Three Wrongs Do Not Make Things Right

Word-Of-The-Day: ‘…whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.’ (Romans 13:2); ‘<Jesus said, during the Sermon of the Mount,> “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’” (Matthew 5:33)

The Haitian crisis has brought more calls to allow immigrants to enter the US illegally from that nation, including those who have jumped on boats or are being smuggled in by human traffickers. Like the illegal immigration flow along the southern border of Texas and the northern border of the New England states, some of these immigrants trying to enter the US illegally are violent criminals. A legal vetting process needs to occur, but many American cities and states have called themselves ‘sanctuary cities’ for illegal immigrants to come to. It is a rebellion against the authority of law to protect American citizens.

There are a couple of thoughts that come in mind with regards to this and Scripture.  Paul implores the Christian to follow the laws of man, as God has ordained the government to rule over the people. Throughout the history of man, we have seen rules that have been strict and harsh, and rules that have been lenient and lax.  Rebellion, which in it’s lowest common denominator is ‘breaking the law’, goes against that which God has instituted. 

The only caveat in justifying any rebellion is if a rule (or a ruler or government) crosses the line to where it Is implementing laws and decrees that are against God’s will and His Laws.  For example, if a law is implemented that states one cannot pray or worship Jesus, it is proper (as Daniel did back in the day) to ignore that edict as God’s Law (Worship God and God only) supersedes man’s law.  The United States’ rebellion over Great Britain can be debated on whether it was justified under this pretense, though a portion of the rebellion of the Americans was for religious freedom (as well as confiscatory taxation, reprisals, and restrictions on rights). 

Do these ‘sanctuary cities’ have a justification to ignore lawful immigration statutes and encourage illegal entry into the US?  The laws are in place to help regulate the flow of immigrants and to properly screen them to avoid the entry of terrorists and criminals.  Bypassing the law, while more expedient for many otherwise law-abiding immigrants, opens the nation to risk.  Legal immigration and the laws that govern it does not go against God’s Word, as He has instituted the US Government to rule over the nation.   Illegal immigration is against God’s Word, so in effect these cities are going against the precepts that God has laid out.

This then brings up the question of the decision to support illegal immigration by ‘sanctuary cities’; why?  If they honestly felt the legal means of immigration was ‘ungodly’ or not Righteous, and were led to this conclusion by the Spirit and their convictions, then it would be justified.  If this was the case, even if they were wrong in their conviction of this, they made a ‘de facto’ promise to be a ‘sanctuary city’, a promise made under God to protect and take in illegals.  There may be a trial or hearing later to determine whether the illegals had a right to permanently stay or not, but the oath was to take them in, protect them, help them to get on their feet, etc.   

Now, many of these same sanctuary cities are being overrun and now trying to rid themselves of those they promised to help. They broke their oath of being a sanctuary city by disavowing sanctuary to the immigrants, finding that they really don’t want to provide the immigrants sanctuary and bussing them off to other communities.  They do not have the conviction to maintain the oath to rebel against what they proclaim to be ‘unjust’, making both their rebellion (becoming a sanctuary city) and disavowing their oath (turning away the immigrants seeking sanctuary) unjust. Now other communities, who did not willingly break the law, are now faced with the dilemma of a mass influx of people they were not prepared for, hurting both the immigrants and the communities.

Does any good come from breaking an oath (renouncing sanctuary city status) to break a law (the legal immigration process and border security) to help others break the law (the immigrants entering illegally)? We do need to have compassion for those who are desiring a better life or are escaping tyranny, but we also need to assist them within the legal boundaries and processes that are set up, lest we create a debacle, as we have on our hands today.

We must be very careful to proclaim laws unjust and unrighteous; if we truly desire change, all avenues to change the law in a legal method must be exhausted before we turn to disobedience.  If we indeed make a promise to either fight an unjust law by actions, we need to follow through and keep our promise or ask the Lord to forgive us for our sin before that oath is tested.  These sanctuary cities, by breaking their oath to ‘break the law’, are now suffering from both ridicule and has shown itself to be not within God’s will.