Kevin
I will try to remember that when I am in jail for transporting someone to the hospital or giving food to someone who is hungry or comfort to a stranger. Need is need. Humans are humans. It doesn't matter if they are slaves, Mexicans, and God help me, even you, Kevin. Laws against humans seeking to do what any other human would do are wrong. To disobey wrong laws is not wrong. To help someone, anyone, who is in need, in the name of Jesus is right, regardless of the law. Are we looking forward to judgment day with fear and trembling yet?

Posted by: | November 16, 2007 11:38 AM

I re-read Jim's previous post. The rhetoric is just fine. This is, after all, a blog for people who are mostivated by a passion for social justice. It's not Hillary Clinton's blog or the Washington Monthly.

An example of inappropriate rhetoric would be the talk show host Jim alluded to that advocated an "immigrant kill night." I'm sure Kevin S. has gone to Free Republic and other conservative demagogic blogs and asked that they "turn down the rhetoric." Right?

Posted by: I and I | November 16, 2007 11:55 AM

Laws against illegal immigration are not unjust per se, but the current immigration system is unjust because it doesn't allow for legal entry to unskilled, minimally educated workers who want to try and make a living. This has been pointed out before.

You might want to read (or re-read) Martin Luther King's discussion of just and unjust laws, found in "Letter from Birmingham Jail." I think you will find that there are more parallels between the fugitive slave laws and the current immigration system than you might imagine.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 16, 2007 12:26 PM

Wallis anology of slavery and illegal immigration is at best wrong, worst - dead wrong.

These people are not slaves. They are in our country and they broke US law getting here.

I have an idea. Let's just have the same immigration laws that Mexico has and handle illegals the way they do. You are caught in their country - illegally. They send you back to your country ASAP. You want a driver lic. - you have to be a citizen or show that you are in the country on a visa that they have processed. (Sorry Hilliary)

Works for me.

They are also allowing Mexican criminals out of prison if they promise to cross over to the US. Like Carter and Cuba, they gave us their criminals too.

Immigration has to be controlled and legal - period.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | November 16, 2007 12:47 PM

For these acts we deserve jail? Good thinking Kev! Can't tell you how great it is to see Jesus in you buddy!

Posted by:

This type of sarcastic rhetoric is just what has caused such a vile and hostile atmosphere here .

Were you the same anom lecturing on race issues when the left was accusing the right of racism and you lectured the mean spirited replys from the right ?

Laws to penalize the employer and giving aid to illegal immigrints also stop those who are taking advantage of illegal immigrints . You obviously have not looked at both sides of this issue , or you would not be so quick to judge only one view with your religious spirit .

Examples of people being forced to live in rat infested apartments , people being forced to work in unsanitary conditions , children growing up in homes where the water and toilets are spreading diseases , etc etc . You can change the heart break stories to justify an opposing position . You do realize supporting the system now allows many employers to take advantange of people in dire need ?

The law appears to be intended to stop people from living here illegally . I would think your beef is with a system that allowed your friends to stay here so long , build a life and then send them back . Your right that does not sound fair to me either . But I suggest it is much more complicated , you obviously here have not thought about it all .

Why attack Kevin's Faith ? That is just mean .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 12:58 PM

In John 9 the 'religious authorities' pointed out that Jesus could not be from God because he did not observe the 'just' sabbath law. We all need to decide whether we follow our Lord Jesus and do the work of God's Light or whether we work to serve ourselves.

Posted by: Deryll | November 16, 2007 1:12 PM

Kevin S. wrote:

"'To help someone, anyone, who is in need, in the name of Jesus is right, regardless of the law.'

You wouldn't say this about other criminals. It is not good or honorable to harbor a murderer, for example."

Actually, Kevin, I would say that about other criminals. Even murderers are taken the hospital before the jail, if they need medical attention. And homeless shelters don't ask people if they have warrants out before giving them a bed (at least not the one I run). There's a difference between giving people humanitarian assistance and harboring a fugitive. I'm not sure if the churches, shelters and hospitals are exaggerating their risk, but I am sure that people in need are entitled to our Christian compassion and aid, even if they've done a bad thing.

