An Inconvenient Immigration Truth …

30 05 2007

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse

It will come as no surprise that the northern California cities of San
Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland are hotbeds of liberalism complete
with all the trappings such a label would entail. The latest flawed,
liberal thinking finding a foothold in our nation in those fine cities
has to do with the Immigration debate.
Last month, Oakland’s Mayor Ron Dellums and City Council President
Ignacio De La Fuente declared their city a City of Refuge for illegal
aliens. This expanded on the 1986 City Council resolution
establishing Oakland as a haven for political refugees seeking asylum
from four countries.
San Francisco
established this same practice as its own in 1989 and in
January of 2006 reaffirmed its status as a City of Refuge. Other US
cities, such as New Haven, CT, have taken similar steps or are
considering it.
For Oakland, being a City of Refuge means, ” … that city departments
and staff aren’t to cooperate with any federal immigration
investigation, detention or arrest procedures.”

For San Fran it means, “The ordinance forbids city resources from
being used to enforce federal immigration laws or to gather or
disseminate information regarding the status of residents of The
City.” In a display of elitism that should surprise no one, these
city fathers simply refuse to obey the law of the land.

The rationale for the ordinances is that the federal law (both at the
time and some proposed legislation) is immoral and so, in a display of
civil disobedience, it must be intentionally disregarded.

The most noxious element in the matter is the adoption of the biblical
title, “City of Refuge” and the self serving appeal to the Scriptures
and Christianity for justification. It should be seen as insulting to
members of all Christian denominations that those willing to ignore
the Book when it suits them will hypocritically claim its authority if
it suits them. Clearly, they have no intention of honoring God’s
Word. Their only agenda is promoting their own agenda.

Unfortunately for them, the inconvenient biblical truth is that the
scriptural City of Refuge has nothing in common with their self
righteous adoption of the name.

In the first place, the establishment of a city as a City of Refuge
was not something a city did for itself. There were only 6 Cities of
Refuge in all of Israel. God commanded Moses to establish them in
Numbers 35 and gave Joshua the same command in Joshua 20. It was the
Israelite equivalent of our federal government that established the
concept. Oakland, San Francisco and others twist and pervert the
biblical purpose and intent by taking the name for themselves.

Additionally, Cities of Refuge were established to preserve the rule
of law, not to undermine it. The purpose of a City of Refuge was to
be a temporary haven for either those who accidentally caused the
death of another or who were accused of murder but maintained that the
death they caused was either accidental in nature or justified.
Mosaic law allowed for murder to be punished by the death of the
murderer. The killing of the murderer was often accomplished by a
relative of the victim. This person was known as “the avenger of blood”.

As there was little resembling our current justice system at that time
and as the sentence was stiff, it made sense to have a plan to protect
a person accused of a capital offense until such time as a trial could
be had to establish guilt or innocence. A person at risk of being
killed by an avenger of blood was to present himself to the elders of
one of the six cities and state his case. Once he claimed sanctuary
based on the City of Refuge concept, the city protected him and was
not to turn him over to the avenger of blood.

His sanctuary was not permanent, however. There was to be a trial.
If the accused were to be found guilty of murder, then the appropriate
sentence would be carried out. If he was found innocent of murder, if
the death he caused was determined to be unintentional ” … and
without malice aforethought” then the accused could remain safe in the
City of Refuge until the current high priest died. At that time, he
was permitted to return to his home city, still safe from the avenger
of blood.

Simply having a City of Refuge to run to was not protection enough.
If the avenger of blood were to find his quarry on the way to the City
of Refuge, the quarry could be killed without consequence. Just so,
if the quarry arrived safely at the City of Refuge and was granted
sanctuary and then left for whatever reason and the avenger of blood
found him outside the city, the quarry could be killed without
consequence.

Thus, the entire concept of the City of Refuge acknowledged that there
were laws that must be followed and enforced. Cities of Refuge were
established precisely so men like Ron Dellums, Ignacio De La Fuente
and Gavin Newsom could not make their own laws to supersede the law of
the land. Ironically, the book itself forbids the use of the City of
Refuge concept in the manner in which Oakland and others seek to do.
The Book clearly acknowledges differences in national identity. In
fact, one of the two key passages establishing Cities of Refuge does
so. Joshua 20:9 says,

Any of the Israelites or any alien living
among them
(emphasis added) who killed someone
accidentally could flee to these designated cities and not be killed
by the avenger of blood prior to standing trial before the
assembly.

A final observation is that the concept of the City of Refuge is
rooted and grounded in mercy and grace. However, mercy and grace have
no meaning without the concept of sin and offense. Thus, those who
fled to a City of Refuge themselves acknowledged there was a law
against what they were accused of doing. Their flight was not to
escape justice but a claim that their actions were not such that
justice needed to be applied to them.

In this, at least, some of the 21st century City of Refuge
afficionados are somewhat in line with biblical reasoning. They want
Cities of Refuge, not because they want to ensure that illegal aliens
are treated in accordance with the law of the land, but because they
don’t believe illegal aliens are guilty of anything. Robert Reyes,
the author of the American Chronicle article on Oakland, after
incorrectly establishing the biblical concept of a City of Refuge
says this:

Evangelicals aren’t adverse (sic) to disobeying the laws
of men, they often cite the Biblical injunction to “Obey God rather
than men.” Christians should be at the forefront of the movement to
make the major cities in America, Cities of Refuge.

If Jesus Christ came back, I’m persuaded that the Holy Man who
befriended social outcasts, would welcome undocumented immigrants with
open arms. Jesus Christ would condemn Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and
James Dobson as hypocrites and embrace De La Fuente and Ron Dellums as
men of God.

There is no such thing as an illegal alien; what’s illegal and immoral
is the cumbersome and lengthy process to become a legal citizen. We
should streamline the process and do away with restrictive quotas.
America should be a Country of Refuge, absorbing as many immigrants as
possible.

Mr. Reyes, with the arrogant stroke of a pen, legalizes the criminal
and criminalizes the law.

Still, perhaps Mr. Reyes is right. Perhaps we should institute the
City of Refuge concept here in the US. With that in mind, I propose
the following …

Any law enforcement agency apprehending an illegal alien, rather than
spending a dime to incarcerate, house and prosecute him should spend a
few dollars on bus fare to send him to Oakland, San Francisco or
Berkeley. Any other self appointed Cities of Refuge can get in on the
deal as well. Upon his arrival, the illegal need only claim sanctuary
and the City of Refuge will be required to take him in until such time
as his case can be tried. If found guilty, he is to be punished
according to the law of the land. If innocent, he must stay in the
City of Refuge until the death of the current Chief Justice of the US
Supreme Court. At that time he can return to his home city (need I
point out this would be in his own home country) and be free from our
obnoxious and burdensome laws.

Thinking that looking before one leaps can save an awful lot of
embarrassment …

Blue Collar Muse

**This was a production of
The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to
participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards,
email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you
would like to participate.

Other CAII members posting on this topic and on Illegal Immigration:

Linda Chavez Uses Amnesty
Advocate’s Dishonest Tactics
at The People’s Patriot

Command and
Conquer: Red Alert – Part 1
by James Cordray
One Way to Fight a Sanctuary City at The People’s Patriot
Illegal Aliens in Jail, Then What at Right Truth
GA Illegal Immigration fighter Succeeds in Secret Squirrel Mission
at GA Crime Watch

Advertisements

Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: