Misreading Scripture: The Bible, Illegal Immigration, and the Struggle for National Identity, By Peter West

A recent X post by @amuse challenges progressive interpretations of Leviticus 19:33–34, a verse often cited to advocate for open borders and unconditional acceptance of immigrants, including those entering illegally. Devin Duke, a cognitive neuroscientist, quoted this passage — "Do not mistreat foreigners living in your country, but treat them just as you treat your own citizens" — to argue for granting foreign nationals full citizenship rights. However, @amuse contends this is a selective misreading, stripping the verse of its context within a broader biblical framework that prioritises lawful residency, sovereignty, and covenantal order. This debate echoes concerns in the UK and Australia, where mass immigration is reshaping demographics and sparking fears of cultural erosion. For aging populations, these shifts threaten economic stability and social cohesion. This post examines how the Bible is misused to justify illegal immigration, and compares the issue across the US, UK, and Australia.

Leviticus 19:33–34 in Context: Conditional Hospitality, Not Open Borders

Leviticus 19:33–34 instructs the Israelites to treat the ger (sojourner or resident alien) with kindness, loving them as themselves because the Israelites were once foreigners in Egypt. Progressives like Duke interpret this as a divine mandate for borderless compassion, implying that all immigrants, regardless of legal status, should be welcomed with full rights. However, @amuse argues this misrepresents the ger's role in biblical law.

The ger was not an illegal intruder but a foreigner who accepted Israel's laws and lived peaceably under its covenant. Leviticus 24:22 underscores this: "You shall have the same law for the foreigner and for the native-born." The ger was expected to adhere to Israel's moral and legal standards, akin to a lawful immigrant today. In contrast, the Bible takes a stern view of foreigners who threaten the covenant or sovereignty:

Exodus 23:33: "They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me," referring to Canaanites whose idolatry could corrupt Israel.

Numbers 33:55: Warns that allowing hostile inhabitants to remain will cause ongoing conflict, like "barbs in your eyes."

Deuteronomy 17:15: Prohibits a foreigner from ruling as king, emphasising theocratic nationalism.

Deuteronomy 28:43–44: Describes foreign dominance as a curse for disobedience, with foreigners rising "higher and higher" while Israelites sink.

These passages highlight a principle of conditional hospitality: kindness to strangers is contingent on their respect for the host nation's laws and values. The New Testament, while universal in its salvation message, retains this concern, as seen in Revelation 11:2, where Gentiles trampling the Holy City symbolise a loss of sovereignty. Rabbinic texts, like the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 20a) and Nachmanides' commentary on Numbers 33:53, reinforce this by prohibiting land sales to non-Jews to preserve Jewish control. Even Islamic scripture (Qur'an 5:51, hadith) emphasises territorial and cultural coherence, allowing non-Muslims residency only under conditional systems like dhimmi status.

@amuse argues that Duke's selective use of Leviticus ignores these conditions, equating lawful gerim with illegal immigrants who bypass borders or undermine governance. This misreading frames compassion as capitulation, overlooking the Bible's balance of mercy and order.

Misuse in Modern Context: The US Immigration Debate

In the US, Leviticus 19:33–34 is often invoked by progressive activists and politicians to criticise border enforcement, especially under conservative administrations. The X post notes the strain on US border policy, with 2.5 million apprehensions of migrants at the southern border in 2023 alone (CBP data). Duke's interpretation aligns with calls to grant undocumented immigrants citizenship rights, citing biblical compassion. However, @amuse counters that this ignores the distinction between lawful residents and those who enter illegally, potentially destabilising national order.

The Bible's emphasis on covenantal protection resonates with modern concerns about illegal immigration's impacts: strained public services, wage suppression (e.g., 1.3% wage growth lag for low-skill workers), and security risks (e.g., 700,000 "gotaways" in 2023). X users arguing that unchecked migration erodes sovereignty and burdens taxpayers. Yet, progressives argue that compassion for migrants, many fleeing violence or poverty, aligns with Christian values, citing Matthew 25:35 ("I was a stranger, and you welcomed me"). This creates a theological tug-of-war, with both sides cherry-picking scriptures to suit their agendas.

Comparing the US, UK, and Australia: Immigration and Identity

The misuse of scripture in the US parallels immigration debates in the UK and Australia, where demographic changes fuel fears of cultural and economic disruption:

UK: Matthew Goodwin's Telegraph article (July 6, 2025) warns that white Britons will be a minority by 2063, with 40% of babies in England born to foreign-born mothers in 2024. This rapid shift, driven by immigration from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, is seen as undermining British identity without public consent. The UK's welfare state (£296.3 billion in 2023–24, rising to £377.7 billion by 2029–30) exacerbates tensions, as resources strain under population growth.

Australia: Critics like Llewellyn-Smith and Loudon allege Albanese's policies, welcoming 150,000 Chinese students and 580,500 visitors in 2024, tilt Australia toward China, risking demographic and geopolitical shifts.

US: Illegal immigration dominates the debate, with 10 million undocumented immigrants estimated in 2024 (Pew Research). Unlike the UK's cultural concerns or Australia's economic pragmatism, the US grapples with border security and political polarisation, amplified by scriptural misinterpretations.

The US and UK share a sense of democratic betrayal, with X posts decrying "uncontrolled" migration (e.g., @LD_Sceptics). Australia's debate is less about cultural erosion but mirrors concerns about sovereignty and economic dependence. Public resistance grows when changes feel imposed.

Implications for Aging Populations

For older adults, these immigration debates impact:

Economic Stability: In the US, illegal immigration strains public services ($150 billion net cost annually, Federation for American Immigration Reform). The UK's welfare crisis and Australia's China reliance threaten pension and healthcare funding.

Social Cohesion: Rapid demographic change can alienate seniors, as seen in the UK's "thinner" national identity or Australia's concerns about Chinese influence.

Security: Illegal immigration in the US and small boat crossings in the UK (10,000 in 2025) raise security fears, impacting on all who value stability.

How the Bible Is Misused: A Pattern of Selective Reading

The misuse of Leviticus 19:33–34 follows a pattern:

1.Decontextualization: Progressives isolate the verse's call for compassion, ignoring conditions like lawful residency (Leviticus 24:22) or warnings against foreign dominance (Deuteronomy 28:43–44).

2.Ignoring Counter-texts: Scriptures like Exodus 23:33 and Numbers 33:55, which prioritise covenantal integrity, are overlooked, creating a one-sided narrative of universal acceptance.

3.Modern Projection: Biblical hospitality is equated with modern open-border policies, disregarding the ger's obligation to integrate. This conflates charity with lawlessness.

4.Cross-Religious Consistency: Jewish and Islamic texts reinforce conditional hospitality, yet progressives focus solely on Christian compassion, sidelining broader theological principles.

This selective reading distorts the Bible into a political tool, undermining its nuanced balance of mercy and order. @amuse's critique aligns with traditionalist X voices (e.g., @Cernovich), who argue that scripture supports borders and sovereignty, not chaos.

Conclusion: Scripture, Sovereignty, and Survival

The misuse of Leviticus 19:33–34 to justify illegal immigration oversimplifies a complex biblical framework that balances compassion with covenantal order. In the US, this fuels polarised debates, while the UK and Australia grapple with parallel concerns about demographic change and sovereignty. The Bible is not a blank check for open borders; it's a call for ordered liberty. As the US, UK, and Australia navigate immigration's challenges, they must heed this balance to avoid the abyss of collapse.