Posted by: Julie | November 16, 2007 2:33 PM

Calling the Fugitive Slave Law "unjust" and the recent Oklahoma law "just" underscores the slipperiness of human-constructed morality. The Fugitive Slave Law was very just according to most Southern Christians in the 1850s. Trouble was, in formulating their definition of "just," they weren't being obedient to Jesus when he said do as I do. Nations may have the right to draw up borders, but Christians have the obligation to aid the afflicted whether the nations want them to do it or not.

Jim's analogy is right on the mark.

Posted by: Anthony | November 16, 2007 3:23 PM

"Trouble was, in formulating their definition of "just," they weren't being obedient to Jesus when he said do as I do. "

The problem with your reasoning is that Wallis concedes the need for laws regulating immigration. In other words, he is arguing that the laws are just AND that they need to be broken. The slavery analogy is only apt if you believe that we should have an open border.

"There's a difference between giving people humanitarian assistance and harboring a fugitive."

Of course. As I read it, the law makes this distinction, but I understand there has been some confusion on this issue within the state.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 16, 2007 3:43 PM

It seems to me that it is not the business of the government to decide who among us is legal vs. illegal.

Actions can be illegal or legal, but there is NO such thing as illegal people. Tax cheats aren't illegal people, nor are insider stock market traders. Even presidents who are disposed after a long train of abuses and usurpations are entitled to their day in court and the mercy of their churches.

The biggest problem with today's government is that it sees 'picking the winners' as its key reason to exist.

Governments exist to secure certain rights for ALL of the people...and not to quibble over membership.

Posted by: Thomas Jones | November 16, 2007 4:09 PM

What callous people all these self-identifying "right-wing" "conservative" "Christians" are.

I call them "hard shell" Christians because the core of faith's been emptied out, leaving a hardened gloss of impregnable self-righteousness.

It is absolutely true that conservatives, historically, were DEFENDERS of slavery. No conservatives were active in the civil rights movement, and none of their public figures supported the civil rights movement at all - quite the contrary.

Buckley, Falwell - any number of them - were gung ho defenders of the de facto racist status quo until others changed it, no thanks to them. Not a finger lifted in support.

If it had been left to conservative leadership, Jim Crow would have been the law of the land, forever.

There's something irredemiably ugly to Pharasaic Christianity under that brittle shell, that aligns itself so seamlessly and smoothly with xenophobia, nativism and outright racism.

Posted by: Black Like Me | November 16, 2007 4:26 PM

I need to do a little further looking than what Mr Wallis has reported on here. (he is prone to streching the truth a little) I believe that this might be one of those Machael J Fox moments where some are being accused of being against 'stem cell research' but they never deliniates between adult and embryonic. OK is having a very difficult time with illegals in the state. But I don't think that it is as intrusive into the workings of the church as we are lead to believe.

Might be on this weekend and might not. The play closes and I have a lot of clean-up to do.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | November 16, 2007 4:47 PM

We honor Rosa Parks (today) for 'sitting' for what she believed to be right. The law of her community made a distinction between the 'negro' and the 'white'. Today, we see as wrong the laws which made her action illegal. The 'world' routinely makes this kind of distinction (race, skin color, gender, social status, place of birth, etc). Jesus made it clear to those who 'had' their ears; that his followers were not to be like the world. For those 'in Christ', Paul wrote that there is neither insider nor outsider of any of this world's distinctions. While I do not believe that 'governments' and peoples of this world will eagerly embrace this way of thinking; I believe that God expects we Christians to be salt and light. Our example should flavor society which surrounds us. Our actions should be light to and enlighten our wider society.

