Since we left Phoenix last week, the buzz has been about the Peter Lumpkins question and Al Mohler’s response. We have dissected the exchange, analyzed them, autopsied them and elevated it to legendary status. However, if Peter had not gone to the microphone during the SBTS report, we might have spent this time talking about the resolution on immigration, which was the most pointed discussion we had at the convention.
Here is the Resolution in full for you to read, and I will have some comments below.
ON IMMIGRATION AND THE GOSPEL
June 2011
WHEREAS, The Kingdom of God is made up of persons from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language (Revelation 7:9); and
WHEREAS, Our ancestors in the faith were sojourners and aliens in the land of Egypt (Exodus 1:1-14; 1 Chronicles 16:19; Acts 7:6); and
WHEREAS, Our Lord Jesus Christ lived His childhood years as an immigrant and refugee (Matthew 2:13-23); and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures call us, in imitation of God Himself, to show compassion and justice for the sojourner and alien among us (Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 10:18-19; Psalm 94:6; Jeremiah 7:6; Ezekiel 22:29; Zechariah 7:10); and
WHEREAS, The Great Commission compels us to take the gospel to the nations (Matthew 28:18-20), and the Great Commandment compels us to love our neighbor as self (Mark 12:30-31); and
WHEREAS, The gospel tells us that our response to the most vulnerable among us is a response to Jesus Himself (Matthew 25:40); and
WHEREAS, The Bible denounces the exploitation of workers and the mistreatment of the poor (Isaiah 3:15; Amos 4:1; James 5:4); and
WHEREAS, The United States of America is increasingly diverse in terms of ethnicity, language, and culture; and
WHEREAS, Approximately 12 to 15 million undocumented immigrants live and work within our borders; and
WHEREAS, The relative invisibility of the immigrant population can lead to detrimental consequences in terms of health, education, and well-being, especially of children; and
WHEREAS, Recognizing that Romans 13:1-7 teaches us that the rule of law is an indispensable part of civil society and that Christians are under biblical mandate to respect the divinely-ordained institution of government and its just laws, that government has a duty to fulfill its ordained mandate, and that Christians have a right to expect the government to fulfill its ordained mandate to enforce those laws; and
WHEREAS, The governing authorities of a nation have the right and responsibility to maintain borders to protect the security of their citizens; and
WHEREAS, Undocumented immigrants are in violation of the law of the land; and
WHEREAS, Many of these persons, desiring a better future for themselves and their families, are fleeing brutal economic and political situations; and
WHEREAS, The issue of immigration has prompted often-rancorous debate in the American public square; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011, call on our churches to be the presence of Christ, in both proclamation and ministry, to all persons, regardless of country of origin or immigration status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we declare that any form of nativism, mistreatment, or exploitation is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we deplore any bigotry or harassment against any persons, regardless of their country of origin or legal status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to prioritize efforts to secure the borders and to hold businesses accountable for hiring practices as they relate to immigration status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution is not to be construed as support for amnesty for any undocumented immigrant; (added by amendment) and be it further
RESOLVED, That we pray for our churches to demonstrate the reconciliation of the Kingdom both in the verbal witness of our gospel and in the visible makeup of our congregations; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we affirm that while Southern Baptists, like other Americans, might disagree on how to achieve just and humane public policy objectives related to immigration, we agree that, when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to His church, the message, in every language and to every person, is “Whosoever will may come.”
The controversy revolved around the fifth “resolved”, which calls for the government to seek a way, after restitution is made, to help those who are currently here to find legal status. Three amendments were offered related to this.
- Richard Huff, a messenger from Corona de Tucson Baptist Church in Tucson, AZ, made the motion to strike the entire paragraph. A discussion ensued of that amendment. There were several points of contention with the resolution. It was argued that it was essentially an amnesty resolution, that it rewarded lawbreakers and undermined the laws of our lands. Some also argued against the committee’s use of the term “undocumented immigrant” instead of “illegal alien.” The committee and those who supported the amendment argued that it was important to approach this from a gospel mentality. They strongly argued against the amendment, even promising to oppose the entire resolution if the amendment was adopted. Finally, a vote was taken that was simply too close to call. I asked one person what he thought and he said the amendment would pass and another person I asked thought it would fail. A ballot vote was taken and reported back later in the day. The amendment failed 766-723.
- Another amendment was offered in the afternoon that called for all illegals to be returned to their homelands, but that failed by an overwhelming majority.
- The committee offered its own amendment which clarified that the resolution was “not to be construed as support for amnesty for any undocumented immigrant.” That passed by a large majority and then so did the resolution.
The reaction on Twitter was pretty strong.
Al Mohler tweeted “Southern Baptists are at a crucial decision point. The immigration crisis demands a Gospel response before any political response.”
Dr. Russell Moore tweeted, “This is an important discussion for who we’re going to be a gospel people.” And he followed that up with this gem, “Our response to the immigrant communities in this country cannot be ‘You kids get off my lawn’ in Spanish.”
Several tweets I saw expressed embarrassment at the tone of the discussion, even raising the specter of racism. One tweet, which I cannot find now, asserted that the discussion demonstrated the need for the racial reconciliation work that had been passed earlier.
So, we had one side presenting a “law and order argument and the other was presenting a “focus on the gospel” argument. I would say that this was easily the most contentious debate of the contention. I have noticed that several conservative political organizations have called the convention to task for our abandonment of conservative principles on both homosexuality and immigration.
NOTE: Please hear me on this. I am using the designations “gospel” and “law and order” to encapsulate complicated arguments. As with any label, these are insufficient and are only used for the sake of brevity. But I want to make it clear that I am not saying that those who advanced the “law and order” argument do not care about the gospel, nor that those who asserted a “gospel response” were ignoring law and order. These are just designations for simplicity, not intended as pejoratives.
I have the following observations, in no particular order of logic or importance.
1) I suspect that the amendment might have passed had it not been for the fact that Wiley Drake spoke in favor of it. Remember, if 22 people who voted against the amendment voted “aye” instead, the motion would pass 745-744. Were there 22 people who heard Wiley’s name in support of the amendment and decided to vote on the other side? I wouldn’t be surprised. I generally advocate against meanness, but there is a time for straight talk, right? We need to take up a collection to buy Wiley a Caribbean cruise during next year’s convention. We made the mistake of electing him Second VP a few years ago and he has done nothing but embarrass us ever since. I am still amazed that 101 people (in addition to himself) voted for him in the presidential election. I am very weary of the Wiley Drake show. Now, on to what I hope will be more positive analysis.
2) I could see both sides of the argument, though I was certainly more supportive of the “ministry/gospel” side. We need to secure our borders and enforce our laws. But we also need to minister to the people who are here. While my sympathies lay with one side, it is not fair to cast this completely as a good-guys vs bad-guys argument. People need to obey the law and our borders need to be secured. If I lived in Arizona, I might share some of the passions of the people who spoke on that side of the argument.
3) That said, I thought that some of the rhetoric on the “law and order” side was a little overblown and possibly cost the amendment the support it needed to pass (remember, we are talking 22 votes here). I do not think the amendment itself was racist, but some of the rhetoric made me very uncomfortable. Had a couple of people who supported the amendment offered less impassioned arguments, the amendment probably would have passed.
4) We need to remember that the SBC is a Great Commission organization, not a political organization. If I was at the Republican Convention I might support the law and order approach. Our government needs to do its job in protecting our borders and enforcing our laws. But the SBC is a gospel-centered organization (ideally, at least). We should be about reaching people more than about establishing immigration policy.
5) It is interesting that a lot of the discussion came from churches in the Southwest – on both sides. This is a big issue all over America, but evidently the passions on the issue run very high in Arizona and other border states, for obvious reasons.
6) This reinforces my theory that resolutions are more trouble than they are worth, though one might argue that this was an important discussion and resolution.
7) I am a political conservative, and pretty hard-core in my beliefs. But I think it is more important that we listen to the warning of our president, who told us to be Great Commission Christians, not Fox News Christians (not an exact quote). Nothing against Fox – they are my news and information source. But we evangelicals often are willing to forget that being conservative and being Christian are not the same thing.
Look at the way conservatives embraced Glen Beck who proclaims a blatantly false gospel. If he had been liberal we would have identified his heresy and excoriated him for it. But because he espoused conservative values and views, we looked past his false gospel and even tried to baptize his heresy – all in the name of politics.
There are political conservatives who are not Christians and Christians who are not political conservatives (though why escapes me). Christians need to find a way to be active and involved in politics without allowing the church to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of a political party (as some on both the left and right have done).
8.) Those on all sides of convention controversies in recent years have noticed what we all must admit – changes are coming in the SBC. We have changed in regards to racism – I think that is true of almost all of us. We are beginning to form a new gospel-centered, ministry-focused approach on homosexuality that does not compromise on the sin aspect, but promotes ministry instead of condemnation. And, I believe this resolution probably signals a shift in which we focus less on the political implications of our actions and more on the gospel implications.
Long time coming!
Now, this is your chance to sweetly, and in Christian love, tell me what an idiot I am.
