I wonder how Christians who favor the current US government’s war on immigrants can reconcile their stance with Leviticus 19:34, which reads (King James version):
But the stranger who dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Would they reply that the Bible is merely epic poetry? Or are they CINOs—Christians In Name Only?
One endearing characteristic of the Catholic Church, which was the only Christian church for 15 centuries, was its universalism—globalism as we would say today. This feature, as well as its spiritual message, provided multitudes of poor and exploited people, the bulk of the population on earth, with the ability to feel that they were elsewhere, just as culture in its learned sense is a way to be elsewhere.
American history is replete with testimonies to the openness of this country. Hector Saint John de Crèvecoeur was a Frenchman (original name: Michel-Guillaume-Saint-Jean de Crèvecoeur) who immigrated to colonial America in the early 1760s. In the chapter “What Is An American” of his famous Letters from an American Farmer (1782) celebrating America, he wrote:
We know, properly speaking, no strangers; this is every person’s country.
Despite my classical-liberal attraction for universalism, I also share Friedrich Hayek‘s and James Buchanan‘s arguments against totally free immigration: it could, at a certain point or level, compromise the maintenance of a free society. My post of June 19, 2018, “Immigration: A Confession and a Value Judgment,” offers a skeleton of this sort of argument.
This argument against totally free immigration is what Alex Nowrasteh and Benjamin Powel call “the new economic case against immigration” in their 2021 book Wretched Refuse? They claim it has no empirical support. As for the argument that an immigrant who comes and works in America imposes a net cost to “society,” it is, of course, economically invalid: if it were valid, we should also blame a woman or a student who decides to join the labor market.
My main point is that the treatment of immigrants, especially very recently, has become tribal, irrational, and “un-American”—to the extent we can make sense of the last qualificative as opposed to the ideal of a free society. The treatment of immigrants has also become contrary to the rule of law and increasingly barbaric. There can be no acceptable ideology and no free society without human decency.
******************************
Hector Saint John de Crèvecoeur on his farm, as viewed by DALL-E
READER COMMENTS
Richard W Fulmer
Mar 27 2025 at 10:45am
Do we really want open immigration? Are our citizens made better off if, for example, members of violent gangs, known criminals and terrorists, and people with communicable diseases are let into the country? Should people who hate us and the country be let in? As Thomas Sowell wrote:
If your answer is, yes, all such people should be allowed to freely cross our borders, then we can have that discussion. But if you draw the line somewhere, then we need a mechanism for enforcing that line. That implies that we need some way of preventing or discouraging people from freely crossing the border and some way to vet those who want to come in. Also, because resources are scarce and we can’t instantly vet everyone who wishes to enter, we need some way in which to “meter” the flow.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 27 2025 at 11:24am
Richard: You ask:
It depends who is “we.” Certainly not the farmer who wants laborers or the young couple who wants a nanny, etc.
I think you will find that your other (valid) questions are covered by the opinions I express in my post.
Mactoul
Mar 27 2025 at 9:16pm
If we can’t define we then the concept stranger is equally obscure for these terms are complementary.
Jose Pablo
Mar 27 2025 at 6:40pm
Are our citizens made better off if, for example, members of violent gangs, known criminals and terrorists,
Five percent of homicides in Texas (the only state that systematically records the immigration status of individuals in criminal convictions and a ‘border state’) were committed by undocumented immigrants. The homicide conviction rate for undocumented immigrants is roughly two-thirds of that for native-born Americans (who are way more dangerous).
Between 1975 and 2022, exactly zero Americans were killed in terrorist attacks carried out by illegal immigrants.
I wonder when the most adventurous, entrepreneurial, and courageous people on Earth became so fearful of unfounded fears
Richard Fulmer
Mar 29 2025 at 10:14am
So, you’re for open immigration?
Jose Pablo
Apr 1 2025 at 1:54pm
Yes.
It is good for the American economy. An America 1,000 million people strong is stronger than a 300 million people strong America
It allows the immigrants to “pursue their happiness”
It is consistent with the American traditions (and its Constitution)
It is consistent with Christian beliefs
It has a negligible impact on crime (which, in any case is a police issue)
It is just “fair” to people really in need.