Posted by: Deryll | November 16, 2007 5:34 PM

In Arizona they just passed a law that revokes the business licenses of any and all that employ the undocumented. The attempt to get it declared unconstitutional just began. During the trial the defenders of the law said it only applied to those who would "hire" undocumented people in the future, meaning those who already had a job were secure, at least until they lost it. An intriguing little notion I must say as it would lend itself to a form of slavery with those that were already hired being left at the whim and whimsy of their employer who would know they could not get another job if fired from their current position. During the trial it was revealed that the law had been written to say it was illegal to "employ" the undocumented and not just hire them. The difference is substantial. It will take effect this January.
Some estimate that undocumented workers comprise at least 9 percent of the labor force. If true many business will be hurt regardless of the status of their employees as 9 percent of the market for their goods and services will be unemployed. Imagine a 9 percent increase in unemployment hitting the streets in one month.
That idea is just a little extreme and will not happen in that exact manner of course. Many have left the state already. Only some have gone back to their country of origin. Others have opted to go to other states.
Soon Moderatelad you will have a very real example of the policies you have proposed. All of the debate may be moot and perhaps you will be proven right but 9 percent of any given market is a pretty high number. I wonder, what it will mean to those citizens who live in AZ? Businesses have already started complaining of the loss of traffic in their stores, from clothing stores to restaurants and car dealerships. Who will be the first to close their doors? How much in tax revenue will be lost? Just how big are all those costs immigrants supposedly shackle us with going to look by June of 2008? Keep your eyes on AZ folks.
When the Hispanic man looses his job will the US citizen's job follow?

Posted by: | November 16, 2007 6:03 PM

Two points, the first one will shock most of you, since I am a Conservative (and a "mean" one, from what I've read about myself.) Churches should be exempted from this law, except for the employment part. The Church's job is to minister to those in need, not to enforce border security.

That being said, the comparison of illegal immigration and slavery is just absurd. Slaves were kidknapped, sold and brought against their will. Illegals have thumbed their nose at our legal system. We don't tolerate that from folks like Ken Lay and we shouldn't tolerate it from illegals either. America is the greatest nation on the planet, so it is natural that many, many people want to come and enjoy the blessings of capitalism. I say, let them come....LEGALLY! If laws need to be changed to make it less of a burden and allow more of them in, then let us change them. However, moving the law-breakers to the front of the line, ahead of those who have invested the time and money to come the legal way, is immoral and unacceptable.

Posted by: Bradley | November 16, 2007 9:41 PM

"You wouldn't say this about other criminals. It is not good or honorable to harbor a murderer, for example." Kevin S.

In my Christian ethic I would help even a murderer. Not to commit murder or evade justice but if that person is genuinely in need of assistance, I would help that person. To make an analogy between being unlawfully present and being a murderer is a long stretch at best, and most likely just mean spirited.

"Wallis was the one who said that he wanted to change the tenor of the conversation. This is not going to accomplish that." Posted by: kevin s.

What? By telling the truth? Jim is stating nothing but the facts. The tenor of the conversation will not change with people who are utterly devoid of good will- nor should it.

"When churches house and help these people, they ought to love them enough to advise them that they are in acting immorally when they break the just laws of a nation." Posted by: Ben Wheaton

No they're not. They don't have enough to live on down in their home countries and they come here so that their families can have the bare necessities. Providing for their families in spite of our immigration laws is not an immoral act. It may be unlawful and our government may choose to curtail it for any number of reasons. But it certainly is not an immoral act.

"This type of sarcastic rhetoric is just what has caused such a vile and hostile atmosphere here ."

What was said needed to be said. The policies being advocated in Oklahoma and being defended by certain people here are vile. If it is offensive to call people on that, then so be it.

"Why attack Kevin's Faith ? That is just mean ." Mick Sheldon

Dude, you're one to talk!

"The idea of the feds raiding churches pulls on the heartstrings, but isn't going to be the reality of this new bill." Posted by: kevin s

How can you be so sure? There is no exception written into the bill for for churches. At the very least the bill could have been better written. Moreover there are two words that will probably cause this bill to fall flat on its face- "Federal preemption."

