How should Christians apply biblical perspectives to the current debate about immigration? The answer to that question is not easy because it involves two conflicting issues that generate lots of emotion. On the one hand is the concern of national security and a belief that citizens and aliens alike should obey the law. On the other hand is a concern for the poor and needy who want to come to this great county.

Christians who use passages in the Old Testament to support their position need to remember that these verses applied exclusively to the theocracy and don’t necessarily have direct application to our country today. For example, Deuteronomy 31:12-13 required that all foreigners dwelling in Israel must enter into the covenant to obey God. Those that did not support God’s leadership were not allowed to enter the land. Aliens in Israel were not given the same status and rights as Jews in the land (Deuteronomy 1:16, Numbers 15:16). These aren’t policy positions today that anyone would like to implement in America.

The Old Testament also called for Israel to treat aliens with respect. Exodus 22:21 says, “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” The alien was put in the same category as widows and orphans. They could receive a portion of the tithe (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). They had access to the gleanings in the field (Deuteronomy 24:19-22). It is also worth noting that these provisions did not apply to the foreigner who was temporarily in the country for work or other purposes.

A key New Testament passage is Romans 13:1-7 which teaches that government “is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” We should expect the government to protect our borders and to punish those who break our laws.

The fact that thousands of children are able to walk across our border is a visible illustration that our border is not secure. If we are looking for a first priority in the immigration debate, it is border security. I would suggest that closing the border is what the U.S. government needs to do first.

The humanitarian crisis on our southern border is growing daily. Even before the president and Congress resolve the issue, they need to find places for these illegal minors who have crossed the border into our country. We are running out of room on military bases. That is why what happened recently in Virginia illustrates the problem the government faces when they try to relocate thousands of kids from Mexico and Central America.

Lawrenceville, Virginia is a community of about 1,500 residents (more than three-fourths are African-American). They learned first hand what happens when the federal government plans to relocate hundreds of illegal minors in their town. Federal officials decided to place 500 of these kids in a black college that was shut down last year.

The citizens did not take kindly to the federal plan. A town hall meeting held last month brought an overflow crowd of more than 1,000 angry people to protest the government’s plan to relocate illegal immigrant children.

Citizens expressed concern about public safety. They wondered if the crime rate would skyrocket because these children (some who are up to age 17) would be placed on the campus without much adult supervision. The sheriff protested that 500 unaccounted “illegal alien children in my little sleepy town” would cause many problems.

Concern about disease also rated high in the complaints. Children from these countries are bringing in diseases like tuberculosis, Dengue fever, hepatitis, malaria, chickenpox, and measles. This would place an added burden on medical facilities and increase the possibility of these and many other diseases spreading to the general population.

It is understandable why the federal government might have picked this town. The college was empty and the population was primarily African-American. Most of the residents probably voted for President Obama. This community should have been one of the most supportive of the president’s relocation policy. It wasn’t and illustrates the problem the federal government faces as it moves thousands of illegal immigrant kids to other parts of the country.

Today is the 4th of July, and I thought I would take a moment to talk about the origin of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson said that many of the ideas in the Declaration came from John Locke. Jefferson also gave credit to the writer Algernon Sidney, who in turn cites most prominently Aristotle, Plato, Roman republican writers, and the Old Testament.

Legal scholar Gary Amos argues that Locke’s Two Treatises on Government is simply Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex in a popularized form. Amos says in his book Defending the Declaration: “that the ‘law of nature’ is God’s general revelation of law in creation, which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of men.”

This foundation helps explain the tempered nature of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for “light and transient causes.” They were mindful that Romans 13 says they should be “in subjection to the governing authorities” which “are established by God.” Yet when they suffered from a “long train of abuses and usurpations,” they argued that “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.”

Jefferson also drew from George Mason’s Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776). The first paragraph states that “all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”

The Declaration of Independence is more than 200 years old. It was a monumental work at the time, and even today its words ring with truth and inspire new generations.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a closely held corporation like Hobby Lobby was exempt from the Obamacare HHS mandate for abortifacient contraceptives. Before this important decision fades into history, I would like to talk about what this decision means for other religious liberty cases.

