Alexia Salvatierra: Sanctuary Breaks An Unjust Law
Why would a congregation risk prosecution to provide sanctuary to an immigrant family? Why would a pastor decide that people who have broken laws deserve protection, support, and advocacy?
When I was doing missionary work in Southeast Asia, I attended a service in a language that I didn’t speak. At a certain point, I discerned that they were saying the Lord’s Prayer. It was an amazing moment; I felt the depth of our connection as brothers and sisters in Christ, beyond all of our differences. When we got to the line, “Forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors,” I was struck by the insight that one of the deepest roots of our connection is the common experience of God’s mercy. While we were yet sinners ... while we did not deserve forgiveness … before we had any capacity to repent ... someone loved us enough to die for us. Someone had compassion on us—literally “com” (with) and “passion” (feeling)—someone felt with us, felt our pain as if it was his pain, our hopes and dreams as if they were his hopes and dreams.
Sanctuary is an act of compassion, an expression of mercy. It is, however, not mercy at the expense of justice. Participants in the New Sanctuary Movement believe that our current immigration system is profoundly unjust—so unjust that we believe that we are facing one of those unique moments throughout history when divine law and human law are in conflict and God’s justice demands that we stand with those who break unjust laws even at the risk of sharing their punishment. Sanctuary is not only about mercy; it is also about justice.
But for many of us, the decision to provide sanctuary is rooted in the impulse of the heart to love as we have been loved—to hear the cries of Liliana and Joe and Mae and Jose and Juan and Jean’s children and respond with compassion.
Yet, the act of sanctuary is more than simple charity. What we do with someone who has broken into our house only to go on to clean it, take care of our garden, remodel the deck, watch over the children, and cook us dinner? We read in Hebrews that those of us who provide hospitality have entertained angels unaware. To offer sanctuary is to recognize that the strangers in our midst are blessing us, in clear and mysterious ways. May we respond with the hospitality that we have received.
Rev. Alexia Salvatierra is the Executive Director of CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice), an organization of religious leaders in Los Angeles county who support low-wage workers in their struggle for a living wage, health insurance, fair working conditions, and a voice in the decisions that affect them.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Nice post. Well stated. Now let the fireworks begin.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 10, 2007 4:03 PM
May God bless you, Rev. Alexia and your congregation, for taking these individuals under your wing.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 10, 2007 4:07 PM
The "broke in to your house" analogy places the discussion too much in the protectionists' paradigm. It assumes that somehow the territorial United States are "our" house. But they are not.
If an individual or a corporation own a piece of property what prevents them from selling that property to another individual, regardless of nationality? They will sell if the price is right.
(A quick aside here... housing prices started to fall just as immigration became a central issue again. I wonder how many immigrants have purchased houses, but afraid that they might be deported and lose their property have decided to liquidate, and how many have decided to postpone purchase, pending the resolution of the issue. This would drive demand and prices downward...)
There is no collective house being robbed. Immigrants move here just like you or I might move from California to Colorado. Are we invading? Or are we just relocating for a better job? If we squat on someone else's land we are trespassing, but if we pay rent, we are within the law. If we agree to work for a certain wage, even if it is much less than the current workers of a region, are we doing anyone harm? We are merely competing. And our customers (aka bosses) are much happier for it, and so are their customers (aka you and me).
I am currently looking into refugee relocation ministries. Many have serve people coming from Vietnam and other places in Asia. I am personally interested in rescue operations taking people voluntarily out of the path of genocide and political persecution. Most of the others can get here themselves if we just let them.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | July 10, 2007 6:51 PM
I would be interested in Rev. Salvatierra's explanation of why she thinks the current immigration law is unjust.
Posted by: Gordon | July 10, 2007 7:51 PM
The main piece of this argument is the foundation it the person(s) were here legally or not. Then the idea of sanctuary can be properly discussed.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2007 9:12 PM
moderatelad
I could not make heads nor tails of that last post.
I think the gist of her argument is that if a person is considered "illegal" only because they have broken an unjust law, we the, "Community of Faith" are upholding justice even as we give mercy and provide sanctuary.
I would go one step further and say that if we have unjust laws or even laws that just don't make sense and do not work, we should work to change those laws.
When we do so we will be merciful as well as just. Until then we are neither and all of our crying about some people being here "illegally" is just hypocrisy.
Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:04 PM
Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:04 PM
Until then we are neither and all of our crying about some people being here "illegally" is just hypocrisy.
So - if my little community of faith deems that a law or ruling on the books is wrong we can subvert the justice system in the US and it would be OK? Oh yeh - that will be accepted by everyone - it is poor assessment of how a soceity that claims to value the rule of law to operate. If you feel the law is wrong - work to change it so that you are not breaking it. I have helped several people immigrate to this country in the past 15 years. They all came legally, paid the feels - signed the papers and are not law abiding tax paying citizens. It is insluting that others should be allow to circumvent the system just because they could walk accross a river undetected.
Have a nice day...
.
Posted by: moderatelad | July 11, 2007 12:32 PM
This article leaves me with a lot of questions. The first is, what is this injustice that you speak of?
Is it the manner in which the law is being applied to specific persons? If that's the case I might have some sympathy for what Salvatierra is doing.
If you read the USA Today article you will see that soem of the people ICE is going after are illegals who have committed no crimes other than illegal entry. Most of us who support enforcement want to see stepped up workplace enforcement, while deportation is reserved for those who commit further crimes in the US.
At any rate I've never said we shouldn't make some exceptions and if the church wants to provide assistance to particular individuals who warrant lenient treatment or amnesty that's perfectly understandable.
But if Salvatierra views any result other than blanket amnesty as an outrage then we are back to all the old arguments.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 11, 2007 12:57 PM
I too would like to know what is the unjust law that the author of the post is talking about. Is it the law that says someone can't enter the United States except by legal means? Or is she arguing that the punishment for breaking a just law (the one I mentioned in the previous sentence) is disproportionate to the crime? She needs to be more clear.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2007 1:20 PM
The law should be limited to protecting individuals' rights and enforcing contracts. What individual right is violated when someone from across a boarder moves in, pays rent, and starts to work. Who's rights have been violated? No one's.
The law which limits the number of immigrants allowed into the US is unjust. It gives a power to the state which protects poor performers from competition, to the detriment of individuals with greater merit. It forces decisions to be made according to an arbitrary, man-made credential, where you were born, instead of according to ability.
Why should there be a barrier to entry into the US? What Biblical or philosophical justification can any of you protectionists offer? None. All any of you can provide is self-interested fear for your jobs and comfort, fear of competition. I believe self-interestedness can be a useful tool indirecting most decisions, but I balk once an individual is willing to utilize the coercive powers of the state to attain their goals.
There is enough room for the entire world to come live in America, and there's enough food, too. Reject any Malthusian fears of overpopulation and welcome the opportunity to do business with a broader market.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | July 11, 2007 4:30 PM
Juris is essentially correct. I would also add that the very notion of a sovereign nation-state with borders is a relatively modern notion. Migration from one area to another has been part of human history since the beginning of human history. This is simply another migration, and one that we will be unable to stop; better to rewrite the laws to allow us to accommodate and manage it.
We as citizens have an interest in protecting ourselves from people who would do us harm, This is the logical reason for border security, not to keep people out who only want to try and earn a living for their families.
I can't speak for Rev. Alexis, but I believe that the law she sees as unjust is the law that would tear someone away from his or her family just because that person is "undocumented." If that is what she means, I fully agree with her.
I would add that by offering sanctuary, her congregation is not breaking laws--historical and moral laws, that it. Offering sanctuary has been part of the church's mission for a very long time.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 11, 2007 5:46 PM
The first line in the last paragraph should have read:
"I would add that by offering sanctuary, her congregation is not breaking laws--historical and moral laws, that IS."
D
Posted by: Don | July 11, 2007 5:48 PM
When you were in grammar school, did you learn about the Underground Railroad? That was illegal.
Posted by: Hali | July 11, 2007 5:59 PM
No law that prevents someone from finding work, feeding their family, being human, is, can or will ever be just. I don't care how many rules you make, or how much you rant about the rule of law, enforcing rules like these is unjust Wolverine.
Finding out who a person is and if they intend harm before entry is fine.
Manage the border don't build fences just to keep you feeling safe.
Posted by: | July 11, 2007 7:03 PM
No law that prevents someone from finding work, feeding their family, being human, is, can or will ever be just. I don't care how many rules you make, or how much you rant about the rule of law, enforcing rules like these is unjust Wolverine.
I will second that one!
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 11, 2007 9:00 PM
The law which limits the number of immigrants allowed into the US is unjust
I work for the Ferries here in Washington State . We have laws that limit the number of people whom can take a boat . Its unsafe for all when that number is breached . The same logic is used for our safety and safety of those coming in regards to immigration . Including the "children" and future children , and their children . Have you ever considered you are hurting more people in the long run with a temporary support of illegal immigrints . Your compassion reminds me of allowing a child to go without medicine because it taste bad . In the short run you are a hero , but you do your child no good .
In regards to how many people our commerce, utilities , schools , and police can protect . Its common sense to make sure we all can handle the incoming people , so future incoming people can come to the same higher quality of living systems .