"I've read the statute, and I don't see that as a violation. The law prohibits transportation of an illegal immigrant for the purposes of evading law enforcement. I may be wrong but I don't see that providing ordinary food, shelter, and medical care is included in this." Wolverine

Me too, I've read it, and the following language of the law clearly contradicts the point you tried to make:

Section 3a: "It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, move, or attempt to transport within the United States any alien knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law, in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States."

Nothing in that clause supports your contention that the law would only apply to people committing these ats "for the purposes of evading law enforcement" as you claim. But hey, those are only the facts and why would we let the facts get in our way? Right?

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 16, 2007 10:34 PM

never mind.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 10:43 PM

"I don't dispute the state's right to regulate its borders"Posted by: Anthony |

This law goes well beyond the state's right to regulate its borders. It re-engineers in a negative fashion how we relate to, and associate with one another. It would affect whether I can allow an undocumented immigrant to sleep over in my home; whether I can pick that person up to take them to church or to a Thanksgiving dinner at a friend's house. In essence, it turns us into a police state. The only reaction that I in good conscience could have to such a law is "oppose" and "resist." Don't let your fear of foreigners lead you down the road to a dictatorship or a police state, and with laws like this, that is where we are headed. Those who would support these laws are betraying the cause of Christ.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 17, 2007 6:00 AM

"Examples of people being forced to live in rat infested apartments , people being forced to work in unsanitary conditions , children growing up in homes where the water and toilets are spreading diseases , etc etc . You can change the heart break stories to justify an opposing position . You do realize supporting the system now allows many employers to take advantage of people in dire need ?"
Mick,
When the choice is rat infested apartments here in the US that also have food in them for your children as opposed to rat infested apartments in Mexico that do not I think even you would choose the one with food.

All you are pointing out my brother is that we could actually do more as individuals to help. Instead, we as individuals are looking for ways to express our fears and hatred and citing some nationalistic rationale for doing so.

Posted by: wayne | November 17, 2007 10:10 AM

French who live part of the year in London so as to escape the high taxation of their own Government.
Anom said

Taxes in England are better ? I did not know that , I thought many rock musicians use to move here to get out of paying taxes there .

But here the right thing to do is kick people out of this country who just needed to eat.
I am just imagining this qualifies as unfair, unrealistic, prejudicial and oppressive?

anom said

This kind of intellectual non exchange is why liberalism is sometimes met with so much contempt . Agree with my position or you are starving people . Its why even the leaders of the democratic party run from their base . Hilary and DL is just an example .

Thats not the situation and any person knows it . The idea is to live in a country where WE can continue to feed our poor , and allow our infra structure and utilities to be allowed to keep up with population growths .. We need a system that is fair , but we need a system . Thanks for you input .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 17, 2007 12:25 PM

When the choice is rat infested apartments here in the US that also have food in them for your children as opposed to rat infested apartments in Mexico that do not I think even you would choose the one with food.
Posted by: wayne

Is tha not the point Wayne , people who are starving and having been left with little choice , will take anything they can get . Its why be American Citizen you at least have the Constitution and the laws of the land to make sure certain sanitary conditions are "suppos" to be met . You see you are assuming tyhat if one is against illegal immkigartion , one is against helping or feeding the poor . Not at all , and I like you I bet would them treated with respect and dignity ?

"All you are pointing out my brother is that we could actually do more as individuals to help."

Now we are on the same path , just different perspectives on how to help .

Instead, we as individuals are looking for ways to express our fears and hatred and citing some nationalistic rationale for doing so.

Posted by: wayne

Well there you go , Wayne's World . That will help these folks .

Posted by: | November 17, 2007 12:32 PM

"It is absolutely true that conservatives, historically, were DEFENDERS of slavery. No conservatives were active in the civil rights movement, and none of their public figures supported the civil rights movement at all - quite the contrary."

