This week I was surprised to hear a portion of President Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union Address (It’s less than 2 minutes in length).
As you can see, President Clinton’s remarks received a bipartisan standing ovation from the members of Congress in attendance at the speech.
I really don’t know what to say about this. There is so much that could be said.
For one, Clinton sounds just like Donald Trump.
A search of Hillary Clinton’s former statements regarding illegal immigration are similar. Mrs. Clinton’s current positions and comments sound nothing like this.
Given that both the Republicans and Democrats applauded President Clinton in 1995, it is logical to assume that the American people agreed with President Clinton at the time.
Mr. Trump, with Ted Cruz in a close second, made the strongest statements regarding illegal immigration in the primary election. Most professional pundits and most common people with whom I speak have credited Mr. Trump’s position on illegal immigration as the reason he won the nomination. Therefore it is safe to say that most Republican voters considered illegal immigration an important issue.
This issue is a challenge for the Church, including the SBC.
Immigration reminds me of issues related to war and poverty.
With regard to war, Christ was peaceful. The Prince of Peace. He had no sword. He urged his followers to be peaceful. That is something to reflect upon, especially when so many leaders, even religious leaders, are remembered for their military conquests.
But Christians have always wrestled with their calling to be peaceful, and their obligations to the City of Man.
Even in the 20th Century in the U.S., politicians such as William Jennings Bryan and Jimmy Carter were criticized for sometimes being naive when it came to leading a nation. Critics said that their Sunday School simplicity often ignored the larger context of war and peace, and actually put more people in danger.
With regard to poverty, Christ encouraged his followers to help the poor. But translating that into governmental or national policy is also a tricky thing.
Does the Bible command Communism or Socialism? What are we to make of the failure of Marxism as an economic system? The ongoing collapse of Venezuela is only the most recent example.
Has Marxism just not been tried by the right people or in the right way?
Can a simplistic approach to concern for the poor, which may seem compatible with Christ’s teaching, actually lead to more poverty? And to the denial of human rights that have occurred historically as plans for centralized economies are implemented, and always fail, and then the leaders double down on the central planning, and harm more people in the process?
And as for immigration, is it actually biblically mandated that countries have no boarders? Or that they must “welcome” those who enter or remain in the country illegally?
If so, what are the consequences? Is there no limit on the resources in terms of housing, jobs, welfare payments that can be taken from the productive in a society and given to those who are entering the country illegally? If there is a limit, what is it? And who gets to set the limit? And on what basis?
Can too much immigration over too short a period of time result in the eroding of the economic and social fabric of a nation? And if so, is that simply a cost that must be born because the Bible commands it?
These are difficult questions. And as the YouTube video shows, sometimes people agree, sometimes they change their minds and disagree.
Does the church have a clear mandate on all of these questions?
How do we uphold our values but avoid the dangers and pitfalls of naive thinking?
Politics is all about flip-flops. Dems once said it was okay NOT to act on a SCOTUS nomination and now are scandalized by the GOP not doing it.
And many conservative Christians once said that character and morality mattered, but they are lining up to vote for the most immoral and indecent man ever to run for president – giving lie to the idea that they ever cared about character. It was evidently just about political power, not about character, because it’s okay to vote for a serial adulterer, pornographer, peddler of indecency as long as he’s running against Hillary.
Evidently, character doesn’t matter after all.
3 way tie with JFK and Bill.
I am SO weary of refuting this absurd notion that character and morality no longer matter to those who are voting for Trump. Those voting for Trump are not doing so BECAUSE of his character, but IN SPITE OF his character. Character is obviously important to us or we would not have chosen Cruz or Rubio in the primaries.
It is not that character does not matter, it is that the preservation of society through Supreme Court judges matters, standing up for our soldiers in places like Benghazi matters, and a host of other issues that factor into the equation.
Plus, in a binary decision, we are not asking, “Is this person a choir boy?” We are asking, “Is this person more qualified than the only other person who can be elected President—Hillary Clinton?”
Hillary may be the only person in America whose character is worse than Donald Trump. For those who view this as a binary decision, Trump then gets the nod.
But don’t pretend this means that character no longer matters to anyone. It does and it always will. I believe Trump’s character is better than Hillary’s, and that’s the only person whose character he has to beat to get my vote. Character still matters—even to Trump voters.
That’s some mighty fine spin, but if character matters, it matters.