At the outset, let’s admit that in some ways the decision is a narrow one. It applies only to “closely held” companies where a family or small group of investors have a common commitment. It does not apply to large, publicly held corporations. That makes sense. The Green family that owns Hobby Lobby or the Hahn family that owns Contestoga Wood Specialties is very different from huge corporation with lots of unrelated shareholders.

The decision also set aside a number of arguments by the critics. The Solicitor General and even some on the court argued that corporations should not be covered by such provisions as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote “that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.” While it is true that corporations aren’t people, they are owned by people with religious beliefs.

The decision also set aside the silly argument that this precedent would allow other companies to demand an exemption for blood transfusions or vaccinations. The Supreme Court limited the scope of the decision to prevent that from happening.

This decision should also clear the way for other religious liberty cases involving the HHS mandate. If a for-profit closely held company can get an exemption, it would logically follow that Christian colleges (like Wheaton College) and other Christian ministries (like the Little Sisters of the Poor) should also be exempt.

Senator Ted Cruz, in fact, expressed that very sentiment. It is his belief that hundreds of cases will follow the Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. I expect to see many of these cases resolved quickly.

In less than a week’s time, two significant commentaries on robots appeared. Matthew Lynn wrote about “A Strategy for Keeping the Robots at Bay.” Holman Jenkins wrote that we should “Bring in the Robots.” The difference in the two articles illustrates the promise and fear robots create in our psyche.

On the one hand, we are excited about the possibilities robots provide us. Companies are developing a driverless car. Robots are found in nearly every factory in this country. Robots even perform surgical operations. Some futurists imagine a day “when machines perform whole categories of traditional human jobs.” This would even include “knowledge work.”

Robots now routinely perform tedious manufacturing jobs that used to be done by humans. They are more reliable, don’t need to take breaks, and don’t ask for pay raises. Other jobs will be affected by robotics. Scientists believe they will soon develop robots that will drive trucks and vans better than humans can.

That is why one of the commentaries argued that it was time to have robots take over certain forms of transportation. The two most recent accidents demonstrate that it was likely human error that caused the botched landing at San Francisco airport and the catastrophic train derailment in Quebec.

I’m not sure we are ready for pilotless airplanes or unmanned trains any more than we are ready for self-driving cars. But it is worth noting that Google’s driverless car is already licensed in three states. Legislatures may be ready for robots and self-driving cars long before the general public. Corporations are even more likely to remove employees in favor of automation.

That is why the other commentary talked about adapting to a world where robots take some of the jobs we used to perform. If you want a good job in this futuristic world, you will have to be creative and find new opportunities and industries.

Over the last few months I have been doing commentaries on the subject of Big Data. The enormous amount of digital information has been used by companies to find customers and by government to find terrorists. Hollywood has now found an important use for Big Data.

James Hirsen reports that Google data is now being used by Hollywood executives to predict future box office receipts. By paying attention to search information data, they now claim they have 94% accuracy in box office predictions.

A Google research paper explains that the number of Google and YouTube searches of a movie has the capacity to provide the film industry with a highly accurate predictor mechanism. Will the movie be a blockbuster or a bomb? Find out how many people are searching on the movie title. Of course, it is a bit more complex than that.

By analyzing the number of Google searches for a particular movie, predictions on the box-office gross can be estimated with approximately 70 percent accuracy. If you begin to add in the number of search ad clicks, you can improve the accuracy. Google researchers built a model that include search volume and search ad clicks over a seven day that had 92 percent accuracy.

By combining search volume on the movie trailers with other metrics, such as the franchise status of the movie and the season of release, they were able to achieve a model with 94 percent accuracy. It is worth noting that they could make some of those predictions four weeks before the release date.

Obviously, Hollywood executives are interested in Google models. It should help them predict the success or failure of a film. But it will also give them the ability to shape the most effective marketing campaign for future films. I predict they will spend more time working the social media sites in the hopes of driving potential audiences to film trailers and other marketing aimed at getting them to the movies.