I believe that our immigration policy is in need of reform, particularly with regard to Mexican immigrants. Mexicans benefit from coming here to work. Americans benefit from having them here to work. Mexicans coming to the United States are far more likely to encounter evangelical Christianity than they are in Mexico. I have them in my church, as do most pastors in Texas. Ethnic churches are one of the major growth areas of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I’ve only ever heard two arguments against permitting Mexican immigration: One is economic and one is political. The economic argument is protectionist, desiring to accomplish runaway wage inflation by blocking the supply of less expensive labor that comes from south of the border. The political argument is the self-fulfilling prophecy that Republicans have to try to harry Mexicans out of the land since they’ll all vote Democrat. Let me just say that if that is true—that nobody but a white man would ever vote Republican—then the GOP is both doomed and unworthy of our support. But I think it is not true, for whatever my opinion is worth to you.
Of course, even among those who might agree that the law needs to be changed, there may be significant difference of opinion over what to do with those who have broken the former law. These are, after all, criminals who have crossed our borders illegally. As a nation of laws, we can’t pretend that doesn’t mean anything.
And yet, in the immigration debates people often throw around the word “amnesty” as though it is an injustice and an evil unto itself. I disagree. I think all-amnesty-all-the-time would be unjust and evil. But I favor some amnesty some of the time.
For example, I think the amnesty that our nation granted to Confederate soldiers in 1865 was a good idea. It recognized that a legal situation existed in which an enormous number of people had committed what, from the perspective of the government, amounted to high treason. It recognized that a political situation existed in which the prospects of lasting peace, future political unity, and an end to interpersonal rancor were fragile and sickly. Amnesty, the government calculated, was the best way to reconcile those two realities. It worked, perhaps better than anyone imagined it could.
Thus, amnesty is not evil or unjust just on its face. If one believes that a particular grant of amnesty would be evil or unjust, one must make a case as to why it is evil or unjust in the details of that case.
Regarding the people who live alongside me in Texas who have entered our nation illegally, I will simply say that few, if any, have bothered to try to make the case to me as to why amnesty for them would be evil or unjust and that none have made it to my satisfaction (conversations seldom rise above “Because AMNESTY”). Since—and this is true even if we were, by some miracle, able to deport all of the illegal aliens in our midst—the “browning” of our demographic future is all but inevitable, I think one could make a case that the political realities calling for immigration amnesty at the present moment are as immediate and pressing as those we faced in the 1860s.
Of course, amnesty in 1865-1868 did not amount to an acquiescence to unbridled civil war as a natural right. Far from it: The government made it clear that such would not be tolerated. In the same way, our nation must draft and enforce more realistic immigration laws and secure our borders once and for all. But those realistic immigration laws need to make a much larger space for legal immigration from Mexico to the United States.
On this night in particular, I should add that President Obama’s way of changing immigration policy is dubious constitutionally and poisonous politically. I regret that he has done what he has done. I also regret that the question of immigration reform has become so intractable in our government. Perhaps Congress will override the President by enacting realistic reform of our immigration laws in the near future.
If people are against illegals breaking our laws because they are afraid of the “browning” of America, they are making a sinful argument and don’t understand the gospel. However, if people merely see it as highly irresponsible for America to allow people to come in from other countries, break our laws (by the way they enter the country), work as slaves for people who will not pay them a decent wage or provide them with health insurance, use our subsidies, and send the bulk of their income back home to their families in their native country, I see no sin there. To say that we should allow people to break our laws, and even award them for breaking our laws, in order for them to have a better chance to hear the gospel is pragmatic at best, and is certainly not in keeping with the nature of the gospel itself. The gospel is not contrary to civil law, but honors it. If we are so concerned about people abroad not getting the gospel, we shouldn’t advocate the breaking of civil law through amnesty, but we should renew our push for a greater sense of mission in our local churches.
I believe in free markets. If Mexicans were being mistreated as slaves in America, it wouldn’t be very difficult to keep them out, now would it? My experience with the Mexican-American work ethic and character is right along the lines of Rick Patrick’s experience.
Just because we can argue that they have more earning potential in the United States than they do in their home country does not mean that we necessarily treat them humanely in our hiring practices. They do get treated very humanely with the subsidies we offer them (free healthcare, free education, etc.), but that again is a tremendous drain on our economy. Their presence may be a great gain for many highly unethical small business owners in the U.S., but it is not an overall benefit to our economy. Here, I am speaking from a voter standpoint, not from a Christian standpoint. We (Christians) do need to love them, but that is not be conflated with how we (citizens) manage our economy.
So… separation of Christian and civic views when it serves economic interest but not in other situations?
This is an unhelpful comment. It strips my worldview of any nuance. I would argue that my Christianity informs my civic duty. If the government doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, I am hindered from doing what I am called to do. For instance, if the government makes choices that bleeds our economy dry, I can’t rightly feed the poor, because I will be poor myself. If God convicted me to start a homeless shelter in my community and gave me the land and resources only to feed, clothe, and shelter only the homeless in my community, it would be bad stewardship to invite the homeless from the surrounding communities and even the world to partake of those same resources. We have been given limited resources in our nation. We should use them for good, but we are limited in the good we can do, so we should limit the good we seek to implement. That’s only good stewardship.
In short, my Christianity informs me as to my role and my government’s role, but it doesn’t conflate the two. They are still separate roles.
I’m just going by your statement “We (Christians) do need to love them, but that is not be conflated with how we (citizens) manage our economy.” You introduced the separation between your actions as a Christian and your actions as a citizen – be a citizen when it comes to the economy, be a Christian when it comes to love. I doubt you would suggest a similar separation on issues such as same-sex marriage.
Did you read my last comment. I don’t care what you think I meant. I just told you what I meant. Stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you.
The idea that our economy would be better without illegal immigrants is overly simplistic and is wrong, IMHO. 44 of 46 economists (according to known radical left-wing rag The Wall Street Journal) agree that the impact of illegal immigrants upon the American economy is a net POSITIVE effect. Consider some of what would likely happen if they all just left:
1. It is not merely Mexican immigration putting downward pressure on American wages. Unless you have some sort of a plan for isolating our nation from the entire Pacific Rim, you’re not going to drive up American wages across the board.
2. Instead, you’re only going to drive wages up in the sectors of the economy that cannot be sent overseas. That’s not manufacturing—manufacturing goes overseas quite easily, and already has. That’s not technology or science jobs, because with the Internet, it’s a piece of cake to locate those jobs almost anywhere. What sectors employ illegal immigrants? Agriculture, construction, and some portions of the service sector. So, EVERYONE’s food will become more expensive, EVERYONE’s house will become more expensive, and EVERYONE’s restaurant tab, etc., will become more expensive, but people who work in manufacturing, financial services, technology and science, public service (including education), etc., will not be making significantly higher wages to pay for all of those necessities of life that are now more expensive.
William, could you be more specific as to which US programs illegals participate in to get the free health care?
Those who work here and then send the bulk of their earnings outside the country are a great boost to our economy.
Their work is done here, so we receive the benefit of their labor. As for their earnings, just how much do you think they make? Not likely to make much difference in our economy whereas increased productivity does make a difference.