The point is if you do not agree with that logic regardless, why should you obey any laws you don't understand or agree with that you feel are unjust ? Limiting the numbers iof people coming here is one of the most justified laws we have in my opinion , it insures we will always be able to accept more people . Your method promotes worse schools , gang warfare , drug abuse that the police can not handle , and a host of other social and fiancial difficulties for illegal and legal citizens .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 11, 2007 9:09 PM
"The point is if you do not agree with that logic regardless, why should you obey any laws you don't understand or agree with that you feel are unjust ? Limiting the numbers iof people coming here is one of the most justified laws we have in my opinion , it insures we will always be able to accept more people."
So in order to make sure we can always take in those we want, we exclude those with need. And it is all "just" because we made a law that said it was.
Mick you are astounding!
No law that makes it illegal to work and feed your family can be just. It really is that simple.
The big lie about our being overrun is also "just" that.It cannot be that a nation of over 300 million is being ruined by 12 million hard working people. It is totally unreasoned fear and scapegoating. Wake up and smell the coffee. You live in the richest safest place on the planet. You really are okay! The big bad brown guys are just a dream Mick!
Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:07 PM
Mick
I would certainly hope that if you thought a law was unjust, and because of this law people were being separated from families and children from their mothers, you would disobey, even violate that law.
If you would not I find no logic in your faith or no faith in your logic.
Even Thomas Jefferson said he would do so and he framed much of our most basic laws.
So I ask you;
why should you obey any laws you feel are unjust?
It is one of the ways unjust laws are changed.
Posted by: wayne | July 12, 2007 12:26 AM
Sanctuary offerinf is a sacred law, not made by lawyers but by people who believe in a higher good than individual interest.
Regardless of how one can change an unjust law - it is very difficult - one should behave according to one's conscience - and be prepared to pay the price.
I give 2 examples:
1)the 8 hour work per day was achieved and written in law after many women workers shed their blood during protest - in a factory in the USA, back in the 19th century. Otherwise, working people would still be forced to work until they fell from exhaustion - it is still happenning nowadays in western countries.
2)The Bostom Tea Party.
I could mention other examples of struggle aagainst unjust laws: like Mahatma Gandhi' resistance and struggle against the British empire occupation of India.
Now the facts of the immigration context:
1) The world is overpopulated and resources are not unlimited. There are many people in hunger. Those who try their luck to escape poverty, misery, persecution and try to migrate are courageous people, the type that is able to start again, to endure perils in the hope to live better.
2) Many western economies use the work force of migrants to thrive: paying lower wages, exploiting their work.
3) If the wages were just and equal for the same type of work, many nationals would keep their jobs. There is unfair competition.
Posted by: Walker | July 12, 2007 6:42 AM
No law that prevents someone from finding work, feeding their family, being human, is, can or will ever be just. I don't care how many rules you make, or how much you rant about the rule of law, enforcing rules like these is unjust Wolverine.
So I assume you will also be opposed to minimum wage increases, high business taxes, or impractical workplace safety regulations that stunt job creation and prevent people from finding work?
Or will you protest incompetence and corruption in the Mexican government that stifles their economy and destroys jobs down there as well?
Your condemnation of job-destroying legislation is admirably broad, but your application is quite selective. Why does it seem that the US is the only nation to which you apply this standard of justice? Is it your position that the US is obligated to employ anyone who cannot find work in their native countries?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 9:38 AM
Wolverine
Why is it you always use misdirection. You are not Houdini and should stay on topic.
Please show us how it is illegal to want to work.
How it is illegal to cross a line on a map.
How it is illegal do so because it is the only way possible and all the laws prohibit you coming any other way.
How it is illegal to feed yourself and provide for your family by working
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 10:23 AM
to the above poster
Wow great questions. I think people that are unwilling to break unjust laws don't have the courage of their convictions. I am grateful for the underground railroad and the role the Catholic church played in breaking those laws. It is also fills me w/ joy to see that there are some churches that look out for the immigrant, regardless if they are here illegally or not.
I think as long as people are doing good work, providing for their family and looking out for the common good of their community they should be allowed to stay. Not only that but this is a justice issue. As for Mexico I am not a Mexican. I have no say in how their government runs. But I do have a little say in how this one runs. I think it should be run compassionately and realistically.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 11:59 AM
Misdirection? Off topic? Look, I was just asking you if you took your own rhetoric seriously.
You set forth all these big moral obligations, they sound very noble, but on their own terms they go way beyond immigration. I just want to know if you actually mean anything by the words you are using.
If the questions aren't relevant, than neither is your overblown rhetoric.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 12:26 PM
Wolverine
You pretend very well, but instead of all this indignant bravado about rhetoric just answer the question and stop trying to avoid the issue here.
The concept of treating someone with human kindness is not overblown rhetoric, it is very basic ethics.
How is it right to make it illegal to seek work so you might feed your family?
How is is legal to separate a mother from her children?
With all your emphasis on "the rule of law" how is it legal to separate American citizen children from their mother? Is the fact that, by our own law she violated a civil misdemeanor and has committed no actual criminal offense, your only justification for this?
Just try it Houdini and stop the magic tricks.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 12:59 PM
I work for the Ferries here in Washington State . We have laws that limit the number of people whom can take a boat . Its unsafe for all when that number is breached . The same logic is used for our safety and safety of those coming in regards to immigration . Including the "children" and future children , and their children . Have you ever considered you are hurting more people in the long run with a temporary support of illegal immigrints . Mark Sheldon
Uh, your analogy fails on one minor point- the US is a wee bit bigger than the ferry you work on and we are not anywhere near capacity.
"Your compassion reminds me of allowing a child to go without medicine because it taste bad . In the short run you are a hero , but you do your child no good." Mark Sheldon
Your compassion reminds me...of nothing...because I don't see any on your part. Also, your analogy again fails. That's why we have childrens medicine and it apparently tastes pretty good- just ask my five-year-old.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 12, 2007 1:10 PM
"I work for the Ferries here in Washington State . We have laws that limit the number of people whom can take a boat."
And to ditto Sarasotakid, We do not have laws that say who can take the ferry or that because you live in Oregon or Idaho, you are prohibited from taking the ferry.
Come on Mick. Surely you can think better than that.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 1:24 PM
This demonstrates the problem. As long as it is framed around nebulous negative euphemisms like "Illegals" or even "undocumented" we can feel so self righteous and just. It looks as if we are being "good Patriotic Americans" when we demand the deportation of these people.
On the other hand whenever we are forced to out a face and a personal story to the argument the reality comes out.
Our laws are the problem. They are flat wrong.
Manage the border. Allow for workers to come in legally. Check everyone for possible dangers and even disease as we use to do in years past. Protect the borders against the real criminals like drug smugglers etc.
Realize our laws and our laxity at watching and managing the border has caused us to criminalize behavior that is merely human and in any other context absolutely laudable. Decriminalize those who came here without papers. Fine them if you must but get the problem out of our hair and stop persecuting and endlessly pursuing minor crimes as if they were felonies.
Posted by: wayne | July 12, 2007 1:59 PM
With respect to those who favor extending sanctuary, I don't think this is the opinion of majorities of Americans (and yes, I know that majorities can sometimes be wrong).
My mother, who is more liberal than me on virtually every issue, listens to Lou Dobbs religiously about the immigration issue. Her rationale is that her father came to America from Norway legally, so the current generation of immigrants ought to obey the same laws.
Myself, I favor some aspects of the recent, failed immigration bill. I would like to see a path to citizenship for undocumented workers coupled with a crackdown on employers that hire them illegally, particularly large employers such as Walmart.
But I do take issue with those who say that undocumented workers do no damage to our society. Ask someone whose Social Security number was stolen and sold to an undocumented worker how they feel about it.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 2:15 PM
That was me who posted the above comment. I meant to sign my name.
Posted by: Alicia | July 12, 2007 2:18 PM
Ask someone whose Social Security number was stolen and sold to an undocumented worker how they feel about it.
And the whole associated fake document black market it produces.
Then there's the fact that they are here illegally, which makes it impossible to get a driver's license, so they drive illegally and without the financial responibility of insurance. Of course that just makes doing everything else illegally that much easier.
Then there's the overburdened county healthcare and school systems, which are further strained by all the wages being paid to illegals that are not properly taxed.
When a latino walks into a retail store and expects the store/clerks to have someone who speaks spanish, then we know there is a problem with integration, and the more we accomodate them, the more they expect; that whole liberal sense of entitlement and all.
And finally, all those mustaches, I mean come on!
Posted by: aaron | July 12, 2007 2:36 PM
Aaron
I am going to reply the same way I did to wolverine.
Answer the question about our laws.
If we gave them SS numbers they wouldn't need to fake one or steal one. If we allowed them drivers licenses they might get one and who knows they might even be insured.
So in the words of Stephen the crazy Irishman in Brave Heart (and illegal alien I might add) "THE ALMIGHTY SAYS, 'STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT AND ANSWER THE @@#$$@ ING QUESTION!'"
What is illegal about working to feed your family?
