Religious Leaders Sue Trump Over Immigration…Violating Their Own Religious Doctrine!

Seventy-seven religious organizations have sued the Trump administration, alleging that ICE raids at homes of devotion violate federal laws protecting religious freedom. This class of 27 is composed of various events and organizations, each representing dozens or even hundreds of religious organizations, including the General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church, the New York State Council of Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Wisconsin Council of Churches, and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. &nbsp,

They base their entire fit on the idea that the Torah welcomes the person, which is a fundamental tenet of their faiths. The Torah says,” The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens, you shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” as correctly stated in the opening two paragraphs of the suit ( Lev. 19: 34). They are completely right that our text contains the majority of its repeated teaching.

Which is why they are completely wrong about the Trump administration’s immigration laws being in opposition to the religion.

The actions of the immigrant and the actions of the natural-born citizen is equated by a simple reading of the lyric. &nbsp, Refugees are to be treated the same. This implies that if he commits a crime, he will get punished the same way a person who was born into the law may be punished for legal behavior. They are to be treated the same … NOT treated selectively. It is ideal for the authorities to arrest a natural-born murderer who is worshiping in a church. In the same way, constitutional authorities are required to detain any improper humanoid who practices repression in a church.

The words that they are basing their debate upon the range that says that outsiders who reside among us, i. electronic. immigrants, are to” get to you as one of your people”, and they should be treated that way. &nbsp, Like healthy born people, they are to have opportunities for advancement, and equally, they are to have certain tasks.  Responsibilities that are enumerated in depth in the Talmud and commentary on the text dating back 2000 years.

The” Right of Settlement” ( chezkat hayishuv ) is an ancient understanding of how an immigrant must behave in a new country that has been refined and elaborated over the years. It is based on how the old Jews felt when they were dispersed throughout the world as a result of the death of the Temple. The old Jews wanted to get accepted in their new societies, and they developed methods to facilitate that connectivity. All newcomers who attempted to settle in a new country were required to follow these rules. This idea details the immigrant’s right to reside in a specific location, as its name suggests. And with those right come tasks. One of the immigrant’s main duties is to pay taxes ( Bava Batra 21b ) and contribute to the new location’s economic expansion. &nbsp, They are not to be an economic hardship on the area, but an advantage. Additionally, they are prohibited from settling in the new town if their immigration causes them to lose jobs ( ibid. ). There is an exception to this prohibition, which Rabbi Mordecai ben Hillel codified in the 13th era: when a potential immigrant is seeking prison if there is a clear and present threat to the immigrant in his or her hometown. &nbsp, Since this lawsuit against the Trump administration is based on religious text, perhaps the words of Jeremiah are appropriate: &nbsp” ,Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile … because if it prospers, you too will prosper. It is the immigrant’s responsibility to support his fresh country’s prosperity rather than bear price.

Every citizen of every country must abide by the laws of the land, and there is a second-class principle for immigrants that dates back more than 2000 years:” The law of the land is the law” ( dina d’malchuta dina ). &nbsp, Whether the refugee believes the law is really or no, as long as it is consistent, it must be abided by. &nbsp, By all people, and by every expatriate. If the would-be refugee does not like the laws of the land, the answer is easy: &nbsp, they simply don’t travel, and may both go somewhere else or remain in their native land.

&nbsp, When it comes to illegitimate refugees, the religious law is even more evident. &nbsp, Afterwards, for over 2000 years there has been a simple rule that a” sin should not be rewarded by legislation for his transgression. No jury will assist a man who found his cause of action on an immoral or illegal work because” this process is the old edition of the jurisprudence doctrine of” ex turpi causa, as Lord Mansfield put it in 1775. ” In yesterday’s relevance, this idea manifests as a restriction of amnesty for illegal creatures as they should not be rewarded for their crimes. Although there is a case to be made that finally they may have a way to citizenship, though a slower route than those who immigrate legally and are contributing to the economic benefit of the country and complying with the law.

&nbsp, American law is clear and straightforward about what is illegitimate than legal emigration. The Trump presidency has a right to capture illegal alien crooks wherever they are, including churches of adoration, regardless of whether their claims are based on ex turpi cause or any of the ancient religious practices of thousands of years.

Why do these religious institutions base their complaint on the philosophy that is so crystal clear, even in the very poetry that the lawsuit quotes?

&nbsp, There is an old account that a priest went to a settlement, and saw a lot of projectiles in the wolf’s eye of many goals. &nbsp, He was told that the great archer was a nine-year-old boy. &nbsp, When he asked the boy how he got to be such a great archer, the boy replied”, It’s easy. I shoot the arrow, and then I draw the target around it.”

These religious organizations are engaging in this behavior. They use biblical text to refute the justification of their position, and they believe that illegal aliens deserve amnesty. It is the same procedure that these same leftists employ in debates about gender issues, abortion, and pardoning terrorists for their evil deeds. They use the religious law to defend their beliefs even when it is blatantly contrary to the theology because they have their own beliefs.

&nbsp, Should immigrants be welcomed in America from a theological standpoint? &nbsp, Absolutely. &nbsp, But they must abide by our laws and bring economic advantage to the nation, not break the law and/or deplete the nation’s resources.

These religious institutions need to become more honest so that they stop serving their own political beliefs, and instead serve their congregants, faith traditions, and God.

Source credit