Bart,
As usual, yours is a very well reasoned and well written article on a tricky and nuanced subject. I, too, believe in a reasonable path for citizenship for those already in this country, as opposed to the deportation of eleven million people.
We have only two undocumented aliens in our church family and both are simply outstanding in their work ethic, behavior, attendance and attitude. We would have hired one of them for a custodial vacancy if it were legal to do so. He is a great worker. The other is a mother of two children who is exemplary in her lifestyle and behavior. I want them to become Americans.
The trick is finding a way to embrace that which has already taken place illegally *without encouraging further illegal immigration* on the part of those in Mexico and South America today who would interpret this action as something of an invitation, as in “THEY did it, so why can’t WE do it?”
If we grant some type of amnesty, we need to seal the borders and communicate simultaneously the Roberto Duran doctrine: “No mas!”
We also need to address the tactics of Emperor Obama, which now provide the unfortunate distraction of a subplot regarding the balance of powers in our system of government.
Rick,
You have highlighted what is the great challenge here: How to say “¡No mas!” while adopting such a policy. Love compels us to do so. Think of all the children from Guatemala, Honduras, and Belize who were raped, tortured, and killed as they came on foot to try to reach our borders this year. My wife served down there for Disaster Relief with those children and heard their stories. Anything we might do that would launch another wave of that would be inhumane and unloving.
Bart,
This post, along with two previous ones that I read regarding the Ebola concern, represent a compassionate conservative, or what I call a Kingdom justice perspective that, quite frankly, some of us seldom see or read from “conservatives.” You may disagree with that analysis; but, it’s my story & I’m sticking to it.????
I strongly agree with the vast majority of what you say here. It was refreshing to read this from one that I share a fairly common theological & political conservative perspective with.
The reason that many people of color don’t vote Republican has to do with Republican reluctance to voice the compassion & understanding that u have voiced here, and to enact legislation that reflect the mindset that you’ve so ably & adequately articulated here. Nothing has kept the Republicans from adopting legislation similar to what the President laid out last night. Most minorities believe that Republicans simply lack compassion, justice, and fairness on issues such as immigration. Consequently, that explains their non-action on adopting progressive immigration policies.
I disagreed with your last paragraph, or wherever it was that criticized the President for his actions last night. I have strongly disagreed with the President publicly on abortion on demand, same-sex marriage & other issues. But on this one, he is spot on. If I ever have moments for regretting not having voted for President Obama, it is on moments like last night, and his admirable comments & handling situations like Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, and calling a spade a spade, when he called the actions of the policeman who arrested the professor in Boston “stupid” for breaking into his own home. I know that we don’t agree on all those issues. But, it feels good to agree in the main with a fellow conservative Southern Baptist on a justice issue. That’s a rarity. You have made me proud this morning. Thanks.
Dwight,
Thank you for the words of encouragement. I value our kinship in the gospel. It was good seeing you at SWBTS.
Allow me to explain how it is that I can agree with these principles and yet disagree with the President’s actions: Why on earth did the President have to do this at this particular moment? A new Congress is on the way in. If they stand ready to do something helpful in the way of immigration reform, why not work with them to do so ? If they prove unable to do so, just like the previous Congress, wouldn’t the same option of unilateral executive action have remained open to President Obama a year from now?
It seems clear to me that the President is smarting from his post-electoral wounds and was looking for a way to boost his numbers. I’m convinced that he acted now not because he was disgusted that the present Congress wouldn’t act, but because he was afraid that the incoming Congress might.
Bart, that is exactly right.
I support a path t citizenship for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who work hard, and I have come to America looking for a chance for economic freedom and in many cases escape from tyrannical government’s and dangerous living conditions – but I totally disagree with the way the president is going about it – and I think your analysis is spot on – with a large majority (10 or 11) in the senate now for Republicans – and a few Democrats will likely vote with them on strong border security – he decided to jump out in front of it – but I think he will find that he’s bitten off much more than he wanted to. I think he’s going to find that now whatever Bill he gets sent to his desk will be very unpalatable for him and his liberal ideology – but he will have little choice but to sign it after poking them in the eye and then demanding the Congress send him something.
Rick, based on the numbers I have seen, surprisingly few of the immigrants chose to become citizens. The path to being a “legal worker” seems to have more value than a “path to citizenship.”
Bart, I try to guard and pray against becoming cynical as I grow older. I want to look for what is good in situations. In spite of these efforts, I am afraid I have arrived at a different conclusion as to the timing of the president’s action. A thought is he knew after the first of the year the Republican controlled congress would not pass any amnesty policy that did not have “comprehensive” immigration reform attached. He chose to use executive order to bypass the new congress and he chose to make his executive order at a time when there is a real possibility something explosive may happen any moment that will relegate this news item to the back page and out of people’s minds. That theory sounds so cynical!
Note that I discussed only the motive for the timing of our president’s actions. Please do not read this as a rejection of your thoughts on amnesty.
They won’t pass anything even if it does have “comprehensive” reform attached. Again, see the last attempt under Bush.
As for the timing, what do you think will distract us from his executive order? What will you say if such a distraction does not arise?
I was wrong.
Hahaha.
Great answer, Dean.
So what do you anticipate being the distraction? We need to know how to evaluate whether or not it is time to get you to admit to being wrong.
Chris, I believe the announcement from the grand jury in Ferguson, MO will be top dog in any news cycle short of a declaration of war or a tremendously public figure dying a sudden tragic death. This news will be top billing regardless of the public’s response to Ferguson whether that be peaceful or violent.
You do make an assumption that may be incorrect. If there is no news to distract us from this executive order it does not necessarily mean I was wrong in the reason I gave for the timing of the order. It could be the president’s gurus missed the timing of the Ferguson announcement.
I do believe there is nothing accidental about when our governmental leaders release certain information and make certain decisions. The timing, their words, the hour of the day, the networks that get to cover the announcement are all decisions that are tactically made sometimes to rush something into the spotlight or have something get buried in a huge news cycle.
So the timing wouldn’t have anything to do with enacting reforms before the holidays and prior to a Republican senate taking over? The election/swearing in cycle seems a more likely justification for the timing than the relatively brief blip the Ferguson news will cause.
Don’t get me wrong, Ferguson will be big news no matter what, but no matter how the protests go, I suspect reporting on it will be relatively short-lived.
Chris, here is a quote from my comment to Bart,
“He chose to use executive order to bypass the new congress and he chose to make his executive order at a time when there is a real possibility something explosive may happen any moment that will relegate this news item to the back page and out of people’s minds. ”
What I was attempting to say is that President Obama’s intentions since the election that gave the Republicans both chambers of the Congress has been to make this executive order. That is what I meant by, “bypass new congress.” IMO there was no chance January 1 would come without this executive order being made. He knew many people would be angered by this executive order. Many feel it is beyond his power as president. I theorize the announcement was going to made before January 1 regardless, however, announcing the executive order ahead of the grand jury announcement is an opportune time that will move his EE closer to back page. I am under the impression this is a common occurrence by all presidents in recent history.