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 2:45 PM
To be fair there are plenty of Americans that steal identities. There are also plenty of families that work really hard to do good. Why do people ignore that?
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 2:48 PM
How it is illegal to cross a line on a map.
It's one of the implications of living in a world of nation states -- countries control their borders and have some discretion as to who comes in and for how long. Maybe it wasn't always that way, but that's how things are now.
How it is illegal do so because it is the only way possible and all the laws prohibit you coming any other way.
This sentence makes little sense. If the law prohibits something it is illegal. It is illegal to cross the US border without going through customs. It is illegal to cross into Mexico without going through Mexican customs. It is illegal to enter Canada without going through Canadian customs.
And "all the laws" don't "prohibit you coming another way". There is another way: legal immigration. Ever heard of it?
How it is illegal to feed yourself and provide for your family by working
I dunno, did you ever ask the government of Mexico why so many of their people cannot find work in their home country, where they don't have to enter illegally and where they speak the language?
I mean, doesn't Mexico bear some responsibility to its own citizens?
Oh, I keep forgetting, the US is the only country that has any moral obligations. And when it fails to live up to your standards there's gonna be hell to pay. Silly me.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 2:50 PM
I have No problem with saying that others have come to our country the LEGAL way. There should be no OTHER discussion. WHY in the world would we open our borders, cities, etc. for anyone coming here unlawful, when other's have NOT broken the law, coming here. They do NOT want to learn English, they do not want nor have to pay for their school breakfasts, lunches and bus rides home, where they deface the buses, schools, etc. Our little clean towns are now filled with graffiti and gangs. My taxes and social security are now going to people that haven't shared in paying for their free welfare. I see nothing Christian about that.We have dogs & cats running wild, yards next to us destroyed, several cars in front of the homes at night now. The quality of life we once enjoyed is gone. WHY would I vote for amnesty?
Posted by: Alex | July 12, 2007 3:35 PM
Powerful business interests in the U.S. and Mexico are well served by hiring and oppressing illegal immigrants. I would rather have democratic nation states in control than large corporations I can have no say in. We need to get our govenment to focus on the businesses that are getting amnesty for breaking laws in existence that prevent hiring illegals.
Welocming immigrants and providing sanctuary may seem the right thing to do. Mass illegal immigration into our country, however, creates a safety valve that perpetuates the power of autocratic governments. Insteaad picket the employers who hire and exploit illegal immigrants. Require enforcement of employer fines. Join with others to develop the right to unionize across national borders. Work to repeal NAFTA which has impoverished Mexican communities.
Religious groups should take on the bigger issues -- the economic ones, the trade and transnational one -- that are creating this human misery.
Father Theodore Hesburgh's 1986 Select Commission on Immigration called immigration "out of control." The Hesburgh Commission warned of special interests, including religious ones, supporting illegal immigration. Some of this is an altruistic goal of helping the fellow humans, but there is also a self-serving motive. Religious groups see the influx of immigrants is a source of new members.
Sadly, the long-term result of mass immigration will be more poverty here and in Latin America.
Posted by: Jen | July 12, 2007 3:59 PM
The problem with illegal immigration is that the cause lies with Mexico and the Mexican people.The Mexican BOD(births over deaths) rates are responsible for the poverty in Mexico and it is in part due to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Mexican government and the Mexican people need to fix Mexico's excessive BOD rate. Importing the consequences of Mexico's BOD poverty and the crime and disease that ensue from same is not a problem that can be solved by the United States. Indeed,massive immigration will only bring Mexico's misery to the USA.
Read Malthus. This a world problem. Too many people for the carrying capacity of this small planet. Birth control or famine. Mexico's choice!
Posted by: Willilam Hall | July 12, 2007 4:15 PM
Alex:
Perhaps the reason they are coming here illegally is that they can't immigrate legally.
From a post of mine on an earlier thread:
A scientific poll of undocumented Latino immigrants that was taken in October 2005 by Bendixen and Associates for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research revealed the following:
1. 60% of the people polled were Mexican; 18% were from Central America; 19% were from South America; 3% were from the Dominican Republic.
2. 92% work at least part time; 75% work full time 3. Only 23% said they could speak English "well" or "very well," but 98% WANT TO LEARN English.
(Did you catch that, Alex? 98% want to learn English! Where do you get the nonsense that they don't?)
4. 94% would have entered the US LEGALLY if legal entry had been available to them; 98% would legalize their status if they could.
(Almost all of them, Alex, said they would have entered legally if there had been a way for them to do so.)
5. 81% said that if they could legalize their status in the USA, they would stay here and live as permanent residents.
6. 90% would like to become US citizens.
7. 87% would enroll in English classes as part of a legalization process, if it were available to them. Most were also willing to pay fines and/or back taxes as part of a legalization process.
I don't know where you are getting your "facts," Alex, but they don't seem to square with reality. It might be tough for you to do, but I suggest you try and get to know some of these immigrants. You might find them to be more human than you think they are by lumping them all into one category. What's Christian about your current selfish, unloving attitude?
(The Bendixen poll is available on the National Immigration Forum Web site: http://www.immigrationforum.org/)
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 4:22 PM
There is no reason to give sanctuary to illegal immigrants who don't respect the soveriengty of the United States of America. It is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS that an allegedly "Christian" organization like this would support such a crime against the citizens and taxpayers of this country who have to pay for the wave of ungrateful iullegal immigrants.
Sojourners is an extremely dangerous neo-fascist left-wing group and Mr. Wallis is a FRAUD!!!
Posted by: Dr. Tom Snyder | July 12, 2007 4:23 PM
The last post was mine.
Don
Posted by: Don | July 12, 2007 4:24 PM
Well, the one before Dr. Snyder's was mine.
Dr. Snyder, sovereignty is a recent innovation. See my second post on this thread.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 12, 2007 4:26 PM
Sarasotakid talked about letting the fireworks begin in the very first post. It's taken a while, but it appears that they have arrived with a vengeance.
I'm getting a kick out of "neo-fascist left-wing." If anyone knows a neo-fascist left-winger, please introduce him or her to me!
;-)
D
Posted by: Don | July 12, 2007 4:33 PM
To:Rev:Alexia Salvatierra.
Everything depends on the side were you are looking at. Giving help to people who are fleeing from poverty, mostly, caused by the Superpower nations,is not a crime.We can not"criminalize" such a people that they even, have a third grade of primary school as a background and yet they can't write their languaje very well.
We have a mission in this world given by G-d, who will demand on our actions about helping the "most poor of the poorest".
Taking the example of Mary and Joseph who fleed thei country to a foreign one was not an easy choice for them. They walked in the dessert as the Mexicans do across the Mojave Dessert risking their lives, just for find a "better one".As I mentioned you before, Mary and Joseph came into Egypt without any documentation...they stayed there until Jesus had 12 years and then, they returned to their country Israel.That was the first "christmas" saga, in the mankind history.The story of a couple of immigrants that were running as fugitives, but with dreams of hope, security and better life.As I told you before, it depends on the side were you are looking at.So, let us not the hope of the most poor be taken away!!!
Posted by: William Gonzalez Garcia | July 12, 2007 4:43 PM
Esteemed Fellow-Believer:
There is a publication (new to me) of the American Bible Society, 1865 Bradway, New Yoru, NY 10023 IN SPANISH "RUMBO A UN NUEVO HOGAR, Dios Camina con el inmigrante" which I believe was published in 2002 by Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas. The number seems to be ABS-10/06-1,000- CPI 1. prepared by Aquiles Ernesto Martínez.
It has been a blessing to me and I believe it will be to many immigrants.
We are all "just-a-passin-through this world to our eternal home." May we be good Samaritans and brave DANIELs and NEHEMIAs for God's glory.
Posted by: Patsy Liclan | July 12, 2007 4:45 PM
Wolverine
So your answer to what is illegal about working to feed your family is...
We have a law that says it's illegal!
And we have the right to make such a law because...
we're Americans (God's very own special people)and we are all about "the rule of law". So there!
nananana
hehhehheh
good grief!
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 4:46 PM
clearly there are times when we ought to "obey God rather than men"; however, the burden of proof for such times must remain extraordinarily high, or else christianity becomes and excuse to completely abandon the rule of law in exchange for personal passion. i don't think any of us want individuals or even religious organizations deciding for themselves which laws they will or will not follow. to my mind, that burden has not yet been met in this case, though i'm open to be persuaded. with that in mind, i do believe that current u.s. immigration policy is wrong--based on greed and fear, and not on love. a redeeming factor in this case is the good reverend's willingess to accept legal censure against her for her actions. clearly she is acting out of love, regardless of where the axe does fall.
Posted by: charles | July 12, 2007 4:47 PM
Of course people would enter legally if they could. If I could take $1 million out of a bank legally, I would, too. That doesn't justify robbing a bank. There are lots of things I'd like to do legally, but am unable to do. That doesn't give me a right to break the law.
Illegal immigration benefits large corporations first and foremost. It provides a superficial short-term benefit to the illegal immigrants. And it harms middle- and lower-class Americans by suppressing wages.
I am completely in favor of providing aid to Mexico to improve living conditions there. I am completely in favor of increasing the number of people who are allowed to come here legally.
