Immigration Speech Delivered at the PA State Capitol by Sam Rohrer

Immigration Speech at the PA State Capitol

December 14, 2015

The Hon. Sam Rohrer

Today we gather here to express legitimate and studied concerns about the unjustifiable urgings from Barack Obama – even being joined by a few pastors and religious leaders – to continue lobbying the American public for in essence an unlimited open door for ‘embedded jihadists’  and refugees never intending to assimilate into our culture. Too many people in positions of leadership, refuse to acknowledge that we are at war! Or should I say, have had war declared against us, our way of life, our Constitution, and our historic relationship to the concept of a ‘holy experiment’ by a people embracing a totalitarian ideology. Denying the reality that our nation is already full of terrorists, these deniers of reality double down in bringing in hundreds of thousands more highly suspect people who embrace this ideology of totalitarianism from countries that harbor and train the very terrorists who destroy life, property, and commit the highest of crimes against humanity.

This morning, we’ve heard many great speakers share their views about why our elected officials in the federal and state government should not permit into our country vast populations of people who embrace an opposing ideological and political system and who call for the death and destruction of our nation and way of life. I’d like to concentrate for the next few minutes on dispelling a few of the ‘compelling arguments’ repeatedly cited by Barack Obama and some religious leaders for bringing in massive quantities of so called ‘refugees’.  I will put these into two categories: 1) Constitutional or civil, and 2) Moral

False Civil Arguments:

First: The proponents of nearly unrestrained and unvetted Muslim immigration or opening our arms to any or all would-be immigrants cite the same reason – “we have an historic ‘American’ role to play with opening our arms to ‘refugees’.  But this ‘refugee’ description is bogus. To call these preferred predominantly selected Muslim adherents ‘refugees’ who ostensibly long for religious freedom is not accurate. While some of these ‘refugees’ may wish to flee their respective nations because of the destruction of life and the economy by zealots within their own religion and political system, or because they might be persecuted or killed if they chose to leave their faith, the overwhelming majority are not coming to the United States because they want to worship Jesus Christ and Jehovah God. They, by their own admission, are committed to forcing Americans and Europeans to bow to the god of Allah and their prophet Muhammed.

In addition, the facts support the claim that the predominant make up of these ‘refugees’ going into Europe and here in the US are primarily military age young men who embrace jihadism, world domination and sharia law. Their admittance would only enlarge the already massive numbers of already placed Muslim adherents who by overwhelming margins confirm their support of sharia and jihad and are therefore sworn enemies of our Constitutional republic and who repudiate our view of self-government under God.  Ironically, those in government bent on bringing in these so called refugees are also as adamant that they not help the truly persecuted Christian or non-Muslim being brutally attacked in the Middle East and Northern Africa because of their faith.

Second: These government and religious leaders have even gone as far as to say that to not bring in unlimited numbers of people- who admittedly can’t be confidently vetted – is so un-American it violates the very essence of the Statue of Liberty which says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free…”   This claim is also bogus, untrue and a ruse. While that familiar phrase was an accurate description of a prevailing attitude toward those who were oppressed and downtrodden, that phrase had ensconced within it a very foundational assumption – and requirement.  That underlying premise was that those who would come here would come with the expectation and agreement that they would assimilate into our culture, obey and defend our Constitution and our laws, work hard and not become a liability to the taxpayer, learn to speak English, and would identify with historic Judeo-Christian principles underlying our nation. Those who would refused to do so were not welcomed into our nation. Yet the very discussion today not only denies this historical fact but also the very reality that these predominantly modern Muslim ‘poor and downtrodden’ are not coming with the intent to assimilate into our culture but to change our culture. The clear force of their politically based totalitarian ideology is to tear down our culture, destroy the Constitution and replace our system of law with sharia law, and replace the ‘holy experiment of self-government under God’ with totalitarianism and world domination. To compare today’s discussion around today’s ‘refugees’ with the historic American tradition and the Statue of Liberty’s ‘give me your poor’ is intellectually and historically dishonest.

Third:  These government and religious ‘leaders’ say that public policy must be driven by ‘compassion’, that is the proper compelling government action to bring in the Muslim adherent and ‘would be immigrant’  regardless of what they believe or from which nation they might hail. They imply if not outright say that to deny or restrict people holding to certain ideologies has no lawful or statutory precedent. Yet to hold this concept is to deny the most fundamental understanding of their duty and Constitutional obligation and facts of history.