Oneeyedman
Mar 27 2025 at 11:00am
What you are translating as stranger is the Hebrew word ger (גֵּר), which is typically understood to be a resident alien. A minimum condition of this status is submission to a set of laws. My understanding is typically excluded those who maintained allegiance to a foreign power (like a soldier) or a temporary visitor. It also excluded based on religion and ideology (like those who would not renounce idolatry). People who break American border laws and people who side in public protests with America’s enemies could plausibly be said to violate parallel rules. Or perhaps not, but textual analysis would need to go much deeper than projecting our modern perspective onto imperfect translations of ancient scripture, and without drawing on the relevant textual context.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 27 2025 at 11:15am
Oneeyeeman: You are right to point out that translation of ancient texts (it is also true with Greek and Latin) is tricky. But you are wrong when you write:
It is not “my” translation but the King James Bible’s translation as well as many if not most translations of the Bible, as you can see by clicking on the Leviticus link in my post. “Stranger” or “foreigner” seem to have been the standard translation for a while.
Finally, note that the current barbaric treatment of strangers also hits resident aliens. I also assume that this is what Jews were in Egypt.
Emily
Mar 27 2025 at 11:16am
Agreed. You can’t derive policies by grabbing a verse out of context. That context, in this case, includes a culture that’s communitarian and exercises a high degree of control over strangers and everyone else.
Both Christianity and rabbinical Judaism are ways of handling the fact that you can’t use the laws of the Torah to live in and govern a culture that’s no longer tribal — and I say this as a believer.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 27 2025 at 11:29am
Emily: Perhaps you are right. But this would mean that the whole Bible has nothing to say about the modern “Great Society” (to borrow the expression from Hayek) and probably about any non-tribal society since the 5th century BC.
Emily
Mar 27 2025 at 11:35am
It doesn’t mean it has *nothing* to say, it means there aren’t a lot of contexts (any, maybe) where you can take one line and derive the right answer to a policy. You can have a bigger conversation about values and rules and what something meant in the original context and how it’s been interpreted over the years since then.
steve
Mar 27 2025 at 12:11pm
I agree with the idea of not taking one verse or line of the Bible out of context to prove something you want to prove. Having been brought up in an evangelical cult I saw that done to prove that rock and roll was evil, you shouldn’t drink any alcohol, people of other races were inferior and a long list of other “sins”. However, in this case I think the context of the Bible supports this one verse. Just to cite a few examples read Matthew 7, 19 and 22. Try John 6…” “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” Matthew 19… “Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
If you want the Old Testament there are many, many verses that exhort the faithful to treat foreigners well like this from Leviticus 19…”“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
Without trying to write too much my observation is that way too many Christians are cultural Christians who are interested in belonging to a church or associating with people who claim to be Christians, but few actually want to practice the faith, including reading the parts of the Bible that disagree with their political tribal beliefs which seem to trump the Bible. I would add that in far too many churches I think they maintain their community and even grow by keeping people angry. By hating those whom they regard as engaging in the sins they especially hate, but somehow Jesus didnt bother to single out.
Steve
Mactoul
Mar 28 2025 at 2:10am
The Great Society is an illusion. The state is necessarily the moral authority. Otherwise, you have anarchy, with each individual his own moral authority, and thus so longer a society.
All modern Great societies are unviable, even in short run. The center doesn’t hold, even if authoritarians arise and try to stave off fragmentation.
Jose Pablo
Mar 28 2025 at 8:16pm
The state is necessarily the moral authority.
Then it is certainly a pity that a ‘State to rule them all’ does not exist—the ultimate moral authority over all other moral authorities.
Genghis Khan and Hitler came close to achieving it… what a pity they failed!
The “moral authority” of Caligula, Stalin, Mussolini, Tito, Franco, Pinochet, Putin, Erdogan, Trump (3 good friends) …
Certainly, the State has historically been the “moral” authority. No doubt.
nobody.really
Mar 27 2025 at 12:00pm
Not sure I see the problem here. The text Lemieux analyzes is this:
This says that you should love everyone as yourself, and identify with them, recalling your (or your anscenstors’) status as a stranger/foreigner. That’s a big challenge, no doubt–but that’s not the challenge people are talking about here.
The text adds that you should not discriminate against someone on the basis of their stranger/foreigner status. The text does not say to ignore transgressions. So if such a person violated the law, or joined in a disfavored protest, you should treat them in the same manner as a native who had violated the law or joined in a disfavored protest. Is that really such a big challenge?
Mactoul
Mar 28 2025 at 12:49am
Church has not interpreted the Dominical saying as prohibition of any discrimination between the citizens and the foreigners. Such a prohibition implies finis to any state short of the world state.
nobody.really
Mar 28 2025 at 2:35am
Fair enough; I read the text to prohibit discrimination against “the stranger who dwelleth with you,” not all strangers throughout the world. Thus, this text would not seem to prohibit the establishment of states encompassing less than the entire world.
