Welcoming Bible's "stranger" may not include illegal aliens

Farnaz,

"...maybe it is Christianity that needs to be kept out, deported, whatever."

All this emigration from down South must be driving you nuts since they're mostly your hated Catholics. I know that your hatred is consuming, but every day spent hating is another day lost.

Still, sometimes I think you have a brain, though used seldom and poorly, so I suspect you are capable of a better life. Take stock and find a better way before you wake up one day and find you have lost too much.

Posted by: 5amefa91 |
-----------------------------
5amfa91 aka Moderate aka Screwtape (LOL):

Whether or not you think (?) I have a brain is irrelevant as I am convinced you have none. I think all Mexicans should return to the country which was stolen from them. In this, I differ radically, from most Catholics, though not from Vatican Nation. The latter worries me.

Farnaz,

"...maybe it is Christianity that needs to be kept out, deported, whatever."

All this emigration from down South must be driving you nuts since they're mostly your hated Catholics. I know that your hatred is consuming, but every day spent hating is another day lost.

Still, sometimes I think you have a brain, though used seldom and poorly, so I suspect you are capable of a better life. Take stock and find a better way before you wake up one day and find you have lost too much.

I wonder at the American Christian theocracy.
It claims hegemony over that which it calls the Bible, and yet shoots the stranger as he attempts to cross the border.

I wonder if the Christians will ever be able to read Tanakh. The model is a good one. Let them come and dwell among us. Allow them to obey our laws. Allow them the right to eat and to work and to live.

If this isn't consistent with Christianity, then maybe it is Christianity that needs to be kept out, deported, whatever.

It is good to know that at least someone is actually thinking about the meaning of the Biblical passages on immigration. I do think he has undersold the idea of an immigrant’s loyalty to his new nation.

Keep in mind that Israel was a strict Theocracy with a complicated set of rules and loyalty to one God. The nation was expected to follow the guidelines, with harsh consequences for disobedience. It goes without saying that foreigners were required to follow the same laws with the same consequences, and swear loyalty to the king. While I’m sure people brought in various forms of culture, the Israelites were forbidden to mix with foreigners or intermarry. This implies the fact they were allowed to dilute the important values they had. I’m sure there was much demanded of foreigners living in Israel; much more than we would ever demand of current immigrants.

I also think it would be beneficial to point out that no foreigner would ever be allow to raise the flag of Edom, Babylon, Egypt, or any other country other than their new adopted one. They would be lucky to escape with their lives and would probably be charged with treason. There would be no sympathy for anyone showing loyalty to other countries and punishment would be swift and severe.

Keep in mind that one way to “conquer” land in that day was to simply settle in it. Many territories were disputed and boundaries weren’t clear and they could be taken over by foreigners simply by overwhelming the natives. That is why no country in this day would allow foreigners who weren’t clearly loyal to the kingdom. I’m actually not sure any country has ever had this type of policy and been successful.

I really find our current immigration policy one of the biggest anomalies in history. We ignore foreigners flooding into our country and have no real clue of their loyalties or their motives. Has any country in history or in the present ever been successful with such a ludicrous policy? Has any country even had this type of policy? I don’t think it has every happened and that’s why I think we’re in trouble if it doesn’t change.

Feels like a largely indefensible argument that ultimately arrives with a moral result. Accept and respect migrants who need to accept and respect their new neighbors.

A good post, for the most part and accurate.

The problem is that, as you say, the ancient Israelites did not have an immigration policy. Once the "stranger," came, therefore, s/he was FULLY ABLE to follow and abide by the laws. That is not the case in the United States today. Immigrants who enter illegally must use false identities, work off the books if they can get jobs, etc.

Would that we would adhere to the Tanakh model, which is good and is supported elsewhere. Let us follow it fully, ALLOWING those who come to us to abide by our laws and live with us in peace. WE would be the better for it.

Welcome the stranger who dwells among you.

Shame on Hirschfield! He should know that there were no immigration forms or quotas in biblical Israel. The biblical "stranger" was simply a migrant, and precisely analogous to the present-day undocumented immigrant in America. He is commanded to love these people as himself, and he sins by analyzing their eligibility for such love.

His sin is grievous. The current regime of U.S. immigration laws was passed in 1924 to KEEP JEWS OUT among other ethnic groups, and was used for that purpose on multiple occasions during the Holocaust. These national quotas have much blood on their hands, and much of that blood is Jewish blood. It is a shame that a Jew would write in defense of the notion that such laws can be applied to nullify our commandment to love the stranger. The strangers Hirschfield fails to love are none other than the Jews, dead in the Holocaust, whom his precise arguments were used to keep out of this country and away from asylum. May they haunt him and every Jew who dishonors our martyrs in this grievously sinful way.

To AREYOUSAYING:
Has it occurred to you that the rabbi is making use of more Scripture than just TWO VERSES? Apparently not.
Ancient Israel was a "faith community." They were united primarily by religion and therefore were not the least bit open-minded about religion. Just for starters, anybody in ancient Israel who worshipped any god other than the God of Israel was to be killed.

"Liberals, however, are just as wrong when insisting that biblical hospitality knows no bounds and asks no questions - that it was an unqualified right with no attached obligations. In fact, like all ancient sanctuaries, there were many rules to be followed and norms to be upheld. In other words, entry was open to all, and once in they were treated as equals, but demands were made and failing to meet those demands was grounds for exclusion from the community."

With all due respect, Rabbi, this is where your argument falls apart.

Illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have the idyllic opportunity you describe -- to be welcomed and permitted to stay if they follow the host's rules. They are considered criminals and trespassers from the moment they cross the border. They don't have a chance to demonstrate their willingness to "abide by the laws of the community" into which they have come because they can't actually become part of that community without risking immediate deportation.

It's a real catch-22, and your analogy is not helpful in the least. In fact, I'm kind of shocked that you would write something that flies in the face of the obvious.

Brad,

While you consult your "scriptures", I'll have a look at my Magic 8-Ball...

Hmmm... "Reply hazy, try again".

I'll have to get back to you on this.

What scriptures are you quoting when you say, "What seems clear from scripture (that itself a complex claim) is that loose borders or barriers to entry are only reasonable if accompanied by quite strict rules about participation once having arrived in the new community."?

I don't find this in Leviticus 19:33-34 but, then again, I haven't received the gift from God to interpret the scriptures for my own convenience or political agendas as some others apparently have.