Can Christians Consider Mass Deportations As Moral?

Yes

If these people are here illegally they should not be here. I had to wait years for a green card.

I think targeted deportations are in line with biblical principles. I think mass deportations struggles against the principles we have in Scripture. It is easy to view these individuals as just illegal. But the reality is that many are here to save their lives or escape persecution. Something our religious forefathers did, and we praised them for their perseverance and faith. These individuals should not be here illegally, but we are where we are. To rip families apart and send them back to a country where they face rape, death, starvation.... all while spending 100's of billions of dollars to do it, I think flies in the face of how we should treat our neighbor. Does that behavior align with "love our neighbors as ourselves?" Does that mean we ignore the illegality and just make a blanket exemption? No, but I struggle with the church taking the stance that we rip 11 million individuals from our country and throw them back into a black hole and say, hey they were here illegally, tough luck.

What is your proof that most of these immigrants face rape, death, and starvation if they are returned? What is your biblical warrant for keeping illegals in the country and diverting resources to them instead of citizens in need?

If you want to apply "love your neighbor" out of context to these people tell me how many you have taken in to your home?

These people broke the law. They were let in by a dismal government who has lost 300,000 kids over the past four years. If they can prove they face persecution (say in Iran, or Nigeria) then that is a different case. But there is no evidence that most of them are here for that reason. Many of them are here because places like Venezuela emptied their prisons and the Biden administration let them in. Send them back. That is not ungodly nor is it unfair.

Paul,

I did not say, most, I said many. There are roughly 2 Million people in the US that are seeking asylum or refuge status. That would be "many" in my book.

Most non-partisan think tanks and agencies say that illegal immigrants have a net positive affect on the economy. 11 million people need to have food, shelter and cars, thus contributing to the purchasing and tax base of the economy. They do not pull from many social programs because of their status. Pulling 11 million people out of the economy in one fell swoop would send the country into a recession, not save money.

I haven't taken any into my home at this time, because none have requested, I have not been asked. I am sure some worked on my house and as a result I paid them for their work. I have talked to many illegal immigrants and most that I have talked to are hard working, fleeing some bad situation and are just looking for a better life. I haven't taken any into my home because they are some of the hardest working people that I have met. They are not looking for a handout, nor have they ever requested a handout from me. Are all illegal immigrants like this? No. Some should go back. My experience in interacting with many immigrants is that many are not what the right would have you to believe about them.

There is no proof than Venezula is opening prisons. FactCheck.org a non-partisan, non-profit voter advocacy institution (as well as many others), have shown that prisons or insane asylums are not being emptied and those individuals are making up any increase or numbers of illegal aliens (https://www.factcheck.org/2024/06/crime-drop-in-venezuela-does-not-prov…)

Since this is a key Trump talking point, my guess is that you are getting many of your facts from Trump's or the far right's talking points.

I think one of the challenges that we face is that one side views immigrants as a drain, and the other side views them as an asset.

I would say that most non-partisan reports show that illegal immigrants are a net add to the economy and that paths to citizenship would yield significant value to the economy, including the tax base, something that we desparately need as the population ages. Influx of younger people and families to fill into the population that is aging avoids numerous tax base issues that we are currently starting to face as a country.

https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/immigration/new-data-shows-why-the-u-s-needs-more-immigrants/

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/citizenship-undocumented-immigrants-boost-u-s-economic-growth/

Mass deportation would cost anywhere from $100B to $400B (depending on the data and the scope), something that the US does not have, so would need to borrow, primarily through the issuance of more debt. Undocumented workers also pay $46.8B in federal income taxes, $29.3B in state taxes and $22.6B in Social Security. Most of the mass deportation would go into massive detention camps.

I cannot see a good biblical picture where building massive detention camps to hold 11 Million people, separate families, provide sub par facilities is a preference over providing a path to citizenship for many.

