Modified Stationary Freak-Out

Introduction

So Donald “Jehu” Trump comes to the Left’s estate sale, looks at an expensive vase left by their deceased grandmother, and offers them ten bucks for it. “Ten dollars?!?!,” they screech in unison. “That is worth two thousand, at least.” What kind of idiot offers ten dollars for a two thousand dollar vase? After he leaves, having paid two hundred dollars for it, they all have a good laugh among themselves. What a maroon. How did he ever get where he is?

My title provides a little hat tip to Patrick McManus, but my application is not to hapless hunters lost in the woods, but rather to the Left, which really needs to be cautioned to husband its outrage a little better. While they are all lying on the floor panting, recovering from this last weekend’s immigration protests, they are going to be immediately confronted with a nomination to the Supreme Court. And three days after that, something else.

People who are freaking out make very bad poker players.

The Opening Gambit

Scott Adams, the talent behind Dilbert, has been remarkably prescient about Donald Trump from the beginning of this whole gaudy series of events. Here he is on what Trump is doing in this immigration snarl.

My takeaway is this.The idea is not that Trump is an ideological conservative, but rather that he is a pragmatist who knows what he wants, and how to work people until he gets what he wants. As it happens, thus far, what he wants lines up with what a lot of movement conservatives like, but that need not be the case. Thus far we thank the Lord. Thus far we continue to watch with interest. And thus far the Left has been enormously helpful.

Twenty Percent Tariff

Take another example—one of the ideas that was floated from Trump as an example of “Mexico paying for the wall.” What if we paid for the wall by slapping a twenty percent tariff on goods imported from Mexico? Now for anyone who understands basic economics at all, this would not be an example of Mexico paying for the wall. Mexico is paying for the wall only in the sense that Mexico and paying are found in the same sentence. “Customers buying goods produced in Mexico are paying an extra twenty percent, which will fund the wall.” See? Mexico, paying, and wall. They are all in there, Trump says. And the crowd roars.

In short, if such a policy were to be implemented, it would be Americans paying for the wall. And so Trump is charged with some “America first” inconsistency. Ha! What do you say to that?

But he is not trying to pay for the wall that way. He is trying to freak out the people is going to be negotiating with. And thus far, it has worked every time. Do manufacturing companies in Mexico want their goods to suddenly cost twenty percent more in their prime market? No, they don’t. Might they lean on their politicians the way American business leans on our politicians? Yes, they might do exactly that. Might that affect negotiations later on? Why, yes, it might.

Actually Paying for the Wall

So we are going to build a wall, and it has been said that Mexico is going to pay for it. I have a modest proposal in this regard. Why don’t we let Mexico pay for the wall by selling California to them? We could get a really good price, and that would translate into a really good wall. It would be a terrific wall. That would be important because it would have to go a little farther, and then along the southern border of Oregon.

Seriously Though . . .

So what are we as Christians to think about immigration? I mean, how are we to break this down biblically? I have two basic points to make at the outset, but which will obviously require further development. As long as Trump is president, we are going to be discussing immigration, and so let us get to it.

I want to point out the rapid emergence, once again, of what I call “jubilee theonomy.” This is where folks cherry pick certain happy verses from the Old Testament, and apply them in a manner that ignores every rule of exegetical responsibility. These are contextless smiley face verses, not whole counsel of God verses. Jesus was browner than we are, his family once fled into Egypt, which is in the Middle East, and ta da!, we have a refugee family, one that would be turned away by Donald J. Trump. Who did that to Jesus.

They forget how severely they chide theological conservatives for drawing an identity between America and ancient Israel. So wait. Are we supposed to do that, or are we not supposed to do that?

The second point is this. To debate “open borders” makes no sense at all. Open to what? I want borders that are easy to cross—for merchants, workers, tourists, and so on. Furthermore, I want borders that are easy to cross both ways. Remember that walls can keep people in as well as out. Remember that our border patrol currently has the authority to establish check points between New Mexico and Arizona, and there to stop some Yankee from Vermont and ask for his “papers, please.”

At the same time, we don’t want borders that are open to drug cartels, food stamp aspirants, terrorists, and so on. And so, once again, we are confronted with that age-old question, the one that we are resolutely refusing to answer. By what standard? We are having to make difficult decisions. By what standard are we making them?

So the issue is not what we think of “refugees.” To the extent that we are supposed to be in the place of ancient Israel, the blessings and curses are revealed in whether we are the head or the tail (Dt. 28:13). People streaming across the border could be evidence of God’s blessing—people like Ittai the Gittite being attracted to the service of King David, say. They could also be streaming across the border in a way that completely flummoxes the hapless Queen Angela Merkel.

The issue is not whether we have a border, or whether people are crossing it, or what direction they are traveling. The issue is this—are we living under the blessing of God? Are we the head or are we the tail? Fortunately, there is a way to tell, and I hope to get to that topic soon.