Rick: What you have written is the same as this. In business, character is important. If a person is a known liar and thief, I will not hire them. I will hire someone who is not a liar and a thief. But if no one applies to work at my business but liars and thieves, and because I don’t want a Walmart in my town, I will hire thieves and liars to beat out Walmart because I think having a Walmart is worse than hiring thieves and liars. Even though the thieves and liars will rob me blind and then deny doing it. I care about character.
Debbie,
I appreciate your stand for character. Believe it or not, I share that stand. The problem with your analogy is that you do not have to hire anyone to work at your business. You can just close up shop or wait until a suitable applicant is available.
On the other hand, on the first Tuesday in November, America MUST select someone to be President. There is no “wait and see” option. It will be one of two people. Since character matters to me, I will vote for the one I believe has the best character out of the two.
Granted, slim pickins’ this year!
I believe there is a common hermeneutical error made, which is to take biblical teachings meant for individuals and apply them to government. This is not to say there aren’t principles that should transfer, but government as “God’s minister” must pursue the common good of everyone, whereas individuals are free (and commanded) to sacrifice on behalf of others. Immigration is an example of this. On a policy level, I believe one could advocate that certain illegal immigrants be returned to their country of origin, while on a personal level take food and clothing to the same group of illegal immigrants, and that this dichotomy would be perfectly consistent with the Christian faith. I think one could make similar distinctions regarding the use of force (war) and sharing our resources with others (socialism).
I don’t like to make too distinct a differentiation, but I think that as a church our concern should be for ministry. As a citizen, i have personal views that should be informed by scripture.
Josh, I think you hit the nail on the head and thank you for a well expressed comment. America has the most generous legal immigration system in the world and is the last bastion of Western Christian civilization, it is that simple. If Trump loses, the very foundation of this country will continue to erode and be lost. The choice is clear and stark, the contrast are real and certain. Clinton is of the secular world and promotes an agenda that is a ultra progressive. The Republican and Democrat establishment want no part of an independent Trump administration as one world secular government is their goal. Paul Ryan , Hillary Clinton would be same if elected President , only clear difference is Trump. Jimmy Carter terrible President , period.
Josh:
That is the issue. And it becomes really tough because we want to see Christian principles shared among the broader society. But it’s how to apply those principles that becomes a tough thing.
I think it’s a pretty important distinction to make. If we don’t make the distinction, then we end up relegating the church’s responsibility to civil government or, just as bad, trying to take on civil affairs with the church (the error of the Middle Ages).
There also needs to be a distinction between the individual believer and the church. The distinction is similar to that between the church and the civil government, although we should see far more overlap between the church and the individual believer than we see between the church and civil government.
Yes, Bill Clinton made those remarks and every administration has said similar things including the Obama administration. The difference is that Trump has demagogued it more with his calls for building a wall with Mexico paying for it, calling illegals rapists and murderers and exaggerating the numbers.
Another big difference is that Trump evidently hasn’t met a dictator that he doesn’t admire. This guy gets scarier by the day.
Good article. A quote of note:
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” -Margaret Thatcher
David R. Brumbelow
So the author (Guest Blogger) begins by stating that Bill Clinton was against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
However, once again Illegal is removed and all of a sudden it is simply about IMMIGRATION as if those opposed to ILLEGAL Immigration are opposed to Immigration.
State what you want to discuss. If you want to contend that the church should support and condone and assist Illegal Immigrants then say so.
Furthermore, I don’t know too many churches or pastors who are trying to actively identify whether an immigrant is illegal or not before helping them. This is a completely different scenario than if I am for or against the U.S. govt. controlling and protecting their borders from ILLEGAL entry.
The Spin on this Issue is Astounding.
I don’t know if this is the author’s intent, but I do know that many people in favor of illegal immigration will quickly accuse detractors of being against immigration in general as though accepting immigrants is the most loving thing for people wishing to immigrate. The typical argument is that people come here to provide for their families. The countries they come from typically have people who stay who are providing for their families. There are people in the US who are not providing for their families, but rather letting the US government provide for their families. It’s true that they stand a better chance to make more money here than most places, but it’s not a given that it’s the most loving thing to allow.
So we know that Democrats like illegal immigration because illegal immigrants typically vote Democrat. Is this right? No. It’s corrupt. That actually follows the pattern of a fallen world, so we should expect fallen people to be corrupt. We should call on the corruption to stop. That said, we already have countless illegal immigrants among us who need the Gospel. The most loving thing we can do as Christians is proclaim the Gospel to them while they are here. Guess what – we don’t need Passports, visas, and expensive plane tickets to do that. The international mission field has, to some significant degree, come to us. Cheap missions – I’m all for it!
