Deporting Foreign Terrorists

Current Events
103

Oh Benny, bless your heart—but if “Love your neighbor” is your entire theology, you might want to check if your Bible ends at Leviticus 19:18 and skips Romans 13.

Yes, “Love your neighbor” is the royal law (James 2:8), but how do we love them? By handing them the keys to the country no matter what flag they’re flying—or by upholding justice (Micah 6:8) and protecting the innocent (Proverbs 24:11)?

Let’s not pretend Jesus came preaching kumbaya without a cross. Love isn’t letting wolves wander the sheepfold. That’s not compassion; that’s negligence dressed in a choir robe.

And as for “no reinterpretation,” you just reinterpreted love as permissiveness. But biblical love is righteous, not reckless. Jesus drove out money changers with a whip—not a group hug. Paul said love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing” (1 Cor. 13:6), and governments are “God’s servant for your good…an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

So unless your idea of neighbor-love includes letting terrorists pitch a tent in your backyard while you sing “Jesus Loves Me,” I suggest we not reduce Scripture to bumper sticker theology.

Let’s not water down the Word, Benny. It’s already living and active—sharper than a double-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). Don’t turn it into a pool noodle.

1 Like
104

It’s really unfortunate that you can’t understand one simple command: love your neighbor as yourself.

It’s not “my entire theology”, which is an insult. It is, however, one of the basic elements of being God’s child. God loved the world and we are to do the same.

Your “handing them the keys to the country” is also an insult. It is clearly distorting what the command means (and it is NOT scriptural).

It’s also interesting that you take two isolated verses from the OLD COVENANT, and make absurd statements about 1) Jesus and kumbaya and 2) negligence dressed in a choir robe. In other words, you aren’t debating what Scripture clearly says, but twisting it to prove your point.

And I said nothing about love being permissiveness – another distortion – and follow it with “not a group hug”.

Your true colors are clearly showing! You’re making the gospel into some anti-hippy fantasy and right-wing (distorted) politics. => WHAT KIND OF A STATEMENT IS “… letting terrorists pitch a tent in your backyard while you sing “Jesus Loves Me” <= followed by calling my comment “bumper sticker theology”.

The sure sign that someone (you) has lost an argument is distorting and ridiculing what the other person said. That’s exactly what the Pharisees did with Jesus’ words and what you are doing with mine.

105

Oh Benny, Benny, Benny.

When a man starts a sermon on “love your neighbor” and ends it by accusing others of Pharisaical slander, you know the irony’s so thick it might need a chainsaw.

Let’s set the record straight, since you brought out the bold claims:
Yes, love your neighbor. That’s Scripture. That’s foundational. But foundational doesn’t mean isolated. You keep waving that verse like it’s the full symphony when it’s one note in a holy chord. The same Jesus who preached neighbor-love also said, “Do not think I came to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). So if your theology can’t make room for justice, judgment, and national discernment, it’s not deep—it’s dangerously thin.

As for “two isolated verses from the OLD COVENANT”—that’s rich. Paul quoted the Old Testament constantly, and Jesus was the fulfillment of it. Romans 13? Not Old Covenant. 1 Corinthians 13? Not Old Covenant. Both clearly call love righteous, not reckless. That’s not twisting Scripture, that’s connecting it.

And yes, I made a spicy point about terrorists and tents. That’s called a metaphor, brother. Jesus used 'em too—fig trees, wolves, and whitewashed tombs, remember? Don’t get mad at the parable because it hit too close to home.

If you think protecting a nation from evil men somehow cancels out loving your neighbor, then your view of love is sweet but shallow. The same God who said “love the foreigner” also told Israel to drive out the nations who were sacrificing children to Molech. (Deut. 7, Lev. 18). That’s not a contradiction. That’s context.

So before you go throwing around “true colors,” ask yourself: are you defending biblical love—or just sentimentalism that can’t stand the weight of real-world wickedness?

God’s love is holy. Not hippie.
And I’d rather be called a right-wing truth-teller than a left-wing verse-slicer.

Micah 6:8 still stands. So does Romans 13:4.
And so do I.

106

What is Trump doing that is outside the law? It is his constitutional duty to enforce the law, including immigration laws. In other words, if you aren’t here legally, it is his duty to deport you.

107

Absolutely. Here’s a sharpened, scripture-seasoned reply for Bob:

BobEstey, you’re right that deporting illegal immigrants is not outside the law—it’s actually the President’s job. No argument there. But let’s not act like every method used to carry that out is automatically lawful just because the goal is.

Here’s the distinction folks keep missing:

Trump enforcing Title 8 deportations? Totally legal.
Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act to do it? That’s where the courts started throwing flags.

Three federal judges already said, “Hold up—you can’t call a criminal gang an invading army and bypass due process.” That’s not resisting immigration enforcement. That’s upholding the Constitution.

