excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,166
- 34,447
- 2,290
Truly, Biden is implementing Cloward-Piven. He [Biden] is destroying our civil society and doing so willingly and purposely.
[inden]...
Hamilton went on to predict that the long-term consequence of uncontrolled immigration would be “a numerous body of men who will weaken the strength of the nation.” He concluded: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately … would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
Five hundred years before Hamilton, Thomas Aquinas argued essentially the same thing. In his seminal book, “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas asserted that the Jews of the Old Testament did not admit all visitors equally. In fact, some “sojourners” were not admitted at all due to their hostility toward the nation of Israel. After pointing out the obvious that enemies, such as the Amalekites, were never to be granted entrance, Aquinas outlined three distinct and separate categories of immigrants specifically acknowledged by the Jewish people.
First were “the foreigners who passed through the land as travelers.” These were visitors such as modern-day tourists or even someone who was traveling from point A to point B and needed to cross Israel’s borders to do so.
Second were those who “came to dwell in [the land] as newcomers.” This category was akin to resident aliens, such as those with a green card living in the country legally but yet without the full benefits of citizenship.
The third category was those who wished “to be admitted entirely [into the] fellowship and mode of worship” of God’s chosen nation and people. Even here, however, the response to those who wanted to integrate fully into the life and culture of Israel came with certain and clear requirements. Aquinas observed: “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”
Aquinas knew his Bible, and he was a student of history. He understood that if all foreigners were allowed to meddle in the affairs of Israel (or any other nation, for that matter), the nation would cease to be. In other words, admitting people into a culture who have not proved they have that culture’s common good firmly at heart will inevitably result in harm to that country and its people.
Aquinas scholar Thomas D. Williams put it well: “Aquinas was clearly saying that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs, and culture was necessary for full citizenship. It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own. Those who know their country’s history and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future. It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.”
Hamilton went on to predict that the long-term consequence of uncontrolled immigration would be “a numerous body of men who will weaken the strength of the nation.” He concluded: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately … would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
Five hundred years before Hamilton, Thomas Aquinas argued essentially the same thing. In his seminal book, “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas asserted that the Jews of the Old Testament did not admit all visitors equally. In fact, some “sojourners” were not admitted at all due to their hostility toward the nation of Israel. After pointing out the obvious that enemies, such as the Amalekites, were never to be granted entrance, Aquinas outlined three distinct and separate categories of immigrants specifically acknowledged by the Jewish people.
First were “the foreigners who passed through the land as travelers.” These were visitors such as modern-day tourists or even someone who was traveling from point A to point B and needed to cross Israel’s borders to do so.
Second were those who “came to dwell in [the land] as newcomers.” This category was akin to resident aliens, such as those with a green card living in the country legally but yet without the full benefits of citizenship.
The third category was those who wished “to be admitted entirely [into the] fellowship and mode of worship” of God’s chosen nation and people. Even here, however, the response to those who wanted to integrate fully into the life and culture of Israel came with certain and clear requirements. Aquinas observed: “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”
Aquinas knew his Bible, and he was a student of history. He understood that if all foreigners were allowed to meddle in the affairs of Israel (or any other nation, for that matter), the nation would cease to be. In other words, admitting people into a culture who have not proved they have that culture’s common good firmly at heart will inevitably result in harm to that country and its people.
Aquinas scholar Thomas D. Williams put it well: “Aquinas was clearly saying that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs, and culture was necessary for full citizenship. It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own. Those who know their country’s history and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future. It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.”
Aquinas (as well as essentially every competent scholar before and after him) knew the Bible doesn’t advocate open borders and indiscriminate immigration. He understood there is a huge difference between a welcomed visitor and an illegal invader.
Today, the left loves to cite Leviticus 19:33-34. “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself …”
Yes, it is true that God said the “stranger” who complied with the rules and expectations was not to be oppressed, but it is equally clear that the person who ignored Israel’s laws warranted no such favor.
Nowhere in the Bible are the privileges, protections and services of full citizenship extended to anyone but legal immigrants. Offering refuge to those who are, by definition, illegal is neither following the letter nor spirit of the law.
President Biden’s open-border policy is both unbiblical and historically stupid.[/indent]
www.washingtontimes.com
Aquinas (as well as essentially every competent scholar before and after him) knew the Bible doesn’t advocate open borders and indiscriminate immigration. He understood there is a huge difference between a welcomed visitor and an illegal invader.
Today, the left loves to cite Leviticus 19:33-34. “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself …”
Yes, it is true that God said the “stranger” who complied with the rules and expectations was not to be oppressed, but it is equally clear that the person who ignored Israel’s laws warranted no such favor.
Nowhere in the Bible are the privileges, protections and services of full citizenship extended to anyone but legal immigrants. Offering refuge to those who are, by definition, illegal is neither following the letter nor spirit of the law.
President Biden’s open-border policy is both unbiblical and historically stupid.
