What Does the Bible Say about Immigration?

This is what we are missing from our society and what is missing from the Republican party.

The scripture makes a distinction between welcoming those who are strangers and those who are invaders. I believe we as a nation should do the same. Those who do not understand the history nor the teachings of Islam or communism will not understand how important this distinction is.

The scripture makes a distinction between welcoming those who are strangers and those who are invaders. I believe we as a nation should do the same. Those who do not understand the history nor the teachings of Islam or communism will not understand how important this distinction is.

If I understand you right, that's quite a leap to take, applying Old Testament Scriptures written for the theocratic state of ancient Israel directly to our context in 21st-century America. Even the use of the pejorative language "invaders" reflects a category shift. In Scripture, that term refers to armed military forces engaged in war, not to civilians crossing borders to seek work or request asylum.

The biblical distinction between sojourner and enemy presumes a covenant nation under direct divine command, with clearly defined holy wars and territorial judgments. To import those categories into a modern pluralistic democratic republic, without the covenant, the temple, or divinely mandated warfare, is a category error. As you know, Scripture must be interpreted faithfully within its own context before it can be applied correctly to ours, especially when the moral weight of biblical war language is being transferred to a contemporary policy debate.

Also, the point of tying immigration to communism or Islam. This relies on a hasty generalization, treating millions of people as though they share the same view about Sharia Law being imposed on the US legal system or that they want a communist form of government based on the beliefs or histories of a small subset. In fact, recent voting data cuts directly against that assumption: foreign-born U.S. citizens increased their support for a more conservative candidate, Donald Trump, from about 38% in 2020 to roughly 47% in 2024. It shows that immigrants are not necessarily a monolithic bloc and are not uniformly hostile to American political life.

Also, Scripture consistently places most of its moral emphasis not on fear of the foreigner, but on restraint of power and justice toward the vulnerable. We can and should debate border policy, enforcement, and the rule of law in good faith. But when fear-based language replaces careful reasoning and biblical precision, we risk using Scripture to justify suspicion rather than to cultivate wisdom, justice, and charity towards our neighbors.

The Quran teaches that the Islamic state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule, and Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems. Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Quran is clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means, until Islam establishes political supremacy. This does not mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to the supremacy of Islam. The Quran (5:3) states, "This day have I perfected your religion for you," and (18:26) states, "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." These verses are often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.schnellmann.org

Further when illegal immigrants come into another country and wave the flag of the country that they came from while burning the flag of the country they come to, it is not unreasonable to call them invaders. There are plenty of immigrants who are delighted to be in this country instead of the country that they left. We have a friend in town who came from China and she is very concerned about how the democrats are adapting the policies of the communist country that she fled. I have a cousin in law who fled Viet Nam years ago and he has similar views to my friend from China. Both my cousin in law and my friend from China are immigrants but not invaders, but it is clear that many who have come in over the last few decades are not supportive of the USA. Europe is facing a similar crisis. We also have many in our area from Mexico who support the USA whole heartedly. Others not so much. Their attitude about this country should be an indication of if they are invaders or not. There should be a way to vet that. We should not have to wait for them to kill us to make that distinction.

Tren de Aragua gang members are not in uniform or marching in a straight line, but they are armed invaders. Former Venezuelan government officials are now cooperating with the US and saying that these gang members were sent here by their communist leaders. Scripture does not say that we must welcome them or any other criminals. Of course, not all immigrants fall into this category, but when there is resistance to even allowing us to vet any illegal invaders, it is the open borders crowd that are making it more difficult for us to welcome in those who are law abiding and peaceful.

The Quran teaches that the Islamic state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule, and Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems. Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Quran is clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means, until Islam establishes political supremacy. This does not mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to the supremacy of Islam. The Quran (5:3) states, "This day have I perfected your religion for you," and (18:26) states, "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." These verses are often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.schnellmann.org

I wonder how much of your conclusion is being drawn from direct experience versus media exposures of their most conservative interpreters of the Quran? How many Muslims do you personally know who believe they are called to overthrow the U.S. Constitution or impose Sharia law on their neighbors? I ask because my own experience, including Muslim students and immigrant neighbors, such as a former student from Saudi Arabia who attended college in West Michigan, has been far more varied. In my conversations that I've had, many understand Sharia primarily as a personal moral and devotional framework, not as a political/religious ideology to be forced on others. That diversity of belief should give us pause before making sweeping judgments like you are doing.