He wasn’t stopped because deportation is wrong. He got checked because you can’t stretch a wartime law from 1798 to cover every border situation that feels like a crisis. That’s not executing the law—that’s editing it.

It’s the same principle we see in Scripture: God ordains government for justice (Romans 13:4), but He doesn’t give kings a blank check to trample righteousness in the name of order (Isaiah 10:1–2).

So no, Trump isn’t lawless—but sometimes his methods sprint faster than the law can legally walk. And when that happens, the courts slap the brakes.

That’s not weakness. That’s checks and balances.

Justice must be righteous and legal. Otherwise we’re not enforcing the law—we’re playing Calvinball with the Constitution.

108

You’ve got illegal immigrant gang members running around free because of Joe Biden’s failure to do his constitutional duty of enforcing immigration laws. Are you going to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to deport them? I am all for a process to make sure no citizens are mistakenly deported, but otherwise, if you are an illegal immigrant, it’s Donald Trump’s responsibility to deport you.

109

BobEstey, you’re preaching the right problem but proposing a shortcut to the solution that could come back to bite us all.

Yes—Biden’s border failure is a constitutional disgrace. He’s abandoned Romans 13:4 and traded the sword for a soggy participation ribbon. We’ve got cartel-connected thugs roaming free while the administration hands out bus tickets and court dates like it’s a charity raffle.

But here’s the thing: Trump’s responsibility isn’t just to deport—it’s to deport lawfully.

That means using the tools in the Constitution’s toolbox—not grabbing a 200-year-old wartime wrench (the Alien Enemies Act) and pretending it’s one-size-fits-all.

You say, “Make sure no citizens are mistakenly deported.” Amen to that. But that requires process. And the minute we say, “Eh, just skip the hearings if they seem like gang members,” we’ve traded justice for efficiency—and that’s not biblical governance. That’s bureaucratic vengeance.

The ends don’t justify the means, brother. God cares how justice is done (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8). Trump enforcing immigration law? Yes. Trump using legally sketchy maneuvers to do it faster? That’s where I’ll ring the bell and say, “Hold up.”

We don’t fight lawlessness with our own version of lawlessness. That’s not righteousness—that’s revenge dressed in red, white, and blue.

Give Trump the authority. Give him the courts. Give him the laws. But don’t give him a blank check. Not for him. Not for anyone.

110

Picture this (indulge me a bit of proverbial theatre please)

I’m sitting in my car at a red light with my right blinker on. To my left is a string of 3 or 4 cars waiting to proceed through the intersection, as the light for them has just turned green. The person at the beginning of the line to my left begins to wave at me, motioning me to proceed with my right turn, and suggesting that they will graciously wait for me, even though they have the legal right-of-way. I’m sure this person is trying to be nice, and show deference, but I am unwilling to illegally proceed into the path of traffic; so I sit, wait, and then begin to wave back more frantically. This stalls the whole mess for a while. Meanwhile the two or three cars waiting in line become irritated, and wish someone would go to get things moving again. My point here is the person who thinks they are being nice to me is actually being inconsiderate of all the drivers in their rear-view mirror.

In a way, I see this whole immigration situation somewhat in this light. The population who are suggesting we allow anyone through the border without legal process, are maybe feeling altruistic about the grace they are willing to extend to the foreigner, but are not being considerate of the proverbial drivers behind who have a legal right to proceed through the intersection. They rarely mention how their altruism affects the immigrants who did work their way through the legal system, or the native born citizens who have contributed to the stability and financial wellbeing of the nation for their entire lives. These folks are not insignificant, and the popular stance of our country being a nation that is welcoming to the world should not unduly infringe on their legal right to thrive here. It seems less than altruistic to me to suggest if someone somehow made it into our country illegally, we should still afford them the same considerations as those who are here legally. That’s a little like saying if I can somehow jump the fence and make it onto a college campus, I should also be given a degree, just like those who worked for several years to earn it. Matriculation matters! (I don’t put political signs in my yard, but that would be a good one)

I don’t think it makes it any more palatable to tell legal citizens, even though someone broke into your house, now that they are in, you are required to feed them, clothe them, and give them a bed in which to sleep, at least until such time that you can convince some magistrate that they broke in and should be evicted. You probably don’t feel that by virtue of forcibly making it to the interior of your house, that somehow imbues the intruder with inalienable rights. If you wake up to find a stranger in bed with you, I doubt you will complain if someone shows up and shows them the front door without any kind of “due process”.

I likewise find it grossly unfair to stereotype all immigrants with a broad brush; ‘they are all asylum seekers, they are all criminals, they are all disenfranchised from their homeland, they are all seeking a better life, they are all members of a gang, they are all (fill in your favorite stereotype here). Even this topic title “Deporting foreign Terrorists” is being responded to as if it reads “deporting illegal immigrants” Suggesting immigrants should be considered to be terrorists applies a false moniker.

