The Syrian Refugee Crisis and the Biblical Morality of Border Enforcement (Part 3)

Our Highly Charged Political Environment

Americans are talking about immigration! The recent terrorist attack in Paris is largely believed to have been instigated by at least some unvetted Syrian War refugees that had crossed the national border.1 Similarly, “Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector.”2 If ISIS, which claimed responsibility for the Paris attack,3 can infiltrate the unvetted Syrian refugees coming into Europe, then the great fear among Americans is that ISIS has similarly infiltrated the Syrian refugees now pouring across the American border and into the United States. The recent shooting deaths in San Bernardino, CA have only exacerbated the issue.


Presidential contender Donald Trump has even made altering America’s present lax immigration enforcement as well as the need to deport a plethora of illegal aliens the signature issue of his widely popular national campaign. Last week, Donald Trump once again made national news by calling for a complete ban upon Muslims entering the United States, “…until our country’s representative can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice…”4

Consequently, in this present highly charged political climate, Americans are now involved in a national dialogue concerning the legitimacy of America’s current lax immigration policies. Many on the political left are questioning the morality of denying the Syrian refugees unfiltered and unvetted access to America. In this week’s Presidential Republican debate, even one of the Facebook questions related to the morality of border enforcement through a generic appeal to the Bible:

BLITZER: We have another — we have another question. We have another question from Facebook. Let’s listen. QUESTION: My name is Carla Hernandez. I’m from the University of Texas at Austin. And my question is directed to all the candidates. If the Bible clearly states that we need to embrace those in need and not fear, how can we justify not accepting refugees?5

The key question that needs to be asked is, “is it really un-Christ-like, unbiblical, and immoral to call for tougher and more consistent enforcement of our existing immigration laws?”


In actuality, as we began noting in prior posts, it is entirely Christian and biblical to oppose illegal immigration, amnesty, and a porous borders policy. First, the Bible teaches that believers should obey the laws of the land (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17; Titus 3:1). Illegal immigrants by definition are violating the American immigration laws. Why should we support any illegal activity when the Scriptures are very clear that we should obey the government whenever possible? Second, beginning at the Tower of Babel, God Himself has established national entities and their existing borders (Gen. 10:32; 11:1-9; Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26). Consequently, as noted in our prior post, the United States, just like any other country, has both the right and responsibility to determine for itself its own immigration policy consistent with its own best interest and those of its own citizenry.


Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

The Appropriateness of Border Enforcement

Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigration until the situation gets under control has been met with the typical vitriol from the politically-correct left. The usual pejoratives of “hateful, bigoted, racist, and xenophobic” have been hurled in Trump’s direction. For example, in the aftermath of Trump’s proposal, pro-amnesty Republican and Presidential contender Lindsey Graham recently referred to Trump as “…a race baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”6


Yet, contemplation of a ban upon Muslim immigration into the United States is entirely reasonable and consistent with our own national best interests. This reality is something previous generations of Americans readily acknowledged. In fact, it was Democratic President Jimmy Carter who banned Iranian Shiite Muslims from entering the country at the height of the Iranian hostage crisis back in early 1980.

With Donald Trump coming under unceasing criticism from Democrats after he suggested a temporary ban of Muslim immigrants to the US, ABC News unearthed a 35-year-old video of then-President Jimmy Carter – a Dem no less – doing the very same thing! While Trump is being ripped by political foes from both parties about the “unconstitutionality” of his proposal, Carter, then in the very early days of the Iranian hostage crisis that eventually cost him his Presidency, called for a temporary halt of all immigrants from that extremist Muslim nation.7

While the left has been scrambling the last couple of days trying to draw minute and infinitesimal distinctions between Trump’s proposal and Carter’s ban, the fact remains that the notion of banning dangerous political and religious ideologies from entering the country was once within the mainstream of American political thought.

Bill Wilson well explains why the current policy of virtually unrestricted Muslim immigration into American is deleterious to our best interests as a culture:

Muslims who migrate or “immigrate” may be fulfilling a Koranic command to conduct jihad under the Islamic tradition of Hijrah. The Koran’s Surah An-Nisa verse 100, says, “Whoso migrateth for the cause of Allah will find much refuge and abundance in the earth, and whoso forsaketh his home, a fugitive unto Allah and His messenger, and death overtaketh him, his reward is then incumbent on Allah.” It then describes how to worship in such lands without abandoning weapons and then when worship is complete, verse 103 says to “Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (unbelievers in the land).” The US “president’s” immigration policy may well be supporting immigration jihad as it is interpreted from the Koran. In September, FrontPage Magazine reported that, “Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.”…The implication of Hijrah is to migrate and conquer as supported by both Muhammad’s example and in reading the context of the Koran’s Surah An-Nisa. Certainly, the history of Islam also confirms the meaning of Hijrah. The US “president” and the politically correct “leaders” in both political parties are allowing this migration with intent under the guise of religious freedom and the heartstrings of refugee tales. This is not about religion, but about overthrow of America with America’s elected leaders as accomplices…This deception by the “president” is deadly.8

What Saith the Scriptures?

Sometimes open borders advocates, such as Obama, quote scriptural passages that admonish God’s people to be kind to the foreigner who was living amongst them (Exod. 23:9; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19). But are these Scriptures being used accurately? In our next post, we will see that they are not.


(To Be Continued…)



  1. []
  2. []
  3. []
  4. []
  5. []
  6. []
  7. []
  8. []

Leave a reply and please keep it professional:)