I think we can make a similar comparison within conservative Christianity. There is a growing number of Christian nationalists, like Stephen Wolfe, for example, who openly argue that the U.S. Constitution should be set aside in favor of rule by a Christian prince under Old Testament law, including putting to death arch-heretics and making those of other religions second-class citizens. Yet we would rightly resist the claim that such views define conservative Christianity as a whole, or that Christians should be treated as presumptive theocratic threats because of them. Scripture requires that we judge people by their actions, not by the most extreme interpretations held by those within the Muslim faith.

That same moral discipline should apply here. If we reject being judged by our worst representatives or most radical theorists, biblical consistency demands we extend that same restraint to others. Anything less risks replacing justice with fear.

Further when illegal immigrants come into another country and wave the flag of the country that they came from while burning the flag of the country they come to, it is not unreasonable to call them invaders. There are plenty of immigrants who are delighted to be in this country instead of the country that they left. We have a friend in town who came from China and she is very concerned about how the democrats are adapting the policies of the communist country that she fled. I have a cousin in law who fled Viet Nam years ago and he has similar views to my friend from China. Both my cousin in law and my friend from China are immigrants but not invaders, but it is clear that many who have come in over the last few decades are not supportive of the USA. Europe is facing a similar crisis. We also have many in our area from Mexico who support the USA whole heartedly. Others not so much. Their attitude about this country should be an indication of if they are invaders or not. There should be a way to vet that. We should not have to wait for them to kill us to make that distinction.

I do agree with the distinction you’re trying to make between those who genuinely seek the good of this country and those who do not. Scripture does care deeply about loyalty, justice, and the preservation of social order. However, biblically, intent and allegiance do not come from symbols, anecdotes, or group behavior; actions judge them, and even then, with restraint.

In Scripture, the label of “enemy” or “invader” is not applied based on suspicion, speech, or attitude, but on overt acts of violence or war. Burning a flag, holding a foreign flag, or expressing criticism of a nation, however offensive, does not meet the biblical standard for treating someone as an enemy or invader. Israel was repeatedly warned not to confuse fear or cultural difference with threat, especially when dealing with the sojourner within their gates (Lev. 19:33–34; Deut. 10:18–19).

What concerns me is that this line of reasoning mirrors something we rightly criticize on the political left: judging entire groups, such as MAGA voters or conservative Christians, not by their actions, but by presumed intent, symbols, or worst-case associations. Scripture does not permit that kind of pre-emptive moral judgment, regardless of who is doing it or whom it targets. When we condemn that logic in others but adopt it ourselves, we've shifted from biblical justice to a secular form of partisanship.

Scripture consistently places the moral burden not on the stranger to prove worthiness, but on those with power to act justly before guilt is established. “You shall not oppress the sojourner” is not conditional on attitude, gratitude, or political agreement. Once acceptance or protection is based on perceived loyalty or symbolic behavior, we move from justice to suspicion, which Scripture consistently warns against.

Of course, the state has an essential role in enforcing laws and responding to real threats. But Scripture draws a sharp line between punishment for crimes committed and fear of crimes that might occur. "We should not have to wait for them to kill us" may sound prudent, but biblically it describes collective punishment and prior restraint rooted in fear rather than evidence. That is precisely the kind of reasoning the prophets condemn when power acts before justice.

We can debate vetting, enforcement, and national policy. But once fear, anecdote, or symbolism determines who counts as an "invader," Scripture is no longer shaping our judgments, leading to a more progressive/liberal ethic of behavior.

Former Venezuelan government officials are now cooperating with the US and saying that these gang members were sent here by their communist leaders.

Which communist leaders? Not the Venezuelan President Maduro and his regime. According to our government's National Intelligence Council, (April 7th, 2025 Memo)

While Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States. The IC bases this judgment on Venezuelan law enforcement actions demonstrating the regime treats TDA as a threat; an uneasy mix of cooperation and confrontation rather than top-down directives characterizing the regime's ties to other armed groups; and the decentralized makeup of TDA that would make such a relationship logistically challenging. Furthermore, most of the IC judges that intelligence indicating that regime leaders are directing or enabling TDA migration to the United States is not credible and would need reporting corroborated.

That's a primary source, an official intelligence document from our government saying the exact opposite of what you say. Sadly, we assume our sources of news are telling us the truth about our immigration problem.

An earlier comment rightly pointed out that we are not under the Old Testament here in the USA. The argument at the beginning of this thread however, is that we should view immigration policy in light of Levitical legal principles for how strangers are to be treated. Exodus 22:21 is very clear: "And you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (NASB)

As these discussions come up, I have heard few people distinguish between a stranger that is passing through the land of Israel and a stranger that chose to stay and dwell there. I find the lack of that discussion interesting when the scripture actually spends quite a bit of time laying out expectations for the stranger that dwells among them.