For King, a just law was "a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." Dr. King required that his followers lead moral lives, and he emphasized the importance of faith in the face of adversity. Modern liberalism has rejected this teaching, dedicating great effort to silence religion and morality. Again, conservatives are the standard-bearers here.

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 17, 2007 1:29 PM

While it is right to protest policies that make humane treatment of others a crime, the real problems underlying immigration issues are the conditions in their home countries that compel people to flee. We have duties and responsibilities to support efforts for economic and social justice globally, so that people are not forced to leave their families and traditions. We expend much energy on the symptoms rather than on effecting real change at the level of causes. People crossing our southern borders are escaping economic and political disasters that can be fixed. We have been instrumental in creating some of those disasters. Two examples are the demise of family farms in Mexico and the U.S. market for illegal drugs. These have profound effects on people to our south. We need to face these realities and shoulder responsibility for coming up with solutions. Cooperation in a responsible way will benefit people on both sides of the border. Immigration issues will become much more manageable once economic and human rights disparities are seriously addressed.

Posted by: Marsha Hansen | November 17, 2007 2:26 PM

James Martin I am just about up to here with people like you who show no love of Christ speaking to his betrayal . Demanding people to love your way obviously leaves many people out in the cold . Your politics have nothing to do with Christ , abviously your compassion is also selective if any . Agree with James Martin or go to hell , sheeesh

Mick, maybe you don't think I'm the one who should be talking to you about how to argue properly. But I'm going to try and ask you reflect on what you wrote here and ask you to think about some things. If you are able to read what I write here, maybe we can recognize each others as brothers instead of just antagonists.

Perhaps James Martin was a little bit out of line by stating that those who support laws like this are betraying the cause of Christ. However, even if you think he was out of line, you aren't helping keep the conversation civil with the response you wrote here. Specifically, I have two concerns with your response: 1) you reacted emotionally instead of with reasons, examples, and logical arguments, and 2) you responded to Mr. Martin in kind; i.e., you attacked him personally by stating that he obviously shows no love of Christ himself to be saying such a thing.

These kinds of emotional responses and personal attacks are what I have been concerned about and have written about previously. They don't add to the debate. They don't promote understanding of different viewpoints. And they encourage others to respond in kind as well. Yes, I'm probably guilty of the latter as well.

Instead of responding emotionally and attacking the character of the person, try to focus on the content of what he wrote, not on personalities--either yours or his. If you think James was wrong, it's OK to say so. But then give us reasons why you think he's wrong instead of just attacking him back. Something like, "I don't agree that these laws betray the cause of Christ because..." Or maybe better, "I can understand why you might think support of this law betrays the cause of Christ, but..." Try to understand why he might feel the way he does. (I have an idea why he might: such a law as this makes it a crime to do some of the very things Jesus commanded us to do, like caring for the poor, the sick, and the hungry. So in at least that sense, this law does betray the cause of Christ, because we now are forced to break the law in order to obey Christ. Take issue with his argument, if you feel you must, and give us reasons why you think the law is just and why Christians should support it, if you feel that way; but, considering these things, was it really so far out of line for James to say what he said?)

If you focus on the content of what someone wrote and give us reasons why you disagree, instead of reacting emotionally and attacking the author personally, you won't inflame, like you did by claiming his is "demanding people to love [his] way," or by accusing him of having selective compassion, or like you have done on other threads to other people.

For what it's worth, in the interest of more constructive dialogue.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 17, 2007 3:53 PM

The law is drastic but necessary, and cannot really be compared to the Fugitive Slave Act in any real, significant way. No matter how well-intentioned they may or may not be, illegal immigrants are flaunting our laws and are indeed criminals. Look at it this way: the law prohibits providing safe harbor for criminals.