But your remark raises another age-old Christian quandry: If I am to love my neighbor as myself, who qualifies as my neighbor? In response to this question, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. It appears Jesus meant to 1) praise people based on their loving conduct rather than their social status, and 2) direct people to extend love to others regardless of group (tribal) affiliation.
But affiliation differs from proximity. So I guess it’s possible to read the parable to limit the duty to show love only to people within phyisical proximity to yourself (as suggested by the word “neighbor”). Under this interpretaion, if you live in an affluent, gated community and rarely encounter a poor person, you might have little occasion to show love to the poor.
robc
Mar 27 2025 at 12:15pm
Except for the Orthodox and the Coptic and a dozen others I am forgetting.
robc
Mar 27 2025 at 12:39pm
https://youtu.be/uzuYZi749CM?si=lLJoANhaGgEztae1
A pretty good high level overview here.
Student
Mar 27 2025 at 1:40pm
IMO, a lot of Christian’s are CINO’s. We all are in many ways. We are all tainted by weaknesses of the flesh and such things.
But… The beauty of Christianity is we are measured by our actions and how we treat others. The standard which we use, will be used to measure us. This whisper Jesus name three times in a mirror and you get a get out of jail free card is almost heresy. You must say and do.
“For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”
The CINOs will not get away with it. It’s a warning to us all. Be careful how you treat others because how you treat them is how you will be treated.
“He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?39When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
TMC
Mar 27 2025 at 3:37pm
Per Friedman, they had no welfare system back then.
steve
Mar 27 2025 at 4:04pm
Per actual history, they mostly had large families so they mostly didnt need a welfare system. If they didnt have family they mostly just died. Remember that historically families often engaged in infanticide if they thought they coolant handle another kid. There was no such thing as medical care and you built your own homes. People didnt go to school.
Steve
TMC
Mar 27 2025 at 6:06pm
“Per Friedman” is referring to Milton Friedman’s observation that you can have open borders or a welfare system, not both.
Jon Murphy
Mar 27 2025 at 4:09pm
I always find it funny how fast some folks become staunch defenders of the welfare state as soon as immigration is mentioned.
Of course, such a stance is a red herring. Immigrants are not eligible for most welfare benefits and are a financial net gain regardless.
TMC
Mar 27 2025 at 5:58pm
I see no defense, much less staunch. Just an acknowledgement that it exists.
And it is no red herring. There are many programs immigrants do qualify for: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Google lists another 10.
Add to this the average immigrant family has 2 children. K-12 public school is expensive.
I’m actually for greater immigration, but they need to go through the vetting and be financially capable. Like the requirements my parents met.
nobody.really
Mar 28 2025 at 10:17am
Undocumented immigrants tend to be a net financial gain specifically regarding social safety net programs–or at least regarding Social Security. Undocumented immigrants typically apply for jobs using a real Social Security number–just not their own number. They and their employer then make payments into Social Security for benefits that the employee will never receive. That is, they help subsidize Social Security for all the other recipients.
nobody.really
Mar 27 2025 at 6:25pm
There’s more than one point of view on that.
Jose Pablo
Mar 27 2025 at 6:14pm
Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
It is always heartbreaking to witness the downfall of the finest into the abyss of egoism, envy, and nationalistic irrelevance
Craig
Mar 28 2025 at 11:14am
That’s a poem not an affirmative statement of immigration policy meant to bind future generations in perpetuity.
Jose Pablo
Mar 28 2025 at 6:55pm
That’s a poem
Well, American poetry seems to be much better than its prose. Presidential Orders don’t seem like poetry to me. Not a great poetry reader in His free time, I guess.
bind future generations in perpetuity.
Why not? What was the “expiration date” of this powerful symbol of America’s historical identity as a nation of immigrants?
Mactoul
Mar 27 2025 at 9:28pm
Strangers are doing very well in America. Two of the candidates in Republican primary were Hindus and the Democrat nominee was half-Hindu.
Engineering schools are crammed with the Chinese.
Actions of the present administration, however alarming they may seem, are still extraordinary mild compared with the rest of the world and compared to with the situation the actions are responding to.
Come September, there still be hundreds of thousands stranger students coming to join and hundreds of thousands of Indians coming to take tech jobs.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 10:22pm
Mactoul: Given the authoritarian clownery flowing down from the White House, these numbers are alas bound to decrease, perhaps dramatically. The number of tourists is already down.
