Full text of Trump's executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension

There’s a lot of talk about immigration and refugees but very little of it is actually practical, and most of it seems to come from people with nothing at stake in it. Which makes it all theoretical. I lament the Christian tendency to throw platitudes at an issue as if that solves it. Platitudes don’t help with complexities.

I doubt that anyone (at least here) is for completely open borders. That means we all agree in principle with Trump that immigration should be limited in some way. The question is why, who, and how much.

I also doubt anyone here is for admitting dangerous people into this country and risking violence and terrorism. That means we all agree in principle with Trump that safety and security is of the utmost importance. The question is how do we achieve that?

The issue is more complex than simply throwing a few verses at it and declaring something “Christian” (or failing to even identify the verses) because the Bible doesn’t tell us why, who, and how much. And it doesn’t tell how to achieve national security. It doesn’t tell us how the nations of the 21st century should work with other nations in the 21st century to address these difficult problems. So why pretend like it does? I am not clear on that.

The seven nations included in this ban by Trump are the nations that Obama identified as being particularly problematic in terms of government information and the risk of terrorism. That means vetting is more difficult. That is, apparently, why they were chosen. Similar actions have a history with the past six presidents in one form or another. So Trump’s actions are consistent with Obama’s mindset on this; Obama simply didn’t take steps on these countries.

That brings us then to this: There is a lot of room between everyone and no one. And where and how to exactly draw that line is not clear, is not agreed on, and has nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount or any other part of the Bible. Trump decided on 50,000, which is said to be about the average between Bush and Obama. There also has to be a way to care for them and make sure they have jobs as self-supporting employment. That is part of human dignity and contribution to the society that we live in together.

There are many more complexities that make this deserve more than a passing and unargued appeal to the Sermon on the Mount.

I am not convinced the ban is helpful. It seems clearly not illegal or unconstitutional. It doesn’t even seem to cross our “American values” even in their ideal state (because America has never (at least in recent history) allowed every one in without qualification and even now many immigrants from other countries are still be let in). I rather imagine the uproar is mostly political and will die down once the next football comes along to be kicked.

But let’s not pretend that the only Christian position is to oppose Trump’s policy on this.

[GregH]

Bars all Syrian refugees for an indefinite period

Pathetic… The “Chick-fil-a Christians” that put Trump in office have some consistency problems. They seem to find no problem with a government ignoring the Sermon on the Mount even if they consider themselves bound to it.

First, it doesn’t bar refugees for an indefinite period. Second, most of the recent attacks in Europe have been from individuals coming in through refugee programs, and it is documented that the terrorist groups are using this as a vehicle of entry for individuals. Third, this isn’t the first time that a temporary ban has been put in place. Fourth, each of these countries are in states of war, with a lack of strong central government, and have portions of their country held by terrorist organizations. Fifth, he campaigned on the promise of evaluating entry conditions and ensure that a vetting program is in place, so this isn’t a surprise. And sixth, for a new administration to put in a temporary ban until he has a chance to evaluate the vetting processes of bringing in people from high risk countries does not sound extreme to me. Lastly, this is not a Muslim ban has 33 other predominately Muslim countries are allowed into the country with no issues.

Refugees and other countries citizens do not have any rights under our constitution, but our own citizens do. The media keeps portraying this as a ban on muslim countries instead of more accurate depicition of a ban on people coming from failed states.

….is why it applies to all citizens/nationals/persons from these countries, and not just those seeking refugee status. That’s a big unforced error on Trump’s part, I think. It’s also worth noting that the hasty implementation may have something to do with unforced errors.

Several have asked me to defend my statement. I am not really interested in doing so to any great degree here simply because I don’t have time to invest in that that nor the time it would take to deal with the endless rebuttals.

In short, I agree with those who liken this issue to the abortion debate. When refugees are being murdered and they need help, it would seem that we could and should extend a helping hand. The US is the richest country on earth and we can be a good Samaritan here just like other countries have.

This is not about what the Constitution says, who it grants rights to, whether the president has the authority to do this, etc. It is not a political issue for me. It is just a moral issue. Plain and simple. If you put aside the political spin on both sides and just ask what is the right thing to do, the answer is pretty clear to me.

A perspective that seems a bit neglected in the discussion… Nations are not people, though obviously made up of people. But there are differences. A national government has a well-defined purpose in Scripture (e.g., Rom. 13), and the purpose for national governments in general is not identical to the purposes for Israel as a nation. Not even close.

That said, the general principle of compassion is not in question. The question is compassion toward whom? A national government’s priorities flow from its purpose and its purpose does not include taking care of the peoples of the other nations of the world. Its compassion must primarily flow toward its citizens.

There is no biblical obligation for any nation to allow people from any other nation into its borders.

That said, as a matter of national security, how many Syrian or other Muslim refugees have gone on shooting sprees? I doubt this policy in itself is likely to help much. But the reasoning that says “gov. exists to protect its citizens and we think this is necessary to protect them” is sound in principle.

What individual Christians are called to do as an expression of compassion is another topic. But I doubt very many of us are taking food off our own tables and sending it to North Korea, for example, where everyone is starving. The principle of “neighbor” is operative. There’s a limitless scope of opportunity to help people in need around the world, but most of them are far, far away.

When nearby (“neighbor”), a person in need should be met with discerning compassion regardless of their heritage, lifestyle, etc.—with obligations to “the powers that be” in view as well.