Posted by: Sarah | November 17, 2007 4:04 PM

"James Martin I am just about up to here with people like you who show no love of Christ speaking to his betrayal . Demanding people to love your way obviously leaves many people out in the cold . Your politics have nothing to do with Christ , abviously your compassion is also selective if any . Agree with James Martin or go to hell , sheeesh" Posted by: Mick Sheldon

Mick, I in no way can say who or who is not going to hell. I do, however, fear that there will be a lot of evangelicals there. But in the end, that is God's decision and God's decision alone. I unapologetically stand by my original statement- support of this law is betrayal of the cause of Christ. If you need further elaboration on how that is the case, read Don's post above.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 17, 2007 4:23 PM

"However, even if you think he was out of line, you aren't helping keep the conversation civil with the response you wrote here. "

Not defending Mick, because he would do well to watch his mouth, so to speak, but this conversation began by comparing a law on which reasonable people can disagree to the slave act. As such, the conversation was never civil. It was hysterical from the get-go.

To say that this law is a betrayal of the cause of Christ isn't out of line, per se, but simply poor exegesis. Christ said we are to help the poor, healing them and feeding them. However, he gave this example to highlight the fact that he was Lord, and that his ways were contrary to the world, which rejects the poor.

To say that you cannot break the law by employing an illegal immigrant is not rejecting the poor, but rather seeking to crack down on those who exploit the poor, and those who assist in breaking the law. If you believe this is an attempt to raid soup kitchens, then you have swallowed whole the talking points of the business groups who are hoping for amnesty so that they can keep their artificially cheap labor.

If we call this a betrayal of Christ, then we can literally do this with any issue. Take eminent domain. Someone could argue that the government uses eminent domain to make room for better communities in poor areas.

Therefore, opposing eminent domain is a betrayal of Christ. One could, conversely, argue that eminent domain robs the poor of their property, thereby betraying Christ. So where does that argument get us?

If you want to make the argument that the law ought to be more clear with regard to what constitutes harboring and facilitating illegal immigration, or whether federal law renders the law altogether null, that is fine. Mature people ought to be able to have that discussion without accusing people of betraying Christ or introducing slavery into the equation.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 17, 2007 4:42 PM

It won't work, either. People will defy the law because it is unjust, and that will create more enforcement problems. It will be like Prohibition.

As I said before, the law and others like it doesn't make any sense if we really want to secure the border and try to manage and control immigration to the US. It won't make the border more secure. It won't keep additional undocumenteds from trying to enter the country. It only punishes legal US residents for trying to reach out and help their neighbors--it really doesn't penalize the undocumenteds at all. And, worst of all, it increases the level of paranoia and fearmongering surrounding the immigration issue--not a healthy development at all, if our primary desire is to solve this problem.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 17, 2007 6:54 PM

Ben Wheaton wrote:
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, being poor does not give you a right to enter the United States."

Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to be free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"?

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | November 18, 2007 2:31 PM

Ben Wheaton wrote:
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, being poor does not give you a right to enter the United States."

And Ben I think also the problem is it does not mean you can't come here either .
Would be interesting if anyone knew about our policy of immigration for the past 100 years .
How it changed , who writes the policy anyway ?
Congress or some commission ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 18, 2007 3:06 PM

"Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to be free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"?'

It is an inscription on the statue of liberty, not a constitutional mandate. An open borders policy (which, to the extent you offer an argument, is what you area arguing for) is not tenable.

"It only punishes legal US residents for trying to reach out and help their neighbors"

It will primarily punish those who use illegal immigration as a source of cheap labor. Unlike the immigrants themselves, these people have a lot to lose if they are caught. States are increasingly going to move toward laws like this, which is why the chamber of commerce wants to codify the status of the labor pool they already have.

"Jesus most certainly did not command us to help the poor so that people would stand in awe of Him. He commanded us to help the poor because we are to love our fellow human beings and it is the right thing to do."

Why did he heal the paralytic on the mat? To show that he had authority over the earth. Why does he tell us to give to the needy in secret? So we are rewarded by the Father. After he heals a man with leprosy, he tells the man to show himself to the priest as a testimony. When he healed the blind and the mute, it was on account of their own faith, not Christ's actions.