This is the EXACT kind of issue that the SBC has no business dealing with. Can we all agree that people who love God and EVEN people who love the BF&M have different opinions on this issue? Can we agree the issue is primarily political and not spiritual? Can we also agree that any vote we take would ONLY serve to “make a statement” and that no actual laws will be passed based on this? Then why waste the time, effort, division, and debate? WHY? Memo to SBC: if you want to continue to drive my generation away in droves… Read more »
Anon,
I don’t know what generation you’re from, but I think that this is an important issue to discuss. Illegal immigration affects all of us, either directly or indirectly.
Regardless of the political views, this is a gospel issue. We have to reach all people in our country.
Often we have long discussions about amendments without commenting on the results of the final resolution as amended. It seems pretty plain to me that the concern of most of the messengers who voted for the amendment to drop the clause (I voted no for the amendment and yes for the resolution) were concerned that the clause could be interpreted to support amnesty. I did not think it did. After the amendment failed, however, the resolutions committee wisely offered its own amendment that clarified “That this resolution is not to be construed as support for amnesty for any undocumented immigrant”.… Read more »
Thank you for posting this, DAVID. I think it has ALWAYS been in the hearts of SBC people to be Christ-centered, but it is good that people are trying to express that heart openly in calls for compassion for those who are at the mercy of the kindness of others in our society. All politics aside, it looks like all those ‘labels’ formerly pinned on those who are ‘different’, are no longer able to keep Christians from seeing ‘the others’ as Our Lord would have them be seen, be accepted, shown kindness, and ministered to in the spirit of the… Read more »
I think whoever came up with this resolution should be taken out back and beat. We need to be about spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and not bring politics onto the convention floor. We do a great job of finding the most fringe things to disagree on and here we go again. We agree on the core but disagree on some of these skirt issues yet these are the very things that will split our convention wide open. Resolutions should be done away with. Maybe I’ll bring that to the floor next year. I have a resolution to do… Read more »
Jonathan, “I SECOND” That Resolution!
To be official, you’d have to make a motion to amend the bylaws to remove resolutions from the bylaws. It would then probably be ruled out of order. 😉
I agree. Resolutions are a waste of time, and really only serve to embarrass us.
Can someone explain the “gospel” argument for rewarding illegal immigrants by allowing them the same America citizenship rights as those who immigrated legally? The same gospel message they would hear in America is also available, thanks to our International Mission Board, in their countries of origin, where in many cases we are doing a better job reaching people for Christ than we are in America. The non-Amnesty clause, however clear, does nothing to override the plain language of the controversial paragraph. Try this on: “I hate the New York Yankees with such venom that when my thirteen year old son… Read more »
“Can someone explain the “gospel” argument for . . . ”
to paraphrase another saying:
for those who ‘get it’, no explanation is necessary;
for those who don’t ‘get it’, no explanation is possible . . .
Thanks for promoting unity and civil discourse by avoiding a real answer to a thought provoking question and totally blowing me off.
Rick,
Sarcasm hardly promotes unity. I respect your opinion. I realize this is a touchy subject. I will try to tread carefully. I ask that you would as well.
And yet, for Christiane’s unkind insinuation that I “don’t get it” you have no rebuke? Ah, the referee always calls the technical foul on the second person. Anyway, back to the original question, before the insult: Do either you, Christiane, or you, Andrew, care to respond to the substance of my position, namely that since the purposes of the gospel may be fulfilled within the boundaries of ANY nation, it should not matter to us WHERE we take the gospel to a soul? For this reason, we should witness to Miguel the Legal Immigrant in Arizona, while witnessing to Isabel… Read more »
Rick,
First, I was referring to your sarcasm in both your initial comment, which was before Christiane’s, and your response to hers. Christiane’s comment does not justify you being unkind, and you know that.
In response to your first comment, the motion said nothing about granting citizenship. The gospel must be taken to everyone, even people who sin by trespassing.
You state that we’re doing a better job reaching people for Christ outside of American than in it, and I agree, especially as it relates to illegals in America. We need to be reaching them too.
L’s gets as much respect as she deserves–and about as much as she shows to Christians who preach the biblical gospel.
Rick, my point is this: what is PRIMAL about the power of ‘the Gospel’ takes us beyond our human reasoning into the realm of what cannot so easily ‘be explained’ rationally . . . our hearts are opened up by the Holy Spirit so that we can see ‘the others’ as Christ wants us to see them. Only then does our ability to respond to them with His Love becomes possible: “Love not just those of your own tribe, your own class, family or people, but those who are different, those who are strangers, who are strange to your ways,… Read more »
L’s
Since you’re not a Christian, it would be impossible for you to make a gospel argument.
Joe:
You said to L’s.
“L’s
Since you’re not a Christian, it would be impossible for you to make a gospel argument.”
There you go again deciding who is a Christian and who is not.
Do you have the following template that you just fill in words:
anyone who ___________________________ proves that they don’t truly believe the gospel and are not a Christian.”
It is very wrong and old of you to do this.
She denies that Jesus is the only way to heaven and says that a good muslim or a good mormon can get to heaven without trusting Christ. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what the gospel says. Therefore, she is not a Christian.
As Southern Baptists we do not have the ability to have any effect on the immigration policies of the United States, nor should we as a Convention attempt to get involved in national politics as the issues are usually far more complex than most of us realize and it would serve only to cause division anyway. Is it not enough to focus our efforts solely or following Christ and staying true to God’s Word? I think there are larger issues that we need to focus on rather than why someone is in this country. Besides pretty much every Anglo person… Read more »
My great-great-great grandfathers Wiliam Fariss and Aaron Pinson both showed up in South Carolina in the late 1760s claiming land under a British law offering 180 acres to “any poor Protestant immigrant.” The target audience was, of course, Englishmen, and perhaps secondarily, “Irish” of English decent who belonged to the Church of Ireland (England) in northern Ireland. There is no question that Aaron and his family “immigrated” from North Carolina; they had already been in North America 100 years or so, and were originally French. We aren’t sure about William; some sources say he came from Virginia, and others that… Read more »
I think the idea is that our focus should be on ministering to the people more than on the political implications of that. There is a legitimate political issue, and it needs to be fixed. But illegals are people in need of Christ and our job is not to deport them (that is the goverments job – which they are doing poorly), our job is to love them and serve them and share Christ with them. By the way, I do not think the motion said anything about granting citizenship rights to these people. I’m not an expert, but I… Read more »
I think the idea is that our focus should be on ministering to the people more than on the political implications of that””
Dave,
It think this is a key issue and I agree with your approach. There are plenty of people who will be more than willing to push the political agenda for a variety of reasons. But, only church has the mandate to act in a grace filled way to these people.
I’ve decided to put my emphasis on the human side of this problem and play down my feelings on the political side.
I had no problem with the resolution and have no problem with “amnesty”. Removing all undocumented immigrants from the US in one fell swoop would devastate our economy and cause significant harm to brothers and sisters in Christ who would be forcefully separated from their families. Is it a problem that people are coming into the US without a legal passport or visa? Yes. Should the church play an active role in encouraging believers to obey the law and return to their native land and seek a lawful return? Yes. Should the church turned a blind eye to the significane… Read more »
Amen!
Not bad. You said it very well–couldn’t have done it better myself. You must have had an awesome mentor for an older brother, or something like that.
I do have an older brother, but we in our family choose not to talk about him much. Sorry. It’s just a sore point.
That just sounds sad.
Or maybe it was a wise nephew…and I could have said it better, just decided not to.
Wise-cracking nephew maybe.
It is.
Dave,
Seems like we have something in common, as painful as it is. I pray God is giving you grace through this as He is myself.
It helps me to remember that Paul was highly effective for Christ even with a big thorn in his side.
Funny, in my family, I am the older sister that no one talks about. 🙂
I sincerely hope that the confusion about the clause is simply borne from a lack of understanding and not indicative if any deeper heart issues. Even without the added resolved clause, the resolution very clearly wasn’t a call for “amnest”. Anyone who has ministered to internationals on more than a surface level knows that the process by which immigrants reapply for status, or apply for status change, is both complex and expensive. It really shouldn’t be all that controversial that a body of supposed “little Christs” would resolve to request those in authority to make the process a bit more… Read more »
Oops. “if” should read “of” and “amnest” should read “amnesty”.
Dave, I read the entire ‘resolution’ and I must admit, it sounds like double-talk and double-mindedness. I live in AZ and have since 1996. I’ve watched this problem escalate and get increasingly out of control. Last December the Pinal County Sheriff (next county to Maricopa, where I live) found himself under heavy gun fire. To be more precise, this happened about 40 miles from my home. The drug smugglers actually shot at a police helicopter with military grade weapons. The illegals got away because their military grade weapons exceeded the firepower of the Sheriff’s office. A couple of months ago,… Read more »
“Many of the U.S. Catholic parishes have given sanctuary to illegals. ”
Yes, that is true, KATIE.
Catholic churches have had a very long history of offering ‘sanctuary’ to those who seek it;
to do this is a tradition that responds to the spirit of the Holy Gospels
Similarly, you may want to read ‘The Hiding Place’, where the Dutch Reformed Faith is represented in the actions of the ten Boom Family who offered sanctuary to ‘illegals’ Or, if you have the time, and a couple of handkerchiefs, here is the film on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhVC9q_ZlDs In this film, the family’s pastor discourages them, but the good father ten Boom says of him later: ‘just because a mouse is in the cookie jar, doesn’t make him a cookie’ The Christian heart has always found its way in this world, a little bit difficult. But that has not kept it… Read more »
Someone who broke the law to enter this country has no right to sanctuary. No one with an ounce of sense would offer it to them.
