Well, that is because government is more for loping off heads, then at mending wounds, Lee. It does still remain reasonably good at the first procedure.

How would someone's perspective on this issue change if the burglars caught breaking into homes were Hispanic, in an area where they were demographically a minority?

Or, if their spouse worked for the public school system and routinely saw Hispanics insisting on expensive services for their children, at the expense of other children in the same system? (A real example: an English-Spanish translator, paid for by the school, to translate for a parent who is reasonably conversant in English.)

Deporting all the illegals directly harms those like Rolley's friend. (I strongly suspect that my yard person is here legally, BTW. But one never really knows.) Not deporting anyone leaves criminals and lazy leeches to prey upon our citizenry. No matter how finely sharpened, government still tends to use an axe where a scalpel is needed. Or leave a gaping wound unbandaged.

Actually, the biblical rule of love is not reciprocal and by nature cannot be. That is just one reason why it has limited application to the government.

There are a number of actions that would be loving in a private person which would be unjust if performed by the government.

Excellent answer, Rolley. I wonder if most of us are willing to shelter people who we suspect, or know, are here illegally as long as they are law-abiding. That would certainly be keeping with not only the law of love, but also the Old Testament injunction to treat kindly law-abiding foreigners in our midst.

It's a different matter, of course, when those illegals are committing crimes against American citizens: that is at the heart of anger in the border states. They are also over-burdening health services, school services, etc. to the point of collapse -- essentially killing the very benefits they came across the border to take advantage of, for themselves and for us, the taxpayers.

The problem is a complex one. My prayer is that we can secure our borders, find a way for law-abiding illegals to get "guest worker" permits (and start paying taxes), and hunt down the criminal ones for appropriate punishment. Guess I'm hoping for a miracle!!!

.
But if you ONLY have one, you really have neither. That’s kind of my point, Jason. A truly just law is loving because it respects the underlying intent of the law (love); and a truly loving law is just because it is based on an impartial and unchanging objective standard (the character of God).

.
(Well, barbecue my ham-hocks. Looks like, I say, looks like this comment of mine got lost somewhere in the wrinkles of the time-space continuum).

BTW, I am decidedly NOT a disciple of Joseph Fletcher and his Situational Ethics. Situational Ethics permits the acceptance of virtually any action as morally right -- so long as it is “for the good of others.” But such “outcome-based” determination of right and wrong is a corruption of biblical teaching. Biblical teaching does not permit us to justify anything we want “in the name of love.” History books are bulging with examples of this diabolical “ends justifies the means” mentality.

The biblical rule of love and law is reciprocal. That is, love defines the right motive for law-keeping; law defines the right way of loving.

Thus, the one who is most lawful (i.e. faithful to the *right* application of biblical moral law) is the one who is most loving; and, conversely, the one who is most loving is the one who is most faithful to the biblical moral law.

That all said, there are certainly instances where the “right thing to do” is determined by “the situation” and by the true intent of the law. Illegal immigration is “situation” where the true intent of the law needs to be discerned.

If, for example, I were to turn Luisa over to the authorities, it would almost certainly result in the utter destitution of her and her 8 children. I have to ask myself, was that the true intent, the spirit, of the immigration law? Of course not. But I’m not going to abandon Luisa to some pencil-pushing bureaucrat in the naïve and irresponsible hope that they, too, will discern the true intent of the law and let her be.

If that makes me lawless, at least I’m in good company. They affixed the same moniker to Christ and Paul for keeping not merely the letter, but also the spirit of the law, which is love, the *biblically-defined* care of people.

I'd rather have just laws then loving laws Rolley. The "love" of the law can be rather stifling.

.
We befriended a Mexican woman who works for less than minimum wage at a local sandwich shop. Her employer does not let her keep any tips. “Luisa” works 50 some-odd hours a week. She commutes to and from work by bus. When she’s home in her apartment she cooks for Mexican laborers to make a little extra money. Literally every cent she doesn’t absolutely have to have to live on she sends home to her eight children in Oaxaca. She has no husband (he died). She speaks almost zero English. One of her children, a daughter, has a fatal disease. Another child is handicapped with a deformity. She sees her children once every 6 to 8 years.

Luisa, of course, is an illegal immigrant.

Often times the “right” thing is also the loving thing, but not always. When it is not, the Christian must do the loving thing, not the “right” thing. This is not lawlessness; it is lawkeeping of the highest order. It is obedience to the higher – to the highest - law.

Love is the highest law. It is “the royal law” (James 2:8), “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), “the New Commandment” (John 13:34), the one thing that perfectly – perfectly - fulfills the intent of all good law (Rom 13:8). And it supersedes all other laws because it fulfills every good law that ever has been or can be promulgated; and it never hurts anyone unless it is absolute necessary (“love does no wrong to a neighbor”. Romans 13:10).

The “right” thing is not always the loving thing. But the loving thing is always the right thing.

It took me 30 years to learn this. I will never forget it.

The question, Scurlock, is whether or not I would tell on him, which is related to whether I should but not the same thing. As for the motive for not telling, likely it would be less mercy and more, simply unwillingness to transgress Schoolboy Honor. And looking at it a second time I am not so sure that I do not have a point. It is not wholly without advantage to have a society where people's instinct is NOT to tattle.

Be that as it may, as I said, if it is only a suspicion then it would not be my business.

to help someone to break such a law.

In general, the main consequence is deportation. That's not punishment. Mercy is restraining a deserved punishment.

Since deportation isn't a punishment, it's not showing "mercy" not turning them in.

But in general, I think it's a grave concern to ignore such fundamental rules of law as national boundaries.

(Thanks for the credit, Diane!)

Consider that by returning someone to Mexico, you're potentially putting them in danger due to the gang violence. And if not that, you may be condemning them to a life of poverty and emotions due to having had the good life and lost it. And who among us knows how Mexican society deals with forcibly returned illegals - are they pariahs in their communities?

So (in a nod to Amanda's post about law, and particularly Jason's comments) the legal thing may not be the right thing.

And this is practical for me: I do wonder, whenever Jose' goes on vacation, if he and his crew will be back. They were referred to me by a friend who, I found out recently, heard of them by word-of-mouth. I like paying them rather than a bigname firm because I'm a fan of the underdog, but I do wonder sometimes.

That's the problem. I probably wouldn't tell on him. Nor would a lot of people tell on there's . Illegal immigration is a sort of offense that is only atrocious at the macro level whereas individual perps are not like individual other kinds of perps.

Then too, if I just suspected, it wouldn't really be my business.