Democrats Misread Scripture To Justify Illegal Immigration

Leviticus 19:33–34 is one of the most frequently quoted verses in the modern progressive catechism, often deployed in high-minded tones to argue for borderless compassion. Devin Duke, a cognitive neuroscientist with a PhD and a social media megaphone, recently reached for this passage to rebuke American conservatives, quoting it as divine endorsement for granting foreign nationals the full rights of citizenship: “Do not mistreat foreigners living in your country, but treat them just as you treat your own citizens. Love foreigners as you love yourselves, because you were foreigners one time in Egypt.”

On its surface, this verse appears irrefutable. But appearances deceive. And in this case, they conceal a far more complex theology of sovereignty, responsibility, and national integrity that spans the Old and New Testaments, the rabbinic tradition, and Islamic scripture. What Duke offers is not a theological conclusion but a selective misreading, a kind of scriptural ventriloquism, pulling one thread from Leviticus while ignoring the dense tapestry of biblical law, prophetic warning, and covenantal order that surrounds it.

Let us begin with the fundamental premise of Leviticus 19:33–34. These verses instruct the Israelites on how to treat gerim, or sojourners, resident aliens who, crucially, accepted the laws of Israel and lived peaceably among the people. These were not foreign invaders, illegal squatters, or enemies of the covenant. They were, to borrow a modern analogy, lawful immigrants or refugees under the jurisdiction of Mosaic law. Leviticus 24:22 reinforces this distinction: “You shall have the same law for the foreigner and for the native-born.” In other words, the ger was held to the same moral and legal standards as the Israelite.

Now consider what the Bible says about foreigners who do not accept those standards, who dwell unlawfully, or who seek power over the land and its people. Here the tone shifts, dramatically.

Exodus 23:33 is unambiguous: “They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me.” The context here is conquest and settlement. God commands Israel to drive out the Canaanite nations to prevent idolatry and moral corruption. This is not mere xenophobia, it is covenantal protection. Numbers 33:55 continues the theme: “If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land… those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides.” The biblical model is not integration without conditions but separation when values and loyalties conflict.

Deuteronomy 17:15 explicitly prohibits appointing a foreigner as king: “You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” This is theocratic nationalism, not globalism. It is the recognition that self-governance requires a shared moral and cultural framework. Deuteronomy 28 goes further, warning that disobedience to God will result in foreigners rising in power over the Israelites: “The foreigner who resides among you will rise higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower… they will be the head, and you will be the tail.” Foreign rule is not a blessing; it is a curse.

Nor does the New Testament soften this stance into borderless utopianism. While Christ preaches love of neighbor and the universality of salvation, the Revelation of John describes a future in which the Holy City is trampled by Gentiles (Revelation 11:2). Even in eschatological visions, the sovereignty of God’s people remains a central concern.

The rabbinic tradition, too, is unequivocal. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 20a) prohibits selling land in Israel to non-Jews, interpreting Exodus 23:33 as a legal injunction to avoid granting foreigners a foothold. The medieval commentator Nachmanides, in his gloss on Numbers 33:53, makes the point explicit: Jews are commanded to possess the land and not yield it to other nations. Sovereignty, in the Jewish tradition, is not negotiable.

Even the Zohar, that great mystical tome, echoes this theme with eerie prescience. In Shemot 32a, it predicts that the children of Ishmael will rule over the Holy Land when it is empty of its people, but that this domination will be temporary, contingent, and ultimately overturned. Foreign rule is tolerated only as a chastisement, never as an ideal.

Islamic scripture confirms the pattern. The Qur’an (5:51) cautions Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as political allies, “for they are allies of one another.” It is not merely a warning against misplaced trust, but against ceding influence. The hadith is even clearer: Muhammad is reported to have said, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula” and “Two religions shall not co-exist in the Hijaz.” The underlying principle is unmistakable: religious and national identity require territorial coherence. Political sovereignty and theological integrity go hand in hand.

These passages, drawn from three of the world’s great monotheisms, offer a unified thesis: hospitality is not license for invasion. Compassion is not capitulation. The stranger may be treated kindly, but he must not become your master. To quote Isaiah 1:7, when foreigners devour your fields in your presence, it is not a moment of virtue but of judgment.

Devin Duke’s invocation of Leviticus, however well-intentioned (or not), ignores the conditional nature of its hospitality. The ger who is to be loved as oneself is the one who abides by the law of the land and the moral code of its people. The illegitimate foreigner, the one who trespasses borders and undermines governance, is treated far differently in Scripture, not with hatred, but with clear-eyed realism.

To be clear, this is not an argument for cruelty. Scripture commands compassion, but never at the cost of chaos. A nation that forgets this becomes, not a beacon of mercy, but a carcass picked clean by the birds of foreign domination. The Bible is not a manifesto for open borders. It is a charter for ordered liberty, with clear boundaries between the guest and the governor, between the law-abider and the usurper.

It is no accident that even in Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims could live in Muslim lands only under the dhimmi system, which granted residence in exchange for tribute and submission. In other words, residency was conditional upon acknowledgment of sovereignty. When that order broke down, so did peace.

In a moment when US border policy is under extraordinary strain and when progressive theologians are reaching for holy writ to sanctify lawlessness, we would do well to return to the actual text. Not the soundbite. Not the slogan. The text. For in it we find that divine hospitality is not open-ended, but ordered. Not reckless, but reciprocal. And always anchored in the preservation of covenant, culture, and land.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Iconic American Company Lays Off US Workers — Seeks Foreign Replacements