DACA has been revoked with a 6 month hiatus. Congress can address this if they want to. It is their job to address this legislatively. So, here’s the deal:
- Evangelicals can speak on behalf of Immigrant DREAMers (those brought here illegally as children) and ask Congress to pass legislation to allow them to stay legally, or,
- We can do nothing, sit back, say it isn’t our problem, and whatever happens happens. If we do that, then DREAMers will lose their protection, lose their jobs, not be able to go to school, and will be eventually deported.
Those are the choices before us.
Dr. Bruce Ashford, provost of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and I lay out why Evangelicals should now advocate for Immigrant DREAMers here.
You can join your voice with around 1000 Evangelical pastors and church leaders asking Congress to act on legislatively on behalf of DREAMers by signing on this letter here. This is the letter created by the ERLC and other Evangelical organizations like the National Association of Evangelicals, World Relief, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Coalition, Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities, and others. I’m glad that the ERLC spoke clearly on this. But, as I’ve heard many times here and elsewhere. Russell Moore and the ERLC can’t speak for every Southern Baptist. Each Southern Baptist pastor and church is responsible to speak on their own.
You can speak and act on behalf of young immigrant DREAMers who were brought here illegally as children. I meet with Congressional and Senate Republican offices regularly. They tell me that if Evangelical pastors and churches would speak, then they would have cover to act on behalf of DREAMers. If they don’t, there isn’t much they can do. Now, we have 6 months to fix this or almost a million young people who grew up here will be deported. Most of the Congressmen who will make this decision are in districts with heavy Evangelical populations, including Southern Baptists, often with massive churches. If we speak and advocate Biblically, they will listen. They want to hear what the Bible says and what the church thinks about these young people. We have a chance to change things. If we don’t speak, they will hear that too and act accordingly. Time to get off the fence. Saying nothing is saying everything. Silence is agreement with deportation. The clock is now ticking. 6 months.
Now this goes to Congress. They would actually like to hear from us. I’ve been told that personally. What will you do? This will all be decided soon. What role will the church play? It’s up to us.
Number two (2) has not been proven to be true. It appears to be nothing more than a scare tactic. Let’s not get into the habit of over stating things. We need genuine reality to make sober decisions.
It is all true. That is the trajectory. This Administration has said that all undocumented immigrants are now priority for deportation.
” [Acting ICE Director Thomas] Homan also said ICE’s priority is to protect the U.S. against those who are threats to public safety, but if agents encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, they’ll make “collateral” arrests.
“There is no population off the table,” he said. “We are not going to selectively say, ‘OK, we are going to take this population and we are not going to enforce the law against you.’ Once you start carving out populations and saying we are not going to pay attention when we find you, then the whole system erodes.”
Such was the case with last week’s arrests of 650 people in the second phase of Operation Border Guardian/Border Resolve. Of the 650, 70 percent were not targets but others “encountered during this operation,” ICE said.
Those targeted — who ICE said had been ordered removed by a federal judge — were Central Americans who came to the U.S. during a surge that hit heights in 2014 and last year. The agency also said 130 of the 650 had criminal convictions.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2017/08/02/nations-top-immigration-cop-says-employers-worry-crackdown
You can believe what you want. I know what I’m talking about. The ICE directives are that all undocumented immigrants are priorities. When DACA goes away, these young people go into the larger pool. Mass Deportation is the goal unless Congress acts. That’s where we’re headed.
So, like I said, it is Congress’ job to pass protections for these people. Congress will only act if we speak. Absent Congress acting, ALL undocumented immigrants will be deported by this administration eventually. That is what Trump has said he will do. This is the only group that had any kind of protection. Now, that protection runs out in 6 months unless Congress acts. And, Congress won’t act unless we do.
There are no groups being protected. If ICE encounters them and they don’t have DACA, they will be detained and deported. That is the law and that is what the DOJ and DHS is doing right now.
Yeah, well Mark, the only thing I see between that and reality is congressional action. We have a Republican President, a Republican senate, a Republican house, beside which all judges appointed since January 20 are either Republican or at the least Republican-leaning–and with that they cannot get passed legislation that the Republicans agree on. Do you really think they will pass legislation that the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus/Republican base is not on board with? If you do, I have some “oceanview” property in Arizona I’d like to sell you.
John
#2 is genuine reality Mark Mitchell.
I have been reading the many signatures of Christian leaders on the Evangelical Immigration Set of Principals and am both humbled and full of new respect for some that have signed. It was very emotional and powerful reading the signatures.
I should revise that some to all who signed.
I live and minister in the DC suburbs. One of our members works for a prominent Washington law firm which deals with numerous immigration cases. The lawyers there have told their clients to in turn tell their families and friends to “keep their heads down” because the Trump Administration is gathering ALL the illegal immigrants they can garner for deportation, no exceptions. Yes, you can argue the law firm has a vested interest, but the person I know at the firm is above reproach, who has a love and a heart for people, and I am convinced would not “bend the truth” for anything much less lie about it. Per our Associate Pastor for Hispanic Work, the Latin community is frightened, whether they are legal or otherwise; and those of Hispanic descent but who were born here are scared too. Like me, they do not carry their birth certificate around with them, and would be hard pressed to prove citizenship if they were stopped or swept up in a raid of some Hispanic organization or business where illegal immigrants might also be. I am glad to have signed this letter.
John Fariss
I think Trump has done the right thing….Obama over reached and illegally made promises to people that he had to know would not continue past his administration….congress passes laws….the presidential debt enforces them.
The only thing that is accomplished by resending Obama’s executive order is that the actual law will The only thing that is accomplished by trump/sessions rescinding Obama’s executive order is that the actual law (as passed by congress previously) will be enforced unless congress enacts a new one within six months.
I think Trump did the wisest thing possible here – he couldn’t just allow the executive order to expire and begin enforcing the law after our government had promised people they wouldn’t… He also couldn’t just swipe his pen executive order and continue The unconstitutional acts of the previous president… So he “split the difference” and announced that he would be enforcing current law unless new law is passed by Congress.
After one will be contacting my congressional representatives and encouraging them to pass a law ending the practice in the future ( another words not letting us get caught between rock and hard place here again) – while at the same time treating those “dreamers” here now specially and with fairness – which would include writing into law a fairly strict definition of who would be included in this particular fair and special treatment.
I don’t support open borders… But I am also very against sending to a country they have never known …. people who were brought over here by their parents/grandparents while they were very young – so long as they are productive members of American society.
Not After but:
*I for one will be contacting my congressional representatives…
Also, Sorry sometimes when I’m posting on my phone and I don’t have very good reception… For some reason it will repeat text… Especially if I’m using the speak to text.
Alan,
I think your appeal is accurate, and that Congress should act. The previous non-lawmaking body put “targets on illegals backs” that could not be erased because of existing American law by a legitimate law making body. A very unwise move by that administration on behalf of what is now called “dreamers”. It seems like the titles don’t follow reality. ACA is not ACA. Dreamers are not Dreamers. Both are being met with the same fate. Poor policy, and lots of people get hurt!
Congress should be forced to act. That is their job….to legally and actually come up with a compassionate way to deal with a huge legal issue, hoisted upon them by gross over reach and a real lack of compassion for those seeking a better life.
Congress will not like doing it…but, now the “can” is too far down in the gutter to get kicked. I’m glad a not-so-political politician has the foresight to get something done.
Alan is right… time to contact the Congress!!
Thanks, Alan, for being vigilant on this and keeping us informed. The right thing to do here is clear. I was neve in favor of Obama accomplishing this by executive order but the outcome was right. Dreamers should be protected and granted legal status and not made into a political football.
Alan,
It’s simple. If the SBC could call a boycott at Disney World because of their same-sex relationship policies, inasmuch as the NFL, contributed heavily to Donald Trump’s inaugural, if the SBC boycotted the Super Bowl & all evangelicals, because of President. Trump’s decision on DACA, it would be a high-high probability that Congress would enact a law legislating DACA like immigration policy nuy quick.