While you say “Democrats like illegal immigration because illegal immigrants typically vote Democrat,” typically, illegal immigrants don’t vote. Are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe what you say?
I’m quote serious. Far more illegal immigrants vote than you are aware. That’s why there is an issue with voter ID.
Jim, I think you are correct that many (probably not all) who are in favor of Illegal Immigration (Or Open Borders if they want to call it that) believe those opposed are against Legal Immigration. Perhaps there are some who oppose all Immigration, but the overwhelming majority only oppose Illegal Immigration.
It’s the political spin (even by Christians) that frustrates me. Of course we are to minister to and to spread the gospel with whomever we come into contact with. I see no reason to see their visa or green card to do that. I get that and I agree.
The question is where should the church stand on the issue? Moreover, my question for Christians that think Illegal Immigration should be tolerated is what other Laws of the Land do you believe should be violated without prosecution, and in this case, even rewarded (with health care, in-state college tuition, etc), all at Tax Payer Expense?
And don’t tell me they are paying taxes because if they are they have forged Social Security Cards (breaking Federal Law) or their Employers are breaking said Law by reporting it in another manner. No matter how you try and spin it, laws are being violated at a variety of levels, even if some taxes are being collected. However, there is no doubt that a Large Portion of the money they get paid flows directly out of this country back to their families in Mexico and other places.
Are Christians in favor of this? I didn’t think so, but the spin we put on the discussion seems to imply many are.
Nate, I think we are in agreement on this. The clue is when you say “probably not all.” These “probably not all” people largely haven’t thought through the issue very well, have believed the surface-level arguments on the matter, or probably some combination of both. So it’s worth talking about it and laying out the deceit that’s out there, not only from the political side, but also from the private sector side; that is, some industries benefit from having undocumented workers that accept less pay, don’t take benefits, and can’t join a union. That’s just as corrupt and wrong as voter fraud. We all need to think through this, and Christians even more so because of the calling we all have in Christ as long as we tarry here. The government should only make just laws that it intends to enforce in good faith and we need to support that. However., we understand that human governments are prone to corruption, but that God ultimately superintends the results. So we as the church must act according to the civil situation we find ourselves in with the confidence that God will glorify himself even in difficult situations.
I’m most recently motivated by friends that we have in the town Paul was going to when he was converted. (That clue should be enough without tipping the data miners.) To say that there is civil strife there right now is a gross understatement. Nevertheless, while many Christians have left the area, those that have remained are experiencing a tremendous harvest. They have been able to meet as a church and have planted another church. Both are now of the size that we would consider “mega”. Most of the believers there are fairly new believers. The government, if we can say that it has been dictatorial, is nevertheless being used by God to protect these believers such that there are new believers boldly walking down the streets proclaiming Christ openly, knowing that any of their former religion could come out and kill them at any moment. If they can do that, we can have that kind of boldness here in the face of increasing corruption and persecution. That’s where the church in the US needs to be.
Jim, you have some proof of your claim that illegals widely vote? Why should they vote and risk drawing attention? How do they do this? I feel you have not thought this through.
They don’t vote on their own. They are enabled by mobilized activists.
Jim, it seems to me that you believe too much of what the ID people tell you. Remember the fellow from PA who said that their ID law would guarantee Mr. Romney (or who ever it was) the majority of the votes in the state? What is a “mobilized activist?” How do they do help illegals to vote?
The most credible article that I have read on voter fraud said that to really make a difference you needed to be an election official. It also pointed out that you generally would need a large number of illegal votes to be sure of making a difference–and that was unlikely to actually happen.
Voting by mail does not seem to have much in the way of ID requirements. I got an application for this during the run-up to the last election. It was from the Rs. They apparently felt that old people were more likely to vote their way.
I have looked up the ID requirements for here in Texas. They were much less strict than I was expecting. If you don’t have an ID but you do have a utility bill with your name and address, you can use that and vote. (And there were some other ways too.) These don’t get much publicity, the picture ID seems to get all the press. I don’t know where you are from, but you might be surprised as to what will let you vote in your state. Google is quick and almost always finds a credible site for this sort of thing.
