Comments

I too feel that the current bill is mostly an inadequate answer to our current situation.

I'm disheartened to hear that evangelicals poll higher than the rest in opposing legalization. You would think our principals of compassion, forgiveness, and "heavenly citizenship" would make a difference in our approach.

Who are these Christians Against Forgiveness and Christians Against Compassion?

I too am saddened to hear about this polling. It is certainly not that way at my Baptist Church.

I would also note that a number of Evangelical leaders have spoken up in favor of a comprehensive approach.

Evangelicals have always been the backbone of anti-immigrant movements, back to the glory days of the northern KKK of the 1920s and the Know-Nothings from before the Civil War. So our current stance (which is reflect in my upper Midwest church) is deplorable, but not at all surprising.

It is sad to learn that polls would show evangelicals to be less sympathetic to the plight of immigrants than other Americans. Many of the evangelical denominations came into being as 'safe havens' for immigrants.

It is also short-sighted for evangelicals to respond this way, because the fastest growing sectors of born-again, Spirit-filled Christianity in the U.S. are among the new immigrants. Many of the 'illegals,' then, are us!

Laws must be followed and enforced, and breaking the law is morally wrong.

Each human is precious in God's sight, and we are to treat them humanely and show them God's love.

It is a clash of two equally valid Christian values, that of being honest and obeying authority, and that of loving your neighbor as yourself. It's a difficult issue, for moral reasons as well as economic and security reasons. What would Jesus say? Who knows--perhaps a combination of "do unto others...," "go and sin no more," "rend unto Caesar," "bless the little children" and "pull the log out of your own eye first." But one thing I feel confident he would not do: leave poor immigrants with no protection, health care or education. And I don't think he would whip up hate and fear. If evangelicals can't bring themselves to model Christ, couldn't they at least try to act more like the early Christians in the Bible and approach this difficult issue with some humility and love?

I heartily disagree, Patrick, that the immigration problem presents a clash of two "equally" Christian values. Nothing in Christianity requires us to ignore national borders for the sake of reducing human suffering. If we cannot discriminate in determining who gets to immigrate to American, then the whole world might as well be invited.

This is why all the real-world arguments about the pros and cons of immigration are wasted on the immigration proponents. They don't care about how the open-borders project will affect America, because they don't care about America. America serves a purely subordinate and instrumental role in their scheme of things. Membership in America--or rather America itself, with all its goods, all its greatness, everything it has every been--is the value that we hand over to non-Americans, especially to suffering third-world residents, and by handing it over to them, we demonstrate our belief that our common humanity is more important than our nationality.

Such philosophy is mad.

DiverCity, who said anything about ignoring national borders? Or about taking away the right of the US to "discriminate in determining who gets to immigrate to American," as you put it? Please actually read posts before you respond to them.

Patrick, I obviously did read your post, and even quoted from it. You contend that two equally Christian values are obeying the law and being compassionate. But applied to the immigration question they are a false dichotomy. Your platitudinous "spirituality" notwithstanding, the issue is not between allowing immigration (your notion of humane treatment) and requiring adherence to the law (border security and a refusal to reward illegal immigrants with access to costly health care, "protection," or education -- again, as you put it).

Well, which is it? Is America subordinate to our feel-good motivation to elimate human suffering and provide education, "protection," and health care for every soul on earth? How about persons who are already Americans who need health care? Amorphous platitudes don't do anything for me. I like to hear real answers.

DiverCity:

Again, did I write that our injunction to treat our fellow human beings humanely necessarily requires us to liberalize our immigration laws and to look the other way on illegal immigration? No, I did not write that, though somehow you seem to have read it. But I do believe that we are called to treat those already here in a humane manner. As far as I'm concerned, we can and should strengthen the borders. But I continue to be unimpressed with evangelical calls to send all of those illegally here back to their own countries (impossible anyway) or to strip their children of health care and public schooling. If you want stricter border enforcement, that's fine, but if you want to punish thousands of families that are already here by jeopardizing their well-being, then just come out and say it. That's the dichotomy I refer to: what do we do with those families who are already here, according to the two Christian principles I named at the outset.

The notion of deporting illegal aliens is a red herring. There is no realistic way to do so, and no legitimate commentator on the subject raises it as a possibility. Boiled to its essence, the Catholic Church's position is open borders globalism, albeit without all the political ramifications of the secular globalist's ideology. Many progressive evangelicals' position on the question is identical.

Hence, the real question is what to do about enforcement -- that is, do we as a nation enforce the laws on the books? The same people in the Bush administration who contend that we can win a war in Iraq say simultaneously that there's no way to protect the border. Both statements are lies.

So, to the extent I misread your position, cast, as it was, in the language of open borders enthusiasts, I will gladly recant my criticism if you likewise would agree with me that the problem of illegal aliens in this country would disappear over time if the government merely enforced current law with respect to employing illegals and strengthening border security.

Actually, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm glad you mentioned the problem of employers hiring illegal immigrants, because in general the strategies discussed seem to focus more on the immigrants themselves rather than on those who provide the motivation for them to come in the first place. And I believe the real problem here is not so much the humanitarian Catholic clergy or the Methodist human rights activists, but the companies that are making huge profits by hiring illegals and paying them a pittance while violating their dignity and well-being. The government does not adequately go after those employers, and in fact has offered the abominable guest-worker proposal as a compromise to those employers. All the guest worker program does is ensure a continuous supply of workers who don't have the same rights or labor protections as regular American workers, but our political leaders have offered that to keep their wealthy contributors mollified.

My own take on this is to scrap any idea of a guest worker program, provide those who are here a path to citizenship (since they will be here anyway and it's worse for everyone if they remain illegal), and make it slightly easier for people to migrate here legally to reduce the motivation to come here illegally. I don't have a problem at all with increasing legal immigration as long as we can effectively stem illegal immigration.

I also agree with you that effective border patrol should not be that difficult and it is certainly not unreasonable to expect a country to control its own borders. At the same time, we can take a humanitarian approach to those who are already here (vetting out criminals and terrorists, of course) by letting them become part of the system, be hired legally, pay taxes and have the same protections and rights we enjoy.

Criticism is hereby recanted. There is a veritable vortex of mendacity when it comes to those who advocate for the pending immigration bill. On one side there are the welfare statists who want to see their constituency enlarged. On the other side of the equation are the big business, mass employer, cheap labor interests who desire to keep wages low for all unskilled laborers. Wages are thus unnaturally depressed for unskilled Americans.

If the latest Great Wave of immigrants is not allowed to be absorbed by the economy, which can only happen if the borders are secured, then despite what the op-ed writers at the Wall Street Journal say, we're in a big heap of trouble given the disparity in incomes that will only increase.

Aren't we as believers called to look to a heavenly kingdom? Nationality and nationalism are thus opposed to truly following Christ. Also, one of the key points of the old testament, as well as that of Christ was to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick. By rejecting the immigrants and turning our backs on the poor we are showing a fundamental misunderstanding and misreading of the Bible. The law of love and compassion, the heavenly law, must always come before 'earthly' laws.