First, they willingly refuse to acknowledge, that the primal duty and purpose of government is not worldwide humanitarianism or bringing in millions of people who will be dependent on the hard working taxpayers and citizens of this nation. The primary duty is to enact justice – praise those who uphold and obey our laws and to punish those who break our laws. Within this is the obligation to use the power of government to protect our citizens, our nation, our Constitution and our way of life, not to undermine it. It is this foremost obligation that proponents of unrestrained immigration have ignored and shall I say violated in an attempt to accomplish some political strategy or ulterior motive. Until the safety of the American people, the defense of their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the United states and our various states is affirmed and clear, or just out pf respect to the American people if nothing else – a temporary moratorium should in fact be imposed on all people coming from Terrorist protecting and producing nations.

Secondly, they willfully deny history and the facts. In the early days of our nation, we were literally at war with the Middle eastern Muslim world for many years. The fight against Islamic ideology is not new. The distinction is that in our early years our civil and religious leaders recognized it for what it was and dealt with it as the threat that it was. In more recent years, former administrations and Congresses in times of conflict and engagement with enemies of this nation codified into law limiting and restricting immigration.

One of the great tragedies of our time is that we no longer know (nor are most of our young people taught) the truth of the past.  Such is the case with all too soon forgotten legislation from our recent history.  Consider the “Immigration And Nationality Act of 1952.”  Passed on June 27 of that year, and for the purpose of preventing communists from entering the country, the actual text of the act is beyond applicable to today’s dangerous Islamic immigration and refugee situation!  The text of section 313 states:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-

— who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or 3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates … the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or

— who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or of officers or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or

— who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or

— who is a member of or affiliated with any organization, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5).

I’ve emphasized (in bold) the most appropriate portions!  In 1952, there was, obviously, no problem with excluding dangerous persons (and jihadists posing as refugees or immigrants definitely fits this description) from entrance into the United States!  Nor, was the “Christian” community – just a generation ago –  up in arms over the exclusion of said dangerous individuals from the United States!

 

False Moral and Biblical Arguments:

The moral component being cited by some religious leaders to justify a nearly unrestrained open door policy as promoted by Barack Obama is that of the biblical admonition to welcome the stranger and sojourner. They then couple this with the biblical command to care for the poor, the widow and orphan, to turn the other cheek, to love your enemies and some go as far as saying that we might even be able to ‘entertain angels unaware’! While in some ways this concept is admirable and true is falls entirely short in this situation. We as Americans are known for our compassion for the poor and we have perhaps set the highest standard in all history of civilizations in giving of our bounty for others. That is in fact what Christmas is all about.

However, some pastors and religious leaders are wrongly applying the command to the Church and to individuals to governmental public policy. That is not only unbiblical denying the clear teaching of Scripture but dangerous threatening the very foundation of our system of civil government that permits the Church and individuals to freely do fulfill what God has commanded. Should the Church be concerned about helping to meet the needs of the poor? The answer is unequivocally yes. But this command only applies to these two jurisdictions – Church and individuals – here in our own nation, our own communities, or our own neighbors.

Can we help overseas? That answer is a resounding yes as well. Such organizations like Samaritans Purse is right now in Greece and many places meeting the needs of the poor being displace by this enlarging war in the Middle East. This is exactly what should be done.

But, Jehovah God – the Author of moral Truth and Jesus Christ the Embodiment of Truth – never told any nation that they needed to open their arms unconditionally to the ‘stranger’. God never commanded any nation or His nation of Israel to invite in the sworn enemies of God or those committed to the destruction of their system of moral and civil law. There is simply no moral obligation for government to do what is currently being done or advocated. In fact it is not only a violation of our civil law it is a violation of moral law to bring in those who in time of war embrace the fundamental tenets of the very enemy who have sworn to kill us or to bring in people from countries who are training and harboring these enemies of freedom!

In the end, this matter has a simple solution. Government and government officials– do your lawful and moral duty to enact justice and protect God honoring and law abiding citizens of this nation.  Church leaders and individuals – do your duty to extend compassion and kindness to all strangers, foreigners, the poor, the widow and the homeless whether they be next door or around the world. If these simple lines of jurisdiction are followed, this current controversy would be eliminated. I pray to God that all in positions of authority would heed and lead. Our very freedom depends on it!

 

Stand in the Gap Today 2/7/17

What does the Bible have to say about the role and responsibility of education? With the #BetsyDeVos Senate Confirmation vote about to take place, should school choice be a top priority for the new Secretary of Education? Host: Dave Kistler

Stand in the Gap Today 2/8/17

What is the ticking time bomb in Europe and why do they want to ban it? Dr. Jimmy DeYoung, host of Prophecy Today answers this question and shares some exciting news from Israel. Host: Sam Rohrer

Evaluating the President’s Immigration Policies: Are They Biblical? Are They Constitutional?

The policies President Donald Trump set forth on immigration last week certainly stirred debate across the nation, from riotous protests on college campuses to government leaders strongly stating their opposition or support.

Now, Christians are asking themselves some very important questions—safety or being a good Samaritan? How would Jesus approach the refugee situation the country is facing?

