"Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."
Alternate Website Access:
From its earliest beginnings, the United States has claimed to be a nation “conceived in liberty.” [a] That promise was never meant to be limited by birthplace. Long before there was a United States, men and women crossed oceans seeking the same things that still move the human heart today—freedom, safety, opportunity, faith, and the hope of belonging. To call such people criminals for lacking official permission is to forget the moral law of God, the historical truth of our own founding, and the Constitutional ideals that continue to define justice.
I. God’s Law and the Unalienable Right to Migrate
Before there were nations, there was the divine command: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28 [1]). The right to move, to seek peace, and to provide for one’s family is not a privilege granted by people in governments; it is part of the created order and a natural right of mankind.
Scripture teaches that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27 [2]). From that divine image flows the natural right to live and to seek a place where life can flourish. “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1 [3]). No human boundary can erase that truth. The biblical command is unambiguous: “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:19 [4]). Likewise, God instructs, “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” (Leviticus 19:33–34 [3a])
Jesus embodied that command. As an infant He fled violence and became a refugee in Egypt (Matthew 2:13–15 [5]). Joseph and Mary’s permission to flee to Egypt came from an angel of God not Cesare or Pharaoh. In His parables Jesus erased tribal and national distinctions: the Samaritan, not the Levite or Jewish Priest, was the true neighbor (Luke 10:25–37 [6]). To welcome the stranger is therefore not a political preference but a Christian duty. The moral law requires only one limit—no one may harm another’s life, liberty, or property (Romans 13:9–10 [7]). Beyond that, movement and residence are matters of conscience and need, not sin or criminality.
II. America’s Founders and the Reality of Unauthorized Settlement
The settlers who became America’s founders did not wait for permission. The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth in 1620 had no royal license to settle where they did, and certainly none from the Native nations whose territory they occupied [8]. Thousands of other Europeans crossed the Atlantic on their own initiative, paying for passage and settling wherever they found opportunity [9]. Religious refugees—Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Huguenots—often left secretly because their faiths were banned. For them, “illegal” travel was the only path to liberty [10].
One of the earliest and most poignant examples appears in Charles Carleton Coffin’s The Story of Liberty. In 1607 a congregation of English Separatists sought to escape the king’s persecution and sail for Holland. The men secretly boarded a vessel, planning for their wives and children to follow. But royal officers arrived before the women could embark. Hoping to trap the men, the officers seized the women and children, holding them as hostages to force the men to return. Coffin recounts that “seeing they could do no more, the magistrates at last let the poor women go.” [11] Those families—once criminalized for trying to leave their native country—later became the Pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic. Their defiance of unjust authority planted one of the first seeds of American liberty.
Even after colonies formed, the British crown’s orders were routinely ignored. The Proclamation of 1763 forbade settlement west of the Appalachians; colonists went anyway [12]. Those “illegal settlers” became the revolutionaries who declared that liberty and the pursuit of happiness were rights given by God, not favors from a monarch [13]. In short, the United States was built by people who migrated and settled without permission [14].
III. The Constitution’s Protection of Persons, Not Papers
When the Constitution was written, it contained no clause giving government authority to stop peaceful migration [15]. The Naturalization Clause in Article I empowers Congress only to set rules for citizenship, not to close the nation’s doors [16]. The notion of federal “sovereign” power to exclude foreigners arose much later, through nineteenth-century court decisions such as Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889)—an interpretation born of fear during the Chinese Exclusion era, not of the founders’ text [17].
By contrast, the Constitution’s express protections are universal. The Fifth Amendment forbids depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [18]. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction [19]. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Supreme Court confirmed that these words apply “to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality” [20]. The law therefore recognizes what Christian faith already teaches: an individuals’ rights and identity do not depend on documentation [21].
IV. Learning from America’s Moral Failures
History shows that when law forgets its purpose—to protect rather than to persecute—it becomes a weapon of injustice. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first federal statute to bar immigration on the basis of race or nationality [22]. It arose not from war but from domestic fear and resentment in the American West. Labor Unions, blaming Chinese workers for low wages, demanded exclusion, and Congress complied [23]. The law forbade nearly all immigration from China and denied Chinese residents the possibility of citizenship. It stood for more than sixty years [24].