The strangers who stayed were expected to follow the laws of the land. "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:49 NASB also Numbers 15:16 and others) “'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you.” (Leviticus 18:26 NASB)

In II Samuel 22, David shares a song to God. In it he speaks of his enemies and those who hate him. He deals with the issue of the strangers/foreigners in the land who are not willing to submit to his leadership. "Foreigners pretend obedience to me; As soon as they hear, they obey me. "Foreigners lose heart, And come trembling out of their fortresses.” (II Samuel 22:45-46 NASB) David was making it clear that foreigners did not have the option to disobey the laws, but had to integrate to the expectations of the nation.

Clear distinctions were made about the strangers who served God. “"Also concerning the foreigner who is not from Thy people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Thy great name's sake and Thy mighty hand and Thine outstretched arm, when they come and pray toward this house, then hear Thou from heaven, from Thy dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to Thee, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, and fear Thee, as do Thy people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Thy name.” (II Chronicles 6:32-33 NASB) This passage makes it clear that the foreigners who were serving God should be welcomed.

There was definitely an expectation for the stranger that dwelt among them that went far beyond “just don't kill us.”

I would agree that we as individual Christians should treat strangers kindly regardless of any suspicions we may have. I also agree that our government should enforce the laws of this land. Right now it is illegal to immigrate here without the proper procedure. There is plenty of room for debate about what that procedure should or should not be. To simply accuse a political party or government leaders of hate for enforcing those rules is not logical.

Right now it is illegal to immigrate here without the proper procedure. There is plenty of room for debate about what that procedure should or should not be. To simply accuse a political party or government leaders of hate for enforcing those rules is not logical.

Right now there are legal procedures for seeking asylum. There is plenty of room for debate about what those procedures should or should not be. Simply ignoring those procedures by arresting and deporting people who are following the rules is not logical and gives good cause to wonder what are the motivations of the political party or government leaders.

If the government doesn’t follow it’s own rules on vetting, while that is not the fault of the asylum seeker, it also doesn’t mean that once in the country incorrectly means that they can stay when a future government actually follows the vetting rules. That goes double when it’s discovered that not all the vetting was passed, or that the person supposedly seeking asylum actually seeks destruction of our form of government. A simple declaration by the previous government that “all the vetting and asylum rules were followed” when they were actually bypassed or ignored is not sufficient justification to say the asylum seeker let in at that time is entitled to asylum anyway.

You read all the time about prisoners being mistakenly released early from prison, and when the mistake is noticed, they are re-apprehended to complete their sentences. It’s not required that the person be left free because of faulty application of the parole rules, even though the released prisoner did exactly what they were told by the prison authorities. By the same measure, it’s not unreasonable for the government to say that asylum seekers were let in to the country incorrectly, and must go through the full process before just granting asylum.

You will disagree of course, but in my book, simply being caught at a protest chanting “Down with the US” while declaring that your first allegiance is to your original country is grounds not only for not completing the asylum process, but having a declaration of granted asylum revoked with immediate deportation to follow.

By the same measure, it’s not unreasonable for the government to say that asylum seekers were let in to the country incorrectly, and must go through the full process before just granting asylum.

But does the current administration really desire to go through the "full process?" Around 100 immigration judges have recently been fired, creating even more backlogs. The more backlogs you create, the more people you can deport who are waiting for the full process. Those firings make a person wonder about the real motivations.

If immigrants have a culture that accepts rape and theft, then they are invaders.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1246415670867632 

To summarize, the reel is about an immigrant who kidnapped and raped a 12 year old girl and his "community" asked for leniency because he did not understand the culture of the United States yet.

We are also being told that theft and fraud (Minnesota) are part of certain cultures and that we ought to learn to accept it or we are racist. The scripture does not teach that we are to accept rape, fraud, and theft from the strangers who dwell among us. Instead, we are told that they are to be held to the same standard. In Bible times, they would not have survived long in Israel with those sorts of behaviors.

An earlier comment rightly pointed out that we are not under the Old Testament here in the USA. The argument at the beginning of this thread however, is that we should view immigration policy in light of Levitical legal principles for how strangers are to be treated. Exodus 22:21 is very clear: "And you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (NASB)

As these discussions come up, I have heard few people distinguish between a stranger that is passing through the land of Israel and a stranger that chose to stay and dwell there. I find the lack of that discussion interesting when the scripture actually spends quite a bit of time laying out expectations for the stranger that dwells among them.

