KenH
Well-Known Member
Look, I was asked to give my reasons. I have done so. My reasons might be good, or crummy, or in-between. I am not asking anyone to agree with them. They simply are what they are.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mass amnesty and more illegal immigration
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
- Status
Look, I was asked to give my reasons. I have done so. My reasons might be good, or crummy, or in-between. I am not asking anyone to agree with them. They simply are what they are.
On Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital the [immigration] bill was terrible.
"[Ted] Cruz listed concerns with the measure, including that it "codified catch and release. The bill provided immediate work permits to illegal aliens when they came here. The bill provided taxpayer-funded attorneys to illegal aliens. The bill gave billions of dollars to sanctuary cities and NGOs that are aiding with human-traffickers and the bill normalized 5,000 illegal immigrants a day."
"It was never designed to solve the problem," he said.
As the Texas senator referenced, the bill would have expanded what are known as alternatives to detention (ATD) for those who enter the country illegally, make work permits immediately available for those who pass initial asylum screenings, provide funding for attorneys to represent some unaccompanied minors, and would have established a threshold of an average of 5,000 border crossings a day for one week before ushering in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) emergency authority that would bar illegal immigrants from entering the country between ports of entry.
He also pointed to the fact that chief Democrat negotiator, Murphy, wrote of the bill on X that, "The border never closes, but claims must be processed at the ports."
"[Ted] Cruz listed concerns with the measure, including that it "codified catch and release. The bill provided immediate work permits to illegal aliens when they came here. The bill provided taxpayer-funded attorneys to illegal aliens. The bill gave billions of dollars to sanctuary cities and NGOs that are aiding with human-traffickers and the bill normalized 5,000 illegal immigrants a day."
"It was never designed to solve the problem," he said.
As the Texas senator referenced, the bill would have expanded what are known as alternatives to detention (ATD) for those who enter the country illegally, make work permits immediately available for those who pass initial asylum screenings, provide funding for attorneys to represent some unaccompanied minors, and would have established a threshold of an average of 5,000 border crossings a day for one week before ushering in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) emergency authority that would bar illegal immigrants from entering the country between ports of entry.
He also pointed to the fact that chief Democrat negotiator, Murphy, wrote of the bill on X that, "The border never closes, but claims must be processed at the ports."
I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that I do not understand your reasoning (it doesn't make sence to me).
For example, I would like to see the federal government shrink as I believe many of the things the federal government has taken control of should belong to the states or to individual citizens.
But Harris has argued for greater federal control. She has argued for the federal government to control education, to directly control prices in the supply chain, to control healthcare, to remove the states right to determine abortion laws, etc.
Trump has argued for less federal control. He has argued for school choice, for returning the education system to the states, restricting federal interference in free speech platforms, allowing states to determine their own abortion laws, preventing the federal government from making "laws" through agencies that bypass Congress, etc.
The reason I ask about this is you list being anti-big government as a reason to vote Harris but then you say you support a platform that depends on increasing the federal government and its domestic power.
I don't care who you support. I am trying to understand your reasoning.
I agree partially.
The problem with dismissing ones vote as benign is our vote is our voice in actively supporting a candidate and platform.
The man who supports sin is guilty of sin.
Here is an example - If I support a party that runs on a platform dedicated to legalizing abortion then I share in the guilt because of my support.
But I get that people separate their faith from their actions.
It is just strange to me that a libertarian would support a party that is trying to limit ballots to two parties and prevent independent and 3rd party candidates from being on election ballots.
I realize they fought to keep RFK on the ballot in some states as a political move. But that doesn't change the fact that the DNC is attempting to prevent libertarians and independents from appearing on the ballot.
Everything we do is tied to the gospel of Christ
KenH
Well-Known Member
God has ordained all things that happen from before the world began. These take place over time through the means that God uses for His purposes and glory. Everything done by those God elected and those God reprobated before the world began ties back to God's purposes and glory.
Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.
KenH
Well-Known Member
At this point, I haven't voted at all. I remember an election years 36 years ago, I went to bed planning to vote one way, woke up the morning of the election and voted a different way.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You saying you are for Harris and against Trump. Did you pray about this to come to that decision?
KenH
Well-Known Member
Yes.
One of the first things I begin the day with is to pray for God's will to be done - for me, for everyone, for everything.
Paul from Antioch
Active Member
P fm A here. Did U no that there's a country song for our current PRESIDENT of VICE's "Border Policy": "Y'all Come"!!??!!
The thing here is God has made His will known in Scripture (something John MacArthur wrote about in Knowing God's Will).
If you believe God's will is for you to support Harris....or Trump....perhaps a bit more "listening" is necessary after prayer.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Voting is not an essential of the gospel of God's free, sovereign grace. It is much like eating meat or not eating meat, or esteeming one day above another or all days alike. We all have our own ideas about who we prefer to rule over us or not rule over us. God puts in place whomever He has already ordained to fill all positions of ruling. Voting is simply a means that God uses in the United States and some other countries. God is absolutely, totally sovereign; man is not sovereign at all.
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Voting isn't. I agree.
But supporting the things that are opposed to God is wrong.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
I do not believe that one who is saved will knowingly oppose God under the error it doesn't matter because they are saved. These are among those who will say "Lord, Lord...." to hear "I never knew you".
I am not saying this is you, but Scripture indicates it will be many.
- Status