Unfortunately, SBC, as with the Nashville Statement quickly addresses(and rightfully so) sexual sin. However, they always fumble and equivocate on racial matters, or matters that challenge Republican orthodoxy. So, I’m not optimistic that this will happen. But maybe a ’63 style ’17 or 2018 March on Washington to beg Congress to pass a compassionate Immigration policy, the SBC might participate in. That might have a greater impact than a boycott.
Brother Dwight,
It is not a government officials responsibility be they Democrat or Republican, loved or revered, to ignore those who are outside the boundaries of law, regardless of the circumstances of how they arrived there. In our system, the legislative, judicial, and executive have coequal powers so designated by a Constitution. In this case, only the Legislative body has the power so designated to it to propose, pass, and or amend law or existing law; it is in the executive’s power and duty to enforce those laws. The former President is the one who placed these young people in their current predicament when he enacted by executive fiat a law – a noble purpose, yes, but an unconstitutional remedy nevertheless. You my friend are reviling the current executive because he would dare say that as a nation of laws, laws must be enforced unless voted to be changed by the legislative. Those that are reviling him for this act (an act of mercy = he had no legal justification for keeping the executive order for six months) are merely doing so because of animus = an animus that I will not repeat again on these pages for the benefit of our host(s) and those of us who do not want to spend the next 100 plus replies in point and counterpoint.
Brother Dwight, I love you. I respect you and admire you. I believe you are being emotional rather than being judicial. I too wish for a remedy for these young people, and want to encourage people to contact their representatives to end this harmful debate and reform our immigration laws – and in the process protect these young people who have known no other life. But if everybody with emotions on their sleeves just want to shoot the messenger because they don’t like him and further go into a tizzy when he says laws must be kept, then I am telling you brother, that is a losing cause. Let’s work together for these kids, and not allow extraneous issues to cloud our perspectives.
I am still waiting for you to come to Missouri and preach some Good News to my folks. They would love to hear you.
Rob
And technically Congress doesn’t have the right to defund DACA since we aren’t paying for it, it is funded through application fees.
Mark Terry: Self preservation, especially for the Christian is a poor reason to deport Dreamers. They can have the jobs. I want them to be educated. What I don’t want is for their lives to be traumatized by being deported to a land they don’t even know. Some have no rights for the citizens and women’s rights are non-existent. Danger may be waiting for them.
These Dreamers have to follow strict requirements, they can’t get student loans. I want them here. Switzerland and I imagine Canada will be hosting these people and it’s just not what the United States was founded on.
If we look at this from an economic perspective, it makes sense to provide a legal pathway for the Dreamers to gain citizenship. Why? One of the issues in our nation today is a shrinking work force. As baby boomers are retiring, the number of working adults is declining. This decline results in lower payments into the Social Security system. The benefits paid to retirees come from money paid in not by the retirees but rather from younger adults in the work force. The Dreamers number 800,000. The citizens of the USA have already paid to educate them. Why subtract 800,000 young adult workers from the labor force?
Mark, I believe that is what Congress will be mulling over during the next few months. There were already neo-amnesty bills in play, and then Obama, through Presidential fiat thought his was the best option. Obviously, his work didn’t go very far and has created even a bigger mess to deal with legally. To some immigrants that have come and are coming to the United States within the legal guidelines, this has to seem a bit of an affront to Christian values. Its that old…Do as I say, not as I do situation. I listened to a DACA recipient this morning state that the American law on immigration is unjust, and to break that law “is” doing justice. That is dangerous territory,…unfortunately created by fiat and poor philosophy.
The reason immigration is better done by Congress in the United States, is that many more folks, closer to the folks in need, have an opportunity to chime into the conversation. That is the American way. Just because people didn’t follow good law 20-40 years ago, however emotional it is to some now, should not preempt following and enforcing good law.
Congress may actually have to do some real and substantive work with immigration policy that has not been enforced for many, many decades. I think they will find something in the middle, and will probably please the few and enrage the masses. I hope they have the courage and wisdom to forge a longer lasting, Nation honoring, policy.
As much as I’m inclined to be against all things Trump, this isn’t a terrible idea. I doubt he thought of it. If DACA truly is illegal and unconstitutional, it should be revoked. Make congress put their money where their mouth is.
1. I do not have much confidence in Congress. They could not even repeal Obamacare. Even when they know the right thing to do, they are rather inept at getting it done.
2. I grieve the pain of every child in every nation whose parents commit crimes. They always are the ones who suffer innocently, regardless of the nature or location of the crime.
3. I am not sure what I think about allowing all children of illegal aliens to remain here. It seems to me this practice would incentivize illegal immigration: “Break into America with your kids and even if you get deported, at least they can stay.”
4. What message does it send to a child when they learn they are Americans because their parents broke the law?
5. If they are returned to their rightful, legal country (albeit one many of them have never even visited) I hope we will coordinate efforts with people in those countries to help the children adjust to their new way of life. Imagine the opportunities this would create on the mission field for our missionaries to minister to these kids and help them adjust to their legal country’s culture.
I’m not certain American Southern Baptist missionaries are going to be well received by people kicked out of America by the man Southern Baptists overwhelmingly supported. Somehow the message of “we didn’t want you in our country but we’ll help you adjust to this one” doesn’t sound compelling.
Well, their parents did break the law, so there’s that.
I would look at it more like, “Even though your parents broke the law and entered our country illegally, and even though we have to insist that you leave, we do want to meet your basic needs and help you get resettled in the country where you are legally required to reside.”
And in all likelihood, it would not be the American Southern Baptist missionaries, but the national churches doing this ministry, with the support of American missionaries behind the scenes, I would think.
Rick,
Small correction.
If they are born here in the USA, they are automatically citizens.
Dreamers are those who were born elsewhere and brought here as children. Thus they may not remember their homeland (birth land) and only ‘know’ the USA as home.
What part of my statement are you responding to here, Mike? In other words, what are you correcting? Was it the parenthetical comment about “never even visited?” To clarify, “never even visited….since they crossed over as an infant or toddler.” I’m not sure what you and Debbie are reading among my numbered comments that gave you the impression I was talking about anything other than “Dreamers who were born elsewhere and brought here as young children.” Is it Point 4?
I was assuming these were children that were *not* born on US soil, but were brought here as very young children for whom this is the only home they have ever known. While I do think the “jus soli” clause of the 14th Amendment is worth revisiting, I am not quite sure how I managed to get both of you thinking that I was somehow talking about it. It’s not what I had in my mind, but somehow it must have shown up in my verbiage.
I was thinking the same thing as Bill when reading your comment Rick.
Pertaining to #3: I don’t believe any solution offered by Congress will be a continuing open door for Dreamers. In fact, the term “Dreamers” may cease to exist after the current group is given some sort of legalization. I think most members of both parties (well, not the grand standers) want to simultaneously solve the current situation (11M illegal immigrants / 1M Dreamers) while devising a comprehensive plan to reduce future illegal immigration.
If you remember, a comprehensive plan was in the works by the Gang of 12 before ideologues of both parties killed it. So, the option is to keep using immigration as an election device by both sides demanding adherence to their base, or to implement a solution that might not be palatable for each.
I know I’m tired of politicians using it as a campaign funding device. I will be writing Senator Roy Blount and Congressman Luetkemeyer imploring them to first take care of Dreamers, then quickly get on board a comprehensive immigration plan.
Amen, Amen, Amen Eric.
And for those who think Trump “did the right thing”, I would disagree. Threatening to deport innocents who were here as children, most from newborn to 10 years of age, this is nothing but blackmail using the Dreamers as bait. Meanwhile the Dreamers are scared, so scared that most cannot concentrate on their studies or jobs. This is so wrong on so many levels. People are not poker chips or bait. These are human beings being threatened to have everything torn away from them and throwing them into a situation I am certain that none of you would want in your lives.
Rick,
How, in any shape or form, does this resemble the character of God, as fully revealed in Christ? How, in any shape or form, does deporting Dreamers who have known no other country but this one, resemble the character of God, as fully revealed in Christ?
Is the conservative mindset now to punish children for the sins of their parents?
