Why Texas is Morally and Legally Right in Stopping the Invasion at the Border

 In the 1600's, Francis Turretin, a Christian Reformer in Italy, published "The Institutes of Elenctic (serving to refute; used of indirect modes of proof as opposed to deictic) Theology." The book as originally published is more than 3,000 pages in length, containing proofs and refutations on all major (and some intermediate and minor) topics on Theology. Turretin, being himself a great student of the Bible, was an avid and thorough student and scholar of all things Theological, and a formidable debunker of all things untrue.

So, what does this Italian Reformer who lived more than 300 years ago have to do with the current efforts of the State of Texas and Governor Greg Abbott in to stop the invasion of illegal aliens into Texas?

In a section of Turretin's book dealing with the "call to public ministry," Turretin points out that there are several different categories of "callings." Turretin makes two substantial points, and gives examples, of a particular type of call that is not an "ordinary" call (under the headings: Proof that an ordinary call is not always necessary: (1) from the general duty of believers to promote their own salvation and that of their neighbors. and From a case of necessity.) The examples he gives of why it is right and appropriate to take on a "calling" that is not "ordinary" follows:

First, each one is bound to embrace and defend the truth, and to reject falsehood and error; not only from his own heart, but also from the hearts of his neighbors and from the society in which he lives ,,, 

Second, the necessity of the case makes many things lawful which otherwise would not be lawful, in domestic affairs as well as in politics…

"If the doorkeeper of a house is overcome by a lethargy or by apoplexy, he cannot prevent the entrance of thieves, even though it is lawful for any servant to take the keys and to close the gates against them. If he to whom the care of supporting a family is committed denies bread to his children, who would say that it is not lawful for anyone of the domestics to supply them with bread if he can so that they may not perish with hunger? If the father himself rages for the destruction of his children, should not his arms be wrested from him, his children removed and entrusted to a guardian, not waiting for the judgment of a magistrate? Nay, a friend and neighbor can take this upon himself until the public authority has made some provision for them. When a fire is raging, who doubts that it is the duty of all to bring water to extinguish it, especially when they cease to whom this care pertained? Thus in a republic, if the rulers and prefects snore while the enemy approaches; if the gatekeepers open the gates to him; will it not be lawful for any citizen to snatch the keys from the hand of the betrayer in order to shut the gates against the enemy and to call to arms? If soldiers see the enemy rushing upon them, their leader being sound asleep, or treacherously in collusion with the enemy, shall they remain quiet and await the command of their leader? Will they not of themselves assemble around the standards and take counsel concerning the repulse of the enemy and omit nothing on their part, so as not to be wanting in duty."

It is clear that the federal government has failed to enforce the law; failed to abide by the Constitution; and failed to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of an illegal invasion of foreigners, many who not only seek to do harm to the citizens of the United States, but have already done grievous harm to those who are in this country legally (both citizens and legal residents). 

Who can read the examples quoted above and not relate them to the efforts of the state of Texas to love and protect its citizens?

I, for one, cannot.