Hi JOE,
There have been times when Christians weren’t known for ‘being sensible’ in the ways of THIS world
. . . and all I can say is ‘thank God’
“Yes, that is true, KATIE.
Catholic churches have had a very long history of offering ‘sanctuary’ to those who seek it;
to do this is a tradition that responds to the spirit of the Holy Gospels”
Except for the Jews seeking santuary in the Vatican.
the only problem with your point is that illegals today from Mexico are not escaping concentration camps.
Katie, you state the other side reasonably, worth well more than two cents or centavos or whatever. There are two sides to this. I don’t disagree politically, but my focus is on the church response.
More people to pray for. More people to have the opportunity to give and show Christ too. As Dave has pointed out this was not a political resolution but a Gospel resolution. One I am proud that we voted for. And I have seen the other side. The devastation of deporting, the separating of families who cry day by day.
We named our daughter’s middle name Ruth after a foreigner who was welcomed into the people of God and shown compassion. The political issues surrounding immigration are complex, and sometimes it’s easy once we have decided what our preferred solution is to simply ignore all others or act as if other faithful Christians couldn’t possibly see things different from us. Thus the danger of trying as Southern Baptists to “weigh in” on every current political topic with a resolution. I don’t think the original resolution supported anything like pure amnesty, but people obviously felt the need to spell that out… Read more »
Chief Katie, Thank you for offering a very practical and personal context to the discussion. Almost half of the convention (myself among them) agreed with your assessment of “double-talk.” My good friend, Dr. John Killian, expressed some of these concerns on the floor of the convention. The language sounded like amnesty. One brother said it was so vague and had so many holes you could drive 25 trucks through it. This article on letting immigrants become legal makes the resolution sound awfully close to a form of amnesty: http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2011/06/22/baptists-let-immigrants-become-legal/ Still, it’s a complicated issue, so much so that my wife… Read more »
Rick, Thanks for the link you provided. Here’s my thinking on this entire fiasco: Illegals aliens are people who are just as deserving of the gospel message as anyone else. Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel. But He didn’t tell us to disobey the laws of the government under which we live. We should speak up about governments who are totally corrupted, and though our government is killing itself, it’s still better than anywhere else on the planet. Amnesty has been a complete an utter failure and every time we continue down that road, it only encourages more people… Read more »
Chief,
After this post I nominate you for Admiral 🙂
Very insightful, and very compassionate at the same time.
I think we should keep in mind in these types of resolutions and such that all aliens are not from Mars — but some are.
Not every alien is here seeking the American dream. Many contribute to crime and a many also simply drain our already shaky social service system.
Thanks for a thoughful post.
‘Amnesty also discriminates against those who are trying to come here legally’ Thank you! We are experiencing this right now with some very close friends. They have sponsors, guaranteed job, etc and still have to wait a long long time. That is how it works if you do it legally. I think it was more a “touchy feely” issue for the “words and empty platitudes” people. Believers witness to anyone, anytime, anywhere. We do not need a resolution for that which means it was confusing at best because it is a very serious political issue. However, should believers hire illegals?… Read more »
Here is the problem with the “Gospel” side of this argument… “RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to implement…”
It appears to be inconsistent to resolve to ask for political intervention and then play the gospel card. There is no gospel in the 5th Resolved, only politics.
bapticus hereticus: If ‘they’ are the immigrants, are ‘we’ the hostiles?
“” We need to take up a collection to buy Wiley a Caribbean cruise during next year’s convention.”” David, I agree you generally advocate against meanness, but then you print something, mean, under the guise of “straight talk.” I know that many who only know Wiley from the once-per-year appearances at the Convention think he is just some looney, pathetic person who knows nothing about ministering to people who are disenfranchised by society. However, he is also someone who risked everything including large fines and jail time for providing food and shelter to people who had nothing. He basically lost… Read more »
I don’t find the biblical commands to Israel about aliens and sojourners to be squarely applicable. We should treat people kindly, for sure. I just don’t like the attempt to take OT directives to Israel and apply them too literally, here. That’s poor exegesis in my opinion. Kind of like supporting manifest destiny with God’s promises to Abraham. If the aliens and sojourners could have joined any of the tribes, asked that their members become Levites and Priests, and then had the right to vote to change the Law of Moses, then we might see a different type of warning… Read more »
I meant to say “illegal alien” is NOT an inaccurate term. It is not the best term to use in a document like this, but it is accurate.
I am a recent graduate from a SBC seminary. At this particular seminary (though I think the situation would be the same at the others), we had several international students come to get degrees in which they could return to their countries and reach the lost for Christ. However there is a issue. You see, they recieve Student Visas to come and attend school here. One of the requirements of Student Visas are that you can not work at a job for more than 20 hours a week. That, and any spouse/family can not work at all. Thus in the… Read more »
How would this have played if it were not “illegal immigrants” that were being discussed, but other forms of lawbreakers? Like people who rob grocery stores to feed their families because they lost their jobs? I think the SBC is setting a dangerous precedent in a resolution like this one. Why even mention the illegal immigrant thing at all? Why not make the resolution “to treat all people with respect because they are all made in the image of God.” Take out the references to illegal immigration and you have a pretty good resolution on human dignity and treating others… Read more »
Jeff,
Very brave post. It was nice knowing you 🙂
Jeff, You are making way too much sense. Don’t you know that is not “nice”? :o)
Maybe we made a mistake in Phoenix, and I’m not just saying that because I’m among the 723 who favored the amendment removing the controversial paragraph rather than the 766 who opposed it. Think about it. Does a vote that close really even endorse the position you are trying to take? Should a 52/48 resolution be sufficient to adopt? At church, we table and refer such things, but my understanding was that this matter could not be tabled. Why not? Combining a coalition of those who opposed the resolution with those who opposed addressing the topic at all, I think… Read more »
The resolution was not adopted 52/48 — only the amendment was defeated by that margin. After the added amendment about amnesty, the resolution as amended was passed with an overwhelming majority. That indicates that most of the 48% was satisfied with the language once the amnesty clause was added. The messengers were not opposed to “a just and compassionate path to legal status” — they were opposed to amnesty. Amnesty, by definition, is a pardon without punishment or restitution, so (IMO) the original wording should have been sufficient. The added amendment by the committee made it clear that we were… Read more »
I was right about one thing. This is the real hot-button.
While in Phoenix, I got the chance to see Les Miserables again. Jean Valjean was a criminal (he stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister and her family). Certainly, he was guilty under the law. However, should there not have been a just and compassionate path to legal status, with restitution? Or was it right (since, after all, he was a lawbreaker) that the French government consign him to 19 years in prison and after that a life of poverty as 24601? Should there not be a balance between law and grace? You may not like the… Read more »
I don’t think, as I have made clear, that this is an issue that the SBC should have taken up. Equally, I am generally in favor of enforcing immigration laws, and not putting illegal aliens ahead of legal immigrants. But there is plenty of biblical precedent for not meting out just punishment in certain cases. Moses was a murderer. Justice was not done. David was guilty of two capital crimes, murder and adultery. No justice. David and his followers eating the showbread. No justice. The woman caught in adultery. No justice. Our very country was founded on illegal rebellion. Oh… Read more »
I commend to you Dr. Land’s article from a year ago.
http://erlc.com/article/a-moral-and-just-response-to-the-immigration-crisis/
In it he explains why an opportunity to earn legal status is NOT amnesty and is consistent with our values as Americans and Christians. The clause of the resolution is consistent with Land’s view but does not specify (as the resolutions committee themselves explained) the precise policy decisions that must be made in regard to “a just and compassionate path” and “restitutionary measures.”
This was a good and needed gospel-saturated resolution and I’m glad it passed.
Todd, Thank you, brother, for posting this. Please note the relevant paragraph I have copied below in which Land spells out, in clear terms, what the “path toward legalization” might look like: “Proper reform should consist of a program that provides an earned pathway that requires an illegal immigrant who desires to remain legally in the U.S. to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn to speak, write, and read English and get in line behind those who are legally migrating into this country in order to apply for permanent residence after a… Read more »
You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, you want the resolution to be about gospel and not policy. On the other, you want it to spell out policy in great detail. Land’s article dealt with a specific plan that was on the political table at the time and thus he was arguing for its fairness. The resolution is NOT advocating a SPECIFIC policy, only that there BE one — one that takes all the gospel implications of law and grace seriously — one that is just AND compassionate and one that calls for restitution — how can… Read more »
What I’m trying to say is — can’t we agree on the gospel-driven principles of the resolution and still allow for disagreement on how public policy should address those principles?
Is there really a principle in this resolution that you disagree with?
