Tweet
What the Bible Says about Illegal Immigration
I have put off addressing this subject, but now seems to be good time to say something due to so much confusion in the Church. The book of Judges illustrates and serves to underscore deficient, ill-principled reasoning in contrast to obeying God when it twice says, every man did what was right in his own eyes (17:6; 21:25). This should be our concern regarding immigration policy because biblically uninformed policy inevitably makes for bad policy. Open borders and one world government was struck down by God at the Tower of Babel. The descendants of Noah were the first “empire builders,” bent on amassing their personal power for a global purpose. Here then is the underlying biblical reason why God wants there to be a diversity of nations, borders, separation. The sin nature of mankind necessitates the separation of people groups, cultures into independent nations.
Many people think that God is for a borderless world. He is not! It follows from Genesis 11 that nations, by God’s design are to have different languages, cultures, and boundaries. Out of necessity and remedy for the fall and the power-hungry presence of the fallen nature, it is easy to understand why this is God’s blueprint for today. The witness of history however is this: the diversification of nations principle has been violated by many would-be world conquerors. Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, the dream of Hitler, or that of the coming Antichrist — mankind becomes caught up in self-worship and uses his unchecked assimilation of power to abuse others whom God has created in His own image and likeness.
Scripture teaches not only that the Lord scattered people, but in addition, specifically that He established governments and nations. It follows that there must be enforcement of borders and boundaries by governments in order to maintain a nation’s independence. In numerous OT passages the student of Scripture learns that the God of Israel distinguished among three types of people in the land. The below biblical monikers of distinction that God makes relative to people in a given country:
This is where the left will pounce on Leviticus 19:33-34 to justify their cause. Where some poor bible translations user "foreigner" while the Greek and Hebrew both use the words "stranger sojourns." Based on the correct word usage, the meaning of the passage is pivotal to one’s purposes.
Illegal immigration is discussed in scripture. For example, not only was Ruth a foreigner (nokri), an illegal immigrant, she was a Moabite illegal, who according to Deuteronomy 23:3 was forbidden to migrate into Israel altogether. For Citizen Boaz to entertain Ruth at all was remarkably generous and gracious, and possibly even against the law of the land. (Perhaps Boaz already had in mind legitimizing her status by marriage.) The point is that Ruth’s self-declaration serves to underscore the classification of people in and by ancient Israel. Furthermore, a citizen/countryman was expressly forbidden to take advantage of or mistreat a LEGAL immigrant, known as a sojourner, per Exodus 22:21 and Deuteronomy 10:19 respectively.
Israel under the rule of God treated illegal immigrants differently. Illegal immigrants should not expect these same privileges from the state whose laws they disregard by virtue of their undocumented status. These standard categories of one’s standing in a given nation, and the differentiation between citizens, immigrants and foreigners are representative of the will of God. In fact, these categorizations have been the distinctions in the mind of God ever since He scattered the people into different nations in Genesis 11.
Fundamental to immigration reform is the need to remove the magnet of alluring governmental entitlements that serve to entice illegal entry. The Obama Administrations provision for the illegal immigrant was a call to all the earth to come and partake freely. Such forms of provision are not pleasing to God and only work to destroy personal honor, character, and productivity in the recipient. Government entitlement programs are not biblical for anyone, let alone illegal immigrants. Nowhere in Scripture does God state that He created His Institution of Civil Government to meet the needs of the people. This is part of the erroneous reasoning of the Liberal caucus. God intends for people to first meet their own needs; but if for some legitimate reason that is impossible, their needs are to be met by other individuals in their family, or else the Church, but not the State.
Governments too are to seek the welfare of their people by punishing evildoers (1Peter 2:13-14). People who are illegals are a threat to the welfare of those who are citizens. It is out of an inherent desire imbued by their Designer, that governments want to protect their citizens as a mother does her child — and if they don’t, they should. In terms of immigration, for a government to be pleasing to God and receive His blessing, it has no option but to protect its citizenry from illegal immigration per Romans 13:4 and 1Peter 2:13-14. It must always protect its borders and punish those who enter illegally. Any governmental response that is less than this violates God’s clearly revealed intention for government and invites chaos (as U.S. sees on their southern border).