Bennett, I don’t just believe what the “ID people” tell me without checking the facts and thinking through the issue, as you seem to imply. So let me explain my rationalle: First, I’ve been following voter fraud in general for a few decades now. From more sources than I could ever hope to remember off the top of my head, although Bill Buckley served as a primary source in the 90s: There is plenty of voter fraud that has been identified over the years. It varies from place to place depending on the loopholes available. In some areas, for illegals, one technique is to get names of people known not to vote and use those names. There are places where it was possible to have dead people or imaginary people vote. All you need is an activist manning the entrance. In some places, the law has allowed people to vote in whatever precinct they want. As long as the names aren’t checked, people could vote in multiple locations. Activists would bus people from one precinct to another. But the opportunity exists also to get names from one precinct and have illegals vote in other precincts using those same names. One thing I know is that human nature will exploit any weakness for illicit gain. If I didn’t have a moral compass, I’d be doing it. In fact, I would be doing far more. An friend and I experimented with mass manipulation through propaganda in high school to some degree of success and I’m pretty confident that I could lead a large population of people into civil bondage. The only thing that will keep them free is a well-informed commitment to objective truth. And the activists? There are places online, some are fairly easy to find and some are passed around within known activist communities, where activists can find opportunities to do things like protest or call radio programs. These places also work during an election to direct people to serve in going door-to-door and get people to vote, buss them from location to location, handle false names, work at various precinct polls to allow people to vote who shouldn’t legally vote, handle voting data with compromised equipment, etc. Okay, so armed with this knowledge I approach the current debate with this mindset: anything any pundit or politician says is suspect, regardless of what side they are on. One side or… Read more »
Jim, well let’s start with the easy stuff. I mentioned before the official in PA who said that their voter ID law would assure his side (R) of the majority of votes in (I think) the 2012 election. The reason that the Ds complain about ID is exactly this logic. Just as the Rs feel requiring an ID gives them an advantage, the Ds feel that they would be at a disadvantage. So they complain loudly. I thought about trying to write a rebuttal to most of your points, but decided that was fruitless. I will stick to the minimalist approach–logic. 🙂 There was a lady in Ohio who boasted that she had voted several times in 2012. She was sentenced to 5 years in prison and actually served about 8 months. She was apparently not tried using Federal rules which could have resulted in a longer sentence. This is a high price to pay for a few extra votes for a candidate. While this does not seem to be taken to court often, there is a possibility that it can happen. There are a variety of Google things that pop us but this seemed to me to be the most credible report. The other thing that I will bring up is the “holler factor.” In the first paragraph, I mentioned that the Ds had complained loudly–and there can be no doubt of this. There is little, credible, “loud complaining” about voter fraud. The actions that you talked about are pretty obvious. It seems to me that if they were actually being used that there would be photo examples of it happening and loud complaints by the “other side.” Mr. Trump has “preemptively complained” and promised that there will be lots of “watchers” to inhibit fraud. We will see if they have valid/provable complaints. Even in states with no photo ID rules, there are still some rules. In my case (I have a photo ID and as I recall, I show it) there is also registration. I show a registration card and some person where I vote finds my name on their lists. As one article I read points out: to have a significant effect on an election, you need to be an election official. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/poll-nearly-half-of-americans-say-voter-fraud-occurs-often/ This is a good article on the subject. There is a lot of faith that fraud occurs often, but in reality there does not… Read more »
Nate:
Thanks for reading and commenting.
No need to be hyper-technical.
I found the Clinton speech absolutely fascinating. Right down to the use of the phrase “illegal alien.” Trump or Cruz could have spoken those words – word for word.
My intent was not to limit the discussion to illegal immigration only.
Because, for many, from a strictly moral standpoint it may be hard for some to discuss illegal immigration (enforcing existing laws) without then touching on what those laws should be.
For example, the issue of deportation is simply the enforcement of existing laws. A violation of existing laws as they are currently written (by illegal entry or overstaying one’s visa) subjects one to deportation.
And some people may be very firm about enforcing existing law, but lax about immigration standards generally.
I am interested in hearing anyone’s thoughts about those issues. But you are right to point out that one should be clear when stating a position on one or the other.
Times do change and so does political correctness. Not sure there are many people even democrats who favor open boarders. Our problem is not the boarder, but what causes people to want to cross a desert, barb wire, and police patrols to seek employment and a better life. The same thing that most of our great grandparents desired back in the 1890 to 1910 when our immigrant population (legal or illegal) population was about what it is now (14%). When we talk about jobs, what job are you wanting that is filled by an immigrant (legal or illegal)? This is an economic problem for both the US and Mexico/Central America. However, as mentioned by several others the church is call to love our neighbor, even if he is digging our swimming pool or if she is pressing our suits!