It's sad and may prove tragic, that the government of Mexico sees fit to make itself the tool of a strategy openly intended to attack the sovereignty of both our nations. Though the group being used to test this strategy consists of families from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, there are millions of people in Latin and South America who have reason to long for escape from similar conditions. Once it becomes clear that we can easily be maneuvered into a confrontation with unarmed, civilian invasion forces, what reason is there to believe our elitist adversaries do not mean to organize them into a continual assault. ("Mexico is Helping a Mass of Illegals Invade U.S.")
There is no doubt that forces hostile to the continued existence of the United States of America are orchestrating the illegal immigrant assault against our borders. Their so-called refugee caravans are in fact attack columns intended to force our border control and security system into collapse.
If our government responds to the attack using lethal force against the unarmed civilians who are consenting to be used as weapons, targeted against our survival as a nation, the forces hostile to the self-government of the people of the United States, aim to spark a violent civil war.
They are subverting our immigration controls with sanctuary cities and other such mechanisms are already in place. Using the excuse of atrocities perpetrated against unarmed civilians, they will openly break with the United States to mobilize armed forces against our government.
Thanks to his stand for stand for border security, President Donald Trump has already been portrayed as a racist bigot, violently opposed to immigrants. No matter what the extent or violence of the threat inherently posed by organized illegal immigrant attack columns, President Trump's opponents in the media will surely cry racism if the Trump administration response to this episode involves any use of lethal force.
Making war against unarmed civilians is rightly regarded by Americans of conscience as un-American. Trump opponents who profess to be of Christian faith will surely use such events to bludgeon Christian Trump supporters with being complicit in an obvious violation of God's law against shedding innocent blood.
They will be particularly pleased to do so since many of them support abortion and have been rightly criticized by many Trump-supporting Christians for their decades-long complicity in the ongoing slaughter of human posterity. Some say that misery loves company. But for pure evildoers, the corruption of others is the main reason for doing evil. If they do not lure others to join in their transgressions, they fail in their duty to their lord.
Whatever their intentions, however, some American Christians from every denomination take the view that defending boundaries and borders against the influx of people in need violates the command of love that ought to impel Christ's followers to show mercy, regardless of human laws to the contrary. They have argued that since Christ came to offer salvation to all people, most especially the poor and oppressed, it is morally wrong to turn people away just because they come in disrespect of our laws.
But just as God's code for procreation targeted the good of the whole species, not just the advantage and pleasure of individuals, so when the sovereign people of the United States, through their representatives, make human laws for immigration, we must respect the good of the whole nation. Unregulated immigration threatens both our material survival and our survival as a constitutionally self-governed people. There can be no doubt that hostile forces seek to collapse our borders. Given its existential consequences, is this aim consistent with God's rule over human affairs?
In God's word, nations, like individuals, appear to exist in consequence of natural law, as distinctive facets of God's design. Like all distinct objects in creation, they come into being as distinct expressions of God's will, in consequence of the separate and particular form God intends for them.
Just as he distinguishes light from darkness, so he distinguishes other forms of being from one another by division, i.e., by marking them out from one another with perceptual and conceptual boundaries, so that they stand apart one from the other. Boundaries are thus essential to God's creation, whereby His being while remaining absolutely one, is partly taken up by others, who are one in themselves, but different from one another.
Aside from the activity of creation itself, the word of God offers another arresting example of God's enforcement of boundaries. After original sin degrades human nature, he erects a boundary, so that the degraded form of human life that results cannot perpetuate its mistaken self forever.
An angel with a flaming sword obstructs the way to the tree of life, a way not opened again until Jesus Himself represents it to humankind.
The image of the flaming sword conveys the sense of an obstacle both material and energetic or spiritual, such that no human will again partake of eternal life except through Jesus, who says clearly that He is the only way to re-establish permanent communion with the eternal being of God.
This combination of openness and rule or regulation recommends itself to human beings who wish to sustain their community of good faith, as consonant with "the laws of nature and of Nature's God." Unless they establish and enforce the terms on which people join in that community, how can they preserve the goodwill that makes it possible, the will that takes respect for God's rules as the basis for union, peace and justice?
As God keeps from His eternal dominion people who do not conform to His rule for eternal life, so we have to regulate the admission of people as required to preserve our rule of respect for His endowment of right and justice. People who lend themselves to the project of collapsing our ability to do so prove, by that very fact, that we have no choice but to prevent them from coming in.