It needs to be especially underscored that an advocate of immigration restriction is not necessarily a racist or cruel toward those of needy status. Policies preventing illegal immigration should stem from biblical motives of ensuring the general welfare of the nation versus denying a would-be immigrant the potential for a better way of life. To procedurally exclude foreign individuals who might be criminals, traitors, or terrorists, or who possess communicable diseases is not racist or cruel in the least. It is good stewardship to protect the citizens of a nation who have unmistakably pledged their allegiance to that nation and their fellow citizens.
Many people think that God is for a borderless world. He is not! It follows from Genesis 11 that nations, by God’s design are to have different languages, cultures, and boundaries. Out of necessity and remedy for the fall and the power-hungry presence of the fallen nature, it is easy to understand why this is God’s blueprint for today. The witness of history however is this: the diversification of nations principle has been violated by many would-be world conquerors. Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, the dream of Hitler, or that of the coming Antichrist — mankind becomes caught up in self-worship and uses his unchecked assimilation of power to abuse others whom God has created in His own image and likeness.
Scripture teaches not only that the Lord scattered people, but in addition, specifically that He established governments and nations. It follows that there must be enforcement of borders and boundaries by governments in order to maintain a nation’s independence. In numerous OT passages the student of Scripture learns that the God of Israel distinguished among three types of people in the land. The below biblical monikers of distinction that God makes relative to people in a given country:
- Citizen or Countryman (Hebrew: Ach)
- Legal Immigrant or Sojourner (Hebrew: Ger/Toashab)
- Foreigner or Illegal (Hebrew: Nokri/Zar)
- Legal Immigrant or Sojourner (Hebrew: Ger/Toashab)
- Foreigner or Illegal (Hebrew: Nokri/Zar)
Illegal immigration is discussed in scripture. For example, not only was Ruth a foreigner (nokri), an illegal immigrant, she was a Moabite illegal, who according to Deuteronomy 23:3 was forbidden to migrate into Israel altogether. For Citizen Boaz to entertain Ruth at all was remarkably generous and gracious, and possibly even against the law of the land. (Perhaps Boaz already had in mind legitimizing her status by marriage.) The point is that Ruth’s self-declaration serves to underscore the classification of people in and by ancient Israel. Furthermore, a citizen/countryman was expressly forbidden to take advantage of or mistreat a LEGAL immigrant, known as a sojourner, per Exodus 22:21 and Deuteronomy 10:19 respectively.
Israel under the rule of God treated illegal immigrants differently. Illegal immigrants should not expect these same privileges from the state whose laws they disregard by virtue of their undocumented status. These standard categories of one’s standing in a given nation, and the differentiation between citizens, immigrants and foreigners are representative of the will of God. In fact, these categorizations have been the distinctions in the mind of God ever since He scattered the people into different nations in Genesis 11.
Fundamental to immigration reform is the need to remove the magnet of alluring governmental entitlements that serve to entice illegal entry. The Obama Administrations provision for the illegal immigrant was a call to all the earth to come and partake freely. Such forms of provision are not pleasing to God and only work to destroy personal honor, character, and productivity in the recipient. Government entitlement programs are not biblical for anyone, let alone illegal immigrants. Nowhere in Scripture does God state that He created His Institution of Civil Government to meet the needs of the people. This is part of the erroneous reasoning of the Liberal caucus. God intends for people to first meet their own needs; but if for some legitimate reason that is impossible, their needs are to be met by other individuals in their family, or else the Church, but not the State.
Governments too are to seek the welfare of their people by punishing evildoers (1Peter 2:13-14). People who are illegals are a threat to the welfare of those who are citizens. It is out of an inherent desire imbued by their Designer, that governments want to protect their citizens as a mother does her child — and if they don’t, they should. In terms of immigration, for a government to be pleasing to God and receive His blessing, it has no option but to protect its citizenry from illegal immigration per Romans 13:4 and 1Peter 2:13-14. It must always protect its borders and punish those who enter illegally. Any governmental response that is less than this violates God’s clearly revealed intention for government and invites chaos (as U.S. sees on their southern border).
It needs to be especially underscored that an advocate of immigration restriction is not necessarily a racist or cruel toward those of needy status. Policies preventing illegal immigration should stem from biblical motives of ensuring the general welfare of the nation versus denying a would-be immigrant the potential for a better way of life. To procedurally exclude foreign individuals who might be criminals, traitors, or terrorists, or who possess communicable diseases is not racist or cruel in the least. It is good stewardship to protect the citizens of a nation who have unmistakably pledged their allegiance to that nation and their fellow citizens.