Story in local paper this morning: Family, husband, wife, two kids. Husband came illegally 20 years ago. Kids born here. Not sure about wife. He is a floor installer, owns a home, upright citizen. There’s no good reason not to give this man citizenship.
I’m curious as to what my friend Rick would do with this man or the two illegals in his church. Nothing? Deport? Citizenship? If the latter, is that amnesty? Should the mom and kids be told to go back and apply?
Should the man close his business forgo the income that supports his family, possibly lose his home, go back to Mexico, apply and wait?
I see the same story over and over.
William,
I indicated in my earlier comment my belief in a *pathway to citizenship* for such individuals. It’s not quite simple amnesty, although I do not have all the details worked out.
Perhaps it would involve things like: (1) citizenship classes, (2) sponsors or references, (3) language education, and (4) either employment or volunteer work.
I don’t see us deporting 11 million people.
Yea – I agree, Rick. (It actually hurt just a little to type that)
I think the problem is that the phrase “pathway to citizenship” is thrown around so much though by people who have vastly different intents behind the phrase – this reality makes discussing this difficult.
I like your definition.
This is such a huge issue that, as I’ve argued in other parts of the comment stream, that it should be legislated in small and digestible bills so that our legislators know EXACTLY what they are voting on and even more importantly we do too…
If nothing else – the mess that is the ACA – should have taught us that. They took a few ideas that many agreed on – pretended that the bill was about those things…and then threw out thousands of pages with carve-outs, caveats, kickbacks, and who knows what else because here we are 4 years later we still aren’t sure what it all means and how much it’s gonna cost us!
Comprehensive bills on matter of these proportions are good in theory – well maybe not even there – but certainly in practice they never produce good laws.
I think that a “path to citizenship” is “amnesty.”
1. Amnesty simply means the forgiveness of a crime. Any “path to citizenship” that does not execute the sentence for the crime (i.e., deportation) or at least commute it (“now you’ll only have to pay a fine and serve some time in jail”) is, technically speaking, amnesty.
2. Amnesty almost always comes with strings attached. The Confederate amnesty required the swearing of an oath of allegiance and the concomitant renunciation of their past crimes.
3. The stipulations you have listed are already part of the naturalization process. So, a very bold form of simple amnesty—complete remission of the penalties for illegal entry into the country and an ability to jump to the front of the line for naturalization—would still entail all of what you have stipulated.
So, I agree with all of your stipulations, and you have articulated well what I mean when I say that I am open to amnesty.
I don’t know about Rick, Bart but I never said anything about illegals “jumping in front of any line” – that is not fair to people who have obeyed our law talk about an injustice – the ones who did it right shouldn’t be penalized so that we can make those who did it wrong right with the law.
You miss the rhetorical flow.
I’m not alleging that anyone said that. I’m saying that even as radical an amnesty plan as THAT would still meet all of his qualifications.
I’m simply trying to demonstrate that any and every “path to citizenship” that I’ve ever seen has amounted to amnesty…and not necessarily even a milder form of amnesty.
Bart,
Thanks for your courage in posting this. I believe that the relative legitimacy of amnesty must be weighed against the relative justice (or lack thereof) of the law being broken. For example, in the days of slavery and abolitionism, it was definitely against the law for a slave to run away from a cruel owner. But most of us today, with the ethical perspective of hindsight, would be in favor of granting amnesty to runaway slaves.
This leads to the question of the justice (or lack thereof) of current immigration laws. For me, any law that exists primarily for the purpose of protecting the comparative privileges and opportunities of one set of people over against those of another, due not to what these people have done to earn these privileges, but rather solely because they happened to be born in one place and others in another, has a questionable ethical foundation.
Working out a system that works well and is equitable for all is complicated. And a policy of come one, come all, is not practical nor ultimately beneficial for the majority. But the inherent ethical basis of amnesty is another matter. Most of these people are not coming with the intention of harming anyone else, but rather to have the opportunity to work in order to provide for their families, and in some cases, to flee danger for themselves and their families.
David,
Thanks for the kind comments and for joining the conversation.
Although there are the varying perspectives conveyed in the different names (“war of Northern aggression,” “war between the states,” “civil war,” “Southern insurrection”), I think all would have to concede that amnesty in the 1860s was in no way based upon any notion that the crimes pardoned were insignificant. They were among the highest crimes that our system of jurisprudence recognizes.
And so, I don’t perform the “weighing” that you have in mind. Rather, my theory is that general amnesties usually involve situations in which (a) the government has done something significant to prevent recidivism, either by abandoning the law in question or by having changed the situation in some way (viz, through defeating an enemy at war) that makes recidivism unpalatable to the offenders and (b) political realities offer benefits to the government for doing so.
The real lawbreakers, who should, in my opinion, be prosecuted, are employers who take advantage of the vulnerability of these people in order to profit from cheap wages and pitiful work conditions. Get rid of these low-lifes, and the immigration problem practically solves itself, as immigrants generally go wherever they can find work.
Here in affluent Collin County I don’t see that. I’ve heard that there are some bad working conditions in parts of West Texas or down in the valley. For my part, if the wage is legal and the taxes are paid and everything is above-board, I’m content to let the market set the wage.
Stiffly Prosecuting the magnets – employers who violate our laws to get “under the table cheap labor” – I think is also an important piece of this puzzle.
Bart, it may not happen in your portion of Texas but I’ll tell you for sure it happens in Virginia. If they paid under the table, and not minimum wage, who are they going to complain to? It’s not like they can call the government and say that their employers treating them badly.
I don’t deny that it happens. And certainly the ability to hold deportation over someone’s head would empower that kind of misbehavior.
I am not at all against legal imigration but I am against leaglizing criminals in this country. They should be arrested and jailed or sent out of the country. If an one of us who are leagal would committ some of the acts of the illegals we would no doubt be in jail. They come in as law breakers and should be treated as such. Laws aready on the books just like the Ten Commandments are for justice not being ignored. I believe that we should be doing the work of an evangelist as scripture states. Lets face the facts here most of these who come in don’t claim any faith in God or Christ. In fact don’t we already have a problem in this country with unbelief amoung our own people? Also what about those who are going at becoming citizens the right way just ignore their efforts?
Bob,
Thanks for going on the record that you are opposed to leniency for criminals. I will forward your comments to the highway patrolmen in your area.
It is not inconsequential to this conversation that Central America generally has a more conservative set of family values than does our culture. Social-conservative Republicans should be conducting MASSIVE outreach to Hispanic citizens, who are reachable on abortion, marriage and family issues, and a whole host of other things. Ditto with regard to black churches.
I have a whole lot more in common in my politics with Pastor Daniel Fresnillo than I do with Olympia Snowe.
I also think that this issue illustrates something that I have been arguing against in our political system for many years – the whole idea of “comprehensive” legislation. 9 times out of 10 or perhaps even 10 times out of 10 when this approach is taken it creates a much bigger mess. I personally think that legislators should address issues component by component rather then trying to address the whole thing at one time with one bill which inevitably creates the 20,000 page monstrosities that no one really understands and that cannot be enforced and leaves too much room for interpretation and includes the typical carve outs, pork, caveats and kickbacks – and hardly ever really address the issue well at all.