Todd, I am certainly not the one who said the resolution had to be about gospel truth without addressing the policy implications of that gospel truth, for I do not separate the two quite as strictly as some on this thread. I mean, the gospel provides the theological framework out of which we may craft specific policy proposals for any moral concern we choose to address, whether related to abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage or whatever. In fact, I would say “the devil is in the details” when it comes to spelling out gospel implications for public policy. You ask if… Read more »
OK, well that is a legitimate disagreement. 🙂 I think the vagueness is a responsible way of dealing with the issue — because (a) it recognizes that SB are not in lockstep agreement about specific details of policy, (b) it recognizes those principles on which we agree (including the balance between law and grace and a denial of amnesty as a remedy), and (c) it recognizes that the current policy on immigration is not adequate. I think the resolution is stronger as it is — vague in details, but specific on parameters (borders secured, restitution, no amnesty, but some just… Read more »
OK, well that is a legitimate disagreement. 🙂 I think the vagueness is a responsible way of dealing with the issue — because (a) it recognizes that SB are not in lockstep agreement about specific details of policy, (b) it recognizes those principles on which we agree (including the balance between law and grace and a denial of amnesty as a remedy), and (c) it recognizes that the current public policy on immigration is not adequate. I think the resolution is stronger as it is — vague in details, but specific on parameters (borders secured, restitution, no amnesty, but some… Read more »
Just food for thought… In most states, and nation wide, if you are a convicted felon, you loose the right to vote, own firearms, and a myriad of other things. You dont get these rights back, even after you serve your time. Yet, there are some that want to give what amounts to “free passes” to people who come into this country illegally (ie commit a felony). Thus even more than immigrants who wait in line to get into this country, giving any illegal immigrant to this country even the chance of full rights (voting, ect) down the line means… Read more »
It seems we are bent on thinking political and not Gospel. It’s been a mindset handed down generation to generation. I’m not sure some are capable of thinking any way but political.
And yet, the resolution has a political component.
I think if you all read the resolution over again you will find it addresses what you have written here. The resolution was the right thing to pass in Gospel thinking. David Rogers had posted a discussion on this very subject over at SBC Impact. I can’t find it but it hit some very Biblical points concerning the treatment of those who cross our borders illegally. I had a young friend with three small children whose husband was torn from them and deported. The families are told nothing. They do not know where there loved ones are taken or where… Read more »
Smiling when I think about this. 🙂 A big smile too. From ear to ear.
Bet your friend will think twice next time before she decides to tramp around with a criminal and get knocked up. Choices have consequences. If he really wanted to be here then he should have done so legally. Anything that happened to him after he broke the law is his problem.
Joe: This is low, even by your standards. I know some here sympathize with your supposedly orthodox views on doctrine, but your obvious joy at the misfortune of others, and your repeated attempts to hurt and humiliate your enemies is not even remotely Christian. To quote you: “real Christians” know all this.
your supposedly orthodox views on doctrine
Ah, please educate me–what doctrinal views of mine are not orthodox? Enlighten me. I would appreciate it.
Real Christians would know.
Yeah, I figured you wouldn’t have an answer.
I do have an answer. Real Christians always do.
In 1 Timothy Paul associates proper conduct with sound doctrine. Your conduct proves that you are unorthodox. Try Romans 12 for several examples of your lack of orthodoxy.
Bill Mac: You said to Joe:”Joe: This is low, even by your standards. I know some here sympathize with your supposedly orthodox views on doctrine, but your obvious joy at the misfortune of others, and your repeated attempts to hurt and humiliate your enemies is not even remotely Christian. To quote you: “real Christians” know all this. He does give some of us pause because of his–:”obvious joy at the misfortune of others, and your repeated attempts to hurt and humiliate your enemies is not even remotely Christian. ” I do not know where he finds the right to be… Read more »
🙂
No, it’s not a political component Frank. It’s a Christian component. Read the entire resolution. It’s clear in it’s intent.
That we ask our governing authorities That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, I won’t bother to post the other of several references to the “government.” Now, unless you are suggesting the “government=a spiritual body operating according to the theocratic dictates of God” (not just under His sovereign power), then I think this motion will require some form of “political” expression. Also, as a practical matter . . . unless you have not noticed, the Christian voice in America is barely loud enough for the government to… Read more »
“I had a young friend with three small children whose husband was torn from them and deported. The families are told nothing. They do not know where there loved ones are taken or where they are dumped. They do not dump them on their front doorstep. They dump them far from their home in Mexico. They are not kind about or even human about it. It’s very inhumane treatment.” Debbie, Are you sure you know all the facts? That does not happen unless some crime or legal problem has occured to bring them to the authorities attention. it is inhumane… Read more »
I might add this is after they are taken to a Mexican jail, again the families not knowing where they are or what jail they are taken to. Phone calls produce no information to the families. You have to locate them, usually by hiring a lawyer with money they do not have.
Why would they go to a Mexican jail unless there is some crime involved? Mexico wants them to come here…it is not a crime in Mexico to be an illegal Mexican citizen in the US.
Let’s see here, When someone robs a bank, do we have a discussion about how we should show compassion and not prosecute them? No. When someone molests a child, do we have a discussion about how we should show compassion and not send them to jail to punish them? No. When someone commits financial statement fraud (a la Enron) and bilks investors out of millions of dollars, do we have a discussion about showing compassion to them by not prosecuting them? No. So why, when these people have broken the law, do people check their brains at the door, wring… Read more »
Nothing in the resolution violates Rom 13.
No one is asking anyone to suspend the law, only that the penalty under the law be compassionate and not unnecessarily harsh.
Even our Child Protection laws provide means by which parents can be reunited with their children after appropriate restitution.
Because not every law is good and proper. I suppose that if you were Canadian you would refrain from saying anything negative against homosexuality because in Canada that sort of speech is against the law and you would be no better than a child molester there. That you would equate the issues shows your profound lack of understanding and, well, even common sense.
Nothing in the resolution violates Rom 13.
No one is asking anyone to suspend the law, only that the penalty under the law be compassionate and not unnecessarily harsh.
Even our Child Protection laws provide means by which unlawful parents can be reunited with their children after appropriate restitution.
Joe Blackmon: This will be my last comment to you. If you represent what a Christian is I do not want to be one. You spread your ugliness all over the internet claiming to represent Christ and IMO you are doing more harm for Christianity than any good you might believe you are doing. Dave Miller: I will be a man of my word–I’m done reading or commenting to the commenter Joe Blackmon. I’ve said before and say it again, I do not know why he is allowed to post the ugly comments he does on SBC Voices, but that… Read more »
And people wonder why we had to pass such a resolution in the SBC. Joe: The story of the good Samaritan. Read it. Exodus 23:9, read it. As Christians which I am first, American second, we are to take care of people, not be happy in their misfortune.
You have been given a lot by living in America. You need to be willing to share with others that fortune you have been given. The process by which illegals are deported needs to be more humane. To wish evil upon others is evil.
And quit taking Romans 13 out of context.Some views here sound as if Christianity and the Republican view are the same. They are not. Christ is not exalted through such views. It brings reproach on Christ and stains the very Gospel you harp that others such as myself don’t give. The very Gospel you yourself may need to hear.
Just as I told you concerning those who are homosexuals I tell you now. I will not, I cannot feel, nor do I want to think, behave, and relish in the misery of others as you do. I could name some who are not believers who relish in the pain of others but they are either dead or in prison for life.
Debbie,
I may not fully agree with Joe in all matters, but I don’t know who died and made you judge. Where’s Joe say he “relishes in the pain of anybody.”
Quite frankly, if I were a person in need, I am confident Joe would do everything he could to meet that need and give me the gospel, too.
I just don’t see any truth to justify your judging Joe’s heart simply because his perspective does not meet your criteria.
Frank: You have got to be kidding! I’m not even answering such a comment. Blinders are only good on horses.
People rob banks. They just need the money. We shouldn’t prosecute them because they’re just trying to get something they need. In fact, let’s all be super Christians like The Debbie and not prosecute anyone for any crime–rape, murder, theft, fraud. These people need our mercy, not judgment. (/sarcasm) Why don’t you try to fashion a logical, coherent arguement about why it’s ok to prosecute someone for breaking the law by stealing but it’s not ok to prosecute someone for breaking the law by illegally entering the country. I know, asking for a logical arguement from you is like asking… Read more »
Joe: Against my better judgment I’ll answer that. To compare illegal aliens who come to this country to escape poverty, who are law abiding citizens, hard workers, to the above is a ridiculous argument. It’s the argument I believe bigots to use.
They.Broke.The.Law.
The.Government.Has.The.Right.To.Make.That.Law.
The.Government.Has.The.Right.To.Enforce.That.Law.
NOTHING says that we have to let them into the country. Since they broke the law, they are obviously, to anyone with the sense of mayonaise, not “law abiding citizens”. Anyone with class, honor, and character who had been raised by good people would legally enter.
It’s the argument I believe bigots to use.
Because this is the internet, I can’t respond to that the way I would respond if this wasn’t the internet. Good luck proving what I mean by that.
I knew you couldn’t answer it. Way to avoid the question, Debs.
“”Joe: Against my better judgment I’ll answer that. To compare illegal aliens who come to this country to escape poverty, who are law abiding citizens, hard workers, to the above is a ridiculous argument. It’s the argument I believe bigots to use.”” First, breaking the law to escape poverty is not sanctioned by the Bible in any passage I know of. Second, not all illegal immigrants came to escape poverty. Some came to escape the law. Third, if one follows the logic of your post we would just eliminate our borders. Perhaps that is actually what you espouse but you… Read more »
Prove that it’s out of context.