Mactoul
Mar 28 2025 at 12:14am
The discussion is not helped by the fact that the liberal theories have trouble accommodating intuitive political concepts such as the political we, the neighbor/stranger, friend/enemy, insider/outsider dichotomies.
These terms are conspicuously absent in the writings of liberal writers because liberalism has an aversion to the political nature of man. Either each man is a neighbor to every other men or they are all strangers to each other.
In the first case, the logic tends to the world state (the progressive ideal) — the sole source of moral authority being the world state.
In the second case, the logic tends to anarchy–each man being the moral authority to himself.
However, in real world, the men are organized into particular morally authoritative, self-ruling units which are particular states.
This combination of particularity and moral authority– which is the state in essence–is missed utterly by liberal theories.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 10:54am
Mactoul: You write:
For the same reasons, essentially, that the moral authority of the slavemaster on his slaves is “missed utterly” by liberal theories.
Mactoul
Mar 29 2025 at 1:23am
The American state, though founded on best liberal principles, acts exactly in the same way as any other state. And has always acted so.
The liberal theorists have been attempting to derive the actual powers of state starting from sovereign individual but these attempts have not been entirely to the satisfaction of the liberal theorists themselves.
Are Buchanan et al devising justifications for slavery too?
Monte
Mar 28 2025 at 1:18am
Conversely (if you want to Bible thump):
Exodus 23:32-33: Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.
Numbers 33:55: But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you live.
Ezra 9:1-2: After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, ‘The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites.
Back to the future, we’re commanded to love our neighbors, not make them feel loved. This, by Doug Ponder of Sola Ecclesia (with which I concur):
Personal beliefs aside, I, too, agree with Hayek and Buchanan’s views towards immigration, who also speak to the importance of national identity and social cohesion. I’m opposed to the forced deportation of law-abiding, hard-working, undocumented immigrants. But I have no sympathy for and fully support the deportation of gang members, criminals, or non-citizens who are granted the privilege to come here and attend our universities and incite or participate in violent, anti-semitic, anti-American protests.
steve
Mar 28 2025 at 10:43am
The large majority of the immigrants we are talking about are practicing Catholics, the same faith as most Americans. It is not the case that their religious practices are “detestable”. Dont see those verses especially applicable.
I totally agree that the US has the right to deport people, but what I think we are talking about is the cruelty we are seeing. Arresting a permanent resident on shaky grounds. Well, OK that can be debated. But the guy has an 8 month pregnant wife and you disappear him for a couple of days so she doesnt know where he is then it turns out they have taken him 1000 miles away. What’s the purpose other than cruelty. They have tones of jails a lot closer. This is just one of many incidents where people have been jailed for arbitrary lengths for minimal cause. Or, what about eliminating records so that children separated from parents cant be rejoined. Denying due process so that we are jailing people for having tattoos. The list is long.
Steve
Monte
Mar 28 2025 at 11:39am
They’re applicable in the sense of cultural differences, which was my point. OT scripture is primarily taken to be metaphorical in terms of modern Christianity.
He bears full responsibility for his circumstances. Seems to me he gave very little thought to the prospect that he could be arrested and deported, leaving his pregnant wife in the lurch. Mixed up priorities lead to messed up lives.
Yes, records have been mishandled and there are systemic failures that result in these unfortunate incidents, but there is zero evidence that this is a deliberate policy of the government. And individuals who are arrested and deported for bearing MS-13 tattoos on their backs or foreheads is not a something I’m personally going to lose sleep over.
steve
Mar 28 2025 at 5:40pm
“He bears full responsibility for his circumstances.”
So if you do something a government official doesnt like they are entitled to do whatever they want to you and you deserve it? He has not been accused of committing a crime. Also to be clear, you think anyone the government arrests should be allowed to make them disappear for a couple of days? Why should my tax dollars be spent to fly people thousands of miles away when there are jails closer when the only apparent motive is to be cruel to the person arrested and their family?
Steve
Monte
Mar 28 2025 at 7:29pm
His case is being reviewed by a federal judge and a decision is expected to be rendered soon. Whether or not we deem these charges as warranting deportation (which I do) is a matter of opinion.
I tend to view his circumstances as I would mine if I were a green card holder attending an Ivy League university in a foreign country. If I organized protests that resulted in vandalism, assault, intimidation, and general chaos, I’m certain that I’d be arrested and/or deported for such conduct and should be. To me, Khalil’s lack of respect for our culture and his indifference to this privilege is stunning. I can’t understand why people defend this sort of behavior here when it’s not tolerated virtually anywhere else in the world.
nobody.really
Apr 1 2025 at 1:20pm
A Maryland man who was in the United States legally was deported to El Salvador and imprisoned there because of an “administrative error,” Trump administration officials said in a court filing on Monday, adding that American courts lacked the jurisdiction to have him released.
