Jesus Would Have Deported Jorge

Paul Derengowski, ThM

Jorge Garcia is finally going home.

If you have not heard about Jorge, he is the illegal alien that has resided in the United States for the past 30 years and done very little to nothing about his illegal status.

Well, as the expression goes, “There is payday, someday,” and Jorge’s pay came in the form of ICE agents showing up at his door in Detroit and taking him into custody.

Jorge Garcia

Jorge left the United States for his home country of Mexico on Tuesday, January 15, and reports are that he may not be allowed to return for ten years!

All that said, some bleeding hearts I have conversed with on the subject believe that Jesus would not have sent Jorge packing.

They even went so far as to accuse me of being non-compassionate; that my Christian stance was “fake.”

Are they right? Let’s look at the biblical evidence.

Jesus never sinned, which means that when it came to civil law–that did not violate God’s Law–he kept it.

An example of Jesus keeping the law came in the form of a test directed at him by some Pharisees and Herodians.

It was a motley bunch that otherwise would have nothing to do with each, but on this occasion they teamed-up, since it suited their ulterior motives.

They asked him, “Tell us therefore, what do you think? It is lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, nor not?” (Matt. 22:17).

Of course, Caesar was the ruling, secular governor of Israel from abroad, or another individual advocating a system of rule that the Pharisees hated.

“But Jesus perceived their malice (Gr. πονηρίαν = “wickedness,” “evil”), and said, ‘Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?'”

It is always amazing when the Bible records the things that Jesus knew, especially when it came to the thoughts and intentions of men.

Challenging Jesus’ social ethic was not a place where anyone wanted to go, given that Jesus, even though he rocked the boats of many a hypocrite, was not an anarchist.

He kept and fulfilled the law, in other words, starting with God’s law, which was the foundation of reputable civil law (Matt. 5:17-ff.).

Because of both religious and legal naivete over who he was—plus a realization that they knew that Jesus would be a hard case to crack, if they were ever to be successful in convicting him of sedition against the Roman government—the religious and legal authorities had to constantly resort to trickery to hopefully cause him to stumble.

But, stumble he did not.

A Roman denarius with Caesar’s depiction.

“Show me the coin for the poll-tax,” was Jesus’ initial response. “And they brought him a denarius.”

A denarius was the Roman equivalent to a day’s wages for a common laborer during Jesus’ day.

“And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?

“They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

Jesus, in other words, believed that whatever civil law prescribed, and in this case, the paying of taxes to the ruling government, was to be obeyed, not subverted out of personal preference.

Later, the Apostle Paul would make the same argument in reference to obeying “the governing authorities.”

“Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Rom. 13:7).

The Pharisees and Herodians were recorded to be “marveled” or “amazed” (Gr. ἐθαύμασαν) upon hearing Jesus’ response—and then left his presence.

If Jesus was who they thought he should be, then he should have broken the civil law by rebelling against the idea of a poll-tax.

Instead, he advocated obedience to the civil law.

By way of application to the U.S. immigration law scenario and Mr. Jorge Garcia, if Jesus was asked, “Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to deport an illegal alien; to send Mr. Garcia back to his legal residence in Mexico?”

Jesus would have responded, “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the statutes concerning legal immigration.”

After bringing the documentation and looking at the evidence that Garcia has been residing in the United States for 30 years, taking advantage of its people and way of life, all the while ignoring the necessity of becoming a legalized citizen—at least until it was too late to do anything about it—Jesus would have said,

“Render unto the citizens of the United States those things that belong to them; and to God the things that are God’s.”

And hearing this, the subversives, protesters, and Left-wing antinomians were amazed, and leaving him, they went away, imposing things upon Jesus that he never stood for, while accusing Christians, who know Jesus and Bible, of things they were not guilty.

Should have U.S. Customs Allowed Jorge Garcia to remain in the U.S.?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

About the Author

President, Christian Apologetics Project PhD Candidate, Northwest University (2018) MA Apologetics w/ Honors, BIOLA University (2005) ThM, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2003) MDiv, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2000) BA Pastoral Ministry & Bible, Baptist Bible College (1992)

1 Comment on "Jesus Would Have Deported Jorge"

  1. As a follow-up, this article was posted over on Twitter, specially in a thread started by Left-wing, nut job, Alyssa Milano.

    Several of her sycophants showed up to special plead for all of the illegal aliens supposedly dying the desert from dehydration, because Border Agents were destroyed water supplies along the fences.

    Of course, rather than deal with the fact that the illegal aliens should not have been trying to cross the border in the first place, but that if they wanted to come to the United States legally, to go through the proper channels and process, the sycophants placed the blame on everyone else.

    Then, when the subject turned to the article posted above, the special pleading continued. Jesus, to them, was above love, peace, and compassion, as they ignored the fact that Jesus was also about obedience to the law, both secular and religious.

    Of course, what would a defense of Jesus’ standard be without the usual personal attacks from those without a coherent argument? Moreover, what would a defense of that which is coherent be without the usual fascist response of silencing the opposition, which is exactly what took place, when either Alyssa or Twitter deleted over 100 of my posts from that particular thread, and then proceeded to “shadow ban” my subsequent comments, again, in that particular thread?

    The good thing is, one day those who are lawless and twist the Bible’s message will be silenced. It will be “Do unto to others, as you would have them do unto you,” realized in the worst of possible ways.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.