[inden]...
Hamilton went on to predict that the long-term consequence of uncontrolled immigration would be “a numerous body of men who will weaken the strength of the nation.” He concluded: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately … would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
Five hundred years before Hamilton, Thomas Aquinas argued essentially the same thing. In his seminal book, “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas asserted that the Jews of the Old Testament did not admit all visitors equally. In fact, some “sojourners” were not admitted at all due to their hostility toward the nation of Israel. After pointing out the obvious that enemies, such as the Amalekites, were never to be granted entrance, Aquinas outlined three distinct and separate categories of immigrants specifically acknowledged by the Jewish people.
First were “the foreigners who passed through the land as travelers.” These were visitors such as modern-day tourists or even someone who was traveling from point A to point B and needed to cross Israel’s borders to do so.
Second were those who “came to dwell in [the land] as newcomers.” This category was akin to resident aliens, such as those with a green card living in the country legally but yet without the full benefits of citizenship.
The third category was those who wished “to be admitted entirely [into the] fellowship and mode of worship” of God’s chosen nation and people. Even here, however, the response to those who wanted to integrate fully into the life and culture of Israel came with certain and clear requirements. Aquinas observed: “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”
Aquinas knew his Bible, and he was a student of history. He understood that if all foreigners were allowed to meddle in the affairs of Israel (or any other nation, for that matter), the nation would cease to be. In other words, admitting people into a culture who have not proved they have that culture’s common good firmly at heart will inevitably result in harm to that country and its people.
Aquinas scholar Thomas D. Williams put it well: “Aquinas was clearly saying that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs, and culture was necessary for full citizenship. It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own. Those who know their country’s history and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future. It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.”
Hamilton went on to predict that the long-term consequence of uncontrolled immigration would be “a numerous body of men who will weaken the strength of the nation.” He concluded: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately … would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
Five hundred years before Hamilton, Thomas Aquinas argued essentially the same thing. In his seminal book, “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas asserted that the Jews of the Old Testament did not admit all visitors equally. In fact, some “sojourners” were not admitted at all due to their hostility toward the nation of Israel. After pointing out the obvious that enemies, such as the Amalekites, were never to be granted entrance, Aquinas outlined three distinct and separate categories of immigrants specifically acknowledged by the Jewish people.
First were “the foreigners who passed through the land as travelers.” These were visitors such as modern-day tourists or even someone who was traveling from point A to point B and needed to cross Israel’s borders to do so.
Second were those who “came to dwell in [the land] as newcomers.” This category was akin to resident aliens, such as those with a green card living in the country legally but yet without the full benefits of citizenship.
The third category was those who wished “to be admitted entirely [into the] fellowship and mode of worship” of God’s chosen nation and people. Even here, however, the response to those who wanted to integrate fully into the life and culture of Israel came with certain and clear requirements. Aquinas observed: “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”
Aquinas knew his Bible, and he was a student of history. He understood that if all foreigners were allowed to meddle in the affairs of Israel (or any other nation, for that matter), the nation would cease to be. In other words, admitting people into a culture who have not proved they have that culture’s common good firmly at heart will inevitably result in harm to that country and its people.
Aquinas scholar Thomas D. Williams put it well: “Aquinas was clearly saying that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs, and culture was necessary for full citizenship. It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own. Those who know their country’s history and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future. It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.”
Aquinas (as well as essentially every competent scholar before and after him) knew the Bible doesn’t advocate open borders and indiscriminate immigration. He understood there is a huge difference between a welcomed visitor and an illegal invader.
Today, the left loves to cite Leviticus 19:33-34. “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself …”
Yes, it is true that God said the “stranger” who complied with the rules and expectations was not to be oppressed, but it is equally clear that the person who ignored Israel’s laws warranted no such favor.
Nowhere in the Bible are the privileges, protections and services of full citizenship extended to anyone but legal immigrants. Offering refuge to those who are, by definition, illegal is neither following the letter nor spirit of the law.
President Biden’s open-border policy is both unbiblical and historically stupid.[/indent]
Biden’s open-border policy is unbiblical, historically stupid
Ronald Reagan once said, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Over three decades later, Donald Trump added: “A nation without borders is no nation at all.”
www.washingtontimes.com
Aquinas (as well as essentially every competent scholar before and after him) knew the Bible doesn’t advocate open borders and indiscriminate immigration. He understood there is a huge difference between a welcomed visitor and an illegal invader.
Today, the left loves to cite Leviticus 19:33-34. “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself …”
Yes, it is true that God said the “stranger” who complied with the rules and expectations was not to be oppressed, but it is equally clear that the person who ignored Israel’s laws warranted no such favor.
Nowhere in the Bible are the privileges, protections and services of full citizenship extended to anyone but legal immigrants. Offering refuge to those who are, by definition, illegal is neither following the letter nor spirit of the law.
President Biden’s open-border policy is both unbiblical and historically stupid.