When he sent out his disciples to heal the sick and drive out demons, the Bible says he gave the authority to do so, not that he commanded them to do it because it was the right thing to do.

Of course, healing the sick and helping the poor is the right thing to do. But that isn't the point. We do it to bring glory to Jesus. We give a cup of cold water to a child because we are his disciple. Jesus says nowhere that we should help the poor simply because it is the right thing to do or because we are to affect relations with all mankind.

As such, allowing states to make an effort to enforce previously agreed laws is not tantamount to a betrayal of Christ. It might be a bad idea, and might leave everyone worse off. You can argue that, and explain why that might be. But if we are focused on bringing glory to Christ, we have room to disagree about policy.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 18, 2007 3:25 PM

"From your comments I thought you were recommending it ." Mick Sheldon

Well your reading was not a reasonable one but it was consistent with the nasty, uncharitable tone or your previous remarks.

"Sharing your home with an alien , helping him , feeding him is one thing , going out of your way to break the law and promoting breaking the law , no sorry . My conscience would not allow promoting that ." Mick Sheldon

I'm pleased to see you would recommend feeding an alien or sharing your home with an alien. That certainly is the Christian thing to do. Unfortunately the legislators in Oklahoma would not agree. They would want to make such activities illegal, a felony in fact.

"allowing states to make an effort to enforce previously agreed laws is not tantamount to a betrayal of Christ." Kevin S.

If it were just that (enforcing previously agreed laws), there would be precious little to debate. To frame it in that way is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive on your part. By making assisting or socializing with an undocumented alien a felony, the state of Oklahoma has crossed the line. You may try to frame the debate by neatly minimizing the impact of this law in your argument but that does not change what the law is and it does not make it right.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 18, 2007 4:06 PM

Please point to me the portion of the law that makes it illegal to socialize with an illegal immigrant. Posted by: kevin s.

What? Didn't you read it before you posited you informed opinion about it?

Here it is:

"B. It shall be unlawful for any person to conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection any alien in any place, including any building or means of transportation, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law."

Because of the broad wording ("conceal"/"harbor"/"shelter"/ and "any place", having an undocumented immigrant in your house, place of worship, soup kitchen, etc. would be considered concealing and/or harboring under the law. The law is overbroad. Concealing and harboring a very malleable terms and left undefined in the statute, thus leaving it to law enforcement and later to the courts to decide what that means. It appropriates too much power to the state.

Support of this law allows the State to dictate whom I can socialize with and to whom I can give assistance. It is immoral and unchristian as is any support of it.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 18, 2007 6:05 PM

Mr. Martin,

Yuu're slicing the baloney awful thin here. The full clause includes the words "from detection", as in "conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection", which is fairly clear. This section prohibits hiding illegal immigrants from law enforcement.

Mr. Martin parses the sentence to create a lack of clarity in a section that probably could have been written a bit better, but isn't all that hard to understand unless your goal is to not understand.

I repeat what I said earlier -- if you miscontrue the law you may prevent illegal immigrants from seeking food, shelter, and medical care that they need and can access without exposing themselved to detection.

It is possible that people will be harmed or die because of misinformation spread by Sojo among others.

This is the kind of pettifoggery that gives lawyers a bad name. If anything it's even more damaging to the reputation of the church.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 18, 2007 9:56 PM

"It is possible that people will be harmed or die because of misinformation spread by Sojo among others."

It is absurd to claim Sojourners et al. are the ones who are instilling fear in immigrants from accessing necessary resources. It is obvious that politicians at all levels are discovering political currency by attacking immigrant families and it is they and their supporters who are to blame for the disastrous consequences...

Posted by: hispanglo | November 18, 2007 10:12 PM

"What? Didn't you read it before you posited you informed opinion about it?"

I didn't see anywhere that the law forbade association. That is because it does not forbid association, not because I didn't read it. The only substantive charge you have made is that the law is too vague. On this we agree. But to say that it forbids association or socializing is a reading of the law that would stand under no circumstance.