I hear a lot of folks spouting their “Hard Facts” which , of course, they heard on TicToc, or from their pastor, or from their brother-in-law, or ABC news, or from CNN, or from the headline of an article they obviously didn’t’ even read. All these contrary views and claims of “hard fact” seem to have no greater credential than would a scrap of paper found blowing across your lawn. To paraphrase The Late Francis Schaeffer, most people arrive at their “Hard Facts” like a child picks up germs off the street.

I am surely in favor of a compassionate and gracious procedure to effectively deal with illegal immigrants, be it 20 or 20,000,000. But let’s not fail to be compassionate and gracious toward all involved, to the illegal immigrant AND the legal citizen. I don’t have the answers, and I doubt anyone would listen if I did, but I do try to honor and respect those who are trying without too much armchair quarterbacking.

My 2 cents, and probably not woth even that much
KP

1 Like
111

KPuff—now that’s how you drop a parable.

You didn’t just make a point; you painted a picture and handed us all the brush. That red light illustration? Chef’s kiss. Because yes—sometimes “being nice” to one person at the intersection creates a ripple of chaos for everyone else who’s actually playing by the rules. And no amount of moral posturing makes that chaos righteous.

Your analogy to immigration is dead-on: compassion without order isn’t charity—it’s confusion. And confusing grace with lawlessness doesn’t make us holy, just naïve. The people who waited in line, filled out the paperwork, studied for the civics test, learned the language, and played by the rules—they deserve the front-row seat in this conversation. Ignoring them in favor of the loudest “moral” voices on TikTok? That’s not justice. That’s virtue-signaling at highway speed with no seatbelt.

And your house analogy? Let’s put it on a plaque. Breaking into someone’s home doesn’t grant you a dinner invitation—much less due process before being shown the door. The fact that we have to argue this in 2025 is part of the madness.

But you also threaded the needle well: yes to compassion. Yes to treating every person with dignity. But not at the expense of order, justice, or the people who built the house in the first place.

Your “2 cents” just bought a whole lot of clarity. If anyone’s handing out honorary degrees for common sense, consider this your cap and gown.

112

I think all agree in this forum topic that shutting down the border was the proper 1st step-triage’s “stop the bleeding”. President Trump is being rambunctious in his followup but the Justices are tempering his moves.
Some of us recall Reagan’s short-lived amnesty plan. There can be majority backing in an immigration overhaul by Congress led by Pres Trump that even @Benny would swallow. This nation wants and needs a permanent solution; these lawsuits and SC rulings are the foundation. I would hope that the Republicans, as controlling party, will reference and incorporate God’s teachings into any reform legislation.

113

Calling our President “rambunctious” is like calling a Jack Russel Terrier “bubbly”.

1 Like
114

“Rambunctious” means…

  1. Boisterous and disorderly.
  2. Energetic, noisy, boisterous and difficult to control.
  3. Noisy and lacking in restraint or discipline.

All three of which apply to Donald Trump! LOL!

Seriously, regarding SFsergio’s post…

There was no “bleeding”. Immigration from the south has been very difficult to control. People from many nations are seeking Americans’ way of life and quite a few are RISKING THEIR LIVES to get here. It is total nonsense to describe the immigrants as “foreign terrorists” as Trump has done. => That is nothing but propaganda <= As I have posted earlier, I live in New Mexico, which has a common border with Mexico. => I have never been concerned about my safety and the safety of my family because of immigrants! <= Of course, there is violent crime, but the great majority of the crimes are committed by => AMERICAN CITIZENS <=

Regarding incorporate God’s teachings into any reform legislation, the basis should be “love your neighbor” as stated in BOTH testaments. => The greatest majority, by far, of US citizens are the result of immigration <= (If you’re not Native American, someone in your family immigrated to the United States at one time.) You wouldn’t be here if your ancestors didn’t emigrate

Trump is clearly a racist and seeks to frighten everyone with his hateful approach to many people, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE INNOCENT! (Of course, immigrants like Elon Musk (who entered the US illegally) are the exception because he and a few others are wealthy and see the US as a country in which they can amass a huge amount of money while others go hungry).

P.S. Donald Trump’s ancestors were immigrants, primarily from Germany(!) and Scotland. His paternal grandfather, Friedrich Trump, was a German immigrant(!), while his maternal grandmother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was from the Isle of Lewis in Scotland.

P.P.S. Donald Trump’s grandfather was kicked out of his native Germany for failing to do his mandatory military service. A local council letter from 1905 informed Friedrich Trump – who had become a United States citizen – that he would not be granted his German citizenship back and that he had eight weeks to leave the country or be deported.

115

See excellent timeline embedded in article of critical, immigration laws/events over our history; it puts things in perspective.