The strangers who stayed were expected to follow the laws of the land. "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:49 NASB also Numbers 15:16 and others) “'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you.” (Leviticus 18:26 NASB)

In II Samuel 22, David shares a song to God. In it he speaks of his enemies and those who hate him. He deals with the issue of the strangers/foreigners in the land who are not willing to submit to his leadership. "Foreigners pretend obedience to me; As soon as they hear, they obey me. "Foreigners lose heart, And come trembling out of their fortresses.” (II Samuel 22:45-46 NASB) David was making it clear that foreigners did not have the option to disobey the laws, but had to integrate to the expectations of the nation.

Clear distinctions were made about the strangers who served God. “"Also concerning the foreigner who is not from Thy people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Thy great name's sake and Thy mighty hand and Thine outstretched arm, when they come and pray toward this house, then hear Thou from heaven, from Thy dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to Thee, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, and fear Thee, as do Thy people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Thy name.” (II Chronicles 6:32-33 NASB) This passage makes it clear that the foreigners who were serving God should be welcomed.

There was definitely an expectation for the stranger that dwelt among them that went far beyond “just don't kill us.”

I would agree that we as individual Christians should treat strangers kindly regardless of any suspicions we may have. I also agree that our government should enforce the laws of this land. Right now it is illegal to immigrate here without the proper procedure. There is plenty of room for debate about what that procedure should or should not be. To simply accuse a political party or government leaders of hate for enforcing those rules is not logical.

I do appreciate that you’re trying to take Scripture seriously and not flatten the Old Testament’s teaching on the sojourner. You’re absolutely right that Israel distinguished between a passing stranger and one who chose to dwell among them, and that those who dwelt were expected to live under Israel’s laws. That’s an important nuance often missed in discussions between Christians about immigration. I agree it deserves careful attention.

However, I think your argument falls short in how directly those categories are transferred into our modern context. As you know, Israel was a theocratic covenant nation, where religious, civil, and moral law were inseparable. Law-keeping for the foreigner was not merely civic compliance; it was participation in a covenant community ordered around worship of YHWH. That is categorically different from a pluralistic constitutional republic whose laws are procedural rather than covenantal. To say “the stranger must obey the law” is true in both cases, but the nature, purpose, and theological meaning of “the law” are not the same. Treating them as functionally equivalent risks collapsing redemptive history into modern policy debates.

I also think you are taking a few passages beyond their intent. For example, II Samuel 22 is a royal victory psalm, describing David’s enemies in the context of military conflict and divine deliverance—not laying out a general immigration ethic. The “foreigners” there are hostile powers resisting the king, not migrants or resident aliens. Using that text to frame contemporary immigrants as potential enemies subtly imports a war category into a civil situation, which is precisely the objection I raised earlier.

Logically, there’s also a category mistake happening between law enforcement and moral suspicion. Scripture certainly affirms enforcing just laws, but it does not authorize pre-emptive judgment of people’s loyalty, intent, or worthiness based on origin, religion, or association. Saying, “the stranger must obey the law” is different from implying, “until proven otherwise, the stranger is a threat.” That shift mirrors the very kind of collective moral judgment Scripture repeatedly warns against (e.g., Deut. 1:17; Prov. 18:13; James 2:1–9).

I do agree with you that enforcing laws does not equal hatred, and that accusing people of hate simply for supporting enforcement is not fair nor helpful. But the reverse is also true: supporting enforcement does not require stereotyping certain groups as invaders, enemies, or dangers. Biblically, the burden is always on the covenant community to exercise power with justice, restraint, and humility—especially toward the foreigner, precisely because Israel knew how easily fear turns into oppression (Exodus 22:21; Deut. 10:18–19).

So I think the real question isn’t whether strangers/foreigners should obey the law. We agree on that. But whether Scripture allows us to move from law enforcement to stereotyping suspicion of whole groups. That’s where I remain unconvinced, both biblically and logically.

Saying, “the stranger must obey the law” is different from implying, “until proven otherwise, the stranger is a threat.

I have not suggested that a stranger is a threat simply because they are strangers, but as Dave pointed out:

You will disagree of course, but in my book, simply being caught at a protest chanting “Down with the US” while declaring that your first allegiance is to your original country is grounds not only for not completing the asylum process, but having a declaration of granted asylum revoked with immediate deportation to follow.

Further I do not believe we should just open our borders without any vetting process- especially when there are people all over the world who are hostile to the USA and to our way of life and to our rule of law.

Further, I agree we are not under the OT theocracy, but if we are going to apply the OT principles for how to treat strangers from foreign lands, then we need to at least look at the whole picture. In other words, we should not pick and choose which parts we are going to emphasize and then ignore the rest.