David(?),

Your "non-partisan" fact-checkers are left leaning. So are you. If your count of 2 million asylum seekers (who surely are not all actually needing asylum) are real then that leaves the vast majority who need to be shipped home since they entered illegally. But you say "Some should go back." Just how many is "many?" how many would you give "a pathway to citizenship?" 9 million? Is that some or most? Do you think most should be sent back? It doesn't seem so. You shouldn't break the law and be rewarded for doing so. That not biblical Christianity. That's theological liberalism.

Pulling these illegals out of the economy would not cause a recession since they have entered in the last few years and the unemployment rate has gone up. Besides that being off-point, they are here illegally. If I came here illegally I should have been sent home. Otherwise the law of the land means nothing, and we are commanded to obey the laws (Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 3:1). I couldn't care less if they are hard-working.

Of course Venezuelan criminals have come to the US in droves. It's been all over the News, and documented by residents who have had to deal with them. Same with Haitians in Illinois. According to border patrols the cartels control most of the illegal immigration into the US (and I have cited left-leaning outlets). And yes, it costs tax-payers. Do you think they come here with bags filled with gold?

And please stop with this "far right" labelling. I am for legal immigration and secure borders and for supporting the laws of the land. That doesn't make me far right and it doesn't make my sources far right.

The idea that Venezuelan prisons being opened and that is creating a large influx of illegal immigrants is a far right idea. That is what I said. I didn't say you were far right.

Mass deportations won't really happen so it is just conjecture at this point. The money needed to create mass deportations becomes quite overwhelming, and I don't think the American public will last long seeing deportation camps larger than cities to house people.

I have a nuanced position. We should strengthen the border and allow no one into the country unless they are a citizen, including asylum seekers. I think we should instantly deport all illegals that have committed a felony, lied on their application or paperwork, or committed a felony in their home country.

The rest of the people, I feel we should provide an accelerated path to citizenship. I don't think shipping them out has any meaningful benefit to anyone. I don't want my taxes going toward the exorbitant cost to execute it, nor do I want the disruption to the economy. I think we have more pressing things to address in this country.

In the end it won't really matter too much because Trump will do what he is going to do and most likely much of it won't be accomplished, just like the border wall. Just like trying to cut a lot of money out of the government. He will quickly find out that it doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are on, no one in Congress wants to approve slashing any meaningful costs.

I don't believe anyone is actually suggesting that those who have a decent case for asylum ought to be deported--though frankly, I'd suggest that if a refugee commits a crime worse than what he feared in his home country, even a refugee ought to be fair game for deportation.

My take on mass deportations would be that for those who have committed serious crimes, deportation needs to be pursued, but for the mass of illegals who've not committed serious crimes (say violent felonies and such), the smarter way of going about things is to require employers to establish work eligibility. Then those not eligible to work legally will tend to self-deport without a huge cost.

Most importantly, the "emergency department" rule is key; stop the bleeding first. In other words, let's get a border wall put up in most places and reduce the incoming flow of immigrants. Then we can breathe clearly enough to see how much we can "open the spigot" for other immigration.

One thing we need to be careful of here is that many "interested parties" seem to be costing out programs that would never make it past Congress--really straw men.

My take on mass deportations would be that for those who have committed serious crimes, deportation needs to be pursued, but for the mass of illegals who've not committed serious crimes (say violent felonies and such), the smarter way of going about things is to require employers to establish work eligibility. Then those not eligible to work legally will tend to self-deport without a huge cost.

This makes sense to me. I like the idea of allowing hard working non criminals to remain here under certain conditions. I do not believe illegals should be rewarded with full citizenship though. By giving work visas to those who already have jobs, we would not be putting such a large drain on resources to support those who do not work. The question then comes as to if work visas should allow immediate family members to reside in the USA as well. I could even allow for that provided none of them broke the law either. Perhaps if we had a rule that if one of the family broke the law, then the whole family unit had to be sent back. That would be a huge motivation for having a law-abiding family. Perhaps they could even have some positive peer pressure on the rest of the USA.

On another note: Anyone who thinks FactCheck.org is nonpartisan rather than left leaning will have their whole worldview distorted by the bias presented by FactCheck. They are also likely to believe that any organization that simply claims to be non-partisan actually is nonpartisan. The claim of nonpartisan is seldom reality.