Which leads me to my next point on this illegal immigration discussion. This needs to be addressed in at least two parts – and it needs to be in this order – 1) border security – we get to stop the flow of illegal immigrants before we can do anything else. Once we have done that demonstratively and productively 2) how do we deal fairly, and justly, all with those that are already here.
Bart,
Well said. Reasoned. Biblical. Just. Merciful. All the things we should be. I am so glad this post has been written. I pray someone in our terribly divided Congress will read it and craft legislation in line with it and that reasonable men and women will then vote it into law. It’s time to hit the reset button for the large mass of immigrants who are living in the shadows and at the same time secure borders so out mercy does not transform into an untenable wave of border crossings. There is a balance. It’s time to strike it.
Also about border security– A country that does enforce a border is not a country at all.
Here is my opinion for what it’s worth. Congress needs to act instead of bad mouthing everything the President does. I think the situation needs corrected to the point of illegals paying taxes just like everyone else, even if it involves making the Mexicans legal citizens, providing they are not criminals, (breaking laws in our country or murderers and drug dealers from Mexico).
I have never seen such hatred toward a President as the GOP exhibits. I have to believe the hatred is more than political, it borders on racism. When the GOP calls the President, Emperor Obama, when he has took less executive actions than any president in the last 50 years, something is wrong. The way congress acts is enough to make anyone sick at their stomach. I think if the GOP continues this nonsense all of their victories will turn to losses.
This nation is a nation of immigrants, why can’t we just get along. I think we act as if we are back in the 1800’s, and nothing has changed over the years, or even back during the time of the Salem witch trials, if you utter something other than the norm you will be hanged or burned at the stake.
I don’t stand with the President on the abortion or gay marriage issues, I think these are ungodly acts. It’s also ungodly that the Republicans has played their part in the passing of these issues. Let the GOP pass bills or shut up. I think they should leave the ACA alone, it’s good for Americans to have health insurance.
I think some here on voices doesn’t know how bad our drug problem is here in America. If the workforce of today were required to take drug tests, and were fired if they fail, over half of the work force would be wiped out. Yet we complain over people being made legal citizens of this country. I think it’s time for congress to get off the golf course and get to work or be sent home, fired.
I don’t participate in the “emperor Obama” comments that are very popular these days – however guess, you may not be aware – that the president himself stated that if he were to go around Congress by executive action and do an immigration Executive Order that he would be acting as an emperor and not a president. So The phrase is not original with the GOP – it’s simply using his own words against him – like I said I don’t participate in calling him that but I think he made that bed himself.
And bust constantly and very intentionally sticking his finger in the eyes of Republicans he makes matters worse – he’s not a victim.
*by (not bust)
Also were you in a coma during the last presidental administration in regard to “hating” on the president?
Okay I realize this is lots of comments in the line – but did you really just say that Congress needed to get off the golf course in defense of the President?????????
Really?!?!?!
Bart, good article my friend.
I too, being raised and ministering in West Texas, have an intimate knowledge and experience with reference to the laws that govern immigration. Economic factors have obviously increased the overall migration of workers to America, yet laws continue to be ignored.
In my West Texas town, at least half of my friends were Mexican American, and several of my best friends were Mexican. Forty years ago, those Mexican American families loathed the illegal Mexican workers, some of their cousins, from coming to America and taking their jobs. They were very protective of the law and “amnesty” was not needed simply because the Mexican Americans policed the very illegals that were taking their jobs. That was the day when the law was being enforced to some degree. Much better than today. And it seems to me… that is the best way to govern the illegal actions; by having Americans (whether Mexican or not) enforce the law.
Fast forward into last night,…and all I heard was an addition to the law. The speech last night was an emotional plea and artful provocation for people to rise up against the congress and force expansion of the the existing law. The real problem with what occurred last night will be debated during the next year; that being, did the President break the law, by adding to the law. Again, this has nothing to do with amnesty,…as stated in this post,…has occurred at various levels throughout the history of this nation. The larger and more important question is enforcement and law making. Can a President make law, by adding stipulations to the Law. That is the fine line being provoked last night.
Mexicans, Canadians, or any other nationality that comes to America must understand the reason for Law. Amnesty is only a relaxing of existing characteristics of a law, and has occurred many times. Lawmaking to change the status of 4-14 Million people is quite another matter.
The President, unfortunately, is artfully conflating two separate issues. It is a habit of his administration to not only assume, but demand, that the legal Americans are too dumb to understand the difference.
-Chris
I agree with everything you just said, except when you said “that is a fine line” – that line is not fine at all – the Constitution weirdly and unequivocally puts the power of lawmaking exclusively in the hands of Congress the president has no authority to make law none whatsoever.
Of course neither does the courts have authority to make law but we relinquished that a long time ago so maybe this is next.
It looks like Soon the legislature will be done away with and will have a President and his/her appointed judges just like nations under dictatorship.
Um…clearly – not weirdly – lol!
Actually…weirdly is a good way to state it. The American Constitution makes it possible for us to “weirdly” make law through the Congress, not the Executive branch.
When I was using the “fine line” statement. That was pointed toward the political provocation of mob rule methodology to try and add law to an existing set of law. Fortunately, the Congress (whatever flavor Democrats, Republicans, Independents, other…) will debate the tenants of the law and discover the addition, or lack thereof. This will be a good exercise!
Many Constitutional scholars view this as a horrible action by the current President toward the flavor of politics he represents (Democrats). They fear the repercussions of someone having enough influence and power power to change law outside of the Congress. They recognize the danger. And we should as well!
-Chris
Actually…weirdly is a good way to state it. The American Constitution makes it possible for us to “weirdly” make law through the Congress, not the Executive branch.
When I was using the “fine line” statement. That was pointed toward the political provocation of mob rule methodology to try and add law to an existing set of law. Fortunately, the Congress (whatever flavor Democrats, Republicans, Independents, other…) will debate the tenants of the law and discover the addition, or lack thereof. This will be a good exercise!
Many Constitutional scholars view this as a horrible action by the current President toward the flavor of politics he represents (Democrats). They fear the repercussions of someone having enough influence and power to change law outside of the Congress. They recognize the danger. And we should as well!
-Chris
oops… somehow this got posted twice. emphasis 🙂
Tarheel,
You’re right, the president cannot make laws, but he sure can make executive orders, just like all the rest. Tarheel, you should read my comments before you comment. Look back and read what I said about congress getting off the golf course.
I did go back and read it again and it said exactly what I commented on you were implying that the president had done something and that the Congress is on the golf course doing nothing and I – unequivocally and without reservation think that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my life if anyone needs to get thier hind parts off the golf course it’s not the members of Congress is the POTUS.
While I respect the opinions given here, does anyone really believe that this decision was made to actually help anyone or help the nation as a whole? Frankly I found some of what was written surreal given the reality of what has been going on at the border. What is at stake here is the rule of law in a constitutional republic.
The President simply does not have the authority to act in this way.
“I should add that President Obama’s way of changing immigration policy is dubious constitutionally and poisonous politically… Perhaps Congress will override the President by enacting realistic reform of our immigration laws in the near future.”
