Comments 5

  1. The first part of this article shows the important causes of the current, terrible immigrant crisis. The second part of the article suffers from error. The chances of dying from terrorism are small; therefore we should embrace Syrian or other Middle Eastern immigrants. Yet you had a way to lower the number of people who died in car crashes, wouldn’t you do it? Why increase the chance of terrorist acts at all? (Also see that the French and Belgian citizens you mention are not named Jacques and Francois.)

    Prooftexting is no good. Look up, for example, Ezekiel 47 again. The chapter is about providing the land as a “inheritance” for Israel’s posterity. Even verse 22 says that, which you quote in favor of immigration. Note that the verse talks about the foreigners already residing in the land, not foreigners beyond the land, waiting or wanting to get in. How could Israel provide an “inheritance” for its children if it continually allowed in “strangers”? At least the Constitution, what little there is left of it, tells us that it provides for “us and our posterity.”

    1. A bold response. Some might argue that the Old Testament filled with examples of people not trusting God to provide for them. It seems like half the stories are about the people of Israel or her kings not quite trusting in God to provide (an “inheritance” , etc.), and then God letting Israel learn a rather hard lesson from that – often involving lots of innocent deaths. They might point out that it seems like you are arguing in favor of the misguided yet “common sense” approach that God would often end up severely castigating. Thus, they could add, understanding the larger story of faith in God as Lord of all, as well as following His decrees however inconvenient, appears to be what Mr. Veldkamp is emphasizing.

      Furthermore, others might take issue with your apparent equating of God’s providence for Old Testament Israel and His involvement of setting up a constitutional republic here in the late 18th century. But I’m neither a theologian nor a historian, so I can only assume that these might be some of the issues that they would raise.

    2. Noting a thematic imperative for welcoming the stranger is hardly proof-texting.

      And pointing out the actual risk involved is the appropriate aid to discerning whether this approach is the one likely to minimize the real danger of terrorist acts in our country, or whether it is more likely to be a fearful and unwise reaction to “others” whom we all too quickly speak of as enemies (I’ve seen refugees spoken of as dogs, pigs, poisoned food, rapists, child molestors, and any number of terrible things). This does not suit us as Christians and as Americans.

  2. I can’t imagine that “The Good Samaritan” would have bypassed the wounded man if he had been Syrian. Christ commanded us to love – especially those who are homeless and needy. We have to trust our Lord and Savior.

What are your thoughts about this topic?
We welcome your ideas and questions about the topics considered here. If you would like to receive others' comments and respond by email, please check the box below the comment form when you submit your own comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.