It is frequently said by Christian churches in America that is “Christian” to accept the foreigner into America; many Christian denominations and individuals maintain that promoting broad immigration privileges to non-Americans is the only defensible Christian position on immigration.

Non-sense.

First, when the nation (from root word shared with natal, birth, implying blood line) of Israel was formed by their common language, culture, and blood line, they departed Egypt, fought wars, entered a land occupied by other nations/blood lines, and warred against those foreigners.

Does that sound like a “we can all just get along” policy of universal tolerance?

But “wait!,” the ignorant Christian says, that’s “Old Testament!” implying directly that it isn’t authoritative any more.

I counter: your statement itself is misguided. Jesus referred to the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. Jesus said in his very first sermon as recorded by Matthew, “do not think I have come to do away with the Law.” Why did he say that? Because he knew that Christians would do exactly that — do away with the Law. One sneaky way of doing that was by calling the Hebrew Scriptures “Old,” the Greek Scriptures “New” and inferring that the “Old” writings were replaced by the “New.” This deceptive sleight of hand has done all manner of harm to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the task of bringing discipline to the nations.

Moving along, let’s look at an immigrant. Her name was Ruth. She was a Moabitess, from a blood line God has cursed. She was the widow of an Israelite who had dishonored his own heritage by eaving the promised land. His sons, instead of returning, married into a cursed blood line.. So what did God do? He killed that man and his sons, cutting off that blood line. Naomi, the Israelite mother-in-law, decided to return to the land of Israel. One Moabitess widow, Naomi’s daughter-in-law, followed her. The other decided to remain in the land of Moab. (Funny how that works, there are always two — God offers both the chance for redemption — one accepts and one turns away — Cain and Abel, the two thieves at Calvary, the sheep and the goats . . . )

But what was the cost to Ruth? Ruth swore an oath: your people shall be my people and your God shall be my God. She abandoned her father’s blood line and became, culturally, religiously and philosophically, an Israelite. She renounced her own blood line and her Gods, customs, and ways. She wholly abandoned her own history and heritage and acquired that of the new land.

“But wait!,” the Ignorant Christian says again, “you must love the foreigner in your midst!” it says in Deuteronomy 10:19. True enough; that was in the context of the delivery of the Ten Commandments which was the social and legal code for the entire nation with no exclusions. All foreigners had to obey that law as well and worship the God of Israel.

There is zero provision in the Scriptures to allow foreigners to enter into a people who have made a covenant with God and allow them to practice, propagate and preach their pagan ways. Zero. The Scripture made clear that obediences to God and God’s Law (the Ten Commandments) was an absolute requirement. Non-covenanted peoples were not encouraged nor allowed to enter. If already there, they were to be “loved,” which means treating them as the Law — the Ten Commandments — required. Those foreigners has the same requirement — obedience to God by obeying the Ten Commandments.

When Ruth entered, she abandoned her people and gods. When the Israelites entered their promised land, they slaughtered the foreigners, as God has commanded. Those who were permitted to live among the Israelites were to be “loved,” but that in no way shape or form provided an allowance for them to maintain separate laws nor pagan worship. And they had to learn the language of the Hebrews as well, in order to comply with that Law, which meant learning the Law.

Love, after all, is defined as the keeping of the Commandments.

America has abandoned the God of their forefathers and imports by the millions more pagans precisely to drown out the influence of a historically Christian people — the descendants of the Pilgrims and Puritans the other Christian immigrants. Formerly Christian institutions, like Harvard and Yale, have been corrupted and now teach Satan’s laws and deceptions.

“The foreigner living among you will rise higher and higher above you, while you sink down lower and lower.” Deuteronomy 18:43

I am not sure there is a “Christian” immigration policy. There certainly cannot be a Christian immigration policy in a country that has abandoned Christianity, as America has. If that is the case, and I’m afraid that has become the case regardless of our Christian history, in what way shape or form can their be a “Christian” immigration policy? And if naions are blood lines, as described in Genesis 10, then upon what basis does any Christian presume that “we can all just get along?” Not even the twelve tribes of Israel could get along despite serving the same God, having the same laws, and speaking the same tongue, let alone a mixed people.

God hates Babylon — the unification of all bloodlines under one pagan rule of law. Has that not what America and Europe have become? We traded our Christian heritage for the worship of Satan, although we are too proud to say it like that. We presume, like Eve, to be above all that, to decide for ourselves. (That is, effectively, Satan worship because that is exactly what the devil offered Eve).

At some point, as the curses of Deuteronomy 28 are poured out upon America and Europe, some remnant of this country will rise up an re-establish a Christian state for a Christian people. This will not be a violence-free endeavor; history just doesn’t work that way. And in that state, there shall by no means be permitted the entry and acceptance of philosophies, peoples, and religions opposed to God and the Ten Commandments.

May the Church recognize this soon.
May we prepare ourselves accordingly.
And may that day come quickly.

Fritz Berggren
June 2018