* * *
Abrego Garcia appealed the claims that he was a danger to the community and filed a petition for asylum. He was granted “withholding from removal” status in October 2019 by an immigration judge, which protected him from being deported to El Salvador. That status was active — and ICE agents were aware of it — when Mr. Abrego Garcia was placed on a deportation flight last month, according to court documents.
In a post on X, Vice President JD Vance defended the deportation, claiming Mr. Abrego Garcia was “a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here.”
Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife and relatives filed their civil suit against the Trump administration on his behalf last month, asking the U.S. government to halt its payments to El Salvador for holding deportees until Mr. Abrego Garcia was returned.
In Monday’s court filing, administration officials balked at that request, claiming the U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction to order such actions and saying Mr. Abrego Garcia’s plight should not stand in the way of the Trump administration’s greater foreign policy goals.
The plaintiffs’ “request would harm the public interest by preventing the executive from implementing a unified course of conduct for the United States’ foreign affairs,” three Justice Department and immigration officials wrote in the filing. “They have made no showing that the removal of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was something other than an administrative error.”
Golly, deporting people without due process of law–no one could have guessed that this might result in injustice, right? Well, perhaps no one who had refrained from reading a newspaper over the past several centures.
And now the poor Trump Administration–the people who are always happy to impose tariffs, cut off funding, or even threaten annexation to get what they want–claim that they are simply helpless to get El Salvador to return this prisoner.
Here we see the problem with cutting down the forest of due process laws in an effort to pursue some perceived greater evil. The truth is that ANY of us might be imprisoned, deported, or executed because ANY of us might be accused of being a part of some organization the Trump Administration disfavors–and without due process of law, accusation is the same as proof.
And sure–people can claim that when they knowingly violated people’s due process rights, they didn’t specifically intend the adverse consequences that due process is designed to avoid. Just like people can shoot into a crowd, and claim innocence ‘cuz you can’t prove that they intentionally hurt anyone in specific. Some people find such claims justified–but I doubt most judges do.
Monte
Apr 2 2025 at 4:52pm
Aren’t you a little late to this party?
Administration officials are claiming the mistake primarily consists of the fact that his deportation was simply re-prioritized. What is known is that Mr. Garcia was here illegally and he was an MS-13 gang member involved in human trafficking. That’s enough to warrant deportation, IMO, so pardon me if I don’t shed too many tears over his lack of due process.
Your claim that this could happen to any anyone is frivolous. U.S. citizens are protected by constitutional rights that non-citizens aren’t entitled to when it comes to deportation – a key distinction between how U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants or foreign nationals treated under U.S. law.
nobody.really
Apr 2 2025 at 5:59pm
And you are entilted to your own opinion. But what gives your opinion the force of law? Because an immigration judge reached the opposite opinion–and that opinion DOES have the force of law.
And the Constitution may indeed protect certain rights. But if the administration feels free to ignore the courts, what difference would that make?
Bottom line: You LIKE this result. And because you like the result, you’re willing to overlook nicities like due process. I (and Thomas More) do not share that point of view. If we really need to deport this person, then it should be possible to get a judge to issue such a ruling. The fact that the administration is unwilling to seek judicial authorization indicates that they know that they don’t have a case.
And if at any time the administration concludes that it would like the result of deporting you–well, I would wish that you receive the benefit of due process of law. Be careful about what YOU wish for.
Monte
Apr 3 2025 at 1:40am
The Trump administration doesn’t need judicial authorization to deport individuals who are in the country illegally. The authority to enforce immigration laws, including deportations, is rooted in the Constitution and federal law. Trump is fulfilling a campaign promise to those who elected him to office. There’s little doubt that the underlying motivation of these (mostly liberal) judges is to wage a resistance against the Trump agenda by allowing, in these particular cases, thugs to seek refuge under due process. If the net result of the these deportations is even one less assault, rape, robbery, murder, or some woman or child being trafficked, I’ll sleep just fine. But I wonder how those who cheer any judge who successfully prevents an illegal immigrant from being deported under due process and who is subsequently released on probation and commits another brutal crime sleep at night.
nobody.really
Apr 3 2025 at 2:44am
You mean, individuals such as yourself? ‘Cuz in the absence of due process, whoever has the guns gets to declare who is or isn’t in the country illegally. That’s not just true of Trump. During the Great Depression, the US engaged in a policy of “Mexican repatriation” under which 1.2 million people of Mexican descent—roughly half of whom were US citizens—were deported. So forgive me if I don’t give a lot of crededence to your “But no US citizens could be deported under the Constitution…!” claims. The Constitution is only as good as its enforcement.
