If we were a righteous people, what would we have to fear of immigrants among us?
43 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
~ Dt 28:43-44
The above passage is in a list of curses that would come upon ancient Israel in a whirlwind of consequences that would come upon them for disobedience. Should we fear the immigrants among us? Should we fear allowing immigrants into our country?
There is another side. Just as the above passage is very often taken out of context to induce fear, there is another passage that is very often taken out of context in a hypocritical pretense of righteousness:
33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34 But the stranger that 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: I am the Lord your God.
~ Lev 19:33-34
So, the answer is in order to be righteous, we should take in foreign refugees? Is that the answer?
Again, it is the wrong question. Without a doubt, a righteous people would lend a hand to those in need. Without a doubt, a righteous people would not have to fear, for God would protect them. However, as is normal in this convoluted world, we have gotten our priorities upside down.
Manipulation and Bias
Our so-called “news media” is complicit with certain groups in skewing the news in such a way so that we cannot let the facts get in the way of ideology. However, there is also an anti-news group that stands in opposition to the mainstream news, and it is just as biased. The fact that more people do not recognize this is astounding to me, for it only takes a few moments of thought to figure it out.
Both sides of the “immigration debate”, which in reality has become another talking point to argue over without any sensible solutions forthcoming, have conveniently glossed over the same thing stemming from the recent Paris attacks. That alone should point out that the so-called “news” is more about opinion and ideology than in delivering facts and informing the public. It has become a mirror of the political divide in this country rather than being a tool to keep both sides honest.
The debate about Syrian refugees pretty much centered upon a couple of facts, but only one is really being discussed. The debate has centered a lot upon Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the so-called “ring leader”, “architect” or even “mastermind” of the attacks, and how he migrated freely between the EU and Greece, the same route that most Syrian refugees will take. This “proves” in the minds of some that it is an unsecured route with many unvetted people pouring into Europe.
However, there was another much lesser reported story about one of the attackers being killed and having a Syrian passport nearby. It is usually glossed over and folded into the fact that Abaaoud was able to travel freely amongst refugees, and it is used as a minor “proof” that we have something to fear.
Well, it certainly is a fact that a passport was found, but is it a fact that we have something to fear? What is odd about all of this is that someone who is doing something illegal would take care to have identification on him while doing it. Don’t criminals normally try to mask their identities in order to fool law enforcement agents? Even if he were caught, he could perhaps lie about his identity, escape from authorities and evade detection because no one knows his true identity. A long shot, certainly, but in the very least, a criminal generally does not try to make things easier for law enforcement.
What if the passport were not even genuine? Why is no one asking that question? Passports can be, and sometimes are, forged, after all.
Even if it were genuine, why carry it at all unless there was a message to convey?
Could it be that fearing to take in Syrian refugees is exactly what Daesh/IS/ISIS/ISIL wants?
Furthermore, how much more to stir up hatred and controversy than to dampen our national resolve to help out others? The ultimate terrorist, Satan, would be well pleased to continue to afflict the poor and needy of this world.
Liberal Hypocrisy
Of course, even those who claim to want to help and let in the refugees are not without their own hypocrisy.
They decry the idea that a “religious litmus test” be given in order to allow immigrants. Denying Muslims is against our national “values”, they claim.
Really?
If you are Syrian and a Christian, this administration does not consider you a refugee. Period.
Now, how hypocritical is that?
It is just another sign that our nation is not righteous after all! The question we ask, “What would a righteous nation do?” assumes that we are a righteous nation!
Allowing refugees in will not make us a righteous nation. Protecting our own will not make us a righteous nation. We are far removed from any notion of righteousness in God’s eyes.
Who Should We Fear?
We fear terrorists. We fear refugees. We fear all sorts of things, and this was in the list of curses that God said would come upon a disobedient Israel.
14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;
…
16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror…
~ Lev 26:14,16a
So, are all these curses put there because that is what we should fear? In a very short-sighted view, human beings often look at and deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.
No, there is only One we should fear: God.
24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.
~ Dt 6:24
There are two types of fear: A selfish fear that wants to avoid consequences, and a fear that puts things in proper perspective. God is not wanting us quaking in our boots, unless of course we are wicked and disregard Him altogether, but He wants us to fear being beyond the realm of where He can bless us!
The choice is easy enough: Fear God and reverence Him for Who He is, and thus obey Him, or fear the consequences of disobedience.
If we were a truly righteous nation, we would choose the first. That is the only way we can become righteous. Anything else is self-righteousness, and as long as we hypocritically proclaim ourselves righteous without the fruits thereof, asking which is the right road to take is meaningless.