But to claim that there should be no limits on the number of people who come here is just unreasonable.
Every country on earth limits the number of people it allows to enter and puts criteria. Yes, we are obligated to be charitable to others. But our government's first obligation is to its own citizens.
Posted by: Rich | July 12, 2007 4:47 PM
I respect everyone's opinion in this matter because this is a difficult issue. It is my belief that by enabling illegal immigrants to remain here and by blatantly breaking the laws of this country we are taking advantage of our brothers and sisters that are here illegally. We are simply allowing businesses to take advantage of this cheap labor, therefore, not helping them at all. They are becoming stuck in this new form of slavery.
Posted by: Russell | July 12, 2007 4:54 PM
Rich, I would assume you would take that million dollars if you could, but out of convenience, because it would be nice to have it.
The illegal migrant doesn't come her out of convenience, but out of desperation. The point is that we need to make a legal avenue for these folks to enter the country and work. Yes, we need to do what we can do to make conditions in Mexico (and elsewhere--look again at the list of places those polled came from). But there are limits to what we can do. And endemic corruption in many of these places makes it difficult for real economic growth to take place.
I don't favor illegal immigration, but it's going to continue if we do nothing. We must make the immigration laws reflective of reality.
Peace!
Posted by: Don | July 12, 2007 5:00 PM
One of the elements of "respecting the governing authorities" is that you obey their laws concerning an orderly society. Laws governing borders are part of that orderly society; it is the government's job, first and foremost, to make sure that borders are protected and monitored. This was even before nation-states (e.g. Egypt) and has never before been considered to be an "unjust law." Immigration is not a right, and therefore no rights are broken if immigration is limited.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | July 12, 2007 5:03 PM
I am so conflicted on this issue---I live in a small California town with ALOT of migrant field workers, and I have seen both sides. I do see those that live off of welfare, don't learn English, and we have the gangs too. But I also see the super hard workers, who do the jobs no American born white person would do, and they do them with a smile and thankfulness in their hearts. I see them lined up at the B of A, trying to send money back to their families who would be destitute without it. And a large majority of them have such a large and expansive faith that I can only envy.
It's true that my instincts for self-preservation rear up when I see such a volume of illegal immigrants crossing our borders, but my instinct for compassion and understanding seems to be more powerful in the long run (thanks be to God).
I don't know what to do about making sure that all immigrants speak English and that they support themselves---but I don't know what to do about ignorant and lazy white folk either. I don't think that that is the issue here. I think it is about our Christian responsibility to reach out a helping hand to those in need, no matter what the cost to ourselves. Christ did not say help our neighbor only if it doesn't cost us anything. And he also said that even non-Christians love their own, but we are commissioned to love those that are not our own. Oh ye of little faith, who presume to put limits on God, when we honor his commission!
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 5:06 PM
Sorry---the last post was mine
Posted by: Kristi | July 12, 2007 5:08 PM
And we have the right to make such a law because...we're Americans (God's very own special people)and we are all about "the rule of law". So there!
Actually, Americans aren't God's very own special people, but the US is a sovereign nation. So is Mexico, which has similar laws and has at least as much responsibility as the US does to make sure that Mexicans can find jobs and feed their families.
nananana
hehhehheh
good grief!
I got a chuckle out of that. Touche.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 5:08 PM
One of the dynamics that is rarely mentioned in
this debate about amnesty for "illegal" immigrants
is the natural environment. In the short term,
illegal immigration is causing damage to the natural landscape. In Arizona for example, illegal immigrants have damaged a wildlife refuge
through soil erosion, water pollution, and tons of trash.
In the long term, the natural resources of our
nation can not sustain unlimited human growth.
Currently, most of this growth is coming from
immigration, especially illegal immigration.
If we are to be good stewards of the earth,
our nation has a moral right to limit the number
of people entering our nation. In doing so, this does not mean that our nation is racist, xenophobic, or uncaring.
Posted by: Bob Blackburn | July 12, 2007 5:13 PM
My wife came here legally from the Philippines. She waited her turn, studied and passed the test to become a citizen. She has assimilated into OUR culture.
As for 'strangers' coming in to one's home the polite thing is NOT TO BURDEN your host.
These ILLEGALS aren't cooking for me, paiting my house, cutting my grass or anything for me. Yet my wife and I are winding up paying increased taxes to cover their costs for healthcare, which by the way we can't afford for our own family, help pay for their children's education, etc., etc....
As for anybody coming into this country illegally they have broken the law. DEPORT THEM NOW!
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 12, 2007 5:20 PM
The analogy of a robber entering someone else's home is okay with me (because I have no ownership in that person's house) as long as it is NOT my home. America is NOT the private home of Alexia Salvatierra; she shares it with the rest of us and her breaking a law that affects everyone in the US in some manner doesn't help the troubles with illegal immigration (just one of the many illegal things we have to deal with).
Secondly, why does Alexia Salvatierra believe she's above the law (it's obvious that she does)? In the name of God? I think NOT. The terriorist who destroyed the twin towers on 9-11-01 were carrying out this mission in the name of God, weren't they? If those terrorist had tried to enter the US by pleading to Alexia S's religious morals and she helped them, after their mission was complete and Alexia S was dead, the rest of us would still be left to deal with the clean up.
Posted by: Stephanie | July 12, 2007 5:25 PM
The Bible is replete with reminders that we are to be kind and friendly and welcome the "stranger", and to always remember we were once strangers in the land.
Ex 22:21
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Ex 23:9
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
European Americans were the first illegal aliens on this the American continent.
Along with the fatherless, the widows, the maimed, lame and blind, the Bible includes the immigrant and by context, the underpriviledged or poor immigrant (usually illegal), as people we are to seek to embrace and help. They are counted as being God's chief concern. If we remember that we came here uninvited, and did lots of violence to remain here, we will be more sensitive to the plight of those many of whom we displaced.
Where the law of man conflicts with the will of God, the will of God must take precedent and that law be broken. The Apostle Peter spoke to that.
Posted by: Ron | July 12, 2007 5:38 PM
Canadian churches have also offered sanctuary and this week, so also did a mosque. These occur not because people are determined to flout the law by seeking sanctuary or by offerering sanctuary. That people are required to seek sanctuary simply indicates the inadequacy of the immigration law. And remember that not all illegal immigrants come from Mexico.
When our forefathers and mothers came from Ireland during the potato famine or from Eastern Europe before and immediately after World War II, and many other countries at war, were all of their papers always legal? Absolutely not. The Irish driven from their holdings often didn't have papers, so they created some. People desperate to leave countries overrun by the Nazis also created papers that would allow them to leave the country and then, to enter others. They did this because their lives depended on it.
It is certainly possible that Mexicans in the 21st century come for economic reasons; if that's the case, it's important to know that a large reason for Mexican poverty is the free trade agreements that the U.S., Mexican and Canadian governments have signed. Maybe there is a case to be made for Mexican migrants to have priority because of that.
What if the migrants who crossed the border illegally entered the U.S. by way of Mexico but came from Cuba? Would you deport them, too? Or would you treat them differently because of the U.S. policies on Cuba?
Posted by: bren | July 12, 2007 5:43 PM
Those harboring illegal immigrants are breaking the law and thus subject to the penalty of the law. There are good reasons for immigration policies. After all, God created the NATIONS plural, not one ginormous borderless nation. All immigrants should add richness to the melting pot, but not dump half the pot out and replace the same with their old culture. Illegal immigrants should work to fix the country they live in instead of mooching off the neighbors. They should also get in line like everyone other hopeful immigrant. Without immigration policies a country basically becomes just a pieces of land that can be claimed by anyone, and then most likely government collapses. Nations are identities.
Posted by: Newbie | July 12, 2007 5:45 PM
Those of you who proffer only "rule of law" arguments are missing the point: this is an UNJUST law.
Tell me, Wolverine, William, Stephanie et al, what would you have done with Harriet Tubman? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Martin Luther King? They broke the law. Yet history remembers them as heroes, whereas the "law and order" folks in their respective societies were, at the very least, extraordinarily unenlightened (and obviously, this is an understatement).
Posted by: Hali | July 12, 2007 5:45 PM
Stephanie
Alexia does not consider herself above the law. She may very well pay for her actions as well as many others.
She thinks the law is wrong and unjust. Since people like you seem to be in favor of the situation as it stands and therefore we cannot get the law changed in any way, she has decided to disobey the law or put herself in jeopardy of that law.
She is a brave woman, would the nation and the church had more like her.
What are you doing, besides complaining that is?
The same question pertains to all the rest who oppose immigration reform.
If the immigration issue bothers you, demand the Government do something about it now and not wait any longer. Our government's lack of attention to this issue is the reason we are here. No one else is to blame.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 6:00 PM
Hali:
You cannot compare the invasion of 12-20 ILLEGAL ALIENS to Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Martin Luther King.
This is an INVASION I am talking about no matter where they come from.
Those that wish to come here 'legally' are most welcome.
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 12, 2007 6:06 PM
Whoops I meant 10-20 MILLION. Sorry.
As for those churches WILLFULLY BREAKING THE LAW, TAKE AWAY THEIR TAX EXEMPTION STATUS.