Yup. But the authority to interpret the laws is in the judicial branch.
Trump promises all kinds of crazy stuff. He promised to lock up Hillary Clinton. He promised Mexico would pay for a wall along the southern border. He promised that he’d reduce grocery prices on Day One. He promised that the war in Ukraine would be over on Day One. The fact that Trump promises something has no bearing on whether it’s legal—and certainly not on whether it’s true.
The role of a judge is to give EVERYONE within her jurisdiction the refuge of due process. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the separation of powers.
If law enforcement has someone in custody and can demonstrate to a judge that the person should remain in custody, a judge can order the person held in custody. This happens all the time. It happens with US citizens. This whole matter is irrelevant to the issue of deportation.
Yeah, right.
Monte
Apr 3 2025 at 3:11pm
Give me a break. This isn’t Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia and Trump isn’t the evil despot you and others like pretend that he is. As polarizing and controversial as Trump may be, political opposition and legal challenges to his policies remain intact and the media and other branches of government will continue to hold him accountable. Regarding these nationwide injunctions on the question of due process, it’ll all play out on appeal. In the interim, if the illegal deportation of any innocent U.S. citizen takes place, you can say you told me so. But I’m willing to take bets that won’t happen. Are you?
Yes, a dark moment in our nation’s history, but this is highly unlikely under Trump. The unique set of circumstances under which this event took place were extraordinary, during which there was a perfect storm of fear, prejudice, and scapegoating. Our country’s political and legal landscape is fundamentally different today than it was back then.
But he’s certainly kept his promise on illegal immigration. Again, everything he’s done has been within the constitutional limits of executive authority. And I hate to break the news to you, but broken promises and lying by politicians is a multiple choice proposition, my friend.
Oh, I think I’m clear on the separation of powers. My concern is that the federal judiciary, by issuing these nation-wide injunctions, is upsetting that balance by overriding the executive branch’s authority to enforce laws, especially when the it’s intervening on policies that are clearly within the executive’s purview. This grants too much power to a single judge and undermines the executive’s constitutional role.
No it’s not. Practically speaking, this would overwhelm our detention centers and effectively handcuff the administration’s ability to carry out it’s immigration policy by delaying the disposition of potentially thousands, if not millions, of immigration cases. That’s too much letter and not enough spirit.
That’s a wrap for me, so I’ll give you the last word. I’m sure you’ll find a lot in my responses to disagree with, which just brings us to an impasse. Thanks for the discussion and looking forward to the next.
nobody.really
Apr 7 2025 at 11:18pm
Today all nine justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the Venezuelan migrants detained in the United States–yes, even those accused of being members of a violent gang–must receive advance notice and the opportunity to challenge their deportation before they could be removed to El Salvador. Ah, those mostly liberal judges and their obsession with due process….
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:05am
Monte: It’s not totally impossible I missed a rare slip of tongue, but I don’t remember Hayek or Buchanan using the emotional terms of “national identity” or even “social cohesion.” They seldom and very prudently use a less collectivist term such as “public interest.”
Monte
Mar 28 2025 at 11:15am
Fair point, Pierre. I was generalizing. Rather than using the terms “national identity” or “social cohesion,” a more accurate description of their views would be that both Hayek and Buchanan were concerned with how immigration interacts with individual freedom and the public interest in terms of the functioning of markets, government institutions, and social structures.
Jose Pablo
Mar 28 2025 at 1:22am
Christianity is, without a doubt, ecumenical. The belief that all men are sons of God, and therefore brothers, is a core tenet of this faith.
And the influence of Christian principles is evident in ‘America at its finest‘:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Somehow, along the way, these beautiful principles have been perverted to mean that only Americans are created more or less equal, and definitely superior to the criminals and terrorists supposedly overwhelming America’s borders and that non-Americans have no right to pursue their happiness if doing so requires crossing an imaginary line in the sand.
So yes, you are right. One can only wonder how Christians who support the current U.S. government’s war on immigrants reconcile their stance with their core beliefs. But one must also wonder how ‘Americans’ who support this war on immigrants reconcile their position with the very principles upon which this great nation was founded.
