A friend posted something on Facebook that I couldn’t ignore.

It was a Christmas-themed image showing Mary and Joseph turned away from the inn, overlaid with modern photos of refugees at borders. The caption quoted a Jesuit priest: “Christ is present in every migrant and refugee. Can we make room for Him?”

The message was clear: If you support border enforcement, you’re slamming the door on Jesus.

This is compassion as a weapon. And it’s devastatingly effective.

The Rhetorical Move

Here’s what makes this argument so powerful:

1. It hijacks sacred imagery - Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus
2. It creates moral urgency - “Can we make room for Christ?”
3. It makes dissent impossible - Disagree and you’re rejecting Jesus Himself

It’s not an argument you can debate. It’s emotional manipulation dressed as theology.

And the worst part? It works. Because who wants to be the person saying “no room at the inn”?

But here’s the problem: the entire premise is false.

Mary and Joseph Were Not Refugees

Let’s start with the facts.

The Nativity Story (Luke 2:1-7)

Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for a Roman census. They were going to Joseph’s ancestral hometown to be registered.

• Not fleeing persecution - They were complying with government orders
• Not crossing borders - They were traveling within the Roman Empire
• Not seeking asylum - They were fulfilling a legal requirement

The “no room at the inn” wasn’t rejection based on ethnicity or legal status. It was overcrowding during a mass census event. Half the region was traveling to their ancestral towns. This is not a refugee story.

The Flight to Egypt ( Matthew 2:13-15 )

“But what about when they fled to Egypt?” Yes, that WAS a refugee situation. Herod ordered the execution of male children under two, and Joseph fled with his family to Egypt. But notice:

• Specific, imminent threat - Not general poverty or instability
• Temporary asylum - They returned when Herod died ( Matthew 2:19-21 )
• Same political jurisdiction - Egypt was under Roman rule
• No indication they violated Egyptian law or demanded permanent resettlement

The Flight to Egypt supports asylum for people fleeing specific persecution. It does NOT support open borders, permanent migration based on poverty, or the erasure of immigration law. But the Facebook post doesn’t make that distinction. It conflates everything under “refugee” and says opposition to any of it equals rejecting Christ.

That’s not theology. That’s manipulation.

The Compassion Trap

Here’s how the trap works:

Step 1: Establish the moral high ground

• “Every person bears God’s image”
• “Jesus said to welcome the stranger”
• “We’re called to love, not to judge”

All true. All biblical. No Christian would disagree.

Step 2: Equate all enforcement with cruelty

• “Securing borders = rejecting refugees”
• “Deporting illegal immigrants = separating families”
• “Asking ‘Are they legal?’ = missing the point of the gospel”

Step 3: Make the emotional appeal

• “What would Jesus do?”
• “Can we make room for Christ in the migrant?”
• “We’re called to love, not to legislate”

Step 4: Render dissent morally illegitimate

Anyone who supports border enforcement is now:

• Uncompassionate
• Un-Christlike
• Complicit in rejecting Jesus

You’re not allowed to ask:

• “Do nations have the right to secure borders?”
• “What about economic migrants vs. refugees fleeing persecution?”
• “How do we balance compassion for migrants with responsibility to citizens?”

Those questions make you the Pharisee . The legalist. The person who cares more about rules than people.

This is how compassion becomes a weapon.

What Gets Sacrificed

When you make compassion the supreme value—the trump card that overrides all other considerations—here’s what you lose:

1. Truth

The nativity story doesn’t teach what the Facebook post claims. But facts don’t matter when emotion is king. Historical accuracy? Textual context? Doesn’t matter—it feels right.

2. Distinction Between Personal Duty and Governmental Authority

Romans 13:1-4 explicitly teaches that governments have a different role than individual Christians:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God… For he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Governments are ordained to:

• Punish evildoers
• Maintain order
• Protect citizens

Individual Christians are called to:

• Show mercy
• Practice hospitality
• Forgive offenses

These are different spheres. What’s virtuous for me personally (unlimited mercy, turning the other cheek) would be dereliction of duty for a government.

But the compassion-as-weapon argument collapses that distinction. It treats border enforcement like a Christian refusing to help a neighbor. Category error .

3. Justice

Justice requires treating people according to law—not according to which sob story is most compelling.

• A refugee fleeing genocide deserves asylum
• An economic migrant seeking better opportunities does not have the same claim
• Someone who enters illegally has broken the law, even if their motives are sympathetic

The compassion argument says: “All of them are desperate. All deserve entry. Distinguishing between them is uncompassionate.”

But that’s not justice. That’s sentimentality.

Biblical justice requires:

• Impartiality ( Deuteronomy 16:19 )
• Due process ( Deuteronomy 1:16-17 )
• Proportional punishment ( Exodus 21:23-25 )
• Respect for law ( Romans 13:1-7 )

Compassion divorced from justice isn’t love. It’s chaos.