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 12, 2007 6:09 PM
I am not a cold-hearted man. I do not wish hunger or deprvation on anyone. But controlling immigration is not unjust, even when there are poor laborers involved. Allowing any and everyone to enter your nation any time they choose without asking permission is impractical and sometimes dangerous. Who needs a burglary metaphor? Let's just change the participants. If any one of you Americans decided to move to England to seek work, would you become scandalized because the authorities asked to see your passport? Would you be outraged if they insisted you have a visa? Would you demand citizenship and the right to vote if you managed to sneak into London? Would you seek sanctuary in Westminster Abbey? I seriously doubt it. Then why should the US be considered unreasonable for making similar demands? Because its fashionable to make the US the bad guy in any difficult situation.
Posted by: Sharp | July 12, 2007 6:09 PM
Hali,
I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to move across national borders at will. You just don't. Nobody does. The world just doesn't work that way any more. You need passports, visas, at a minimum you'll need to check in with customs. And if you want to work in a foreign country you'll need some sort of work permit. It's not just the US. Mexico has border controls too.
Now, in the event of a humanitarian emergency we would have a moral obligation to take in refugees. But that hasn't happened, there's been no countrywide natural catastrophe, no civil war. The economy is a bit retrograde but there's no signs of impending economic collapse, no mass starvation, there are lots of places in the world that are much worse off.
So everybody: take a deep breath.
Since Mexico is nowhere near collapse, the best course of action is to encourage the Mexican government to reform its law and economy so that these people can find work and build lives in their own country. Step one is to help the Mexicans solve their own problems in their own country with their own people and their own resources.
Or they can apply for legal immigration. The US still has one of the world's most liberal immigration laws. It takes a while, but there's no need to rush.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 6:20 PM
payshun and no name, you are not appointed to decide what laws are just and unjust. that is the issue here. the law is the law and a compasssionate supporter of sanctuary would be working hard to get the law changed. supporting illegals is doing harm to them and you and your country. how? they are forced to live as criminals, you are an accomplice to a crime and the country is bogged down in a circular political debate which is exacerbated by the law breaking. your naive approach to helping people is 'sweet' , really nice and probably makes you feel good. rev. alexis has her own reasons for helping this one family and i suspect it is selfserving and political. think about the unintended consequences of your open border ideas. have you no concern for the citizens of this country? do they have the right to manage their country as they see fit? you seem to dismiss how other countries manage themselves. maybe you and other sanctuary people should go to other countries and violate their "unjust" immigration laws so people seeking work can move about more freely.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 6:25 PM
What would I do with:
Harriet Tubman?
Issue an emancipation proclamation. Oh wait, some guy named Lincoln already did that.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer?
As a known opponent of a totalitarian regime at war against the US, Bonhoeffer would certainly qualify for political asylum, an option that remains open for opponents of oppressive regimes today.
Martin Luther King?
Pass a civil rights law. Oh wait, that's been done too.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 6:34 PM
I don't dismiss anything, nor do I think I am above the law. If I find someone who came here to keep their family from extreme poverty, who was being hounded for their doing the same thing you would have done had you been faced with their circumstance, and who came here the only way possible, I will protect them. The fact the you do not like it matters little to me. I will do so because I know no other Christian thing to do, Law or no Law. If it costs me here and now, so be it. The fact of there being a law against something is not proof of the rightness or wrongness of anything.
As far as changing the law I will hold you and those like you responsible for the lack of reform, yet pray you may be forgiven or better yet, repent.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 6:39 PM
William,
You still didn't answer my question. And in order to clarify, it is Alexia and her brethren that I am comparing to Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King.
Wolverine:
I am glad that you would have acted to change the unjust laws that Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King were fighting - although I daresay that it is a bit unrealistic to think that you would be able to take the proposed actions by yourself, as you are neither Lincoln nor Congress. I am sad that you wouldn't have acted to change the injustice that made Dietrich Bonhoeffer a criminal. Now, since they were all lawbreakers, why didn't they belong in jail?
Posted by: Hali | July 12, 2007 6:48 PM
Hali:
Like I wrote before this is an INVASION BY 12-20 million illegal aliens. I know I wrote 10-20 before but you see nobody really knows.
IMO, NOBODY can justify this invasion, biblically or not, by trying to compare Alexia to what the other three may have been involved in.
One things for sure, Alexia is at least a 'socialist' and most probably a 'marxist' as well.
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 12, 2007 7:06 PM
Mr. DeLashmutt:
It's really easy to throw names around, isn't it? Have you talked with Rev. Alexia? Do you really understand her or her congregation's motives for doing the things they are doing?
Remember the old saying about not criticizing someone until you are willing to walk in their shoes for a way.
And I'll ask the same question of you that I asked another poster a few weeks ago:
Why do you have so much fear?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 12, 2007 7:15 PM
Hali,
Tubman and King confronted genuine and severe injustices. What help I could offer them as a private citizen would depend on specific circumstances, but I'd like to think that if I could give them some aid I would.
As for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, he was unfortunately very little anyone in the US could do to help him, as he was under the control of a hostile German government. If he could have somehow gotten himself into US or allied territory we would have almost certainly offered him asylum. Unfortunately for us and the German people allied forces liberated the prison camp where he was held a few days too late. As it was, his loss was one of many crimes committed by the National Socialist regime.
The state of the Mexican economy, while far from ideal, is not dire enough to create a legal or moral right for Mexicans to cross into the US. As I wrote earlier though, we should be ready to make some exceptions, and while I am opposed to a broad amnesty, I am not particularly bothered by Rev. Salvatierra's actions.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 12, 2007 7:35 PM
MILLIONS of illegal immigrants? Pul-leeze. Since no one knows the exact number the use of the word 'millions', in capital letters, feels like fear-mongering to me.
I would love it if people would respond to a question I raised earlier: would you deport illegal migrants from Cuba or only those from Mexico?
Posted by: bren | July 12, 2007 7:43 PM
William, you still haven't answered my question. All you are doing is fearmongering and name-calling. It doesn't work on me... I'm not scared (although, like Don, I would like to know why you're so terribly, terribly, frightened, and I offer you my sympathy because I know it must be an awful feeling)... so I hope you'll decide not to waste your time any further with the invective and give me a straightforward answer.
From her post, I gather that Alexia is a brave Christian woman who is willing, like Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King, to put the needs of others before her own safety. Whatever economic system she prefers has no bearing on it. Again, I'm not scared of, nor do I hate, socialists, Marxists, free-market capitalists, welfare capitalists, anarchists, libertarians, nor any other appelation you can throw out to label someone's politicoeconomic leanings.
So I reiterate my questions, in the context both of your previous "law and order" stance and your subsequent replies:
"what would you have done with Harriet Tubman? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Martin Luther King? They broke the law. Yet history remembers them as heroes, whereas the "law and order" folks in their respective societies were, at the very least, extraordinarily unenlightened (and obviously, this is an understatement)."
and
Why are you so terribly, terribly frightened?
Posted by: Hali | July 12, 2007 7:54 PM
"Uh, your analogy fails on one minor point- the US is a wee bit bigger than the ferry you work on and we are not anywhere near capacity."
That is non sense , how could anyone that has been involved in this issue from either side see how needful some school districts have become of more dollars to handle the demand of the influx of students , especially those having problems with the English language . Schools have enough problems with people such as myself with learning disabilities then dealing with culture and languages outside their expertise .
Your compassion reminds me...of nothing...because I don't see any on your part. Also, your analogy again fails. That's why we have childrens medicine and it apparently tastes pretty good- just ask my five-year-old.
Posted by: Sarasotakid
Obviously you don't know me , don't know what my family personally has done to help those that we speak about here .
Regardless, your comments here speak of you , and the fact debating the issues such as illegal activities need for people like you to stereotype and name call .
Deceit is not compassion . But doing nothing but allowing this situation to go unchanged is detrimental to those in poverty and to those who are not . It is already happened because of the drug trade , gangs and over burden school districts . To bring down the debate that you do not care about the innocent Moms, Dads and kids caught in a very bad situation is quite revealing on you . Those innocent Moms, dads , and children are illegally in the same underground that the drug dealers are . They go to over burden school districts just as the kids of legal residents do . They are in the same ferry boat . To figure a way for them to be here legally and the trouble makers not to be makes sense for all .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 12, 2007 7:58 PM
So I ask you;
why should you obey any laws you feel are unjust?
It is one of the ways unjust laws are changed.
Posted by: wayne
Wayne if I thought the law was unjust I would agree with you . The same law you feel is unjust is also there to keep undesirables from entering our country . The fact perople who hurt others unjustly are also entering , have you any solution for this ? I have never even heard it mentioned by the "compassionate ones"
The Underground RailRoad is an example a person gave as of doing something illegal but was just .
That was a good point I thought . Helping a illegal imigrint who is in need , or personally know to help them I perfectly understand . I woulod agree that is the Christian thing to do .
But to promote laws that allow this sitiuation to go on , where growth can not be planned for is not compassionate from my view , nor Cghristian , its apolitical view , I can respect that , but its not A Christian view from where I sit .