That same mindset—seeing people of a different background as outsiders unworthy of equal protection—reappeared repeatedly throughout American history. In the 1840s, Irish immigrants fleeing famine were branded as criminals and papists, attacked in the streets, and denied jobs under signs that read “No Irish Need Apply” [25]. In the 1850s, the Know-Nothing Party arose, calling for longer naturalization periods and seeking to bar Catholics from office, claiming their faith made them disloyal [26].
At the same time, Latter-day Saints (Mormons), many being European immigrants, were driven from Missouri and Illinois by armed mobs and state militias under official decrees that branded them “enemies.” Governor Lilburn Boggs’s 1838 “Extermination Order” made it lawful to kill them or drive them out of the state—an act of open, state-sanctioned religious persecution [27]. The survivors fled west and built new lives in the desert, proving again that liberty often survives only where permission is denied [28].
Italian immigrants were often portrayed as dangerous, uneducated, and incapable of assimilation. Newspapers called them “dagos” and “mafiosi.” Employers refused to hire them. Politicians claimed they brought crime and disease. Even churches and charities sometimes turned them away, saying they were “too foreign” or “too Catholic” [29].
Yet, like every persecuted group before them, the Italian immigrants answered hatred with hard work and perseverance. They built railroads, mined coal, farmed barren land, and filled the ranks of the factories that powered America’s growth [30]. Their children fought in America’s wars, prayed in her churches, and helped build the very cities that once despised them [31].
Then came the Japanese-American internment during World War II. After Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, fear and suspicion swept the country. Under Executive Order 9066, more than 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, two-thirds of them U.S. citizens, were forced from their homes and confined in camps surrounded by barbed wire [32]. No charges, no trials—only ancestry was required for imprisonment.
Four decades later, Congress and the President of the United States formally apologized, recognizing the internment as a “grave injustice” born of “wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership” [33]. But the damage—to families, property, and trust—could never be fully undone [34].
Each generation’s unjust laws were framed as “necessary for order,” but time revealed their true nature: they were acts of fear disguised as law. Whether against Catholics, Mormons, Irish, Asians, Italians, or Mexicans, the pattern is the same:
Calling peaceful migrants “criminals” for crossing from one human jurisdiction to another repeats this same moral failure—confusing regulation with righteousness, and fear with justice [36]. True crime is the deliberate injury of another’s rights. Peaceful existence is not a crime. When law punishes presence rather than harm, it ceases to serve justice and instead becomes an offender to it [37].
V. The True Solution: Punish Harm, Protect Liberty
The moral and Constitutional solution to the immigration question is not greater punishment for presence but equal punishment for harm [38]. Whether a man was born in Texas or across the border, his moral standing before the law should be measured by one standard: Has he violated the rights of another person?
Under both Scripture and the Constitution, liberty ends only where another’s rights begin [43]. This principle preserves public safety without sacrificing freedom. It honors God’s command—“Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10 [44])—and fulfills the Constitution’s promise that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process [45].
VI. Faith and the Founding Creed in Harmony
The Declaration of Independence declares that all people are “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” [46]. That statement, echoing Scripture, locates an individual’s rights in God, not government [47]. Both the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the founding creed teach that authority must exist for the sake of justice, not exclusion. Governments are ordained to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent (Romans 13:3–4 [48]), not to deny shelter, work or residency to those who seek peace [49].
A nation faithful to both the Constitution and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will therefore protect life, liberty, and property for all who live within its reach [50]. It will enforce its laws against those who harm others, but it will not criminalize honest labor or peaceful presence [51]. Borders may serve the purposes of order and protection, yet order and safety must always yield to justice and divine law; for when they do not, both safety and order perish [52].
VII. The Consequences of Forgetting Justice and Mercy
When a nation ceases to protect all people equally, it begins to corrode the very foundations that sustain it. The moral cost is immediate, and the social decay soon follows.
1. Moral Consequences.
Scripture warns that injustice invites judgment: “Woe to those who make unjust laws, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;” (Isaiah 10:1–2 [53]). When law is used to oppress rather than to defend, it turns the strength of government into sin. God rebuked Israel for oppressing “the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow” (Jeremiah 7:5–7 [54]). A people that close their hearts to justice and charity close their doors to divine blessing. Christ declared that the nations will be judged by how they treat the least of these: “I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not” (Matthew 25:43 [55]). To refuse refuge is not merely unkind—it is disobedience to the very command that defines Christian faith and its condition for salvation. [56].