Except we all know it wouldn’t have gone down like that. Many on the right would never pass reform that provides a compassionate path for those in the country illegally to legally remain. At the same time, many on the right don’t dare make serious moves to deport those here illegally lest they hurt their changes with the Hispanic electorate. The Republican position has been well demonstrated by the recent response to Obama: “We don’t like what he’s doing, but we can’t offer a plan of our own.” In interview after interview they have been highly critical of Obama’s actions, but when pressed for what they think should be done, they have nothing to offer other than “border security.” No one disagrees with the need for a secure border, but that does nothing about the situation of the millions of people who have already crossed the border.
The last serious attempt at reform was made by president Bush via a plan formulated by McCain and it went nowhere fast, other than to stir the ire of many on the right who felt the plan was far too compassionate. A mixed congress wasn’t even able to start working on a reform plan. A Republican congress under Obama was never going to offer anything resembling reasonable reform. If there was to be any hope of immigration reform, it could only – _only_ – come via executive order, a legal power available to the president, no matter how much it may be disliked by those who complain about “emperor Obama” whenever he uses it.
“A Republican congress under Obama was never going to offer anything resembling reasonable reform.” Not so sure that statement is accurate.
You may be right.. in that the current President has great disdain for debate, but….
That is the fun with debate in politics… that there is a debate! Sure you can get some sort of reform when debated effectively. It is better to debate within…than going out to gin up the mob. But, the best argument so far is to follow the law. Somehow that can’t be accomplished “according to politicians”…imagine that!
Chris,
When was the last time debate led to meaningful immigration reform? The last attempt was some 8 years ago and it failed spectacularly, leaving nothing done.
That is a good point Chris! And speaks to my contention that the existing law is not really all that bad, yet less and less enforced. The political playground at the moment is trying to figure out what to do with “so many” lawbreakers, and at an unprecedented level of lawbreaking participation. Of course the current President will not lay claim to that fact.
This plea for unenforceable amnesty is not really all that good,…in fact, is more confusing, and really not about amnesty at all. So, I actually agree with the current President’s statement last night. He contends that Amnesty has always been and continues to be…. I agree. The issue is how does one abide and see law enforced.
The current President may be over zealous to change the law, instead of enforce the current law.
“A Republican congress under Obama was never going to offer anything resembling reasonable reform. If there was to be any hope of immigration reform, it could only – _only_ – come via executive order, a legal power available to the president, no matter how much it may be disliked by those who complain about “emperor Obama” whenever he uses it.”
Or he could’ve done it when he had a Democrat Senate, a Democrat house, and he was in the White House but he didn’t do that no one proposed it – the Democrats were not fighting for it – if they wanted it so badly and they are so compassionate – then why did they not do it when they had the power to do so?
The reason Obama did it himself like this right now is because – he is afraid of what the Republicans will send him – and he knows that he does not have the political capital to fight with them after they propose something so he got out in front (perhaps a smart political move or one that will hurt our country poisoning the well and road blocking any possibility of immigration reform and guaranteeing more gridlock over the issue.)
I believe it is the latter.
The Republicans didn’t send Bush anything, they weren’t going to send Obama anything. Congress could still pass their legislation which would override the executive order. They won’t do it. Personally, I suspect many Republicans are relieved by Obama’s actions even if they are supposed to express public outrage.
You are probably right. Why would they? The current law, if enforced, is effective. The current administration does not seem to have a stomach for enforcing the current law.
If the Congress was really serious about changing the law, both Democrats and Republicans would have done much more….. there has been a 30 year window.
I personally don’t mind any current President bringing up the need for reform, yet he alone is not how that reform will be implemented in America at least,….only the Congress can enact law. The President is well aware of that fact, yet he leans toward incitement, not debate. If you have not seen that for the last two decades in his life,..then you have missed out on an important fact about his political motivation.
Oh I bet you’re wrong. I bet they will send up a border security bill – Boehner and McConnell have both signaled that they are willing to address the issue of illegal immigration but they’re not going to do it in a huge comprehensive thousand page Bill – they want to do it piecemeal – starting with border security – piecemeal is the way legislation should be done. It tends to be more transparent, and understandable when it’s done that way.
It seems as if the president was trying to “expose” the right wing of the party and “isolate” them but I think he’s found out that the Republicans are much more unified on this issue than he thought – and that’s why I think this is going to backfire on him. I expect that Congress will send him several bills and dare him to veto.
I hope so anyway.
President Obama has gone on record demanding bills on immigration be passed and passed NOW – if I were advising congressional Republicans I would say take him up on that send him bills.
Border security is the immigration red herring of the right. They have trumpeted border security but have offered no hints as to what can be done about those already here.
No one – not Boehner, not Obama, not even Snoopy – wants insecure borders, though even there, what can be done? All sides agree on the need for a secure border, yet no one has raised a serious proposal in some time to actually secure the border. But a secure border does nothing about the people already in the country and Republicans have yet to offer a shred of a hint of what to do about them.
The old red herring argument – sir, let me ask you a question – if you have a leak water pipes and it floods your basement – do you go in and wet vac the floor and dry off the furniture before you turn the water off?
I think everyone agrees that we can’t deport 12 million people in fact I’ve heard Republican after Republican after Republican say that – so there needs to be some kind of process by which these illegals are compassionately dealt with – but until you stop or at least slow down the illegal intrusions that are happening every day you’re not really addressing the problem.
In other words there’s a tipping point to where compassion without solving the problem for those who have broken our laws can actually turn into non-compassionate realities – not only for the illegal immigrants themselves – but for the rest of us, too.
Tarheel,
Meanwhile, those 12 million continue to be deported each day. Not all of them, of course, but deportations are a regular occurrence and a daily threat for those people. We need to fix the leaky pipe, and we need to help the people. Helping the people is easy: give an order to stop deporting them. Obama has now done that. Meanwhile, what is the solution for the border? What do you think? How do we realistically secure it? What can we do that we haven’t already done? Perry deployed the National Guard to the border and was only able to cover a portion of Texas’ border with Mexico and that only at significant cost, a program which they are now phasing out to replace with something less pricy. What can we do along the entire border? And why ignore a problem with an easy solution – an order not to deport immigrants – while trying to tackle a much more difficult problem?
Yes deportations occur – as they should – it’s the law. I think most of us here on the thread are advocating for a bettering of that law – but it is the law.
Bart,
Thanks for posting this. Again, it was well-written and gives us something we need to think about.
If I were a dad in Mexico struggling to take care of my family and I knew I could go to America and find a job, health care, and an education for my kids, I would absolutely do it without hesitation. I wouldn’t care that America had passed a law ordering me to stay out. As Christians, we smuggle Bibles into nations where they are outlawed. We send missionaries where they are forbidden. And I wholeheartedly support those efforts. No, those aren’t perfect analogies to the immigration situation, but they demonstrate that we are willing to break the laws of another nation to help people in need. As a dad, I would also break another nation’s laws to help my own family in need. We as American Christians should at least acknowledge this dynamic.
Agreed Jeff Johnson – at the same time though I don’t believe it’s impossible to pass and enforce laws addressing border security and also pass laws that are compassionate to those in the situation you describe.