In this liberal state of Washington , we have very strict regulations for future development . Growth is planned upon so to protect the envirnoment mainly .
I made an anology , a good one of a ferry boat being limited to a number of people , after that it becomes unsafe . Well 12 million people is not going to sink America , but if those 12 million go in one area , that is a burden on one area . To ignore that is not reality .
A system that is regulated , and where laws are "obeyed" that take into account growth and the ability for school districts and communities to handle the housing , utilities, etc just makes sense to me . The fact this common sense approach is meeting such anger and self righteousness anger and name calling says more about the poster then their compassion . Perhaps it may be a good idea to make sure imigrints find places to live that economically and easier to live in ? What the heck is wrong with that ?
Its more about an in ability for those who care about people to be able to listen . I refuse to think that if you disagree with me , or support illegal immigration you do not care about people as much as I , or that you are not a Christian because you don't believe in obeying the laws of the land . What spirtual immaturity .
Would it not be better if we could take more then 12 million a year ? My opinion is we have many many ferries who can take the load , not just certain areas where everyone has to get on the same boat .
I look as God as the master designer . We are all his Favorites .that is what the bible teaches I believe . But you still want where people moving here to be able to have them find housing , and the community to have a place for them . That is not happening now .
I don't get the problem you would have with that ? Have you not seen the border areas and places where massive immigration has taken place ?
Those areas are not being accepted into communities , they are off on their own and very much their own community .
Makes sense at all ?
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 8:27 PM
You said:
payshun and no name, you are not appointed to decide what laws are just and unjust. that is the issue here.
Me:
That's your issue. My issue is showing compassion and grace to the immigrant.
You:
the law is the law and a compasssionate supporter of sanctuary would be working hard to get the law changed.
Me:
Did that for a while and I hope to continue to but right now I have more pressing things to think about like work, making sure those here are fed and protecting them from scrupulous people. Can I invite you to do the same?
You:
supporting illegals is doing harm to them and you and your country.
Me:
Myth. I don't buy that them being here is the biggest problem facing this country or that having them here is doing that much damage. But let's get to your points.
You:
how? they are forced to live as criminals, you are an accomplice to a crime and the country is bogged down in a circular political debate which is exacerbated by the law breaking.
Me:
Breaking an unjust law is just. I keep thinking of what my ancestors went thru to be free and I can't help but think that they would be rather proud of me.
You:
your naive approach to helping people is 'sweet' , really nice and probably makes you feel good. rev. alexis has her own reasons for helping this one family and i suspect it is selfserving and political.
Me:
You can suspect what you want. She is not running for office and I doubt the unions are making her rich. Her goals despite your suspicions are about taking care of people.
Please don't trivialize the actual work it takes to love people that are here. It's actual work to make sure they know their rights, to make sure they are not exploited, to provide translators... It takes work and just because you don't want to do it does not make it bad.
You:
think about the unintended consequences of your open border ideas. have you no concern for the citizens of this country?
Me:
Ofcourse I do. I just know something you don't. We have the resources to protect and build our resources while incorporating all those people.
You:
do they have the right to manage their country as they see fit? you seem to dismiss how other countries manage themselves. maybe you and other sanctuary people should go to other countries and violate their "unjust" immigration laws so people seeking work can move about more freely.
Me:
I love this argument. Please notice the sarcasm there. By that token treating the poor like human beings takes a back seat to the law. I always thought that was legalism. Those that follow the law like that are dead spiritually. I seek life and seek to affirm it. I see nothing wrong w/ honoring and healing those that come here. If anything that's just. Oh and by your ideology I am sure you felt that King David should have been killed after being sheltered by the high priest for eating the showbread (that was a captital offense.) I mean seriously those that work here, play here, live their lives here and are actually hard working, decent and kind deserve to be treated w/ respect. What's so hard about that.
Oh and I am not focusing on other countries right now because I need to focus on this one. We need to reform our laws and do right by the poor instead of favoring the rich. Oh and I am all for deporting criminals but the working good people I have met are anything but. Maybe you should work among imigrants for a time to see what I am talking about.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 8:36 PM
Hey William if this is an invasion like you claim this is one of the most peaceful invasions I have ever seen. I live in a border city as a matter of fact. I actually live 45 minutes away from the US-Mexico border and I can tell you I have not seen many mexicans running down my neighborhood street w/ guns booting me out of my house. So please stop w/ the hysterics.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 8:44 PM
Peaceful huh? What about MS-13? Do you have any idea what this gang is all about? Do you have any idea about the violence they perpetrate on anyone that gets in their way?
The only way out of being a member is their death.
I live in Virginia and frequently visit NC. MS-13 is a real problem.
What about TB or MDRTB these people are bringing in here. You might be familiar with TB but do you understand the implications of MDRTB?
TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF!
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 12, 2007 8:50 PM
"Regardless, your comments here speak of you , and the fact debating the issues such as illegal activities need for people like you to stereotype and name call." Mick Sheldon
It was you who spoke down to those who want to help undocumented immigrants (remember...not giving medicine to children..) When you got a taste of your own "medicine", it was a little bitter, wasn't it? I figured that since you were so into medicine, a taste or your own might do you some good.
"Those innocent Moms, dads , and children are illegally in the same underground that the drug dealers are . They go to over burden school districts just as the kids of legal residents do . They are in the same ferry boat." Mick Sheldon
In the same underground that the drug dealers are? Really now? Your grasp of the life of the undocumented astounds me. Maybe "Fairy tale" would be a more apt analogy than "ferry boat."
The fact that you lament schools being overburdened is laudable. Maybe if we weren't spending so much on unjust wars and more on public education, that problem would be alleviated. It certainly seems better than scapegoating undocumented immigrants.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 12, 2007 9:01 PM
"Peaceful huh? What about MS-13? Do you have any idea what this gang is all about? Do you have any idea about the violence they perpetrate on anyone that gets in their way?"
MS-13 was founded in the U.S., exported to Central America and now some of its members are coming back to the U.S. across the border. It is commonly used by anti-immigration reactionaries to create fear in the anglo community and scapegoat the immigrant community.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 9:04 PM
"Wayne if I thought the law was unjust I would agree with you . The same law you feel is unjust is also there to keep undesirables from entering our country . The fact people who hurt others unjustly are also entering , have you any solution for this ? I have never even heard it mentioned by the "compassionate ones""
I actually spend most of my time doing just what your last question asks and have done so for years.
If this law is keeping undesirables out I certainly cannot see it. According to all, 500,000 people keep getting passed that law. Why not change it?
Why not manage the border instead of try to close it? That way we could end illegal immigration.
If the good guys came through the ports of entry the border patrol could use their time and resources better to actually guard the border. As it is they are obviously still undermanned and under equipped. We could also check for undesirables not to mention disease, whereas today we currently have no control at all.
The legislation that just failed would have helped in all of those regards, but... NO GO huh?
If anyone is really concerned for the safety of the border areas, for employees,(whether they come from south of the border or are born here etc.)or even for their own health, they should be pressuring the Legislature to work together to fix this mess NOW. Anyone who hasn't at least called their legislators and demanded they do their job is just complaining and leaving themselves open to other accusations.
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 9:04 PM
To the unidentified poster who wrote that MS-13 originated in the U.S.
FACT: That's an outright lie. It originated in El Salvador in the 1980's during their civil war and then it was exported to the U.S.
Why don't you have the guts to identify yourself or are you a coward?
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 12, 2007 9:14 PM
It was you who spoke down to those who want to help undocumented immigrants (remember...not giving medicine to children..) posted by Sarasotakid
That is speaking down ? Making a point of what happens when you allow something to go undone because for the near future it allows things to stay as they are . is speaking down to . That was not my intention . I thought it wasa good point actually and still do . You don't concede that many of y9ur fellow citizens , perhaps a majority see this as a seriour problem . You don't even discuss how to stop it , alone see it as a problem .
"When you got a taste of your own "medicine", it was a little bitter, wasn't it? I figured that since you were so into medicine, a taste or your own might do you some good.
posted by Sarasotakid
I take it then your not the guy who told me about the Sermon Of the Mount method of living .
"In the same underground that the drug dealers are? Really now? Your grasp of the life of the undocumented astounds me.
posted by Sarasotakid
Really ? Never been to East LA ? Police don't even like it , try beinging up a kid in that neigborhood Mr Self Righteous .
The fact that you lament schools being overburdened is laudable. Maybe if we weren't spending so much on unjust wars and more on public education, that problem would be alleviated. It certainly seems better than scapegoating undocumented immigrants.
posted by Sarasotakid
Maybe if we were not spending money on unjust wars more could be spent on education . I was not a supporter of this war . Why would you suggest I was ? The school district in my area has been under strong pressure because of population growth , not scapegoating illegal immifrints , more like rich microsoft employees and folks from Seattle area who like the rural area of the North West . We had to build a new HS , add onto about three schools , hire more teachers and the budget has not been able to handle it . Too uch growth too quickly . Get a clue , you are a nasty little man with nasty litte remarks .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 12, 2007 9:57 PM
Some of you know my anti-statist position. You will dismiss me outright. That’s because my arguments are so good. ; > )
1. Immigration will not cause overpopulation of America. It does not decrease the quality of life in the long run. The world is not overpopulated and resources are unlimited. None of the Malthusian or Ricardian fears have been realized. Instead we have been experiencing increasing growth for over two centuries. Everyone, everywhere in the world, even in the worst of places, is better off now than 50 years ago. People live longer, healthier, and happier lives. And there is plenty of room for more. Especially in the United States. The population density here is 80 people per square mile, less dense than 171 other nations. Every day the amount of wealth (food, clothing, shelter, and fluff) in the world grows. It is the result of gains from trade and specialization of labor. And allowing the supply of labor to meet the demand by making labor mobile and liquid is one key factor making such growth possible. Kick all the illegal immigrants out and you will be worse off a year, if not a month from now.