Because this is the internet, I can’t respond to that the way I would respond if this wasn’t the internet. Good luck proving what I mean by that.
Oh Joe, I already know. I’ve gotten many, many such emails and comments I deleted on my blog from you remember? It just furthers the points I made. Thanks.
Yeah, proving intent?? That’s another matter entirely, isn’t it?
Oh and while you are at it Joe, Ephesians 4:29-32. Read it!
Phil 3:20; 1 Tim. 6:10, Gal. 3:28 that tells us this world is not our final destination and the love of money, the love of things here on earth such as jobs, the love of that which causes such reactions as you give Joe, are the root of all evil. Read it!
You are grieving the heart of God Joe. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?… Read more »
Not one of those verses you copied and pasted suggests or implies in anywa shape form or fashion that the US has no right to enforce its immigration laws or to have the laws that it has in the first place, chick.
How do you think Jesus would react to illegal aliens among us. Would he minister to them, eat with them, give them himself? Would he call the nearest immigration office. Would he want more border patrol to protect the little he has. Would he even be concerned if they were illegals or if they had the Gospel?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, question doesn’t make sense, false dichotomy.
Still waiting to hear why homosexuals and illegal immigrants deserve any more compassion than do thieves, murderers, child molesters and rapists. The world may assert so because it suits its own lusts and desires, but the Bible says otherwise. Look, plenty of girls turn to prostitution because of economic reasons, and many more still do so because they were sexually abused as children, or because they had legitimate emotional issues due to bad childhoods and environments (i.e. loneliness, insecurity) which makes them easy prey for smooth-talking pimps. But guess what? It is still prostitution. Plenty of boys turn to the… Read more »
Job: It’s also against the law in Florida to feed the homeless and people have been arrested for it Job. Should we put them in the same classification you have put illegal aliens?
After all they broke the law.
Joe: read the resolution and note the verses there. You’re responsible to God for accurately reading his word and the resolution pretty much answers your objections. It’s a pretty decent resolution, but my experience is that an SBC Resolution on non-SBC life and $1.99 buys a pretty mediocre cup of coffee. I think the SBC has two inherent problems if it’s not careful: 1. We have a racist legacy that causes us to not be trusted on issues that have demographic trends involved in them. In the South, the primary source of illegal immigration is from Latin and South America.… Read more »
Translation–some laws should be enforced. Some laws–meh, you can’t enforce EVERYTHING.
BTW, there is not one single solitary verse that says the US doesn’t have the right to make those laws or enforce them. Thanks. Have a nice day.
I think the SBC resolution is a huge mistake as it will engender division. The one thing I haven’t seen is an answer to the question “How does passing this resolution aid in sharing the Gospel with illegal aliens?” Was there some Baptist somewhere refusing to share the Gospel with an illegal alien? Was there some Baptist somewhere refusing shelter, food or clothing for someone because he or she is an illegal alien? Was the a greeter at some Southern Baptist church checking i.d. at the door? This resolution is nothing more than a raw exercise of power to promote… Read more »
NOTE TO EVERYONE: If we cannot have a civil discussion, you will force me to shut down comments. I am not naming names here. If I need to do that, I will do it in private. I am committed to the concept that we can have intelligent discussion on difficult topics. Some of you are making it hard to carry on that concept. So, here it is. NO MORE PERSONAL INSULTS. NONE. ADDRESS TOPICS, not personal character. (YES, I’m SHOUTING). STOP IT. If this doesn’t apply to you, then I apologize. I am not blaming everyone. But the next person… Read more »
As this site has become more active, I simply do not have the time to review every comment. I am not going to go back through and delete a bunch of comments.
But each commenter here needs to demonstrate self control and the other fruit of the Spirit.
The short version of a long story is this–The US Government has the right to pass laws as to who can and who cannot come into the country or how they can come in. Period. No matter how many scriptures people copy and paste about mercy, the fact remains that those scriptures do not mean show mercy by not enforcing the law. If someone molests a child, we prosecute them. If someone crosses the boarders illegally, they should be prosecuted and deported. If people are hurt in that process they should remember that choices have consequences.
You’re entire argument is based on some notion that we are asking people to break the law or the government to disregard law. No fair reading of the resolution could come to that interpretation. Asking the government to create law is not unlawful.
The resolution upholds law at every point and asks the government to create law that uphold our values as Americans and Christians in dealing with the immigration problem — a problem which that very government helped to create. Nearly every complaint you have raised is irrelevant to the resolution we passed.
I am convinced that some of the criticisms of this resolution are based on a failure either to read it or to fairly read it.
no kidding! 🙂
I don’t understand.
Are you suggesting that opponents of the resolution are ill-informed? All or just some? And can you clarify?
I am suggesting that many of the arguments made in this comment stream have nothing to do with the resolution. Read the resolution in full and then the comment stream and that seems pretty clear. No need to be offended, Joe even conceded the point.
My suggestion would be that this is such a hot-button topic that some people (not all) are reacting emotionally and dealing with that which is not in the resolution.
Amnesty – not in there.
Ignoring the law – not in there.
Opening the border to a flood of illegals – not in there.
The resolution will encourage further lawbreaking by affirming to would-be illegal immigrants the message that they should go ahead, break our immigration laws, but you’ll be allowed to stay and eventually get “legal.”
I don’t get it, especially as a Christian.
Hey Dave and Todd, I’ve read the resolution, and it troubles me greatly.
However, if one or both of you could explain how passing this resolution aids efforts to share the Gospel with illegal aliens, then perhaps I’ll have a change of heart.
No, that is not what the resolution does, Dave. This is why I have questioned whether people read it. It says that we should enforce border security first.
First, we close the border.
Second, we deal graciously with those who are here already.
Well, I suppose I was confused about the purpose of the resolution as supporters of it refer to it as a Gospel oriented approach.
I see now that the extension of grace to which you are referring is essentially forgiveness for breaking our laws. I am sure you will correct me if I have misstated your meaning.
Let me say I have no problem extending forgiveness, however just because one is forgiven does not mean that they don’t suffer the consequences of their behavior.
Again, read the resolutions. The resolution DOES call for consequences but it seems that the only acceptable consequence to some is mass deportation. Why must we default to the harshest penalty available? What’s Christian about that? We don’t demand that courts mete out the maximum sentence possible for every other crime — we very often show grace by offering probation and community service for certain offenders. Even our current immigration law does not demand the consequence of deportation for illegals so why are Christians demanding the maximum penalty under law? Is that what a Christian view of law requires? In… Read more »
But Joe, there are also Scriptures which tell us to care for the stranger among us and to evangelize the nations. I am not for ignoring the law. In fact, I would like the gov’t to enforce the borders efficiently. The issue is about people who are already here, living in our nation, working. Yes, they were wrong to sneak in. No question. But to me, our job is to minister to them, love them and help them. This is way oversimplified, but let the gov’t do its job while the church does its. There is nothing wrong with the… Read more »
Oh, I’m not saying don’t share the gospel with everyone you can, whether legal or not. Also, I’m not saying don’t help out people who need it, whether they’re here legally or not. The doctors and nurses from our church put together a free medical clinic once a month to help folks out. No id’s are checked. Just from the population in the area it’s safe to say there’s probably some illegal aliens that make use of the clinic. My comments, and vitrol, are directed to those people who say “It’s wrong of us to enforce our laws. We have… Read more »
But, Joe, I really don’t think anyone is saying that it is wrong to enforce our laws. Certainly, the resolution doesn’t say that. I haven’t read all the comments. The resolution says to enforce the borders and to enforce the laws. That is righteous as far as I am concerned. If we pass a law giving people who are here illegally a path to legal status, then we are not violating the law, we are supporting it. By definition, you are not violating a law when you pass a law. The resolution is not amnesty. The resolution does not call… Read more »
I agree that the resolution doesn’t say that. I have heard the arguments about how mean spirited and racist the laws are from commentors on this thread in other venues and I think several of the comments made have been along those veins. I would have no problem, after they were punished according to the law, with their being some sort of opportunity for people who wanted to be here to be here legally. My one and only real beef is with the people who claim that the laws are unjust, racist, and mean spirited. Further, I would have no… Read more »
The long term failure to enforce such laws is what has created the problem in the first place — for American and Christian values to be upheld, it will not be achieved by mass deportation — thus, a new solution for those already here (one that is BOTH just AND compassionate, one that requires restitution, one that is not amnesty) needs to be put in place.
I’m sorry, I missed the part where the current laws are uncompassionate. I’m never going to be sold that those here illegally shouldn’t be deported no matter how impractical that is–espeicially when the “compassionate” card is thrown around (i.e. “It’s not compassionate to deport them”).
As long as we’re enforcing all the laws, lets put every person in jail who has illegally downloaded copyrighted music, DVDs, or pirated software on their computer. Who cares that we have never enforced this law before and it would be inconvenient to incarcerate 75+% of the population including most of our youth. Stealing is a crime punishable by jail time and should be enforced today!
Now, Todd, those poor kids didn’t have money for their electronic media. It would be uncompassionate for us to prosecute them for that crime. The poor things have got to have some music to listen to.
Well actually, what you are saying is let’s pass a law so the previous law that was already violated no longer applies.