The counsel of Scripture tells us to care for and provide for the foreigner and the stranger.
This brings up a larger issue for me. I’m 33. I’ve been pastoring full time for 11 years. I’ve served from the Associational level to the national level in SBC life. I believe God’s Word. I believe in being ‘Baptist.’ But I don’t know where I fit in all of this!
I’m not calvinist – could never be one. I’m not a landmarkist – could never be one. I don’t feel comfortable with where the political boundaries have fallen. Conservatism has turned into some kind of farce, a shadow of something that could possible be positive but resembles heartlessness and gross hypocrisy. Its nuts that the same preachers who were warning me about postmodernism, the decline of truth, and the moral failings of political leaders have now embraced Trumpism in all its disgusting glory.
There is a strong movement in the SBC that blindly weds Christianity with ‘Republican politics.’ I used to say conservative politics – but Trump proved that principled conservatism was never the issue – political power was and is.
So, here I am. A Bible-believing Southern Baptist. I’m not Calvinist. I’m not whatever sbctoday.com is promoting. I’m somewhere in the middle – and I hope and pray there are more of us.
“There is a strong movement in the SBC that blindly weds Christianity with ‘Republican politics.’ I used to say conservative politics – but Trump proved that principled conservatism was never the issue – political power was and is.”
This is absolutely true.
Q1. It upholds the rule of law in a just and orderly society. A criminal cannot break into my home with his children and become a rightful resident of my house. Neither can a criminal break into my country with his children and become residents of my country. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
Q2. Sin has consequences. The young man whose father murders his mother and goes to jail for life will experience pain and suffering because of the crime of his father. Make no mistake, such a scenario grieves me. But it does not imply a specific reward as compensation. The children of someone who steals American residency are not necessarily entitled to residency themselves. The character of Christ is not on trial here at all. Jesus loves people regardless of their citizenship. So do I, by the way. I love that child the same, whether his citizenship is in America or in Columbia.
Q3. No. Conservatives do not view returning a trespasser to property they have a legal right to occupy as a “punishment.” Imagine you own a vacant apartment where a “squatter” has been living. When you find a tenant, you will need to remove or evict the squatter, because it’s simply not their home and they have no right to be there. It’s your home and you decide who lives there. It doesn’t get decided for you by someone who just takes over illegally. It’s not their home, so you are not “punishing” them. You are rightfully removing them from property they are not allowed to steal from you.
Q4. We should indeed care for the “foreigner” and the “stranger.” When people from other nations visit the United States legally, we are to care for them, show them hospitality, treat them with respect, and not make fun of their nationality or their accent. We should be kind to them. America is very generous with other countries. We give millions of dollars of aid to show our care and concern for foreigners and strangers, whether they are visiting us here or whether they are residing in their homeland. However, the Bible does not call us to “aid and abet” illegal aliens who are criminally trespassing here in America. It certainly does not require us to advocate politically in favor of amnesty—for them or their children.
Eric, I view your closing few paragraphs as a conflation of politics, theology, and denominationalism. You mention sbctoday.com, a website embracing a posture that I must admit is theologically Traditionalist, politically Republican, and denominationally Southern Baptist. Frankly, trying to line up with any specific group in all three areas (politics, theology and denomination) is a lot to ask. It is perfectly fine that we do not line up in all three areas. It sounds like we are together on being Southern Baptist and not Calvinist. Two out of three’s not bad. (For what it’s worth, I’m not all that happy with the Republican Party right now either.)
Your statement about the GOP and the SBC could not be more true. Especially considering the way the SBC forced Dr. Moore to back down after Jack Graham threatened to withhold his money and the way Robert Jeffriess is nothing but a mouthpiece for our President.
It’s been bad in years past, but now it’s a total sell out that is costing us our witness in the larger culture.
“and I hope and pray there are more of us.”
Eric: I dare say you are the majority.
Rick: I just don’t see how you can know the true facts of who the Dreamers are and why they are in this country and be able to justify your points. I just don’t see how.
Some traditionalists have said not to think with emotion but use facts, but I think both are important. Emotions and facts. But whose facts are you reading?
Yes, that is an absolutely true statement.
I was referring to Bill Mac’s affirmation of Eric’s statement:
“There is a strong movement in the SBC that blindly weds Christianity with ‘Republican politics.’ I used to say conservative politics – but Trump proved that principled conservatism was never the issue – political power was and is.”
“Rick: I just don’t see how you can know the true facts of who the Dreamers are and why they are in this country and be able to justify your points. I just don’t see how.”
Prior to Obama’s 2012 DACA Act, the children of illegal immigrants were not granted the right to live, work and study in the US legally. Five years ago, Obama granted the children of such *criminal trespassers* a benefit that perhaps he should never have granted.
In fact, Congress has repeatedly refused to pass the act that gave the Dreamers their name—the “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors” Act. It was first introduced in 2001. Its most recent rejection was in 2010. Apparently, there are not enough members of Congress who believe that the child of a person who breaks the law and enters the United States illegally has the legal right to remain here to live, work and study. If they do obtain this right from Congress, it will create an incentive for illegal immigration if only to plant one’s child on American soil. Personally, I think a lot of South American parents would do this.
Granted, these kids did not do anything wrong. Just like the child of drug dealer parents shot in their home, the kid may be innocent, but he just can’t live there anymore. Deportation is a much more bitter pill than foster care, but the principle remains the same. The children of criminals suffer. They always suffer. It grieves me that they suffer.
But along with the majority of Congress thus far, I am not completely persuaded that an illegal alien who *does not* have the legal right to live, work or study here can simply bring a minor across the border with him, and suddenly the minor *does have* the right to live, work or study here. Some may view this as a generational loophole that incentivizes illegal immigration by rewarding the next generation.
I have compassion for that child born to criminal parents. It is a crying shame and a terrible tragedy that I do feel in my heart. But just because someone experiences a sad and heartbreaking situation, this does not mean we should grant them legal residency in America. Five years ago, it wasn’t the plan. I’m not sure it should be today.
Rick, your point that “A criminal cannot break into my home with his children and become a rightful resident of my house” is helpful in clarifying part of the issue. You say, “Neither can a criminal break into my country with his children and become residents of my country.” In the end, though, I think it reveals that the average person doesn’t see these two acts as equivalent. If someone is breaking into my or your home, we will likely call 911. But have we called ICE or DHS or whoever we could call to report criminals breaking into our country. I don’t know about you, but over the past 30 or so I have known of and known folks who were breaking into our country — and I’ve never called to report one of them.
I am not advocating that people ought to illegally break into our country. At the same time I do not see it as morally equivalent. The former breaking-in to steal is inherently morally wrong. The Bible clearly says so. The latter breaking-in is wrong based on our law saying so, and is not an inherent moral evil. They should not enter illegally, but if we were to change the law tomorrow to allow them to enter, then what was wrong suddenly becomes right. On the other hand sin (e.g. stealing, lying) cannot be made right by passing a law to say so.
With all respect Rick, I believe you are creating some false equivalencies. The act of illegally entering the country and the act of breaking and entering someone else’s house are both illegal, to be sure. But the equivalence stops there. One is a felony, the other is a misdemeanor. A felony is a crime punishable by at least one year in a state or Federal prison, while a misdemeanor–which also includes such “crimes” as jaywalking and running a red light–has much lighter penalties, not to mention differences in motive and criminal intent. Because of this, it is also false to equate the children of illegal immigrants with the children of crack dealers and other felons. Furthermore, in stating that being kind to international tourists fulfills the Biblical admonition about how to treat sojourners and aliens and that the passage has nothing to do with those here without immigration papers through no fault of their own–that really staggers my mind. If you could share something in the Bible which establishes your interpretation, I would like to see it.
John,
1. BOTH ILLEGAL
“The act of illegally entering the country and the act of breaking and entering someone else’s house are both illegal, to be sure.” I’m with you so far.
2. DIFFERENT DEGREES
“One is a felony, the other is a misdemeanor… [and] has much lighter penalties.”
Well, felony or misdemeanor, this link describes the penalties for illegal entry: http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html
They still seem rather significant to me—more than jaywalking and running red lights.
