**The Border Debate: A Washington Tale in the Age of Jesus**
In the heart of Texas, a spirited debate unfolded on a college campus, perfectly encapsulating the current clash of ideologies regarding immigration. A freshman political science major, Emma Claire, brought a hot-button issue to the forefront: what if Jesus were to come to America in modern times? Would Republicans let him in? There is no denying the audacity of that question, especially when it comes loaded with historical and theological implications. The conversation quickly veered from a hypothetical to a reality check on American border policies.
The argument presented was that Jesus, as a refugee, would not be welcomed into this country by conservatives who support strict border control. However, in a twist of logic reminiscent of a theological debate, the response was that Jesus was not technically a refugee. His journey from Nazareth to Egypt falls under the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire, which complicates the narrative significantly. This creates a humorous yet serious dissection of what it means to classify someone as a refugee and prompts deeper questions about citizenship, legality, and the basis of compassion for those hoping for a better life.
A decisive point was made: America is not a land of open borders. Just as individuals secure their homes and dorm rooms from unwanted guests, the argument follows that the same should apply on a national scale. After all, why should the vast expanse of our nation operate differently than a household? With millions entering the country in recent years, including 14 million undocumented individuals, it is essential to prioritize American citizens first before extending the welcome mat too broadly. The message was clear: loving one’s neighbor begins at home, and a healthy nation must first care for its own people.
The discussion also highlighted a complex balance between compassion for those in need and the safety and well-being of American citizens. Many are quick to insist that love and assistance be extended to all who seek refuge. However, this viewpoint can clash with a practical approach to immigration. It raises an important reminder that while helping foreigners is noble, the foundation of a country must be built on the principle of putting its citizens first—a lesson that should be reflected in our immigration policies.
Lastly, the conversation drew on ancient wisdom, invoking the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. His principle of “ordered loves” offers a moral framework for caring for our families, communities, and country, suggesting that we cannot neglect those closest to us for the sake of distant strangers. The current narrative around immigration sometimes feels like an overwhelming social experiment rather than a well-thought-out policy. If the government is not fundamentally working for its own people, it risks becoming part of a much larger—and potentially destructive—social dynamic.
As the discussion wrapped up, it was evident that the border debate stretches far beyond politics and policy; it resonates with the very essence of what it means to be an American. The questions raised are not easy, and the answers even harder to engineer. All these viewpoints do not merely argue about numbers, laws, or borders but delve into what kind of nation we aspire to be, keeping faith, family, and freedom closely intertwined in the conversation.