All legal for sure. But you can bet we’re gonna’ see a lot more illegal aliens crossing the border to take advantage of your entirely legal proposal.
Will you please explain how passing this resolution aids in extending Christian grace to illegal aliens?
I have yet to see one resolution supporter answer this elementary question.
That is actually not what I am saying. I was making more of a theoretical point.
Read the resolution:
“Resolved”s 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 all have direct application to the gospel. If followed, they would certainly aid in extending Christian grace.
“Resolved”s 4, 5, and 6 all deal with law and what we believe is an appropriate response in line with our values.
These emphasize the right and importance of upholding the law and providing a means by which those who are currently law-breakers can, with appropriate restitution, become lawful. The debated clause certainly extends grace (unless you care to argue that illegals DESERVE a path to legal status).
It’s doesn’t have to be deportation or citizenship. You could make a status for people who have broken the law whereby you don’t give them the prize of citizenship. Worker visas. anyone who wanted to obtain citizenship would have to leave, get in line and follow the rules like every other immigrint. Christians can still be Christians and carry out the Great Commission. When you say “path to citizenship” what you are saying is when enough people break a law they don’t like we can just reward them for breaking the law. Laws cease to have meaning when you say… Read more »
Again, the resolution calls for a path to “legal status” not “citizenship.”
Bess, Very nicely said Sister. I’ve been trying to understand one of Debbie’s posts. “To compare illegal aliens who come to this country to escape poverty, who are law abiding citizens, hard workers, to the above is a ridiculous argument.” Perhaps she wrote it in haste. I’ve surely done that. I can’t understand how an illegal alien can be a law abiding CITIZEN. You can’t be law abiding while you are breaking the law. (** scratches head”) I particularly found your comment about Mexican citizens looking across the border so they can obtain what most people here have. I thought… Read more »
Well please enlighten as to exactly what “legal status” means in this resolution then if not “citizenship” which is how the political areana is portraying anmesty with restitution to purchase citizenship – it’s just “legal status” you see and these people are really just “undocumented” because mean old Americans won’t give them their documents. Words have meaning. Political words have loaded meaning and you can’t play the semantical games with “legal status” and try to fool everyone into believing that we’re not talking about citizenship. There’s a reason why the phrase “illegal” is politically incorrect now. It reminds everyone that… Read more »
Debbie Kaufman: I will do you better than that. The Christian Zionists don’t like to speak of this much, but attempts to convert people – especially Jews – in Israel is against the law. Telling a Jerusalem Orthodox Jewish child about Jesus Christ could land you in jail for up to a year and get you up to a $1000 fine. What is more, the conservative Israeli political parties that the Christian Zionists love and support so much are trying to make evangelism a felony. So, of course Christians should reject and break laws that violate the Bible, and be… Read more »
Where is the violation of Rom 13 in the resolution?
There isn’t. I was more replying to Debbie Kaufman’s position, which appeared to me to be that our immigration laws should be viewed in the context of laws preventing people from giving food to the homeless. So, while it can be said that the New Testament requires Christians to break the latter law, the people violating our immigration laws are doing it for money, not the gospel. As to the resolution itself, then the SBC needs to put out similar statements concerning sins and sinners that aren’t nearly politically correct. If they do so, they will enrage a lot of… Read more »
We don’t have resolutions to speak about everything, but to those things that need to be addressed at a particular time. If there are other issues on which we need to clarify or firm our position, then submit a resolution on it. Immigration is a front-and-center issue and its important for us to clarify our position and how our Christian faith informs the issue.
“Our” Christian faiths “inform” us quite differently on this topic.
Immigration is a front and center issue for the nation, and it is so because the politicians and the media made it so. Please recall that illegal immigration became this huge issue for conservatives in the last few years of George W. Bush presidency because of the belief that Islamic terrorists could evade airport screenings by instead slipping in over the border, and also because it gave them something to talk about other than an Iraq situation that had become a disaster before “the surge.” Before then, activists on both sides of the issue had been trying to get it… Read more »
How will this resolution help Christians better demonstrate grace?
Can someone answer this simple question?
So Todd B. thinks it’s our fault that millions of illegal aliens are in our country.
With that view it is not suprising he supports this resolution.
Todd B: “The long term failure to enforce such laws is what has created the problem in the first place — for American and Christian values to be upheld, it will not be achieved by mass deportation — thus, a new solution for those already here (one that is BOTH just AND compassionate, one that requires restitution, one that is not amnesty) needs to be put in place.” And the failure to properly regulate our financial markets is what led to the decade plus of Wall Street corruption and four melt-downs (the dot-com bust, the accounting scandals, the banking bust,… Read more »
We’ll just have to disagree.
Thankfully, I was in the majority on this one.
As long as we’re enforcing all laws, lets put every person in jail who has illegally downloaded copyrighted music, DVDs, or pirated software on their computer. Who cares that we have never enforced this law before and it would be inconvenient to incarcerate 75+% of the population including most of our youth. Stealing is a crime punishable by jail time and should be enforced today!
Or, has printed words of songs in their church bulletin or on songsheets, or shown movies or videos at the church without a CCLI or CCVI license.
Now, my reply was funny. I ain’t gonna complain, but you can’t front like it wasn’t funny.
Nevermind the above comment. I thought something had been deleted and it wasn’t. 🙂
my fault, I posted the same comment in two places in error
Yours WAS funny, but if you’re consistent, you’ll demand that the authorities head down to Centrifuge and arrest all those Baptist lawbreakers.
Todd / Todd B,
Must you say everything twice? Must you say everything twice?
Sorry, having a little trouble today 🙁
The passing of the resolution in and of itself does nothing that I can see to aid in the extension of grace to illegal aliens. The resolved clauses referenced by Todd B. state obvious Christian attitudes. Seems passing a divisive resolution to state obvious Christian attitudes is counterproductive in terms of creating division, a small example of which is found within this discussion. The resolved clause proposing the reward of a path to legal status to lawbreaking illegal aliens is not an obvious Christian attitude, but a public policy proposal which actually sends a rather unBiblical message to illegal aliens… Read more »
It really was not a divisive issue once the amnesty clause was added. The resolution passed by an overwhelming margin. Must we call every issue that has any opposition divisive?
Todd, Things can get a bit confusing on the divisive issue since there was a “unity and cooperation” document signed by the entity guys. :o)
Who gets to decide when disagreement is disuntiy and uncooperative?
When those who disagree over matters like this start being divisive and uncooperative.
Honestly, so many Baptists seem to have such a small capacity to embrace someone with whom they disagree on issues that are not fundamental to the gospel.
The affirmation you mentioned actually encouraged discussion, even to an extent dissent. It was not all about enforced conformity, but about unity in spite of disagreements.
Having recognized our “small capacity to embrace someone with whom [we] disagree on issues that are not fundamental to the gospel” returns me to the question “Then why pass a resolution on such a matter?”
“Honestly, so many Baptists seem to have such a small capacity to embrace someone with whom they disagree on issues that are not fundamental to the gospel.” Now that is divisive! :o) But how is a resolution,that even advises the Gov on immigration issues, fundamental to the Gospel? You lost me there. “The affirmation you mentioned actually encouraged discussion, even to an extent dissent. It was not all about enforced conformity, but about unity in spite of disagreements.” How does one have “unity” in disagreements? Sharing the Gospel with anyone, anytime anywere is unity. Bringing in the details about illegal… Read more »
“How does one have “unity” in disagreements?” Christian dialogue . . . respecting the PERSON as more important than the disagreement . . . and considering that just maybe, because we are diverse and were created with different ‘perspectives’, that there are REASONS why two people see something differently, and that, in each sharing their own perspective, they can add to the whole picture for all concerned . . . it’s a little more than two people seeing a glass: one sees it half-empty, the other half-full, because without the perspective of each, something is lost to both A Christian… Read more »
Dave, “Honestly, so many Baptists seem to have such a small capacity to embrace someone with whom they disagree on issues that are not fundamental to the gospel”. I can be pretty set in my views if I have some real interaction with it. But wholeheartedly affirm your statement about being divisive over secondary issues. I frequent another site that has a Chapel Forum. In general Christians are not kind to each other. It’s so ugly that I have stopped posting on a regular basis. We have an atheist who comes around just to mock Christians. But he has said… Read more »
One thing I could tell from the debate is that is seems that the passions in AZ and other border states seems to be very high.
Okay, I am “divided” as a result of the passage of the resolution.
I cannot help but think many more Southern Baptists are upset notwithstanding the addition of the “no amnesty” clause (which Richard Land was quick to point out wasn’t necessary because many of the messengers apparently were too dumb to know the original resolution did not call for amnesty).
Will it be worth it? We shall see.
I find it rather offensive that those supporting this resolution claim that those opposed are either ill-informed, or reacting emotionally. The bottom line is that the SBC is on record supporting the reward of a path to legal status for lawbreaking illegal aliens. Notice I did not use the word “amnesty” for fear Richard Land would appear and thump me on my head with a dictionary. No, I use the correct term “reward.” And while the resolution itself does not explicitly invite further illegal immigration, you can be sure the implementation of this policy proposal will result in such an… Read more »
We’re sort of on the same side in this discussion, but I would pay at least a small amount of money to see Richard Land thump you on the head with a Dictionary. 🙂
That might be fun.