This is so often proposed, and was by the president last night, as an either or proposition – either you be compassionate OR you enforce laws / secure the border I think we can do both.
This is you shows the deep division between progressive liberalism and conservatism – liberals err on the side of compassion above all else – conservatives err on the side of law and order above all else – this issue exposes extremes own both sides and is a perfect opportunity for either rancor and division or a coming together to solve the problem – what the President has said and done – and the comments and demeanor of many Republicans in response are not encouraging signs.
If Pres. Obama was really concerned about fixing our broken immigration system, He could have done so legally in his first two years in office when He had both houses of Congress. I would argue that this action was left undone till now on purpose. I would argue that this action is much more about his promise to “fundamentally change the United States” than to do the right thing by these immigrants. There is much more at work here than meets the eye. One must weigh this action along with the rest of His Presidency to get a clearer picture of what is at work.
Principalities and Powers.
Sounds rather paranoid to me.
Paranoid – Perhaps – but do you realize how your newly embraced and articulated ramblings about Why we need your, again newly embraced and articulated, version of separation of church and state so that Christians don’t set up a theocracy – sound to us?
Too reasonable to implement, though with more than a touch of straw man on your part?
Here are the major dangers or potential injustices that any amnesty plan would need to address:
1. As I mentioned above, the danger of launching another wave of child-prey walking across Mexico in front of the cartel-predators.
2. The potential injustice of thinking that Mexico is the only place where poor families want to come to America to better their way of life. Quotas for Mexican immigration need to be increased, but our immigration policies do not need to be shaped solely with Mexican immigration in mind.
3. The danger of letting amnesty, once achieved, undo the urgency of comprehensive immigration reform, leaving us with weak, porous borders that terrorists can easily cross unnoticed.
Oh no Bart – I largely agree with you on this issue but please don’t use the word “comprehensive” it’s always, always, always a disaster when laws are passed that way. 😉
Sorry, Tarheel. I like the word “comprehensive.”
1. One group wants to strengthen the border. Once they get a strengthened border, they won’t be motivated to do anything else.
2. Another group wants to remove fear of deportation from illegal immigrants. Once they get amnesty or “path to citizenship” or “guest worker program” or whatever, they won’t be motivated to do anything else.
3. Both things need to be done.
Thus, the only way to get all of it done is to do it all in such a way that nobody gets their part done apart from the other group’s part.
True enough – but the problem with comprehensive legislation lies not with those things but with the caveat’s kickbacks etc. that have to be put in in order to get people to vote for a comprehensive plan.
Plus comprehensive plans are always so large that no one ever really reads them and we (including legislators) don’t know what we have until we pass it so we can see what’s in it. Or the promises that were made in order to pass it turned out not to be true and never intended to be true in the first place – digestibility is crucial to transparency – not just with the legislators but with us as well.
If you’re still not convinced, I got three letters for you – ACA.
I’ll also say Bart, that I don’t think I’d oppose short and simple legislation with triggers – for example once a measureable demonstration of a secure border is achieved then the “amnesty” part of the bill is automatically triggered.
The trigger would force the president to actually enforce the border security part of the law because one of the fears is and its completely legitimate, given the presidents track record of not enforcing the laws he don’t like – that the president would not enforce any parts about border security and only enforce the parts for the amnesty.
This is been his pattern all along if he doesn’t like a law he just simply doesn’t enforce it and not only does he not enforce it he goes about changing laws with executive orders – and in affect making law.
Good summation!
Rick said: If we grant some type of amnesty, we need to seal the borders and communicate simultaneously the Roberto Duran doctrine: “No mas!”
I am agreeing with Rick Patrick? That alone gives me pause.
Be that as it is, he is right and when he’s right he’s right. And furthermore Bart, the blanket statement that the ‘economic argument is protectionist’ is unfair and not wholly true.
I do appreciate and agree with much of your article, But Leonhart III makes some good points as well.
I would say further economic considerations include the jobs they take away from citizens. And yes they do! It would be ridiculous to deny. And the drain they bring to the economic table, which has been addressed by others.
There is also a cultural concern. I think there is *much* room for more cultural difference here, but without even attempting to become US citizens, illegals often behave in a nationalistic way of loyalty and allegiance to their former country. As if the US should be more like Mexico or other countries. As if we we citizens just sort of found this prosperous economic system and we need to share it’s benefits with other countries. No thanks. Mexico is wealthy in natural resources. Why aren’t it’s people better off? I say we look at the ethics and morals of the powers that be in Mexico, and of course, international companies based in the US play a major role in that. But many US based companies have benefited Mexican nationals with work and income.
And it’s not that we can’t learn from other countries, but the rank corruption of the Mexican way of doing things… and don’t judge me, I’ve been there… is not something we need to add to our already problematic ways of doing things here in the US of A.
This won’t be a popular opinion, but better to live in the real world.
So, I’m not against “AMNESTY” I’m against painting illegals with a broad brush (as if they are all “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” – some really are “wretched refuse”) and of sending the message that the US does not respect A) It’s own borders and B) it’s citizenry and what citizenship means. And C)that, conversely, doesn’t respect the great role *Legal Aliens* have played in the building of our country.
“some really are “wretched refuse””
I’m wondering if you would tell them that if sharing the gospel with them.
Only if they are behind bars and don’t have a weapon in their hands. 😉 I’ve been on the border with a knife to the throat. I know when to not say the obvious.
(sorry broke the no emoticon rule)
Always break the no emoticon rule. Don’t ask for amnesty from Dave Miller. His little emoticon vicissitude is an unjust law unworthy of your compliance.
🙂
Nerd
Hey! Don’t call Bart a nerd – sure he’s a bit of a geek sometimes but I don’t think he’s a nerd.
😉 🙂
Can you spell out more specifically for me which parts of the economic argument you are making are things that you consider not to be protectionist?
Let me say that the mistake I see being made is not the ability to see some negatives in immigrant culture, but the blindness to our own culture, IMHO:
1. I know some “citizens” who are less deserving of the jobs than the immigrants.
2. I know some elements of “American culture” that I’d gladly swap for corresponding elements of Hispanic culture. The culture that keeps three generations in the same house and sends money back home to parents has my admiration over a culture of throw-away marriages and “friends with benefits.”
3. Do immigrants benefit from what has already been done in this country? Absolutely. Just as you and I benefit from what past generations did here. A lot of the heirs these days are in no way worthy of what they are receiving.
Blue ribbon comment there, Bart. Reading that makes me want to go back and read through some of our old blog debates to see if perhaps I was unfairly judging your motives.
David Rogers: Converted to A Posteriori Semi-Cessationism as a result of events transpiring in this thread.
😉
And you even have the grace to throw the “semi” part in there this time…
🙂
To aid in the request I just made: Protectionism = Arrangements to elevate wages or prices in a country by establishing barriers to keep deflationary international pressures from entering to influence the national economy.
“I am agreeing with Rick Patrick? That alone gives me pause.”
Clark, in time you will get used to it. You might even agree with this: http://sbctoday.com/a-sprinkled-baptist-convention/
I haven’t read through the comments, so if this has been addressed, forgive the duplication.
