So far, no Reconstructionist has stepped up to interact with my article explaining the unwise idea of throwing open national borders in a nation and era such as ours. One Reconstructionist condemned the article's ideas as "Kinist" -- without even reading it, by his own admission. Another dismissed it with a magical wave of the hand, citing phantom presuppositions he hasn't proven; he probably did not read the article either.
What I am saying is not really very different from the position expressed by Reconstructionist author Gary North in his book Political Polytheism. Let us take a look at the relevant quotation from page 661 of that work:
It is understandable that men do not want to grant to foreigners the sanction of the suffrage. They believe that if someone has fled from another place of residence, the refugee should not expect to tell his hosts how to run their country. It takes generations to learn the ways of a foreign nation, unless the immigrant has already accepted the religious views that undergird that nation. If he accepts the religion of the host nation, then he has made the transition. He is ready for citizenship. If he is willing to come under the sanction of the sacraments, then he is ready to exercise civil judgment in terms of the law of the covenant. Because modern democracies honor only the civil sacrament of voting, they resist turning over this authority to immigrants who can, in a mass democracy, vote their way into the pocketbooks and bank accounts of those who now reside in the host nation. So, the residents want to limit immigrants to those who have equally large pocketbooks and bank accounts. Canada welcomes Hong Kongers who can bring large sums of money with them. Nations allow immigrants to buy their way in. Closed borders are the price of political "open communion" - one man, one vote.
Reconstructionist proponents of open borders are guilty of an intellectual exercise of an over-realised eschatology. If, say, the United States were indeed a society living consistently in allegiance to the kingdom of God, faithfully establishing biblically faithful justice on a consistent basis and full of legitimately born-again people who had selected large swaths of legitimately born-again people to govern, the "let them come and assimilate into Christian society" argument employed by Marinov and others would very plausibly have some merit. As it stands today, however, American society is nothing like that. Expecting that, say, a Bangladeshi national, having been given legal-resident status six years ago, would not strap a bomb to his chest to murder innocent people en masse because he has seen the wonders of McDonald's, tasted Coca-Cola, and been given ObamaCare benefits is to dally in the Magic Dirt theory of assimilation... proving oneself laughably naive.
Forget anyone explaining to a man like that the wonderful intricacies of God's Law. Has he ever even heard a simple Gospel presentation? It is highly unlikely. So why do Reconstructionists think it would be a good idea to bring even more people like him to their nation to foment even more violence and provoke even more inter-ethnic discord?