Ah, the webs we weave. Georgia is trying to outdo Arizona with a stiffer illegal immigrant policy, and the Georgia farmers are being placed in a bind because their immigrant work force has now left town, fearful of being deported. According to a report I heard yesterday, it is a huge problem, and a party-splitter. Also, a church in one town had a thriving Hispanic ministry…a new pastor preached a stiff line on obeying the law, and fearful immigrants left town. The church had to fold its Hispanic ministry. We’ve created all this, and now we must deal with it… Read more »
Richard, I live in AZ. The person who wrote SB1070 is a Mormon. I certainly don’t believe that Mormons are Christians by any stretch of the imagination. Despite that fact, Mormons are very conservative and law abiding. We could learn a thing or two from them when it comes time for us to invest time with our children. My Congressman is Jeff Flake (a Mormon) and he has been a wonderful representative. You’ll see many of these types of legislation coming from the heavy Mormon presence in AZ. But it doesn’t really matter when it comes to the actual bill.… Read more »
Todd B
Here in TN the RIAA had much success in attempting to do that precise thing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_hi_te/us_password_sharing_crackdown
I would not recommend that a student at Belmont attempt to still a mp3 from Curb records.
BTW—- I have never paid for one song that a downloaded and I have thousands.
Dave,
You set the tone for personal attacks in your paragraph on Wiley Drake.
May I request that you remove it completely…..it will not hurt your post at all.
Robert I Masters
I understand your statement, Robert, but frankly, I think we need to take a stand against Wiley Drake, vocally and publicly, so that the world will know that he does not speak for us or represent our views. If we had never elected him second VP (I was there and took part in that unfortunate act) it would be different. We need to be unequivocal in our stand against the kind of extremism he has advocated. Wiley may actually be a good guy with a good ministry at his church, but his public stands have been an embarrassment. I am… Read more »
“By the way, the civility resolution was, at least in part, directed against him, and I am glad that the SBC took that stand.”
Not as directly as the Rob Bell call out, but seemed pretty clear to me as well.
Since I cannot reply to you Todd B. because there is no reply button under your response to me, where did I ever use the word “deportation” in a single one of my posts?
I did not. Your suggestion that I was calling for the harshest possible penalty is incorrect.
If that’s true, then what’s your problem with the resolution. Everything you want is in there.
What do you mean “If that’s true,…?” Of course it’s true, and I would expect one fretting about lack of civility or divisiveness to acknowledge his misstatement.
Self-deportation is occurring due in part to our poor economy and advanced technology which allows employers to more easily abide by rules forbidding illegal employment practices and detect document fraud. I am content at this point to allow this development to continue as regards illegal aliens currently in the country who are not committing new crimes.
Just a rhetorical phrase, not calling your integrity into question.
Meant to indicate that your view just seems inconsistent to me – that’s all. If you are not calling for deportation (and some have indeed used the term) than how can you at the same time not want a path to legal status?
Is there some third option?
Self-deportation is the third option.
Once it is near impossible for an illegal alien to find work or government subsidies many will leave on their own and the incentive to further illegal immigration will have been eliminated.
I certainly do not want illegal aliens rewarded with a path to legal status–this is not a proper extension of grace until such time as they have voluntarily returned to their country of origin and participated in the perfectly legal immigration system provided.
In other words, every other form of restitution, apart from deportation, is by definition a path to legal status — the very clause which everyone is objecting.
In other words, some seen insistent on actually rewarding illegal behavior–I just don’t get it. And we haven’t even discussed the national security implications of millions of lawbreakers in our midst.
Dave, Compassion and mercy should not be construed as rewarding illegal behavior. Arguably all the leaders (both civil and military) of the Confederacy should have been executed for treason under the laws of the Union. Yet they were not. This wasn’t because the Union viewed the Confederacy as a legitimate government or a just cause, but because of compassion, mercy, and an understanding of the Confederacy and it’s intentions. There is no recognized human right to live in the U.S. Crossing the border illegally (or overstaying a visa) violates U.S. law. But in looking to a solution to the 11+… Read more »
“Compassion and mercy should not be construed as rewarding illegal behavior” I agree, for this reason: the Great Commandment is a ‘higher law’ and it is lived out in all areas of our lives, in the name of the Holy One. Laws that are just laws can only be enhanced when those who carry them out do so with compassion and mercy. If obeying any man-made laws require of us to abandon our obedience to the Great Commandment, we cannot do this, anymore than we could disown Our Lord. Thomas More was beheaded by King Henry VIII because he could… Read more »
Appreciate your response Andrew. What about compassion and mercy for those victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens? What about compassion and mercy for Americans struggling to make ends meet who are forced to turn over their hard-earned dollars to fund government services for illegal aliens? What about compassion and mercy for Americans who are now forced to choose between English or Spanish because of the failure of illegal aliens and legal aliens to assimilate and learn English? In other words, what about compassion and mercy for Americans whose country contains 11+ million lawbreakers? Mass deportation may or may not… Read more »
Dave: I’m not suffering as a result of Illegal aliens, and neither are you. I guess you typing this from your computer which you own or from the job that you now have, and air conditioning would be a part of that. I’m sure your food supply is adequate and if not, it’s not due to illegal aliens.
Self-deportation is occurring and with the correct policy choices may be accelerated.
If you make the environment unpleasant enough for them (punish people who hire them to work, deny them any and al social services which only citizens have a right to anyway, make housing available only to people who can prove their right to be here unless it’s in a scummy, dangerous section of town, etc) we won’t have to spend a dime on deportation.
Should we deny undocumented immigrants emergency medical care? What about public education?
Urgency emergency medical care–no. I’m ok with someone who is sick being helped. Heck, our church runs a free clinic staffed by doctors that go to our church and I’m sure some illegals use that.
Of course they should be denied public education. They didn’t pay taxes=they have no right to public education.
Denying children access to K-12 public education was a position held here in Texas by the Klan back in the 1970s.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court settled that K-12 issue several decades ago, rejecting the arguments put forward by the Klan and other groups.
dave,
Wiley Drake does represent the views of many in the SBC.
Wiley Drake is why I am a Southern Baptist!
I Hate, let me repeat Hate the way Millenials are dealing with politics in the church. I also believe its a sign of apostasy and the cause of vast amounts of Gods wrath upon on nation.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Well if the Convention ever passed a resolution that we call for imprecatory prayers against the president, I might have to leave the SBC.
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4126&Itemid=53
Amen to that, Todd.
Wiley Drake in no way represents the majority of those within the Southern Baptist Convention. He might represent a majority of those in your church, but I can guarantee you that he doesn’t represent a majority of the Convention.
Otherwise, we’d take him seriously.
He is representative of those who abuse our system of procedures for conducting business within the convention each year. I’m thankful that we have such an open format for the convention, but its men like him who make me think that sometimes maybe the mic shouldn’t always be on.
Todd B
I pray everyday that GOD would physically end the life of the president.
It would be a testament to the world that God does countenance purposefully sinful governance by one who claims the name of Christ!
Imprecatory prayers are Biblical prayers
Todd B
Its your Christian Duty
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Prayer.html
Dear TODD B.
You cannot serve 2 Masters.
I point you towards the One who has said that we must love one another, as He has loved us.
The other ?
I don’t recognize his voice. I, myself, could not follow him.
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:1-4) 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44 “But I say to… Read more »
OK. Really? Good grief, have we slipped into the Twilight Zone?
Wherever the Southern Baptist Geneva is, I pray that we secure our borders from it.
You’d better hope imprecatory prayers aren’t Biblical(and they aren’t) as someday someone may pray one against you in anger or hate.
The evidence seems overwhelming to me that when denominations start taking stands on political issues that simply are not easily subject to Biblical principles then they begin to collapse. Just look around at the other Protestant denominations and the path they chose.
I would really hate to see the SBC follow in their footsteps.
Dave ,
Well then do not take a stand or or else take a firm stand.
Just do not cherry pick….. that is what the Millenials are doing in the SBC.
Johnathan Merritt wants to support the “New Way” for homosexuals and global warming theories but then shouts me down when I go advocate in the political realm.
Time for a Reformed Worldview concerning politics
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Worldview.html
Chief Katie: I appreciate your taking the time to provide the detail from your perspective. My info was purely from the program I heard, which mentioned that the fed programs were not working in GA, and the GA farmers were organizing to vote against the Republican-sponsored bill. My main point in regard to both instances I cited was that the immigrant community (legal, illegal, or mixed families) is fearful of these kinds of actions, so, in GA, they have left, as did the communities that populated the Hispanic church I mentioned. Chances are they have moved on to another region,… Read more »
Richard, I believe you when you tell me that the farmers are concerned. But… let’s be completely honest. Federal law now requires employers to verify citizenship of any new employee. As long as the business owner complies there should be no problem. Realistically, it’s more profitable for a farmer to look the other way. He/She doesn’t have to deal with social secrity, payroll taxes or the federal minimum wage. They also don’t have to pay for health care. If they are acting in accordance with the law, there is nothing to fear. I completely agree that Christ died for illegals… Read more »
The evidence seems overwhelming to me that when denominations fail to take stands on political issues that simply are not easily subject to Biblical principles then they begin to collapse. Just look around at the other Protestant denominations and the path they chose.