The American Pastors Network  is attempting to explore some of those answers on its nationally syndicated radio program, “Stand in the Gap Today,” heard on 425 stations around the country.

APN President and “Stand in the Gap Today” co-host Sam Rohrer welcomed noted historian and WallBuilders leader David Barton to the program last week, when they discussed the ongoing immigration debate and the biblical and constitutional perspectives therein.

“Immigration in this country is certainly a polarizing issue,” Rohrer said. “But the main questions to explore are these: Are President Trump’s immigration policies in agreement with or in opposition to the historical ideology set in motion by our Founding Fathers? What did our founding fathers envision for the immigrant and how did they perceive this issue? David Barton’s valuable insights and knowledge of the historical and biblical precedent for our laws on immigration helped shed great light on this dilemma. After all, this is an issue that touches every American, with many looking to their pastors and the church for guidance.”

These three questions, and others, were explored on a recent program, with David Barton’s answers following:

Question 1: What did George Washington and our founders think about immigration and controlling it and would they have agreed with the concept of extreme vetting-similar to what President Trump is putting in place?

Answer: “It’s not somebody that just shows up at your border and says, ‘I’m going to live here.’ No, you have to say, ‘I want to live according to your rules. I want to become one of you’ … our immigration (policy) was based on was the biblical concept of ‘come in and be part of us.’” Read more

Question 2: When did the view of immigrants change to bringing in people who don’t ever want to become Americans but actually want to change America?

Answer: “The seeds of that change began in education in the 1920s, as Progressives shifted the way we taught. Prior to that point in time, we taught about individuals. We did not look at groups, we looked at individuals. Every individual had God-given inalienable rights. Every item in the Bill of Rights is given to every individual, it’s not given to groups…” Read more

Question 3: What other characteristics of a nation did our Founders understand and build within the framework of our Constitution?

Answer: “If you look at the Declaration, it starts with 155 words that set forth the entire philosophy of American government in six principles. Of those six principles, four of the six are absolutely God-centered. If you don’t get that right, you don’t get the philosophy of the government right … In America, you’re an American because you adopt a certain philosophy. You can come from any country to be an American if you’ll become part of that philosophy.” Read more

Stand in the Gap Radio 2/6/17

Today’s program: An analysis of the statements by Judge James Robart, a Federal official who blocked President Trump’s travel ban. Also, live commentary from former Marine Steve Gern in Iraq on the immigration issue,and finally, what is the role of Government vs. the role of the church when it comes to refugees? Host: Dave Kistler

A Christian’s Perspective on Radical Islamic Terrorism

In President Trump’s Inaugural address, he used strong words to address the issue of radical Islamic terrorism. Expert John Guandolo with Understanding the Threat organization gives an assessment of the threat, steps necessary to deal with it on the federal level, and practical ideas for citizens and churches to wisely and graciously understand and prevent terrorist situations.

Stand in the Gap Today 2/3/17

What do you think of President Trump’s first 10 Days in office? IQ al-Rassooli, Middle East expert, joins the program to analyze the world’s reaction to the rapid changes taking place under the new administration. Host: Sam Rohrer

APN Conference Call on President Trump’s Immigration Policies with John Guandolo

This recording was made during a conference call on Feb. 3rd.  Sam Rohrer, President of APN, hosted guest speaker John Guandolo with Understanding the Threat Organization.

The main points of the call were as follows:

TOPIC: President Trump’s Immigration Limitation Directive  

 KEY QUESTIONS:         

  1. Is it Constitutional?
  2. Is it Biblical
  3. Is it extreme?
  4. Is it unprecedented?
  5. Is it anti-Muslim?
  6. Is it appropriate?

TOPIC: Potential implications to Churches, citizens and Christians in the US

KEY QUESTIONS:   

  1. Is there a credible security threat to citizens, Christians, and churches in particular?  Why or why not?
  2. Is the threat level likely to increase in the near term? Why or why not?
  3. Is it appropriate for a pastor or church leaders to prepare and implement security measures? Why or why not?
  4. What should pastors/security teams etc do to best respond?
  5. What does UTT do to prepare and guide pastors and churches?

Q and A

Contact Information for John Guandolo and UTT

 

Stand in the Gap Today 2/2/17

Dr. Jimmy DeYoung, host of Prophecy Today, joins the program to talk about the significance of Bible prophecy for this current age.  Also, Sam Rohrer, APN President, gives a live update from the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. Host: Gary Dull

Stand in the Gap 2/1/17

God has established three institutions to impact the world and reveal His glory. What are they and how are their roles similar yet different? Guests Jim O’Bryon, Keith Wiebe, and David New give insights and expertise on these topics and more. Host: Gary Dull