2. Social Consequences.
History confirms the pattern. Societies that divide people by origin or status sow distrust and violence within their own borders [57]. Empires that enslaved or excluded foreign peoples eventually collapsed under rebellion and moral exhaustion [58]. In America, every era of exclusion—Native removals, slavery, segregation, religious bigotry and race-based immigration bans—left wounds that were difficult to heal [59]. Each produced social conflict, economic loss, and a stain on national conscience. Denying refuge does not secure peace; it multiplies suffering. The refusal to shelter Jewish refugees in the 1930s stands as one of the darkest moral failures of the modern world [60]. Fear and prejudice may preserve comfort for a moment, but they destroy moral credibility for centuries [61].
3. The Withering of Freedom.
When a government decides that some persons are less entitled to protection, the precedent never stops at the border. Injustice toward the outsider becomes permission to oppress the insider. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from Birmingham Jail, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” [62]. A nation that denies refuge will soon find its own citizens unsafe, for it has taught itself to ignore the higher laws [63].
4. Restoring the Blessing.
Scripture promises renewal to the people who repent of hardness and return to mercy: “If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke … and if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry; and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity; and thy darkness be as noonday” (Isaiah 58:9-10 [64]). Equal protection is not only a legal principle but an act of worship—the nation’s acknowledgment that every human being bears God’s image [65]. To protect all who dwell within its reach is therefore both moral obedience and civic wisdom. It heals division, strengthens trust, and invites divine blessing [66]. The refusal to do so leads to the opposite: fear, decay, withdrawal of God’s blessings and eventual ruin [67].
VIII. Conclusion, A Call to America
From the first settlers who crossed the Atlantic to the families arriving today, the same hope has guided human movement: to live free under God [68]. The United States honors both its faith and its founding when it treats newcomers not as trespassers but as neighbors [69]. Every person who comes seeking peace carries the same image of the Creator that the Pilgrims claimed for themselves (Genesis 1:27 [70]).
To protect such people is not weakness; it is fidelity—to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that commands love of the stranger, to the Constitution that protects every person’s liberty, and to the American story itself [71]. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “You are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of His household” (Ephesians 2:19 [72]). When America lives by that truth—punishing harm and protecting the peaceful—it remains what it was meant to be: a refuge of freedom under God, a nation where law and mercy walk together [73].
3a. Holy Bible, King James Version, Leviticus 19:33–34. “And if a stranger sojourn with the
in your land, yes shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself…”
Section III
I have taken many years to study this subject and prepare this document. I believe this essay expresses the correct principles on this matter, even though it may be unpopular.
Please let me know what it is that you believe is not a correct principles in the document. Please note the many references at the end.
Thank you,
Ammon Bundy
However, people coming to this country is not and never has been a deteriorating issue. To make them the cause of our problems here is not correct. Solve the welfare issue and correctly punish those who harm others and we deter any people coming here for the wrong reasons.
Also, as true Christians we should not be persuaded by the fear tactics spewed for political power. We should be actively teaching those who come to this land the gospel of Jesus Christ and converting them to the truth, making them our brothers and sisters. This has happened many time before in this country and should happen again without ostracism. That is how we preserve peace and the Constitution indefinitely.
Ammon Bundy
On the other hand, I have always struggled with Ammon's LDS background. Little Joe was a crook and was driven out of communities in very much the way trouble makers should be handled today. If we want to study the LDS case, we should include their own crimes as they secured their new desert hideout under the leadership of Little Joe's crime boss successor, Brigham Young. And how they later pursued statehood at all costs by turning back on their own prophet's instructions.
Unfortunately for the good state of Idaho, Ammon has never been a great communicator and he suffers from the delusion of Mormonism. We'll keep praying for you, Ammon 🙏 You're a good man!
With much love & affection,
Casey & Margie
Anyone person, migrant or citizen who "rapes, steals, murders, trafficking children, and the list goes on" should be quickly punish by the law. On the same hand, those who live here peacefully as good neighbors should not be punished. Very simple. Europe (your country) is a disaster because they have not followed this basic concept of justice, along with their welfare programs. Correct the penal system and government welfare in Europe and most of the problems there will be solved. Its not a migration issue.
I will also add this - The people in Europe have become so secular that they do not teach or preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who come to their countries. This allows for other theologies to go unchallenged and flourish. It almost seem intentional. In the past most of those who came to America and at times Europe would become converted to the truth of Jesus Christ. "Your Country" is failing not because of people moving in or moving out, but rather the failure to implement correct law and remain a Christian nation.