I would really hate to see the SBC follow in those footsteps.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
What other Protestant denominations? BTW we are not Protestant.
Interestingly that is a statement that Ergun Caner freq makes but I am speaking here of a historical term.
Historically speaking Southern Baptist come from the Protestant Wing of the Reformation.
Last year our Church did a SS class on Church history. They taught that perspective. feel free to disagree but that is what my local Church teaches.
God Bless
Rob
Robert: Historically Protestants developed in the sixteenth century. They left the Roman Catholic church such as Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther. We did not leave the Roman Catholic church to my knowledge. We have always believed in immersion for believers Baptism. That was not true among the Protestants.
Debbie, by “we” do you mean Southern Baptists or Baptists in general? Southern Baptists seemed to have come from an arm of the Reformation as did some Baptists in general. I’m not sure there is such a clear path on this issue. All Anabaptists did not believe or did not practice immersion. The issue was believers baptism which meant one should come to believe first and then be baptized (of course you know this). So some early Anabaptists would baptize after a profession of faith by pouring or sprinkling. An article that may interest you is “What Hath Geneva To… Read more »
I think you are confusing AnaBaptist with Baptist.
again I know there is genuine disagreement but you seem to side with the non-reformed brothers.
Like I said my church does not teach that perspective!
God Bless
Rob
Guys, I’m pretty sure Debbie is RC.
Debbie,
Do you really believe that we did not separate from Roman Catholics.
You do not believe in Justification by Faith Alone.
You still believe in infused Grace mediated to you by “the Church”
http://phillipjensen.com/video/reformed-charismatics/
I’m not going to get caught up in an unnecessary debate about whether SBC is Protestant. Just pretend that word wasn’t in my original post. That way you won’t miss the message about denominations shooting themselves in the foot when they take political positions on subjects, like illegal immigration, that do not clearly lend themselves to Biblical teachings.
Political issue, or a Gospel issue? To me, that is the heart of this difficulty.
Robert I Masters, Have you ever read the passage below? What do you think it means? I would also be interested in your interpretation of the verses posted above by David T. (Luke 9:52-56) “And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even… Read more »
Robert Masters, I really try not to moderate at this site based on point-of-view. As long as someone presents their views in a reasoned fashion, we let it go. But you are straining that. You have stated your views, but I would prefer you never again post a comment in which you advocate praying for the president’s death. Once is enough. Probably more than enough, but certainly enough. You are welcome to start your own blog where you advocate anything you want. But this is not going to be a place where we pray for the death of the president.… Read more »
Thank you, thank you Dave. I have refrained from posting in response to this wicked idea. Scripture is clear that we should pray FOR our leaders. I’m not a fan of BHO but I’d never pray for his death.
Imprecatory prayers are not in keeping with the Christian ethic. You never see Christ praying for the destruction but rather the forgiveness of His enemies. He even rebuked Peter for cutting the ear off of Malchus; Peter thought he was defending Jesus, but Jesus held no animosity for his persecutors.
Thanks guys, I agree that imprecatory prayers have no place in the New Covenant. Except perhaps in Revelation with the martyrs.
Res ipsa loquitur
John Wylie,
Let me see if this works……
without any reference to my application …..what part of this do you find unbiblical.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopupvideo.asp?SID=614092140220
I believe he directly answers your question from #206.
Bible Bible Bible
John Wylie,
Since I have been prevented from discussing that specific issue here feel free to email me at refbaprob@hotmail.com.
To be clear, I did not instruct Robert that he could not discuss imprecatory prayers in general. I told him that I did not want him advocating that Christians pray for the death of the President.
You know, if the government grants amnesty to all the current illegals, it is within their right to do so (for example, they may consider the economic impact too negative, or something). What is that to us? I’m not advocating for or against amnesty, I’m just saying that if they do it, or if they don’t, we’ve still got the same job to do. The state has the power of justice and of pardon. You may care very much as a citizen, but I don’t know why we, as the church, should get all twisted about this.
One of the biggest clouds surrounding this issue is this: I drive to church on Sunday, go ten miles over the speed limit, cut a guy off, and run a red light. No cops. I pull up to the church, walk through the doors and say, “God, please forgive me, on the way into church I sinned against you.” Then I stroll to my seat and worship. No one judges me. An illegal immigrant drives to church on Sunday. He obeys the speed limit, lets a few cars into the flow of traffic that are having trouble getting in, and… Read more »
I could also mention that it seems easier to condemn and illegal who otherwise is hardworking, obeys all other laws, than it is a minister or church worker who commits sexual child abuse, but I won’t.
Andrew: I don’t think we forgive speeding because we consider the sin done and over, but because we consider it minor. Let’s face it, speeding, whether much or little, is a sin that drivers commit almost without exception. It is just as much an unrepentant sin as being an illegal alien.
The speeder isn’t organizing millions of other speeders and demanding that everyone ignore the laws and demanding that the state give them a prize even though they were speeding. The speeder doesn’t stir up division and discord by claiming you’re a xenophobic bigot who doesn’t care about people because you won’t condone his lawbreaking/sin. When you are caught speeding there are consequences for that, no one is organizng and saying there should be minimal consequeces and you should be given a new car after paying “restitution.” And speeders aren’t orgainizing to change the laws so other speeders can be allowed… Read more »
It seems to me that you have pretty much uniformly misrepresented the arguments made by the other side in this debate. What you say that we have said is nothing like anything that we have actually said.
Dave: Now say that ten times real fast. 🙂
Bess,
Your comment was long and it’s impossible for me to meaningfully respond to each of your points. I suggest checking my recent blog post on sbcIMPACT! for a better understanding of what I’m saying and what my views are.
I recognize that I don’t speak for anybody but myself. I’ve known people who believe everyone has the right to live where they want to. I’ve known people who believe anyone and everyone should be allowed to live in the U.S. But please don’t attach their views and arguments to me.
Debbie and Andrew: You are right, and this nails my constant hang-up with all this. As Baptists, on the one hand we say we are missions-minded, to the point that we fashion a much-discussed GCR to fulfill that, but on the other hand, we construct a statement on immigration and get responses that do not appear to be consistent with our vision. A few years ago I had a new roof put on my 2400-sq-ft home. A group of Hispanics completed the job in one day—they climbed up, and seemed to never come down, except to carry up more bundles.… Read more »
It is so strange that there are those in this country who are upset over the coming of ‘illegals’ into our land to seek work for little pay; and yet these same Americans had ancestors who brought workers here legally years ago with slave collars on their necks and chains on their feet. This country of ours, this beautiful ‘divided’ country, was built by many hands . . . in the beginning some were the hands of slaves and the indentured; today, some are the hands of those who need the work and the little pay they might get, enough… Read more »
Oh, give me a break. The fact that there were people who owned slaves at one time does not mean that the US doesn’t have the right to make and enforce laws as to who can be here and how they can come in. A quick solution to the problem would be to deny them access to services they don’t have a right to anyway (education, health care, etc), punish businesses that hire them severely (since all corporations are evil and make money–the very nerve), and deny them places to live (only people who are here legally should have the… Read more »
Sorry Dave, but I think you read everything I write with prejudice. I used the word “some” to indicate that not all pro-illegals believe this. Here’s just a sampling from the first 60 or so posts in this thread of those who do seem to believe that way. “…All politics aside, it looks like all those ‘labels’ formerly pinned on those who are ‘different’, are no longer able to keep Christians from seeing ‘the others’ as Our Lord would have them be seen, be accepted, shown kindness…. ““…..Love not just those of your own tribe, your own class, family or… Read more »
Andrew, Debbie is SBC and a member of Wade Burleson’s church. 🙂
Illegals are called illegal because they have broken the law. No matter what the language amnesty or pathway to citizenship, you have law breakers that you are providing with a free pass. Why not empty out the prisons and offer them pathways to freedom. Illegal aliens are law breakers and this resolution promotes staying in the country no harm no foul. Our convention should not be about supporting law breakers. EVER I believe in grace. I believe in Jail Ministry. Reach them through the IMB or in prison, but don’t let them off scott free. Can our country or economy… Read more »
John,
Perhaps you should try looking at it from a different angle:
http://sbcimpact.org/2011/06/24/deporting-compassion-the-gospel-and-illegals/
Lots of words and yet I have seen no convincing rationale proposed for passing this resolution other than a vague justification that doing so will curry favor with a specific group of people.
It is clear to me that SBC has committed a major error.
“Dave: I’m not suffering as a result of Illegal aliens, and neither are you. I guess you typing this from your computer which you own or from the job that you now have, and air conditioning would be a part of that. I’m sure your food supply is adequate and if not, it’s not due to illegal aliens” Debbie, It has more to do with infrastructure like hospitals, schools, etc. They are not paying income taxes yet all these services are available to them. Victor Hanson has written on this topic in the past with lots of stats of what… Read more »
So????
A not unexpected response from a member of the “path to legal status” crowd.
Lydia: We have plenty. We are not suffering. We have jobs. We are not suffering. We have no idea what suffering is.
Dave: Tell me, where are you so suffering exactly? Food? Job? What have illegals done to cause you personal suffering? I doubt one thing. But it sounds good to say such rhetoric.