Mactoul
Mar 28 2025 at 2:02am
This war exists solely in your mind. America is still welcoming qualified technical workers with H1b visa. Indeed, Trump spent political capital on precisely this issue.
Vice-president himself has a Hindu wife and his sons have Hindu names. The Director of FBI is another Hindu.
Plenty of foreign students will arrive in September. What kind of war on foreigners is that?
Jose Pablo
Mar 28 2025 at 10:51am
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:
America’s sovereignty is under attack. Our southern border is overrun by cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries, and illicit narcotics that harm Americans, including America.
This invasion has caused widespread chaos and suffering in our country over the last 4 years. It has led to the horrific and inexcusable murders of many innocent American citizens, including women and children, at the hands of illegal aliens.
Of course, there is no war, Mactoul. It is only in my mind. And in the mind of some college administrators
https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/colleges-and-universities-caution-international-students.html
And in the minds of immigrants who don’t dare to send their kids to the school
https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-02-09/thousands-of-children-are-afraid-to-go-to-school-amid-deportation-threats-if-one-day-i-dont-come-to-pick-you-up-from-the-bus-dont-cry.html
Have you considered the possibility that it is your mind the one that is not recording events properly? After all, you have repeatedly denied that January 6th occurred. Is harassment of law firms across the US occurring?
What happened only in your mind was the stealing of the 2020 election.
Mactoul
Mar 29 2025 at 1:40am
I don’t know if I have ever expressed any opinion on J6.
All these lamentations and wailing and teeth gnashing merely for attempted deportation of a few student activist (who were active on behalf on one of the worst tyranny of the present age) and who had no business doing any activism.
All these warnings etc are merely left being hysteric as usual when thwarted in the slightest way.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:14am
Jose: Confirming your last paragraph, it is remarkable that the words “citizen” and “American” don’t figure once in the original 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Craig
Mar 28 2025 at 11:26am
Citizenship looks to me like an imposition.
Monte
Mar 28 2025 at 11:07am
By most accounts, the book is well written and researched and presents a compelling economic case for open borders, but it’s not without its critics. Mssrs. Collier and Borjas present an equally compelling case against several of the books conclusions “driven by assumptions that are made to simplify the conceptual model or the empirical analysis.” An excerpt from Lessons from Immigration Economics:
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:05pm
Monte: Thanks for that. Interesting. Strikingly, Borjas writes:
“Strikingly” because what he says applies to most, if not all (according to Anthony de Jasay), government interventions glorified as “policy.” As he writes:
James Buchanan responds to this challenge with a theory according to which any imposition on any individual can only be justified by his acceptance of a set of constitutional rules (on which he has a veto right) that allows such an imposition. It is a powerful theory that ultimately amounts to the claim that the only justification for coercion is the maintenance of a free society, founded on unanimous consent and thus on equal liberty.
In this perspective, what remains to be determined is what are the geographical limits of the free society. The answer is not obvious. But it would be difficult to find unanimous support for the barbaric treatment of immigrants, because they are the employees, employers, lovers, friends, etc., of citizens. Fortunately, a free society would feature unilateral free trade, which would relieve much pressure of immigration by the poor. We are far from that.
Roger McKinney
Mar 28 2025 at 11:11am
Good points! The Septuagint translates strangers as proselytizing. Given the Torah restrictions on religion, that seems like the better translation. The strangers were likely those who converted to Jehova worship.
The massive immigration of Germans in the late 19th century changed the culture dramatically. They were socialists and brought the new liberal theology denying the deity of Christ. They promoted the Prussian style of government and unions. They were largely responsible for “Progressivism.”
Europe’s social problems are largely due to massive Muslim immigration. Muslims intend to change the culture.
As a Christian Libertarian, I like open borders because every person has a Gid given right to relocate where he can provide for himself and his family best. But looking at the disaster caused by German immigrants to the US and Muslims to Europe, I’m conflicted.
nobody.really
Mar 28 2025 at 12:52pm
Benjamin Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind” (1751).
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:14pm
Nobody: Interesting and distressing. But then, he wrote this more than three decades before Adam Smith. And he did not know Hayek’s “Great Society.”
Craig
Mar 28 2025 at 11:21am
Why should I be a US citizen? Kinda stuck with it of course, but honestly, if I could choose a status, I’d select ‘nonresident alien’
Its a quip and unrealistic because of all kinds of issues pertaining to statelessness but it is a bit deeper than that. (I suppose in theory I could expatriate and renounce?)
