DEBATE: Should the Civil Government Regulate Immigration? | Alan Maricle vs. Luke Saint

[@salpiccolo9089]

Excellent debate.

[@Happy-Hunter89]

Great debate. I'm impressed by the civility and mutual respect both men show to each other. I believe Luke is correct, but Alan has clearly put a lot of thought and study into his position.

[@gentledove6804]

Cute “ad” during the short break-we have Solomon Says, and our children love it!

[@gentledove6804]

Thanks to both men for this debate-it’s a valuable contribution to the question of what does God want us to do regarding immigration.

[@ericzimmerman8021]

God is the border agent. He decides whether or not we can enter heaven. And according to His border policy no one would be allowed to enter. Why push for theonomy if it will only condemn us. We are saved by grace. There is no theonomy now because God does not intend there to be. He already gave us the law (theonomy) that no one is able to keep even the jews, Gods law is there to draw repentance and worship and it's only God who decides who is saved from His judgement. Why has this debate not led to the gospel? Jesus didn't come to change Rome's laws.

[@olegshishko]

It would be nice to have this discussion/debate against a statist. There seem to be too many agreements with the two. It seemed like Alan had some far fetched theoreticals. Listening throughout I thought he was assuming today’s public immigration debate and wouldn’t be opposed to building the wall and restricting the immigration to the US. However, he said in the end that the restrictions he’s referring to can’t be applied in the US right now. I’m left somewhat confused right now. So what is the disagreement between the two?

[@Rhology]

I think it's fair to say that we see the Nehemiah/Ezra situation somewhat differently. Luke makes a significant distinction between peacetime/wartime. I think that's ad hoc and an inconsistency in his position. I also think there is some inconsistency to be found in the question of "the right of freedom of movement of people". Luke thinks there is zero provision in the Law of God for immigration restrictions. I think I pointed out some by implication but it's true there is no direct answer to that question. I do think there is room for action to be taken to prevent the entire population of Turkey from moving into Switzerland just because they want to.

[@matthewmanucci]

No. This were the appropriate interlocutors. We needed to see two people who agree on the theonomic view that the states job is not to provide safety and security but rather to punish evil doers, and see which one was consistent with that thesis through and through, and which one suddenly argues like a statist on this particular point. I'll leave you to judge who clearly did that. This debate was exceedingly helpful and long overdue, and I'm thankful to both parties for doing it.

[@matthewmanucci]

Apart from 100,000 military aged men with bulging abs and biceps showing up at your border one day and demanding to come in, one wonders what else is a plausible hypothetical in the imagination of closed border advocates. Lol

[@Rhology]

@matthewmannucci Yeah, that's for sure not super plausible. However, I think more grappling needs to be done on the part of the negative thesis side about this, because that HAS happened. See Mehmet the Conqueror vs Constantinople, 1453AD for example.

[@StanlyTPT]

where are the other 4 comments?

[@lukelsaint1]

Every day I come back here and ask the same thing. I guess they’re bots or spam?

[@ruthanneism]

You have to click on “newest,” as “top comments” is what displays on default