4. Real-World Trade-Offs

Immigration policy involves competing concerns:

• Security - Vetting who enters, preventing criminal/terrorist infiltration
• Economics - Impact on wages, jobs, housing, social services
• Cultural integration - Assimilation, language, shared values
• Rule of law - If desperate poverty justifies illegal entry, what law can be enforced?

The compassion argument doesn’t acknowledge trade-offs. It treats them as evidence of hard-heartedness.

“You’re worried about jobs and housing? What about human lives?”

But governments MUST consider citizens’ welfare. That’s not cruelty—it’s their God-given responsibility.

5. The Ability to Think Clearly

Once compassion becomes absolute, nuance dies .

You can’t say:

• “I support humane treatment of migrants AND border security”
• “I advocate for refugees AND enforcement of immigration law”
• “I love immigrants AND believe nations have sovereignty ”

Those positions are treated as contradictions. You have to pick a side:

• Team Compassion ( open borders , no enforcement, Christ in every migrant)
• Team Cruelty (walls, deportations, rejecting Jesus)

Binary thinking is easy. It’s also lazy.

The Real Debate We’re Not Having

Here are questions the compassion-as-weapon argument short-circuits:

1. Do nations have the moral right to secure borders and control who enters?

2. If so, how do they enforce that without being labeled “uncompassionate”?

3. What distinguishes a refugee (fleeing specific persecution) from an economic migrant (seeking better opportunities)?

4. How do we balance compassion for migrants with responsibility to low-income citizens who compete for jobs, housing, and social services?

5. If desperate poverty justifies illegal entry, what immigration law can ever be enforced?

6. Can a government deport someone AND treat them humanely in the process?

These aren’t rhetorical gotchas. They’re real policy questions with competing values and no easy answers.

But when compassion is weaponized, asking these questions makes you the villain.

How to Respond

So what do you do when someone deploys the compassion weapon?

1. Affirm Common Ground

“I agree that every person has dignity. I agree Christians should show hospitality. I agree immigration enforcement should be humane.”

Don’t let them claim the moral high ground exclusively.

2. Correct the Facts

“Mary and Joseph weren’t refugees during the nativity. They were traveling for a census. The Flight to Egypt was temporary asylum from specific persecution, not a mandate for open borders.”

Facts matter. Don’t let emotional narratives replace them.

3. Distinguish Categories

“What I’m called to do as a Christian is different from what governments are ordained to do. I can show personal compassion AND support border enforcement. Those aren’t contradictory.”

Reclaim the distinction between personal ethics and governmental authority.

4. Ask Questions

“Do you think nations have the right to limit who enters? If so, how? What about economic migrants vs. refugees? How do we balance migrants’ needs with citizens’ welfare?”

Force the conversation out of emotional appeal and into actual policy thinking.

5. Refuse the False Choice

“I reject the premise that compassion and borders are enemies. I reject the idea that enforcing immigration law equals rejecting Christ. And I reject the emotional manipulation that makes nuanced thinking impossible.”

Don’t accept binary framing.

What Compassion Actually Requires

Real compassion—biblical compassion—is not sentimental. It’s grounded in truth and justice.

It means:

• Treating every person with dignity (Imago Dei)
• Advocating for fair and humane immigration policies
• Opposing genuine cruelty or abuse in enforcement
• Supporting pathways for legitimate refugees
• Helping immigrants in your community personally

It does NOT mean:

• Erasing borders
• Ignoring the rule of law
• Prioritizing non-citizens over citizens
• Pretending trade-offs don’t exist
• Weaponizing Scripture to shut down debate

The compassion that Jesus modeled was wise, discerning, and willing to speak hard truths—not manipulative emotional appeals that collapse under scrutiny.

The Bottom Line

When someone posts a Christmas image saying “Christ is present in every migrant—can we make room for Him?” they’re not making a theological argument.

They’re making an emotional appeal designed to bypass your critical thinking.

It’s effective. It’s manipulative. And it’s wrong.

Mary and Joseph were not refugees in the sense being claimed. The Bible does not mandate open borders. And supporting immigration enforcement does not make you uncompassionate or un-Christlike.

You can have secure borders AND humane treatment. You can enforce laws AND show mercy. You can think clearly AND care deeply.

Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

And don’t let compassion—twisted into a weapon—keep you from asking the questions that matter.

---

I’m a Christian shaped by Reformed theology (see my philosophy on faith-driven work ), 21 years of military service , and a career in engineering and operations. I believe in human dignity, biblical justice, and clear thinking. If that makes me uncompassionate in some people’s eyes, so be it. I’d rather think truthfully than feel correctly.