116

Benny, you’ve just served up a buffet of assumptions smothered in emotion, and called it an argument. Let’s clean the table.

Yes, rambunctious fits Trump like a tailor-made suit. But being loud, unfiltered, and hard to control isn’t the same as being wrong. Elijah was “rambunctious.” John the Baptist was “boisterous.” Jesus flipped tables. Loudness isn’t a sin—lying silence is.

Now, about that border:
You say there’s no “bleeding”? Tell that to the families of Americans killed by fentanyl that walked across that “non-bleeding” border. Tell it to Texas ranchers who find smuggling trails across their land. Tell it to the overwhelmed cities shipping migrants to shelters they didn’t budget for.

You’re right—most immigrants aren’t terrorists. But no one said they all are. Trump didn’t call all immigrants terrorists any more than God calling Israel to guard its gates meant He hated foreigners. (Hint: He didn’t. He just liked walls—see Nehemiah.)

Your argument boils down to this:
“I live in New Mexico and feel safe, so the crisis isn’t real.”
That’s not logic, Benny. That’s autobiography. And policy isn’t built on feelings—it’s built on facts. Just because you haven’t felt the impact doesn’t mean it’s not setting other cities on fire.

Also, yes, Trump’s family were immigrants. Legal ones. So were mine. That’s not a gotcha—it’s a foundation for understanding the difference between a front door and a broken window. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island didn’t climb over fences and claim victimhood. They worked, waited, and respected the process.

“Love your neighbor” is a command, not a loophole. Love protects (1 Cor. 13:7). Love tells the truth (Eph. 4:15). Love also guards the vulnerable from wolves, even when those wolves show up wrapped in a sob story.

Jesus didn’t say, “Let every stranger live in your house indefinitely.” He said, “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matt. 10:16) That means compassion and caution—not one dressed up as the other.

P.S. Trump’s grandpa being deported for dodging conscription is a history footnote, not a border policy. Let’s not confuse ancestry trivia with national security.

And P.P.S.—if Elon Musk entered illegally and still made it? That’s not proof our system works. That’s proof someone exploited it. Rich or poor, illegal is still illegal.

So let’s drop the distractions and get back to principle:
A nation without borders isn’t compassionate. It’s chaotic.

117

@Benny I also live in NM.
Just to point to ongoing issues in Albuquerque:

  1. There is a section of Central Avenue that is called “the Warzone” by everyone - including the Dem Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (MLG).

  2. MLG said Abq violence was so bad she ordered the Nat’l Guard to help the police dept, so they could focus on cleaning up the fentanyl and crime zones.
    After Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced she’s sending the National Guard to Albuquerque to address a spike in juvenile crime and fentanyl, the state’s GOP said the move isn’t enough.

  3. The largest drug bust in U.S. history occurred this month in Abq.
    AG Pamela Bondi announces huge fentanyl drug bust in US history | Fox News

118

Shortcut? How do you hold a trial for the 20 million people that entered our country illegally while Joe Biden was president? I’m not aware of anything in the constitution that requires illegal immigrants have trials. If they are citizens of our country, let them have an opportunity to prove that. Otherwise, it’s the president’s constitutional duty to deport them.

119

BobEstey, you’re right—deporting illegal immigrants is the president’s duty. No one’s arguing that.

But let’s be clear: the Constitution doesn’t say every person needs a full-blown trial, but due process still applies. That’s not a loophole—that’s the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” And yes, the courts have ruled “person” includes non-citizens while they’re on U.S. soil.

So no, we can’t just grab 20 million people and toss them over the fence without confirming who they are. Some might be asylum seekers. Some might be legal residents. Some might even be citizens.

It’s not about sympathy—it’s about not giving the executive branch unchecked power. Because if we cheer when it’s used on them, we shouldn’t be surprised when it’s used on us.

Speed matters. But justice matters more. We don’t burn the Constitution to protect it.

120

Benny you really should quit the name calling…can’t you disagree without calling someone a bigot or a Pharisee ?
Even children you love dearly you don’t just let them do whatever they choose. Love is a multi-facetted word with many meanings.Love the immigrants and even the terroists but if they are here illegally …back they should go to where they came from.

121

I think “due process” for an illegal alien means you ask him, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” If he says, yes, you say, “Prove it.” If he proves it, he stays. Otherwise, he goes.

122

That sounds efficient—but it’s not due process. It’s a pop quiz at gunpoint.

The Constitution doesn’t say, “Due process unless it’s inconvenient.” Courts have ruled repeatedly that even non-citizens on U.S. soil are entitled to basic legal procedures before being deported. Why? Because people lie. Agencies make mistakes. Citizens have been deported before.

“Prove it or you’re out” sounds clean until a citizen with no papers gets thrown into a van. Then we’re not enforcing law—we’re running a government by suspicion.

If we want law and order, we have to honor both.