Permit me to wear my cynicism hat for a minute. I’m convinced that what drives a lot of the immigration debate is not justice or a desire to solve the problem, but crass political calculation.
A lot of Democrats support amnesty and the path to citizenship because they believe that the majority of these Hispanic voters will vote for Democrats when they step behind the curtain.
A lot of Republicans oppose amnesty because they fear the same thing.
Bart made a comment somewhere in this comment tree, that hits at this issue. Many of the immigrants are social conservatives and if Republicans reach out to them, the supposed Democrat tsunami in the Hispanic vote might not materialize.
Here are some perspectives I see:
1) We are NEVER going to deport 12 million (if that is the accurate number) illegal immigrants. No one has the stomach for that. I don’t think it will happen.
2) To leave those 12 million in limbo – living illegally in perpetuity, is not a just result.
3) So, we ought to do change course. First, we must secure the borders. Tight. Stop the flood. Second, we provide a path to legal residency (whether that includes citizenship is a good question).
4) Churches need to MINISTER to the people. Let the government worry about their legal status. Our job is to proclaim Christ to lost souls.
“3) So, we ought to do change course. First, we must secure the borders. Tight. Stop the flood. Second, we provide a path to legal residency (whether that includes citizenship is a good question).”
Yes!
And number 4 is the best of the summation you proffered!
“A lot of Democrats support amnesty and the path to citizenship because they believe that the majority of these Hispanic voters will vote for Democrats when they step behind the curtain. A lot of Republicans oppose amnesty because they fear the same thing.”
Indeed.
In the spirit of point #4, here is a recent article I found helpful:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/november/what-to-do-when-you-dont-know-familys-immigration-status.html?paging=off
David Rogers,
That’s a good article, my friend.
Jess and Chris Roberts,
Obama has poisoned the well, made it all but impossible to get any meaningful reform – why would he do that? I have my ideas based on the men he has identified as mentors, his alliances, and the tactics he applauded and endorsed in his books not to mention the evidence of they way he has governed…but I will let report and let you decide. 😉
OK, I know it on the conservatively biased Fox News (but the reason this could only be found on that network is because all the other networks are water carriers for the President and the Democrat Party and not reporting these facts)….but none of that changes the words of the President himself.
At least 25 times he said that what he did last night (announce that he would suspend immigration law) would be illegal if he did it.
He also said that that doing so would be unwise, bad policy and exacerbate the illegal immigration problem.
Some of his defenders say he just was mistaken about his constitutional power until now…remember however, that one his selling points was he was a constitutional scholar and professor.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/19/caught-camera-obama-called-exec-immigration-action-illegal-25-times
Note Meghan Kelly is not a journalist – she is a commentator – but her team gathered a dog gone good array of the POTUS saying the same thing – many times with the exact same words – in different venues over and over – it’ll be hard to argue that this is doctored up and out of context!
Tarheel,
Please quit watch Faux news. What has Michelle Obama done to cause her to be hated by the Republican party also? Anything the President and his wife try to do that is good for the country the right wingers are up in arms about it.
So far I’m the only one that has said what I’m about to say. I think it will come to light in a few years. Prejudice, pure and simple.
Tarheel, you are saying it’s the President’s fault for the Republican house not doing anything in six years. You can do better than that.
First of all, I have said absolutely nothing about Mrs. Obama.
Secondly the Republicans have not been in charge of the House of Representatives for six years.
Thirdly I notice you did not respond to what was posted but instead, as I figured you would, deflected by attacking Fox news – that is a very common tactic of the left and I am not a bit surprised – if you had taken the time to actually watch the video andif you so desired ignored Megan Kelly when she talked and just listen to Pres. Obama – in his own words – saying that what he announced ast night was illegal.
Lastly, you’re not the first one to insinuate that people who disagree with Pres. Obama a racist and you probably won’t be the last – but I know my own heart and it most assuredly has nothing to do with the color of that man skin – I did test his political philosophy and his political tactics – that has nothing to do with the color of his skin. so again, deflect as as you must, but it’s his policies and his behavior that is so detestable to so many.
I detest (not did test)
Also, can we please have a moratorium on calling people racist every time they espouse a disagreement with Pres. Obama?!
I for one have never been, and will never be, intimidated by that truly disgusting tactic so you can find somebody else to play that game on please sir.
Tarheel,
1. I didn’t say that you said anything about Michelle Obama.
2. I agree the Republicans haven’t been in charge of the house in six years, but it doesn’t do away with the fact that they haven’t done anything.
3. I didn’t respond to what you posted because it was a spin by Faux News. Yes, I watched it, also I looked up the entire speeches which allowed me to put them in context.
Lastly, I didn’t call you a racist. Mitch McConnell said on public television that his priority was to see to it that the President doesn’t get a second term. McConnell didn’t say that about President Clinton. Gee, I wonder why?
You and Jack need to get your facts straight. I try to use the facts as much as I possibly can. As long as you guys quote Faux News you have no argument or even a leg to stand on.
Jess,
You did call me a racist as your diatribe mentioning some phantom mrs. Obama comments and the racist allegation was directed at me.
McConnell and every Republican at the time would have loved to have prevented Clinton from having a second term – just as every Democrat wanted to prevent Reagan and Bush from having two terms….come out lahlah land, dude.
Nothing to do with racism it’s about different philosophical and ideological agendas.
You looked up all 25 speeches and found a different context?
Sorry, but I’m calling BULL on that. Care to tell us what the proper context is since you know it?
Where do you get your news? If you’re going to criticize fox – To evaluate your sources.
Jess, I am just wondering if facts ever play any part in your posting or you just say whatever pops into your head. I use this insult in the most Christian way.
First, who said anything about Michele Obama? But, since you mention it, her stupid, hypocritical “lunch plan” would be reason enough to tell her to stay home–except when she is vacationing at tax payers’ expense, of course.
Second, in the first two years in office President Obama’s party controlled “both” chambers of Congress–and he did nothing.
Third, numerous bills have been sent to the Senate only to be stuffed into the mythical round file by Reid.
Fourth, do you ever tire of playing the same note on your flute: the “race” note. How do you play that note when Republicans who are people of color (white being the lack of color in this illustration) criticize Obama?
Jess, I am speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not totally. Sometimes it appears that your lips (fingers in blog land) engage must quicker than your brain.
If you are going to set yourself up as the “only one” (your words) that has it right, at least throw in a fact or two every once in a while.
And, again, I only insult you with the highest degree of respect — much like an Obama speech.
Jess, how about a video from Univision – directly from the horse’s mouth.
http://youtu.be/TfZ3kaKZoIw
Tarheel,
I’m not even going to respond to your silly statements. You make no sense whatsoever. If I remember correctly you were worried to death about Ebola in this country, not accepting the facts.
Why don’t you write your own version of the bible? The Bible according to, Tarheel. Where is your love, man?
I do see your points but I like mine better. I’m unable to change you, and you sure are not going to change me.
My own version of the Bible? Dude, you get serious problems.
You never respond to what people actually say you just create what you want them to say and then argue against it.
I was not scared to death of anything – that’s not even anywhere near accurate to what I was saying.
