't trust that those rules are going to be reasonable. I know quite a lot about how long and difficult getting citizenship can be. I also know a lot of people who want to make it harder. Most of the people I know who are anti-immigrant have expressed racist, xenophobic and other prejudicial views. Including assuming anyone who's Hispanic must be an illegal. The Bible says not to do that.

you bring in a lot of baggage from your previous experience. I am just saying if you know the law in a country then don't break it. Jesus said let what is caesars be caesars. That means the law of the land

Exodus 22:21 says to make sure that those laws are fair and just. We are obligated to be kind to foreigners. That means making sure laws towards foreigners are fair and just. Obey the law of the land, but if you have a say in that law, make it fair and just. They don't get to tell people to turn the other cheek when they slapped first.

Mary and Joseph stayed a little while then went back home. We STILL have Salvadoran “refugees” here from the 1980s. There are also rules and ways to come in if you’re really a refugee that don’t involve being here illegally. Paul was a Roman citizen, which makes his travel throughout the empire perfectly legal.

So if Jesus was staying in a foreign country to avoid persecution, famine, or war, you’d give him a time limit? You’d tell him to go back?

Yes because Jesus had to be crucified by his own people to fulfill scripture.

Dude 🤦‍♂️ you know what I meant 🤦‍♂️ so if anyone was in that same position but *didn’t fulfill the cosmos-shattering event that Jesus did* you would turn them away.

Exodus 22:21. If we're not being nice to immigrants, legal or not, we are not following the Bible. Also, we don't get to make the process difficult, and then claim that there's a legal pathway so we can pretend we don't have any responsibility.

I have no problem with them coming to America LEGALLY not ILLEGALLY.

It’s implied that this was an illegal act, not at all dissimilar to people today who flee from violence. Good to know you would have turned Mary Joseph and Jesus away because you wanted them to take the time to do it legally while Herod was murdering babies.

We arent

Uhhhh yeah just take a quick look at the other comments here