3. CHILDREN OF CRIMINALS
“It is also false to equate the children of illegal immigrants with the children of…other felons.” Says you. Yes, their parents committed crimes and must be punished. They did not commit crimes, but will suffer because of the punishment that will be justly doled out upon their parents. Again, there may be a slight degree of difference concerning punishment—six months in jail instead of one year—but the *principle* remains: kids suffer when their parents break the law.
4. SOJOURNER-ALIENS ARE LEGAL
“In stating that being kind to international tourists fulfills the Biblical admonition about how to treat sojourners and aliens…” Well, what is your definition of a sojourner and alien? I believe they are people from other countries who are quite legally journeying in our land although their citizenship is in an alien nation. We should treat them well because the Bible teaches that we are to do so.
5. ILLEGAL ALIENS AND PRISON MINISTRY
“…in stating that the passage has nothing to do with those here [illegally] through no fault of their own—that really staggers my mind. If you could share something in the Bible which establishes your interpretation, I would like to see it.” Well, the Bible teaches, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities.” (Romans 13:1) We are to obey our rulers. We are to obey the law. The law says that you cannot enter the United States unless we give you permission first. Thus, when you are deported or imprisoned or fined, the government is not treating you like the person who is *legally* sojourning in our country. Rather, they are treating you like a law breaker. According to the Bible, we have a responsibility to minister to those who break the law. I fully embrace prison ministry for illegal aliens. “I was in prison and you came to me.” (Matthew 25:36)
6. SCRIPTURES ON CRIMINAL CHILDCARE
“If you could share something in the Bible which establishes your interpretation, I would like to see it.” Well, I can’t, which means neither can you. Sure, there are verses which speak of orphan care, but in our scenario, the parents are alive. If they are deported, I think the kids go with them in order to keep the family together. If both parents are imprisoned in America, perhaps the nearest legal relative could have custody until the parents are out of prison. If they are grown adults, then they can take care of themselves in the country where they are legally entitled to live. It is a shame their parents broke the law and involved their children in the illegal entry. Should they eventually immigrate legally, I believe we should treat them like sojourners and aliens. Again, if you have reason to believe that when the Scriptures speak of sojourners and aliens, they are addressing people who broke the law when they entered the country, then I would be happy to hear your explanation of such a unique situation. It would seem to condone lawbreaking and illegal entry. I don’t know that verse.
OK Rick, here is my point-by-point analysis:
1) No disagreement.
2) You still want to equate a felony with a misdemeanor because the penalty for illegal immigration “. . . still seem(s) rather significant to me—more than jaywalking and running red lights.” OK, let’s talk penalties. I read the article you referenced, and what stuck out to me was that the penalty “can be fines or imprisonment up to 6 months.” The key words here are “CAN BE.” My police and investigative experience is in Talladega, Birmingham, and Montgomery. People do not go to jail there for jaywalking or running red lights under normal circumstances (although there was one instance in Montgomery where a speeder was sentenced to 3 days in jail for every red light he ran, three days for each mile over the speed limit he was going, and 3 days for each stitch in my partner’s hand when he was hurt in the pursuit, and it amounted to 6 months). But there are or have been in recent times jurisdictions where people were routinely jailed for such minor offenses. Ask some of the older Sylacauga officers if they remember the Fruithurst Speed Trap of the 1960s and ’70s. It took a concerted effort of the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and the Alabama Highway Patrol to break it up. In DC a couple of years ago, a pedestrian was cited for jaywalking after he was hit by a car–he died that night from injuries, with the ticket still in his pocket. I mention these to put into perspective the penalties you mention.
3) I suppose here we have to agree to disagree. Yes, children of all those who break the law suffer. I never worked any immigration cases, so I have no experience there; but I have dealt with immigrants, some of whom I am sure were illegal. And there was no comparison between them and the children of armed robbers, murderers, child molesters, and the like.
4) It is a free country, so you are free to believe that the Bible reference means “. . . people from other countries who are quite legally journeying in our land although their citizenship is in an alien nation. ” And I am free to disagree. Both of us are applying a modern interpretation to a text that dates from a time when modern immigration laws did not exist. Which of us is closer to the intent of the text as inspired by God?
5) A good argument, though I do not think the verses you cite can be legitimately applied to this situation. Again, it is an interpretation attached to a text from when modern immigration laws and definitions did not exist. In other words: it is out of context.
6) A bit condescending perhaps? If my response came off that way to you, I do apologize for the tone.
I think both Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump when describing DACA seemed to emphasize that it was full of adults yet did not mention that they came to the United States as children. That seemed to take away this fact. They were children, minors. They know no other country but the United States.
Also to be in the DACA program one cannot have done any crimes or have a criminal record which goes contrary to Jeff Sessions saying that DACA compromises national security. That is simply not true.
These two points among a few others were very troubling to me in both their speeches.
In this link from Paul Littleton on Facebook:
“The DACA program was instituted by Obama after Congress repeatedly failed to pass the so-called DREAM Act that would have created a path to citizenship for some brought to the United States as children.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/
And president Obama did say that DACA was to be temporary and Congress should pass proper legislation to give them a path to citizenship if they maintained their place under the DACA guidelines.
I guess the hope would have been for Congress to pass legislation before DACA was done away with. And the hope now is that they will before the 6 months is up.
“They tell me that if Evangelical pastors and churches would speak, then they would have cover to act on behalf of DREAMers.”
What do they mean by “have cover”? If this is a matter of compassion and the right thing to do, why do they need cover? Where’s the integrity to stand up and do what they believe is right, regardless if anyone else does or cover is not given?
Jon, not to be too cynical, but we are talking about Congress. Now both parties have to worry about their fringes trying to primary them out of office. In the case of Republicans in strong Republican districts, they have to worry about the nativist branch pushing a primary challenge. On the other side, left center Democrats have to worry about full blown socialists attacking them from the left.
Ideological Purity is all the rage now. Moderation is anathema.
In lacking the integrity to do what one knows to be right just to keep their job, I say replace them. If you let them stay you know what you are getting… someone who needs your cover to be able to use you as the reason they made a decision they would not have made without you.
Yeah – we’re taking about Congress.
I mean that they want to work with people in their district and not be the only ones to speak. The reality is that every poll everywhere shows 55-85% of people (depending on the state) want legalization for Dreamers. But, the majority is often not as loud as the 10-25% who want them deported. Those people are constant with their calls for deportation. So, the Congressmen are asking that the people who think these young people should stay actually speak up. If all they hear from are the “deportation” crowd, it makes everything harder.
This is just basic representative politics and applies to most every issue. It’s why “we the people” actually means something.
Alan,
One quick note… is that whatever the plight of the “Dreamer” ends up with respect to whether they remain in limbo (Obama’s directive), become legalized (neo-amnesty with perks through Congress), or systematically removed in order to follow the law of the nation (existing laws on the books), the church can be there to help, love, and share the gospel. The great commission is something the church can do in all three of those scenarios… that will never change.
Alan, Great comment and for the church isn’t the GC our charge?
The Great Commandment? Love your neighbor as you love yourself? Yes.
And the other GC as well, of course. It all works together.
Alan – Yes. To say we love them but don’t share Jesus is not the kind of love God was speaking of… I don’t think.
Just curious. How many of you here are out of work because an illegal immigrant took your job or got a job you were in line for? How many of you have been assaulted or burgled or in some way violated by an illegal immigrant? Now of course illegal immigrants get jobs that citizens could theoretically get and of course some of them commit crimes, including violent crimes. And of course we need immigration restrictions and border security. But this just seems like such a small issue compared to what other things the nation is facing. Is it a problem? Sure. Is it the all consuming, sky is falling type of problem that deserves all the angst and fear that is getting? I doubt it. There’s a fat, crazy little dictator in North Korea with nuclear weapons. There’s a sinister, evil dictator in Russia who not only has nuclear weapons, but also interfered in our presidential election, and worst of all, has won the friendship and esteem of some very influential Americans who think he’s a “strong leader”. We have violent white supremacists and violent anti-fascists coming out of the woodwork. We shouldn’t neglect smaller problems just because we have bigger problems, but let’s get some perspective here. Illegal immigrants have become political bogeymen.