You constantly move goalpost anytime someone has a discussion with you first you complain about it being Fox news – then I post something that had nothing to do with Fox news but was the direct words of the president and now you’re refusing to respond to that.
The real reason you “are not going to respond to my silly comments” is because you have no answer for them – I have provided the exact words of the president in his own words for everyone to hear and you have no answer – that is your real problem – I will tell you what Jess don’t bother to respond to what I said – respond to the words of the president where he said HIMSELF on Univision that exactly what he did the other night would be illegal if he did it – but yet he did it anyway – respond to that!
Jess, Tarheel, drop it.
You guys have started mudslinging instead of talking. Let’s move on. No more.
Yes sir!
Dave,
You got it, thank you.
“Rewarding illegal behaviour is always bad”, a wise quote from one of the leaders in the British colonies when speaking about “squatters rights” in England.
This concept of squatters rights, or rights possession over time, is a tricky matter, and seems to be a mediocre position of law enforcement when laws have been pushed to the side for lack of attention or political battles for structure.
Granting a stay of amnesty in the form that the current President has proposed is not an answer of any constructive means within the construct of a Republic like the United States. The current administration would much rather operate as if the United States were a Democracy, which is easily demonstrated through the use of the Presidential platform. President’s have the responsibility to uphold the constitution and to maintain the footings of a Republic, and that is the battle that is being waged at this point, in this matter. A continuance of amnesty is only another method in the battle. Unfortunately, the people involved in the pursuit of work and family, that are in this county without citizenship, have little to do with the real battle.
My hope is that the real debate is exposed to all Americans, and loudly!
I don’t know about all of this amnesty stuff, but here’s a great video that will teach your young Mama’s how to raise their children right.
http://youtu.be/kosxY1zrLx8
Go Vols!
DAvid Worley
SOMEONE PLEASE!!!!!!! Call DHS quick.
I prefer this lullaby.
http://youtu.be/TCf-iF_Y6uI
I think there is room to talk about the issue of illegal immigrants. I think this post may be a bit overly simplistic.
There are far more issues than the two this post addresses. In fact, I’ve never heard anybody use the political argument as given here in any serious talks on amnesty–from either side.
I will say I think this could be a very big problem. I think it could very well be a way to “stack the deck” politically since nobody is going to vote against help they are receiving. It could be argued this is a “quid pro quo” arrangement. I don’t hear that as a mainstay of the argument.
There are other ways to address the “economic issue” as detailed in this post. For one, many recognize a “guest worker status” as a key component.
There is also a “moral issue” that I’ve heard more people discuss then either the two issues as presented in this post. There is the matter of encouraging illegal activity. It goes something like this: “It is only illegal to go to America if you get caught. If you can stay under the radar long enough they simply throw their hands up and give you status.”
There is also issues like: how are you going to determine who has been here five years or more? Are you going to rely on their documentation–the same illegal papers they used to get in?
There is a huge problem with enforcement issues that many law enforcement personnel have discussed.
The fact that this is an “evangelistic strategy” as proposed in the early lines of this post I think are problematic. “Shall we sin that grace may abound?” That would be associated with the moral issue.
As with most issues we face as a nation, this is much more complex than a blog can deal with–anymore than a five-minute segment on an entertainment/news program.
Like the poster, I do believe we need to do something. There is a lot to be fixed. It will take a real dialogue. Like the poster I believe the President’s action hurts this effort, not helps. I’d go a step further and say, “that was his intent.”
If the President simply wanted to help poor people who have been disenfranchised by the culture, he would need to look beyond the 5 million illegals he wants to help. I deal almost daily with “legal poor people” of nearly every nationality you might want to imagine.
If one were to drive south of me for about 30 to 40 minutes (or two hours during rush hour) one would encounter poverty and the associated problems in staggering proportions.
Thank you for the post. It can spark the kind of dialogue that will lead to a workable, God honoring solution.
Here’s another concern I have. You could call it a “financial concern.”
Certainly nobody would argue that legalizing 5 million illegal immigrants and giving them full access to the government dole–remember, as so many have said, these are people working at low earning jobs that others will not take. I don’t buy that argument wholesale, but will concede the point to make my point.
Any taxes from these low wage earners would fall far short of the additional services they would get from the government. The size of the economic pie will not increase. So, how will this magnanimity be paid for? Wealth transfer. The same way all the proposals have been paid for for the last *** years of burgeoning government.
Consider that many fighting our wars and losing life and limb survive on food stamps. Where do you think the progressives will turn to get some quick cash. Historically, defense spending. We’ve seen many cuts in the last six years, regardless of how the Administration turns the mirrors and generates the smoke.
I think most people think that we don’t need a big military–which is smaller now than at any time since WW2, if memory serves me well. Here’s the problem with that perception: we will not realize it was a tragic mistake until it is too late.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul has got to stop sometime. Adding more Pauls is going to impact Peter because of the way American politicians do business.
Bart,
After reading many of the 122 post already put up, I can’t add anything that hasn’t already been said. So I just want to offer a personal thank you for clearly articulating this position.
As always, it is my pleasure.
If it is true that many will work hard for minimum wage or an income that some citizens say they can’t live on (aka The pay me 15.00 / hour at McDonalds group), I say replace any and all those who refuse to better themselves and move up from McD’s with these immigrants. It is my guess that they will survive on the now pay scale at McD’s and not let that keep from pushing themselves to do better. It is possible that a stagnant sector of our population might be able to learn from their hard work and diligence in bettering themselves. Think about it,this is why they have come here in the first place… Not to hold a sign and tell us they deserve 15.00 / hour to work at McD’s but to work, build a better life, raise a healthy family…
OK, the soap box is not put away. I will get back to studying.
“Schoolhouse Rock” shows us how the government works!
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/capitol-hill-cold-open/2830152?onid=148621#vc148621=1
The problem with all these discussions is that they ignore one main fact: our immigration system isn’t broken. The enforcement against illegal immigration’s main offenders (those who overstay visas – not people who cross our southern border) has been willfully broken for 6 years, as well as the enforcement of our sovereign borders.
The USA is the most welcoming nation on the planet with regards to immigration, issuing permanent workers visas (green cards) to more than 1 million people per year. Most of those people are from Asia and Central/South America (so there goes the “racist” charge!).
In addition to that regular total, the United States also admits freely regular cases of asylum/sanctuary seekers as well as extraordinary cases of people fleeing emergency situations from across the world.
So, if you wish to up the total of immigrants to compensate for lower birthrates or you think we simply ought to purposely admit higher totals from Africa, Latin America or some other location, then say so. But don’t become one who parrots “our system is broken.”
The only thing “broken” is the manner in which our executive branch has decided to govern.
All the real statistics on immigration to the United States vs the rest of the industrialized world are freely found if you search. I wanted to know the truth so I could stand on the accurate side of the issue and found it. We are greatly generous as a nation to immigrants and far more so than the rest of the G8 or any other assemblage.
As a Christian, I do want us to sort through the current pool of those who got here the wrong way and put those who are productive on our roll as citizens, send those who are problematic in their illegal behavior home and prosecute those who violate our sovereign borders. At the same time, the church must minister to all – legal or not. Love them in meaningful and real ways, legal or not.