Chain migration is a term the Left is desperately attempting to avoid for reasons that are obvious. It implies exactly what it is: the ability of one immigrant to petition the government for the immigration of parents, adult siblings, adult sons and daughters, all of whom can bring their own spouses and children. When those persons naturalize, they may, in turn, sponsor more relatives. The Center for Immigration Studies reports: “Over the last 35 years some 20 million of the 33 million legal immigrants admitted (61%) were chain-migration immigrants.” They were not selected on the basis of their skills or potential to contribute to the well-being of the American people, but qualified to move permanently to the United States on the basis of merely of who they were related to.
As any serious student of history knows, our predecessors exhibited much more common sense than the present Congressional buffoons. In 1917 the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over sixteen years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to deny entrance. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for Japanese and Filipinos.
The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants being allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. When studied in detail, the specifics were very similar to what President Trump is proposing. In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity. We are still waiting for Liberals to tell us why preserving a historic American culture is wrong.
Those who have gone on before us were much closer to the Bible and the principles it contains, thereby benefitting from Divine wisdom. They understood that God has disenfranchised some nations not only because of their attitude toward Him but also because the cultural corruption they possessed that would be a detriment to other countries. Some examples of God’s pronouncements of judgment include the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Philistines. Those people today are known as Arabs, Jordanians, and Palestinians: They are all predominantly Muslims (See Ezekiel 25 for details). The prophet continues the Lord’s hate campaign for several chapters to include Egypt, Syria, Babylon (modern Iraq), Persia (modern Iran), Libya, Ethiopia and Russia, with a variety of her allies.
However, the Lord is not so exclusive that He cannot identify individual exceptions. It must be remembered that the exception proves the rule. Progressives consistently attempt to build new rules based on some exception they can dig up. A first rate omission from a general curse appears in Acts 8. A high government official identified only as the Ethiopian eunuch “had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.” Clearly, this man was searching for Truth that he was not able to locate in his own country. This reinforces a principle found many times in the Scriptures which is ….. if a person is sincerely searching for Truth, God obligates Himself to send it.
The result of this inquiry was: “And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.” Upon their encounter, the Ethiopian invited Philip to ride with him and explain the Scriptures that he was reading. “Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” This bureaucrat received Christ as his personal Saviour (talk about grace) and immediately requested baptism.
The doctrine couldn’t be any more evident. Nationalities, cultural backgrounds and religious sentiment demand a thorough investigation assessing the possible negative or positive consequences of entry. Individuals should be given the opportunity to demonstrate in a convincing manner a desire to convert ---not to a religion but to Americanism. Our history adequately defines what that is, but a growing majority know nothing about Concord, Bunker Hill or the Declaration of Independence. This ignorance is coupled with illiteracy of the guiding light of Scriptures.
Chain immigration is a political refutation of the Biblical concept of personal accountability as illustrated in Deuteronomy 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin”. Matthew 25:31-46 outlines an eventual “Judgment of the Nations” which will exclude some national entities from entrance into the kingdom---the one everyone prays for…”Thy kingdom come”. However, the final judgment is one of individual responsibility…”And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
It’s truly amazing what Congress could learn from a Book they have discarded!