I must say, I have never nor do I know anyone who has ever had a job “taken” from an immigrant or robbed/harmed by an immigrant.
Well said, Bill.
And what does that have to do with the legality of this situation? Do we have laws to follow? Is it OK to ignore them because it doesn’t suit us?
Work to pass legislation. This is not that difficult of a solution with the exception of the Congress.
Jon: They were and are following the law. They are illegal in the sense that they cannot get citizenship as DACA specifies. They are not breaking any law until now since Trump did away with it.
These are a whole different set of circumstances. They are following the law. They pay taxes, they cannot get welfare. No one has suffered because a Dreamer has gotten a job, paid over 11 billion in taxes and is a productive student, worker.
Debbie – your statements are incorrect.
DACA has never been law. It was an executive order that gave reprieve to a group of people and has never made anyone legal so Trump not wanting to continue Obamas executive order is not making anyone illegal – because according to actual law they always have been.
Now, do we need to change the actual law – I think we do – I don’t want to see these people deported – The only way to do that is to actually have Congress do their job and pass a bill that the president can sign.
If Congress doesn’t – as sad and unfair as I think it would be… Legally according to immigration law – these illegal aliens are subject to deportation.
*It was an executive order that gave enforcement reprieve…
OK then rules David Cline. Is that better?
My point in using the word laws David Cline, is that they are law abiding people who are not criminals. They go to school, they work, they pay taxes. And they have not broken our laws.
The system is in bad need of repair it stinks – but the dreamers have in fact broken our current laws.
Many of them have intentionally used fake ID’s, obtained SS cards and drivers licenses fraudulently (as adults) – these acts are illegal too – and show some sort of conscienceless of wrongdoing…
I think congress should fix immigration law by, among a great many other things, create a path for speedy legalization of the dreamers thus allowing them to stay until they obtain citizenship (if they desire) by way of the same path as others immigrants seeking citizenship.
That is speedy path to legalization for dreamers *currently here* – Congress has gotta find a way to turn off the spigot though.
David Cline: I don’t believe your accusations against the Dreamers for a second. Do you have a link or a source for your accusations? I find them to be utterly poppycock.
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/06/09/justices-state-cannot-prosecute-immigrant-using-fake-id/385549001/
Older one: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/05/20/us/foreigners-obtain-social-security-id-with-fake-papers.html
And outside of links… It is common sense that fake IDs and Social Security cards are being used by illegal residents … Otherwise they would not be able to get the “productive jobs ” that so many people say that the dreamers have – as one can’t be hired without demonstration of being a citizen or legal resident with such identification.
I put two links in a comment above… But it is awaiting moderation – I had forgotten that you can’t put two links in the same comment…
Anyway here’s another:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/
David C: Those articles are just hard for me to believe considering that Dreamers cannot commit a crime and stay in DACA. If there are indeed that many who stole SS numbers, that is almost everyone in DACA and I just can’t buy that.
I think Dreamers are law abiding and that they or their parents or guardians would not steal identities when the program allows them to work, get driver’s licenses etc. They do not have social security numbers and they are undocumented. They work within DACA.
But employers are not legally allowed to hire persons without SS numbers and proof of legal residences.
Unless all the employers are breaking the law – the only other option is that these persons presented persons have used fraudulent documentation.
The Atlantic article defies your assumption and is hardly a bastion of Trump talking points.
As to your ” that didn’t happen, because it would be a crime” – the article from Iowa demonstrated that state governments are forbidden by the courts from prosecuting identity fraud, false drivers license is, False Social Security numbers for illegal immigrants.
Dave, Dreamers have real SS numbers and work authorizations if they have DACA. That is what DACA is. Dreamers with DACA are not working under fake numbers. They aren’t working illegally at this point.
I would argue that they are working illegally as they are illegally here in the first place –
They are working with “permission” from the Obama administration and are still illegal immigrants.
I support actually making the current dreamers (and current ones only not future ones) legal residents through legislation while the dreamers pursue either permanent residency or citizenship through the means that everyone else who obtains these does.
Dave,
They might have been brought here illegally, but they are working legally. First the Obama, then the Trump Administration, has issued work permits to them. When Trump had every opportunity to revoke DACA in January, he did not do so and continued to give out SS numbers and work authorizations. He told Dreamers with DACA they had nothing to worry about as recent as June. And, the government kept giving out more and more authorizations. So, they were not working illegally under any definition. Their immigration status falls under unlawful presence, which is a misdemeanor, but any immigration action against them was deferred.
Immigration law and policy is not clear cut at all.
Maybe if the question was asked… If an illegal did not get the job… who would have? I’m not speaking against the illegal here but asking the question from a different angle. Does it really matter if we know someone or not? For many, it is a judicial issue.
I don’t know anyone who was murdered, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, nor should be looked at differently than what it is.
“For many, it is a judicial issue.” For many, it an America for Americans issue. As I said, it’s a problem. But it’s not the monumental problem that the far right is making it out to be. Immigrants are easy targets for the ire Americans feel, as they always have been. It was the Jews, and the Irish, and then the Japanese. Now it’s hispanics. Dislike of the unlike is an all too easy fallback position. It’s ok if we go to them (as missionaries, aid workers, etc), but we don’t want them coming to us. We love them as long as they stay where they are.
Pass laws. Grant amnesty or don’t. Deport them all or don’t. But let’s not pretend that hispanic immigration, legal or not, is unravelling the fabric of American society, as the far right would have us believe.
And Jon, yes, we ignore the laws we don’t like. Let’s not pretend we don’t.
Bill,
Is it right to ignore the laws?
You’ll have to ask the people who ignore them. You can find them on any highway. You can ask Joe Arpaio as well.
You can also ask the Bundys, the darlings of many on the right.
I live in one of those states being overrun by illegal aliens. Yes, we do experience the crime and yes, we do see the jobs being taken. But ICE doesn’t want to know, the local PD can’t ask status, the schools and human services cannot keep up and are running dry on money but cannot refuse service or ask status. So yeah, it is a big deal.
But our understanding out here on the front line is that in 6 months it isn’t deportation that begins, but a 24 month weaning off the public spigot. Federal aid in various forms will be gradually withdrawn. Work permits will be phased out also. This does give dreamers time to apply to stay on another basis if they can prove that danger at home. It does give the entire extended family time to find jobs back home and go with the dreamers.
Out here we would love to see things changed so that if you come illegally, which in itself IS a crime, is stealing residency (sin) and is lying (fake id’s for work) you won’t be able to enroll in school, get a driver’s license, get a job, get welfare, get snap benefits, get Medicaid, etc.
Before you ask if that is “loving my neighbor as myself” yeah, it really is. Sound laws administered fairly will allow us to do just that. We can make sure all those “workers” some don’t want deported actually work. We can screen out the convicts. We can make sure the person who applies today doesn’t jump ahead of a person in danger who applied 5 years ago. We can make sure the schools can handle the load, human services can handle the load, and that folks understand our laws and customs and are prepared to abide by them.
And just the fact there is no quick cushy place to escape to if your own country stinks might mean political changes for the good back home, wherever home is. And lessen the amount of trespassing, break-ins, thefts, etc we are experiencing in person.
Sarah, I notice that you avoided naming the state that is being over run with illegals. This makes me wonder if you are a troll?
I don’t buy Sarah’s comment either Bennett.
I think it’s interesting you call us Liberals David W. Although anymore that is a compliment.
Personally, I wish we’d give these Dreamers a path to citizenship. And, if they take that path, then great. If they don’t, then deport them.
But, it’s interesting that liberals say that we can’t blame Dreamers for being illegal, because their parents brought them here. So, it’s not their fault. But, those same liberals blame every White person for slavery!!! And, White people, today, have to apologize for slavery and for segregation and for any other racist thing that was done in the past. Interesting. Very interesting.