There is no question that early European migrants were strangers to this land, and in many cases they infringed upon the life, liberty, and property of those who were here first. At the same time, many settlers did respect the life, liberty, and property of Native people, and there were Native groups who, in turn, took life, liberty, and property from settlers. There was wrongdoing on both sides.
Eventually, the U.S. government committed a deep injustice against all Native peoples. Entire nations were treated according to a harmful stereotype, as though every tribe and every individual—men, women, and children—were unequal to European settlers or guilty of some collective crime. Forcing Native peoples onto reservations was a tragic and wrongful act that should never have happened.
There was, and still is, more than enough room for both cultures. But the two ways of life were fundamentally different. Many Native societies were primarily hunter-gatherers, requiring large areas of land to sustain themselves. European settlers were agrarian and built permanent homes while cultivating relatively small parcels of land. From the outset, the efficiency of a sedentary farming society made it a losing battle for the Native way of life.
What I believe was—and still is—the most damaging policy imposed on Native people is the creation of government dependency. Once, Native peoples were among the most independent and self-reliant on this continent. Now many live month to month on subsidies taken from others through government systems.
I truly believe your people will thrive again when government stops fostering dependence through welfare and subsidies. When that day comes, I believe Native people can become among the greatest and strongest communities on earth. But as long as the system keeps your people relying on government assistance your people will remain dependent on Caucasian control. keeping them tied to outside control.
It is foreknowledge that most often than not the Europeans provoked Natives to war. Thus, it is unfair to claim that Natives' intent was to commit crimes against Europeans. There may have been some that learned to hate the white man, but overall chiefs sought peace. Unfortunately, due to the lies and broken promises and treaties it was difficult for the chiefs to keep peace due to unfavorable circumstances that the white man caused. Ultimately, Natives were forced to defend their women and children, and everything that belonged to them. According to my ancestors and historians the intent of the foreigners were to eliminate the Natives altogether, and take away their land when there was plenty of it for everyone. Even to this day it's such nonsense that depopulation is necessary due to a shortage of land. Nonetheless another story for another time.
Natives fought hard in their defense of their inherent rights to life, liberty, and property until they were finally overpowered by the foreigners. Extinction of my people almost occurred. Sadly with time, foreigners did force my people out of their land and enslaved them in horrific reservations. I know my grandfather was born and raised in one. The real argument here is that the Europeans considered themselves superior to the Natives thus calling them "savages" and "animals." This was way before a government was established. Of course, later on years a government was created but by only foreigners not Natives. However, I do agree with you on your three last paragraphs of your response.
Thank you Ammon for your response in sharing your thoughts. It gave me much to contemplate and think about in terms of seeking solutions for our own country's freedoms as a whole. Sadly, many of us are dealing with hard-core tyranny in our courts of so-called justice. Perhaps, soon you could write another article concerning Social Compacts. It is most intriguing how our Republic government thrived on Social Compacts, which many of us believe it is still the solution against a tyrannical government.
Best regards,
Social Compacts is certainly a topic worth addressing that I may take on sometime soon. Not sure how the nationalist right or the socialist left in this country will take the idea that people have a right to come together and defend themselves, even against corrupted archaic compacts like our current governments if needed.
I do however vehemently oppose the idea of Social Contracts by birth pushed by the nationalist conservative right and Marxist left.
Have a great day!
We cannot look at this problem through the lens of history and our current understanding of immigration. We don't quite have the words to describe the problem and therefore, we have trouble defining it, leading to the incapability of solving it.
We cannot fully argue on the side of immigrants because we are not faced with what we historically see as immigration. What we are facing is weaponized mass migration clearly designed to overwhelm our inhabitants with immense direct costs, victimize them with crime, raise the price of everything, and create clashes of cultures that cannot and will not abide together peacefully.
We have a soft invasion of sorts which constitutes an attack on those living here as a part of a 5th generation warfare campaign by faceless power brokers and bureaucratic functionaries. How can we preserve the rights of individual migrants while punishing the those that have lured, sponsored, transported, clothed, housed, and fed those migrants here?
The longstanding assumption with voting has been that if your candidate loses you accept to abide by the rulings of the party in power insofar as those policies are in line with applicable laws. This is no longer the case as it is clear that many laws have been broken to bring these people here. What are a people to do when their elected government no longer adheres to the assumptions of the voting population?
It is an uncomfortable conclusion that must be reached for this problem to be solved. It will not be solved by anyone that we elect.