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:20pm
Craig: Perhaps you are ready to read Lysander Spooner’s The Constitution of No Authority? Don’t try to sell this to the occupants White House (or any presidential palace). First try to teach them the concept of “individual” or “trade.”
David Seltzer
Mar 28 2025 at 5:01pm
Pierre: A person, a pagan, challenged the great Rabbi Hillel the Elder to teach the entire Torah while his listener stood on one foot. Rabbi Hillel said “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah , and the rest is commentary. Now go and study.” BTW. Some Talmudic scholars have asked whether that is in fact the entire Torah. Those commandments are between human and human. Where does the relationship between human and the Almighty fit in Rabbi Hillel’s example? As for “and the rest is commentary,” it seems the 42 comments on your post followed that suggestion.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:25pm
David: Do you think that the Rabbi’s phrase could be reformulated as the moral of reciprocity that Buchanan talks about in Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative (a good and easy-to-read little book, incidentally)?
David Seltzer
Mar 29 2025 at 10:28am
Pierre: Considering your insightful question: Rabbi Hillel said not to do that which you do not like instead of saying you should do that which you do like. My interpretation is, Hillel was not counseling the Golden Rule. Rather, he was saying, don’t mistreat others, just as we we do not want to be mistreated. IMO, therein is the reciprocity. To wit. I will not interfere with you as a free individual as I wouldn’t like you interfering with me as a free individual. I don’t have to love others as I love myself. Just don’t mistreat others. From my heretofore limited reading of Buchanan, it’s important individuals treat each other with reciprocal respect. Cause no harm as best as possible.
BTW. This reminds me of the questions and debates my Rabbi and teachers fired at me as I prepared for my Bar Mitzvah Haftarah.
nobody.really
Mar 28 2025 at 8:40pm
“‘If ye love [only] them that love you, what reward have ye?’ [A]nd in the logic of those words the whole social genius of the Christian religion is revealed.”
Reinhold Niebuhr
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:31pm
Nobody: A simple ethics of reciprocity (treat each individual as a free individual like you, as capable of free exchange as you are) is less demanding and more realistic than a moral of generalized and unconditional love. And there are many sorts of love. See my response to David above.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 28 2025 at 10:02pm
Imagine my shame when I learned that the very anti-immigrant DeSantis and Abbot are BOTH Catholics, not counting Cruz, Bannon, Vance, Rubio (I even saw Rubio in church once, but long before he went off the deep MAGA end).
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2025 at 11:39pm
Thomas: Perhaps God, if He exists, is not Catholic after all.
Mactoul
Mar 28 2025 at 11:43pm
Catholic Church has a very nuanced position on immigration and doesn’t espouse open borders.
Mactoul
Mar 29 2025 at 12:05am
Self-preservation is the first and highest duty of the State. And since the State both forms the mind of the individuals within it, and in turn the State is formed by the mind of the individuals, the discrimination between the citizens and strangers is if greatest importance.
The stranger worships different gods (cf Kipling’s poem The Stranger) — a poetic way of expressing the fact that his moral values and his ways of thought are different. He is irreducibly and dangerously different.
I highly recommend this poem as encapsulating the essential case against indiscriminate immigration.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 29 2025 at 11:08pm
Mactoul: Now, if you move from fairy tale to reality (“politics without romance,” wrote Buchanan), you are getting close to reality: “Self-preservation of its rulers is the first and highest duty of the State.” (De Jasay would speak of the “tenants” of the state to emphasize competitive authoritarianism in limited democratic states.)
Mactoul
Mar 30 2025 at 2:00am
Self-preservation of the State is quite orthogonal to self-preservation of particular rulers.
State means essentially the nexus of laws, mores of people–the Way of a people. The State is directed to realize the Way.
Mosca divided people into a ruling element , those having a strong drive to power, dominance and ambition, and the majority ruled element, who are deficient in these drives and is uninterested in public affairs.
How can there be political equality between such unequal elements?
Mactoul
Mar 30 2025 at 1:43am
Whose consent? Of all individuals present in a particular territory?
What if some individuals present do not wish to consent? Are they supposed to move out? Or suffer a second-class status?
And what is meaning of stranger in this picture?
Walt
Mar 30 2025 at 9:59pm
And sometimes doing the Christian thing can monumentally backfire:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14444165/Left-wing-theatre-managers-invited-200-migrants-free-abandon-building-face-bankruptcy-refugees-refuse-leave-three-months-spark-wave-sex-related-violence.html
Or estrange the citizens
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/06/03/a-city-without-citizens/
Comments are closed.