Just thinking out loud,
David
David – It’s all about getting votes. If 10 million conservative Canadians moved south to the USA and the D- knew they would vote R- if, given the chance, there would be an uproar about how illegal they are.
Too many on the left are gobsmacked.
True
Jon,
So, the whole impetus to legalize Dreamers is “all about getting votes” for the Left?
You sure do seem to know a lot about the motivations of people. And quite a bit about immigrants in America, legal or otherwise.
As for “ignoring the law,” I’m not sure who you’re directing that toward. It seems like “the law” figures prominently in all of these discussions. We’re asking that the law be changed, which is quite different from “ignoring the law.” Dreamers have availed themselves of DACA, which was a deferring of the application of immigration law toward them – again, not ignoring the law in any way, at least on their part.
You’re hitting one note repeatedly, but it isn’t the song anyone else is singing. You seem to want all of the Dreamers deported and every time we talk about legally allowing them to stay, you throw up objections. That’s fine. You can have that view. But, your one ground of objection is that they didn’t come here legally. We know. That is clear. Which is why we’re asking that the law be changed to allow them to stay.
I really don’t understand what you’re arguing for, other than just deport them all no matter what. No one here is arguing for anyone to ignore the law. No one is saying the law doesn’t matter. No one is arguing for open borders. No one is arguing for amnesty – any version of Dreamer legislation involves an application process and standards that must be met – an earned legalization, not a free amnesty.
So, really, what you’re arguing for is full deportation of all of the Dreamers despite their situation, how young they were when they came here, how embedded they are in America, and despite whether they have any memory, connections, or resources in their home country.
Allen, I’m simply saying… follow the law or change it.
The voter comment is my conspiracy theory, which I think to be true.
Jon said, “Allen, I’m simply saying… follow the law or change it.”
Actually Jon, I think you’re saying a lot more than that, especially since every time we bring up changing the law you put forward arguments against that. You don’t come across as neutral … at all. I’m not criticizing you for having your opinions. That is what the discussion is for.
As for following the law, those calling for a change in the law are following the law. As for Dreamers, they came forward and availed themselves of the protections offered. We are citizens and have every right to ask our politicians to change laws we don’t think are sufficient. We aren’t talking about ignoring the law. We’re asking that it change to incorporate these people, just like we do on other issues.
Allen –
Jon said, “Allen, I’m simply saying… follow the law or change it.”
Actually Jon, I think you’re saying a lot more than that, especially since every time we bring up changing the law you put forward arguments against that.
Jon now says… I went back and reread all my comments and did not find one that showed me making an argument against changing the law.
At the end of one of my comments I stated…
“Work to pass legislation. This is not that difficult of a solution with the exception of the Congress.”
Allen says – As for following the law, those calling for a change in the law are following the law.
Jon says – There are a lot who are not calling for a change in the law but for ignoring the law (which is in conflict with DACA) – Keep DACA… Daca was intended to be temporary… Congress makes law… If we concede that the previous President had the right to make the policy and it be treated as law (disregarding a Congress who did nothing, first) then we would have to support the current President to do as he pleases. I’m not for that either.
Trump did the right thing — putting it back in the hands of the law makers. He could have repealed it instantly but showed some compassion and gave the Dreamers a six month period to wait and for legal citizens to urge Congress to act.
I have shared previously in a different post that the USA could learn something about how the UAE handles noncitizens. If the system here can work for 2,000,000 non-Emirates (ExPats), the USA can do something positive, legal and workable for all illegals. If they don’t register… send them home. If they can’t get a sponsor that is registered… send them home. The laws here are much more detailed and I appreciate how it works. As I said – we could learn something if we wanted too.
Nice try at deflecting the issue, David.
In defense of Jon, one would have to be very naïve to believe that the Left sees the continued importation of high levels of immigration and the legalization of immigrants who are not here legally as part of their electoral strategy. I would be surprised if anyone here would deny that. California is exhibit A.
But it is not correct to assume that only those on the political Left support the legalization of many who are here illegally and/or continued high rates of immigration.
There are many motivations at issue. Some people may not be politically active but want to see the cultural and political fabric of the US changed, and immigration is a part of that project.
Others simply don’t believe in the nation state or borders. They believe that people should be able to travel, as a human right, and go to live wherever they chose, and that it is wrong ethically to prohibit that.
Others are motivated strictly by what they view as compassion, and they may not be that politically oriented.
Others have financial interests at stake. This includes faith based groups who actually receive compensation from the government for helping to settle and work with immigrants.
DACA is clearly illegal. I would prefer that Trump would just let it get struck down.
But that would not solve the issue.
My own belief – with regard to immigration generally, is that I would be open to a fairly liberal system of work permits and that people that want them would have to pay a special tax annually – in addition to other taxes, provided that there are labor needs, but that citizenship would not be available to anyone who has just a work permit or those who come here illegally . I would not deport, but neither would I reward citizenship.
I have not found in the arguments of those who support making those covered by DACA citizens any limiting principle. If there is one, I would like to hear it.
Several have commented that we should make the DACA persons citizens, we need to turn off the spigot so that we will not have this happen again.
But because there is no limiting principle that I can see, granting citizenship is a guaranty that this will happen again, as the only limiting principle seems to be “come here and avoid ICE for a certain number of years and you’ll be legalized.”
This situation is bound to be repeated, and I have not heard any wisdom or suggestions that will do anything but guaranty that we have more of this in the future.
No limiting principle? Secure the border and enforce immigration laws.
Dreamers were BROUGHT here as children. They aren’t making the choices to come here. So, one can’t decide to come here as an adult and then qualify for it.
Compassion is a pretty good reason to do a lot of things. I don’t think it is a lesser motivation.
As I actually talk with people on the Left on this issue, I’ve never heard the “future voters” argument. I’ve basically heard moral arguments of right/wrong and arguments about human rights. Unless everyone is lying and just promoting a faux rationale, I don’t think most people are thinking about votes. But, that doesn’t mean that leaders in the DNC aren’t thinking that way, just like politicians on the Right want to keep immigrants out, deport those here, and keep citizenship from as many as possible for their own political reasons. So, that probably goes both ways.
I have little interest in how many come here. I’m a lot more interested in how we treat those who are here already.
Louis,
Sound reasoning.
David R. Brumbelow
Alan:
I agree with much of what you said in response, except the issue of a limiting principle.
You say that you have little interest in how many come here.
I believe you. I don’t think you care about that.
But that is what I am talking about. I do have an interest in that.
How that is dealt with is very important to many.
Why would it not be a good idea to let them stay as workers, under green cards, paying a special tax annually, but not qualifying for citizenship?
That would please the people you have spoken to on the left because they are not interested in voting anyway. That would solve the humanitarian issues that concern you, but also deal with the integrity of the vote which concerns me.
Without some thoughtful action, this situation will repeat itself. That will not bother you, but it is of a concern to me.
Louis, you misread what I said. I didn’t mean that I have no interest at all in whether or not we have borders. I mean that I’m not advocating for more or less immigrants to come from a moral/religious perspective. I’m focused on those already here. In talking about Dreamers, I’m not trying to talk about the whole thing. Those are separate discussions that involve economic and political considerations. I’m not focused on that right now. I’m focused on the people here and how we treat them.
Alan:
I did read you literally – “I have little interest in how many come here.”
It’s fine if you do have an interest in that question, but I have no idea what it is.
And your statement that “I’m not focused on that right now” is consistent with that, and I understand that.
I totally get that you are focused on what you perceive to be the humanitarian issues. I buy into that in lots of ways. There is much the church can do just to help people.
But the former DACA folks – the help involves not just humanitarian issues, but specific legal remedies.
So for many people, the two issues – how to resolve and how to stop future problems – are connected. That is, to have a meaningful discussion about what to do about the former DACA folks involves remedies and how we prevent this from happening again.
In my opinion, now is the time to discuss this.
If we kick the can down the road again, we will have the same thing occurring all over again.
I was 25 in 1986. I remember amnesty. Thought it was good. Looking back, it was one of the worst things we could have done to our country. That, in part, is responsible for today’s problems because it incentivized further lawlessness.