2. Law should be limited to protecting rights and enforcing contracts. Laws limiting immigration impose an artificial barrier to entry into a labor market, which protect incumbent workers from competition. Who benefits? The protected workers, for now. But competition is what keeps us healthy and, well… competitive! The only unfair competition is one that handicaps one party in favor of another. This is the real short-run, long-run hidden cost/benefit analysis.
3. Immigration will encourage Mexico and other corrupt governments to change. Governments want money and power. They need people to get money and to have power over. The historical trend is for tyrannical governments to discourage emigration. If we become more inviting to immigrants, then other governments will be forced to compete for citizens and will begin instituting more just laws and repealing unjust ones. Indeed, the existence of America as a welcoming home for immigrants had a strong influence on European shifts toward freedom.
4. Immigrants break a lot of other laws. First, a lot of those other laws are bogus, too. Why should any of us have a social security card? Why should we have to have a driver’s license to drive? Why should we be forced to buy insurance? Why not just prosecute crimes where an individual’s rights have been violated and award restitution? All these laws we have devised to protect us do nothing more than keep honest people honest, at much expense to themselves. Real criminals will break laws no matter what. And when you label an honest man a criminal, and treat him like one, don’t be surprised when he stops respecting your laws designed to keep you safe.
5. Immigration is an artificial problem, only relevant in a world of nation-states. Passports were uncommon just 120 years ago. It wasn’t a problem for the first 300+ years of American history because Americans resisted the pagan compulsion for centralized government. Instead they preferred self-governance, and liberty. No nation state has any moral obligations. Centralized governments clothe themselves in self-righteousness in order to escape moral obligation and accountability. They seek to be a law unto themselves in opposition to God’s Natural Law. As Christians our identities do not emanate from the state. As Americans we ask that our state take its identity from us.
6. Immigration is good for everybody. There have been several attacks on big business’ role. I am completely against big business receiving any kind of help from the state. No tax rebates, no special contracts, nada. But the benefits big business derives, if any, from employing immigrants do benefit the rest of us. Big business, especially Wal Mart lately, has made all of our lives better and our cost of living lower. When was the last time any of you darned a sock? Or patched a pair of pants? When did you last take a TV to a repair shop? Or a phonograph player? Our lives are better.
7. Immigration is an illustrative issue. We can’t allow immigrants in because it would:
a. Overwhelm welfare. Good. Get rid of welfare. It’s a privilege granted to some at the expense of others. All redistribution of wealth which is not voluntary is theft.
b. Overwhelm public schools. Good. Shut ‘em down. Fact is that many a 12 year old would be better off working than sitting in government supplied day care anyhow. Privatize the schools now.
c. Overwhelm public transportation. Not if the monopoly on it were lifted. Get rid of taxi medallions and let anyone who wants to run a jitney service.
d. Overwhelm police. If they only investigated crimes where there were an actual victim they would have a lot more time on there hands. Instead they sit around trapping speeders and trying to catch drug dealers or prostitutes. Waste of time.
8. Immigration is a complimentary issue. We should allow immigration. We should get rid of minimum wage laws, we should cut most taxes, we should deregulate the workplace and get rid of OSHA. We should eliminate tax-exempt statuses for some organizations and make them all tax-exempt. We should foist individual responsibility back on individuals. The church exists for the least of these.
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | July 12, 2007 10:22 PM
Will said:
Peaceful huh? What about MS-13? Do you have any idea what this gang is all about? Do you have any idea about the violence they perpetrate on anyone that gets in their way?
Me:
Quite aware of organized crime and they come from other areas than just Mexico (look at Columbia.) So I have several questions. Are you trying to say that all Mexican immigrants that come here are organized criminals? Just asking. 12 million immigrants are not organized criminals. Most just want to make a life for themselves and live whatever passes for the American dream. You would know that if you worked w/ them.
My next question is what does this have to do w/ that invasion you were talking about? You do understand how invasions really work right? They typically involve force and lot's of death. When was the last time you have truly seen Mexico invade the US? Please stop being paranoid and love people.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 10:47 PM
William,
Medically resistant diseases are also more likely to come from us to the rest of the world. I think you need to stop living a life of fear and actually start loving people. Stop looking at our latin brothers and sisters as organized crimelords, disease carrying evil beings. These people are people and can be treated w/ the same respect we would treat anyone else.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 10:59 PM
Just like I thought. The Mara Salvatrucha Gangs actually did originate here in the US. Here is a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13
So please before you call someone a liar do you research.
Blessings.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 12, 2007 11:05 PM
Watch out Will Payshun's gonna sic the Emme on you!
go for it Payshun
Will Payshun and I have the distinct advantage of knowing immigrants so your "quotes" don't have the same effect they probably do on other folks.
But everything you wrote is just the reason why we need to reform the current immigration system.
Everything you fear is being worsened by the lack of reform and the status quo. Your fears are going to be self fulfilling Will.
Was that Noel Coward you were likening me too?
Gee Thanks!
Posted by: | July 12, 2007 11:11 PM
jurisnaturalist you must be a liberterian. When I ver take those online political tests I show up as a little one Philosophically you make sense , and immigration is needed , the numbers don't bother me it ,the unfairness of the system and the results on the poor and middle class it causes however does .
Maybe when I grow up I will come to your line of thinking . '0)
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 13, 2007 12:08 AM
P and William , I follwed your conversation , found bot sides to have merit . Even the history of the gany could be taken to promote both of your views. Be civil , God is watching .
History
The Mara Salvatrucha gang originated in Los Angeles [3]. The word "Mara" refers to the Spanish word for "army ant", and "Salvatrucha" which is Spanish slang for "Salvadorian." The gang was set up in Los Angeles in 1972 by Salvadoran immigrants in the Pico-Union section [4].
Their main purpose was to protect themselves from the established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominately of Chicano ancestry. The "devil's head" hand signal, which forms an "M" when displayed upside down, is similar to the same symbol common in hard rock. The founders copied this symbol they saw on their visits to rock concerts. The gang initially allowed only Salvadorans to join, but later allowed other Hispanics and now all nationalities[citation needed].
Many Mara Salvatrucha gang members from the Los Angeles area have been deported either because of their illegal status in the United States, or for committing crimes as non-citizens, or both. As a result of these deportations, members of MS-13 have recruited more members in their home countries. Some contend deportation policies have contributed to the size and influence of the gang both in the United States and in Central America.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 13, 2007 12:12 AM
You: I take it then your not the guy who told me about the Sermon Of the Mount method of living . Mick Sheldon
Me: No, Mick it wasn't me. I saw that post. Believe me, when I have something to say, my handle goes on it. I did find you reply in quoting scripture (the judge not portion) particularly amusing, though. Have you ever noticed how judgmental people who throw that scripture can be? Oh duh, you already know, you've been there, done that.
You: Really ? Never been to East LA ? Police don't even like it , try beinging up a kid in that neigborhood Mr Self Righteous.
The fact that you lump all immigrants into one category can only be described as anti-immigrant bigotry.
You: I was not a supporter of this war . Why would you suggest I was ?
Me; The point I was making is that all public services are being increasingly strained by the expenditures of scarce funds on an unjust war and that it is an immoral tactic to scapegoat immigrants for problems with schools and other public services when the real problem lies with bad policies originating with our politicians. I didn't know your position on the war and frankly didn't care about it. I was simply making a point.
You: Get a clue , you are a nasty little man with nasty litte remarks.
Me: Thank you for the compliment. I'd be worried if I had gotten on the good side of somebody like you.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 13, 2007 6:00 AM
To the unidentified poster who wrote that MS-13 originated in the U.S. FACT: That's an outright lie. It originated in El Salvador in the 1980's during their civil war and then it was exported to the U.S.Why don't you have the guts to identify yourself or are you a coward? William Clark DeLashmutt |
That was me. I inadvertantly forgot to put my handle in. It was not intentional.
I know you were a tad bit upset to hear that MS-13 originated here in the States. It would upset me too if I wanted to use that gang as an example to portray all illegal entrants as potential gang members and terrorists and to scare the Bejeusus out of everybody so that they will take draconian measures against immigrants.
What's next? Maybe we can accuse immigrants of a huge increase in leprosy! Oh sorry, that lie has been propagated by Lou Dobbs.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 13, 2007 6:12 AM
Payshun:
Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source.
Posted by: William Clark DeLashmutt | July 13, 2007 8:33 AM
William says, "Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source."