I still believe that my proposal is reasonable, and I really haven’t heard any objections to it in the religious community.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Louis, I don’t believe that the 1986 amnesty was responsible for what happened over the past 30 years. You’re putting all of the blame on those who came. I’ve yet to see anyone seriously talk about blaming the employers who hired them, the consumers who wanted cheap tomatoes and who were fine with hiring contractors who employed cheap illegal immigrant labor to put roofs on our houses, etc. We provided the market, employers hired them, the government looked the other way, but we can only find the moral clarity to blame the immigrants who came illegally. That is wrong, and I actually do believe that there is a clear right and wrong on policy issues.
When I say I’m not focused on who comes, I’m saying that I’m not trying to get more immigrants to come here so Democrats win elections or that business has more labor. My focus is on how we treat those already here. On the number of immigrants who actually come, I’ve studied that quite a bit, read on it for years, and understand the economic and cultural arguments for and against. But, that discussion is not in my purview and it is completely impossible to come to a number that everyone would agree on. There are too many emotional reasons why one side wants the number to be higher and one side lower. Truth is nonexistent.
But, how you treat the sojourner, how you treat those brought here as children, recognizing what kind of situation they would be deported back to … all of those things do matter to me. Many of these young people are in our churches. I’ve met many of them. Now, we can sit back and let it happen and pray for them on the way out, or we can actually speak on their behalf. We aren’t dealing with abstractions or economic data. We’re dealing with real people.
Secure the border. Enforce immigration law. Raise the market price for produce, chicken, milk, construction, and a host of other products and industries. Enforce the law against employers. Dry up the market for cheap, undocumented labor. There are a lot of things we should be talking about if we really care about the “rule of law” and enforcing the law. Those things never seem to come up, though. We ONLY seem to blame the illegal immigrant, or worse yet, those brought here at 2 years old or whatever their age was.
I’ve always contended that employers who hire illegals should be strongly punished.
In fact, aren’t there are unenforced laws on the books that would do that.
If we cut off their ability to get a job without coming here legally – that would help dry up illegal immigration.
Agreed. Stop doing business with anyone who uses illegals, and the problem is solved in a very short time. Indicate to your suppliers that you are willing to pay much higher prices for much of your goods and services. Problem solved. If you are also concerned about overseas outsourcing, stop shopping at Walmart.
Bill,
And how is one to know if the businesses one frequents are using illegals?
Mike: Good question. It would take some research certainly. But if one is really up in arms over illegal immigration, they’ll take the time.
Thanks, David.
I have avoided this discussion generally because it tends to sound like who is “right” and who is “wrong.”
On policy issues such as this, there is often not really a clear right or wrong.
Alan:
Agree completely regarding your comments about business and consumerism.
But the 1986 amnesty incentives not only the immigrants but also those on this side of the border who want high levels of immigration.
If securing the border is important to folks, support for the wall and mandating the use of e-verify are tools that will help.
The President may negotiate to get those items in exchange for favorable treatment of the DACA folks.
See, Border Security, E-Verify, deporting criminals, fining/imprisoning abusive employers – those are all actions that a government can take to address this problem that do not target vulnerable victims of the broken system.
That is my issue. When all you do is go after the undocumented immigrants already here – especially the kids brought here when they were young – you are no longer operating in a moral or ethical space … especially when there are things you can do first that are just.
Alan,
The way I see the situation is that anyone who is pro-life would want families to stay together and live where they at least have a half way chance to support their families. Today, we pick and choose the meaning of pro-life, and if we pick and choose that meaning we are truly not pro-life but only pro-birth.
Part of the problem in addressing this with existing law is that the illegal aliens already here are NOT all employed. Many have come with “farming the government” the ONLY job they intend to take. Add to that, where I live, the very real issue of the drug cartels importing labor for their mj grows IS a problem.
If only it were just a matter of a relatively small number of hardworking kids seeking educations and jobs. It isn’t. And when we become emotional about kids being deported to a country they cannot remember, to a language they do not know, we need to make sure they DO NOT GO ALONE. The family that brought them should return with them and GET IN LINE.
And as to raising prices on goods and services? Consider those in poverty. How do they now eat if those prices go up? Or buy needed clothing and goods? Easy to raise a ruckus from a relatively ivory tower middle class lifestyle that we all just need to pony up more bucks and help. Much harder decision for those of us on the front lines, dealing with the poverty of our citizens and the pressure of the lawbreakers.
Sarah,
Your assumption that none of us are “on the front lines” and are just speaking from middle class “ivory towers” is inaccurate. Border states are not the only “front lines” in this. Many people who read and comment here are directly involved in community ministry and work with immigrants, the poor, and those connected to this debate in a close way. Let’s not assume that we are all just speaking without knowledge.
If you want everyone deported, you have every right to advocate for that, as you are currently doing.
“Raising prices on goods and services” will indeed affect the poor negatively. But, that is what is going to happen. That is how the market will respond with wages in these fields goes up. Wages are operating costs. You can’t run a business if operating costs outpace revenue. So, prices have to rise. The problem is that higher wages in some industries because of decreased labor doesn’t necessarily relate to higher wages in all industries and ends up affecting the poor in other areas. I’m all for higher wages, mind you. I’m just saying that there will be disruption and it is better to be prepared for it.
Sarah: I just can’t buy your scenario considering what is required to stay in DACA and research that shows those in DACA and immigrants in general, both legal and illegal are law abiding citizens, more so than Americans. They have less incarceration rates and less incarceration rates than Americans.
http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens
That last sentence should be less crime rates than Americans.
“Sessions: We are a people of compassion and we are a people of law. But there is nothing compassionate about the failure to enforce immigration laws. Enforcing the law saves lives, protects communities and taxpayers, and prevents human suffering. Failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and even terrorism.
However, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, those who committed “a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or three or more other misdemeanor offenses” are not eligible for DACA. Neither are those who pose a public safety threat, which “include, but are not limited to, gang membership, participation in criminal activities, or participation in activities that threaten the United States.”
Also, there is no evidence that DACA holders are more likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.
As we wrote in February, numerous studies have found that immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants. A recap of the literature on this topic can be found here. A 2013 study published in American Sociological Review confirmed that immigration is strongly associated with less violence in a neighborhood.
We take no position on the merits of DACA. But Sessions’ description of the program doesn’t tell the whole story, leaving a misleading impression about DACA holders and the impact that the program has had on illegal immigration and crime.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/
Debbie – “As we wrote in February, numerous studies have found that immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants.”
What the studies fail to say (intentional or not)… Every crime committed by an illegal immigrant against a person… business… ________ … would not have have been committed here if the illegal immigrant were not here. The survey attempts to make it sound like having less a crime rate among illegal immigrants is ok because it is better than being higher. I am not sure if any person… business… ________ … who has had a crime committed against them would agree with such.
Such a study is totally useless. Ask the Steinle family.
John: As tragic as this situation is, we are talking about Dreamers. You can’t name one tragic crime and paint all with a broad brush. I think you know this.
Debbie, I know what the discussion is. I responded to your words. Is the studies you reference speak of dreamers? If not, then you introduced the broader topic, not I. If you want to speak to dreamers, then please do.
Alan,
What is a good response to those who make the comment: Immigrants have had many years to become citizens of this country, why didn’t they?
Jess,
If you are talking about DACA immigrants then there has been no path, as in zero chance, for them to become citizens, I do believe
Mike White,
Thanks for the information!
Are all the “kick them all out” folks in favor of punishing those who hire illegals as harshly as punishing illegals themselves?
A fair question asked very unfairly. The phrase “”Kick them all out” folks”… doesn’t say you want to discuss this but to try and start a back and forth with name calling up front.
It would be like me asking… Would all (especially Bill Mac) the “I hate the Constitution and any type border for the USA” folk want to meet with me to keep Robert E Lees statue from being removed?
If you’re not in favor of kicking them all out, then the question isn’t for you.
I frankly don’t care if Lee’s statues stay or go, but from what I’ve read, Lee would be horrified that there are statues of him. He was not in favor of memorializing the war. I think many folks look at Lee with rose colored glasses, but he was wise about this.
In our system of jurisprudence, we typically punish all complicit parties in a crime. We should punish those who hire illegals every bit as harshly as the illegals themselves. Like Dave says, dry up demand and the supply will also dry up. And everyone needs to be prepared, and willing, to pay higher prices for food and other things.
I’m not a “kick em all out” guy but I do support E-verify requirements and punishments for employers who hire illegals.
In order to “fix” illegal immigration problems – once required facet is to deal with the “demand/reward” for illegal immigrants.
I’m only against illegal immigration.
In John 8 Jesus was presented with an unsolvable conundrum. The Pharisees had him in that he had to either uphold the law and stone the woman -which would cause the crowds to walk away defeated and resigned to hopelessness- or he had to reject the law showing that he was a sinner against God’s standards. Of course, he saved the woman and didn’t violate the law. He is Jesus after all and the crowds and we can have hope!
In reading this comments stream I am discouraged to think that anyone non-believer would rightly see that we are people of the law, not of mercy, not of hope. If we can have no mercy and compassion for Dreamers then we can have none for anyone. The crowds should rightly walk away knowing we do not have any message of hope for them.
Too often we Evangelicals have believed that we can have a political opinion apart from the Gospel. I maintain that we can not.
Strider –
Why stop at Dreamers? Why not support open borders for all who are hopeless and in need of mercy, hope, and compassion? Or do we limit this compassion, mercy, and hope to only those who are here already and to all who long to be here… hurting…. oppressed… just wanting a better life. Do we say – stay away.
My point is: for the sake of the gospel, do we really stop with what we have here?
When we rescue a Dreamer from deportation and they have family who would benefit from being here, do we tell that family here already our arms will only reach so far so can’t do it — sorry?
I do imagine all who support the Dreamers staying (if the law disallows it) have a line they will draw to where the influx of more coming in. We do have compassion for those also, right? Or is it just for the Dreamers?
Jon we don’t know each other or you probably wouldn’t ask me that! I agree with Frank Zappa who said that politics is the entertainment arm of the military industrial complex.
You don’t talk politics in the UAE. You preach the truth. That’s what we need to do. Alan has suggested we stand up for the oppressed. I agree. But only as far as writing congress goes. Passed that and we cooperate with oppression. To be salt and light we must speak out publicly and privately. We must be the Good Samaritan. We must represent His Kingdom where He is always inviting everyone in.
Strider:
That is a great point – political opinions apart from the Gospel.
In the grand sense, we cannot, as all of life is dedicated to Christ.
But I think wisdom would have us recognize that not all questions are that important, and the answers to questions are not always clear. If we don’t hold those truths also, we are both unwise and proud.
For example, does the Gospel mandate that I have an opinion about whether a minimum lot size in a political jurisdiction should be 10,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet. Does Jesus care? Is this related to the Gospel?
And when we as a country decided to invade another country for defense purposes, those questions, while weighty, can be very complex.
Does Jesus care? Is this related to the Gospel?
Even if the answer to both are “yes”, the next question is, “Can Christians looking at the same data come to different conclusions in good faith?”
It is for these reasons, and others, that I usually recoil when someone claims, “This is a Gospel issue.”
There is the Gospel. And their are issues.
Neither Jesus nor the Apostles spoke in these terms.
We should be careful to do so because the clear implication of doing so is “Jesus likes my ideas better than yours, and if you don’t think so, you don’t love Jesus or the Gospel.”
Louis, I love the way you state that I make a great point and then nullify it. Your comment is an tried and true argument and usually works. I have been reading Tolstoy lately. In his book ‘The Kingdom of God is Within You’ he argues that any time we cooperate with political authorities we disobey Christ command of non-violence since all earthly governments use violence to stay in power. Matthew 5 is clear and usually shoved in a corner, vs 39 ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’. Jesus goes on to give very specific examples. We reply with ‘wisdom’ which is always man’s way of talking himself out of what God has commanded.
But I don’t want to sidetrack us to far from Alan’s point. There are oppressed people. We have the opportunity to stand up for them. Many are watching and what they see – and have seen for a long time- are preachers who are quoting the law to protect themselves while holding out no love, nor hope for a lost and dying world.
Our churches in America are shrinking and becoming more irrelevant every day. This is exactly why. The oppressed and downtrodden have no place to turn and are therefore trying everything except our pews because we are not proclaiming the invitation to them. They are not welcome. They should go back where they came from. Read the comments the message is clear. This is a Gospel issue.
There are oppressed people but I wouldn’t call dreamers oppressed. At most you might say they are oppressed if they end up being deported in the future. Are they worried? Sure. But so are a lot of people about a lot of things. I’m frankly not too concerned. Only about 12% (from what I hear) want dreamers deported, so that only about half of Trump’s base of support. I think he’ll find a way to let them stay.
The one group of immigrants that weren’t oppressed by Americans, but leave it to us, we seem to have become a equal opportunity immigrant destroyer with no one left out of the destruction.
Of course Tolstoy *almost* completely renounced the refinements and inducements of the world system – actually leaving family behind (with the exception of one daughter) traveling around as a Christian monk. In fact many of his experiences to find peace parallel Siddhartha Gautama, including the title of Tolstoy’s work “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”. Gautama found that peace could not be found among the pleasures of the world, utilizing asceticism, meditation, and non-violence as the means to the goal – something that in latter life Tolstoy embraced within a Christian umbrella. Weather it was totally Christian or not is subject to debate.
The question of the post it seems Strider deals with how Christians who have The Kingdom of God’s business in mind work to stand for those whom we agree need mercy – legal mercy from the Government. Hence, many ARE using legal language in defining the difficulties of the Government (who is the lawful producer of God’s justice) in finding a solution that strikes a balance between mercy and duty. You don’t bear any examples of anyone on this post turning away anybody who present themselves in moment of need. You assume that if they share the belief and desire that Government maintain the standards of duty toward the law (the opposite of law is chaos) then they are unloving. If God allowed the world to turn to lawlessness, then what would be left of it?
The world is not made of 6 billion nomads who lawlessly go from one place to the next. God has designed order in the fabric of the universe, and has given governments within certain geographic areas the power to rule within them to maintain human order. The church is commanded to be merciful and giving to those who are in need who present themselves as downtrodden in need of mercy. It seems to me here you are conflating the duties and responsibilities of the church on the Government – and vice versa.
Good to “see” you around Strider.
Rob
Rob:
I am not expert on Tolstoy, but I have enjoyed Strider and you bringing him up. Interesting stuff.
In a related matter, the term “social justice” gets thrown around a lot. The people who often use the term “social justice” today use it to advocate for more government action to address what they perceive as inequity, not justice.
That is actually the opposite of the how the term came to be. The term actually meant the exact opposite of government action.
Government, it was recognized, was charged with dispensing justice. But there were some areas of life outside the reach of government but within the reach of human interaction – hence “social justice.”
Nowadays, “social justice” is kind of short for more government action.
Strider:
You do make a good point, but there are lots of points to be made. No?
There are no such things as “Gospel Issues.” If the Bible said so, I would totally buy into that. Polemics are not the same as commands, no matter how many times people repeat them.
Debbie, I lived next door for two years to folks in the cartel–and Dreamers. Didn’t know about either part of their life til the grow was raided and they fled for the Midwest. I live on one of the “major drug trade artery” interstate highways in the southwestern/mountain region of the US. I trust my own eyes and ears more than I trust statistics of who got convicted. Statistics report convictions. We live with the arrested but released, the got roughed up for getting in trouble, and bury the got killed in revenge rather than got arrested and convicted.
If a dreamer has false papers they are a convict. If they don’t have false papers many jobs are closed to them, and many fear even trying. So they do turn to crime to survive.
We need to clear this all up pronto with a law, which can kick them out or make it legal for them to stay, but we need to end this “toss the law and let each president make his own rules” nonsense. And if we decide as a country to let the dreamer’s stay, how do we deal with future kids brought over illegally? Do we set a cut off birthdate? If we don’t, we will have this nightmare forever.