Depends on the particular entry. As a teacher of research methods and source evaluation, I usually steer students away from such sources (same with hardbound encyclopedias). But some Wikipedia articles are well researched. I always look at the references listed when I encounter an entry. In this particular case, most of the fifteen references are to news articles; some are even from "conservative" publications like the Washington Times. While I would want to check up on at least some of these sources before rendering a judgment on this entry's validity, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, either.
Regarding the gang in question, I find it interesting that many of their recruits come from Salvadorans who were living in the US illegally and were found and deported back to El Salvador. So in at least this case, our deportation policy is sort of cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Peace!
Posted by: Don | July 13, 2007 8:45 AM
This whole Mara Salvatrucha thing is interesting. While I was working on the U.S. Mexico border, any undocumented alien caught on the border bearing a tattoo was branded an MS-13 member (even though they had absolutely no ties to the gang!) and the AUSA and border patrol would bring this up in court so tha tht judge would throw the book at them and sentence them for longer periods of time. In the end it was a futile policy because they were taking up much needed bed space in the detention facilities with these guys who were not gang members but were being branded as such. Of course the Mara Salvatrucha allegation was never brought up in the principal case (where it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) but in the sentencing phase when the rules of evidence are more relaxed.
Yet another example of neo-conservative meanness backfiring on the government.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 13, 2007 9:15 AM
I think it very peculiar that the most influential country in the world has so much to fear.
We are the richest country to ever exist.
We are the most powerful country to ever exist.
We are so far above number two and three in the world that, last I heard, if you separated just California from the rest of the USA it would have the fifth largest economy in the world, Yet we feel we have so much to fear.
Everywhere we look there seems to be somebody we are afraid of and everything we do is predicated on that fear.
If the Sudan blows up the people of Ethiopia and Kenya take them people in. But here in America where Mexicans and Central Americans have been coming to work for over a century, we are afraid.
Then we come up with these large global legends like MS13 and make something we basically created a world threat.
I really hope that, as a country we will someday be able to see through all this fear. If we trust God, and we are the richest place on Earth, why can't we live with some courage and do something beside protect ourselves from boogey men? No wonder we can't win a war in the Middle East.
Posted by: Wayne | July 13, 2007 10:31 AM
Will said:
Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source.
Me:
But the links that are connected to the page are. I don't see Dateline flubbing on it's reporting of the subject nor do I see the National Geographic making up stuff to support whatever fear you are peddling. Stop living in fear and love people.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 13, 2007 12:07 PM
Oh and Will I think you owe someone an apology.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 13, 2007 12:24 PM
You know, the origins of MS-13 are liable to be murky, and given its ties to both the US and El Salvador its quite likely that key steps in its early organizing took place in both countries.
Either way, something tells me that MS-13's founders paid little attention to legal formalities and documentation will be awful hard to come by.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 13, 2007 12:50 PM
We have so many gangs in this country, most which have originated here, that one more isn't the issue. Why do young people form gangs in the first place, and what is perpetuating them? I don't think that it is illegal immigration. I think that it might have more to do with something that is endemic to American culture, something that creates an environment for them to flourish. I know that this is off topic, but any ideas out there?
Posted by: Kristi | July 13, 2007 2:00 PM
Kristi
I am no sociologist or an expert but this is what I have learned over the last 2 1/2 decades of working in the inner city.
Gangs originate in many ways. Some of them are quite old and were originally sort of familial groupings,people who banded together for mutual protection, and also illegal activities. "Westside Story" portrayed the tale of Romeo and Juliet in a gang war context and that is really quite an accurate idea, based on my experience.
Hopelessness, generational poverty, abuse,lack of trust in society and alienation from society are the modern wellsprings of Gangs. I believe most of the major gangs in the US began in our prisons and are in fact controlled from the "inside".
They all claim to provide identity (respect) and safety (power) to kids who are in situations where those two things are very necessary. For young men they provide father figures and role models that are usually absent from their homes, or if not, very negative and disrespected.
Many years ago we lost the first kid we tried to reach out to in a gang related incident. He was 14 and was shot in the heart by another fourteen year old boy. We had warned him often that this was going to happen and he always replied that it was what he wanted. He wanted to die for his gang. I could not ever understand this. At his funeral certain unique things were done and my wife asked his mother if this was the family custom. She replied "No this was what her son had asked her to do." I have never gotten over the reality that a fourteen year old kid planned his own funeral and I hope I never do.
It is the one day where he knew no one would say anything bad about him. Everyone would only remember him in a good way and if his death was gang related, he would be recognized as a hero.
You should know this boy was not Hispanic or African American, nor was he illegal. I personally know nineteen young men and or boys who have died in this way. I do not think any of them were illegal, but if they were, they would certainly be the minority.The undocumented obviously do get into gangs but they are still the minority of our inner city's population and I live in the Southwestern US.
To put it simply, when it comes to minorities, gangs are about poverty. Among the white supremacist gangs this is perhaps not always true. I do not know as I have never worked with any of them and only know what I hear or read in the paper.
Posted by: wayne | July 13, 2007 2:48 PM
We have so many gangs in this country, most which have originated here, that one more isn't the issue. Why do young people form gangs in the first place, and what is perpetuating them? I don't think that it is illegal immigration. Kristi
True, Kristi, but the anti-immigration camp wants to slander undocumented immigrants in any way they can so as to create an atmosphere of fear so that they can implement inhumane and unchristian policies
You know, the origins of MS-13 are liable to be murky, and given its ties to both the US and El Salvador its quite likely that key steps in its early organizing took place in both countries.
Either way, something tells me that MS-13's founders paid little attention to legal formalities and documentation will be awful hard to come by. Wolverine
Wolverine, they were founded in the U.S.. The facts bear that out.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 13, 2007 2:58 PM
Wolverine
The origins of MS13 are not murky at all. They have been thoroughly searched out by police and other law enforcement orgs. The Mexican Mafia is also well known. The tales of their history are part of the indoctrination of all new members. They do not hide their histories as they are proud of them. Where they may be slanted, the police can fill in the truth and try to do so with great care. It is all part of their efforts to stop these groups so they take it very seriously.
Law enforcement alone will never stop Gangs. I have never met a gangster that would not have taken another path if he thought it was open to him. You can argue that isn't true and everyone has the option to do well but I have to tell you after twenty five years here I agree with them. I always challenge them to try other ways but the dangers of their life and the reality of their existence make it far harder than most can believe.
The way to fight gangs is to offer different choices and to create hope and opportunities.
No child wants to die or live in ruin unless they don't see any alternative and have given themselves up to anger and despair.
Posted by: wayne | July 13, 2007 3:05 PM
I am not a Christian; and it is not often that Christians inspire me. This is one of those instances. So often I respond to the question "What would Jesus do?" with the answer, "Avoid his followers". When those who begin wars, drop bombs, and rape the earth call themselves his followers it is difficult for the rest of us to understand them. The congregation offering sanctuary to illegal aliens is one instance where I get it. Jesus would be right at home in this sanctuary. Bless Them.
Posted by: Nina Kohser | July 13, 2007 4:01 PM
Will and whoever else is interested
Those crime stats you listed?
I've gone to DoJ and I cannot come up with your figures at all, but maybe I'm just too dumb.
For anyone who wants to read up on this here is a good place to start.
http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Rumbault_Ewing/index.html
The Myth of Immigrant Criminality
It looks to me as if the only thing we have to fear is all the people who keep telling us to be afraid.
And as I think about this, up until 911 weren't the only people doing terrorist acts in this country white guys? When is the last time anyone heard of a Mr Gonzalez blowing up a bunch of innocent women and children? Again, maybe I am just too dumb.
Posted by: wayne | July 13, 2007 4:16 PM
Aaron
I am going to reply the same way I did to wolverine.
I feel honored Mr. NoName
Answer the question about our laws.
If we gave them SS numbers they wouldn't need to fake one or steal one.
We give them to legal immigrants.
If we allowed them drivers licenses they might get one and who knows they might even be insured.
First, driving is a privilege, not a right. Secondly, legal immigrants are eligible for that privilege.
So in the words of Stephen the crazy Irishman in Brave Heart (and illegal alien I might add) "THE ALMIGHTY SAYS, 'STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT AND ANSWER THE @@#$$@ ING QUESTION!'"
I'm not, I'm pointing out serious negative consequences of illegal immigration, that you pretend they don't exist or think no price is too small for the American taxpayer should be the real issue.
What is illegal about working to feed your family?
Going into a country illegally.
Posted by: aaron | July 13, 2007 5:27 PM
Nina:
Thank you for your words of wisdom. I'm glad someone "gets it." Too bad an awful lot of Christians don't.
Bless you, and Rev. Alexia, too!
Posted by: Don | July 13, 2007 5:33 PM
I am new to this, so here I go. Why is our immigration law considered "unjust"?
Posted by: Ken | July 13, 2007 7:01 PM
I am new to this, so here I go. Why is our immigration law considered "unjust"?
Apparently not letting masses of people in unregulated and paying no mind to the social costs of thereof.
Posted by: aaron | July 13, 2007 8:21