"First, it is by definition rejecting the poor if we begin to deport family members from one another, alienate them from necessary services like safety, education and health care, and continue in the evil work of pushing people further into the margins."

Mexican citizens are alienated from American services as well, and the Bible affirms the right of countries to have borders. You say that nobody is advocating an open-borders policy, (and I would note that there are a few who on this blog who are advocating precisely this) but this line of moral reasoning only makes sense as a defense of an open borders policy.

How would strengthening border security to prevent illigal immigration not be precisely the same thing?

"You criticize Wallis for comparing slavery laws with contempory policy regarding immigration but do worse when you compare unathorized immigrants with murderers. "

Another commenter said that this law is unjust because we are required to help anyone, regardless of their criminal status. I pointed out that there are some criminals for whom such a law would obviously be just.

Let's take an unrelated hypothetical. Someone says that banning violent video games is ALWAYS wrong because toys bring joy to children. I say that some toys clearly need to be banned, for example those that make babies choke to death. I am not, in this scenario, saying that violent video games make babies choke to death.

Neither am I comparing illegal immigrants to murderers.

"The main failure in your argument is the lack of acknowedgement in our collective complicity "

I acknowledge it, to a degree. We have, as Don has noted, made efforts to secure our border. Those efforts fail because of the diligence of those seeking to enter our country illegally. I am not complicit in that diligence, and I disagree that there is an overall economic benefit to illegal immigration.

This speaks to the issue that is at the crux of the present political debate. Ideology aside, most people will support some form of amnesty, provided that it stems the tide of illegal immigration. The problem is that pro-amnesty advocates want amnesty first, and enforcement second (or not at all). That's the issue in talking point form, I'll grant you, but that's the gist.

In other words, twenty years down the road, when we are dealing with another 15 million illegal immigrants who have entered our country with the confidence that amnesty surely awaited, will we be forced to provide it on account of our alleged complicity?

If an amnesty law passes, isn't a law like the one passed by Oklahoma precisely what is needed to prevent future complicity?

Would you agree that these are fair questions to ask before we pass a mammoth immigration reform bill?

"It is absurd to claim Sojourners et al. are the ones who are instilling fear in immigrants from accessing necessary resources."

Probably. But Wolverine is correct that pro-amnesty advocacy groups are parsing the law to make it sound far more oppressive than it is. Both sides are trying to create polarity on this issue (hence the "RAN AWAY!" poster image).

Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 12:10 AM

"Mexican citizens are alienated from American services as well, and the Bible affirms the right of countries to have borders. You say that nobody is advocating an open-borders policy..."

Yes, but Mexican citizens in Mexico are not working in our country, buying its goods domestically, paying all manner of taxes, and by and large helpful, positive, church-going members of society (and all data points to this being overwhelmingly the case!) So, no we are not allowed to fairly, justly, or any other way alienate these people further and call our actions in good standing with what Jesus taught!

As for labels like 'open border' and 'amnesty,' they do not describe any comprehensive legislation that is widley supported or positions taken by any of the large Christian groups. Everyone is in agreement border security and employer sanctions are necessary as long as they are accompanied by an earned legalization.

"How would strengthening border security to prevent illigal immigration not be precisely the same thing?"

People are already here, that is why. Moving forward as I said enforcement provisions are a no brainer.

"I acknowledge it, to a degree. We have, as Don has noted, made efforts to secure our border. Those efforts fail because of the diligence of those seeking to enter our country illegally. I am not complicit in that diligence, and I disagree that there is an overall economic benefit to illegal immigration."

No, these efforts fail because no legal entry points were created in correlation to the enforcement strategies. We have to allow for the needed labor flows to access open industry. Until that happens we will continue to create an illegal labor force. And we being the operative word here. We run, invest and hire - it is not some corporate boogie man - it is us. It matters little what you disagree with; the facts are immigration has and will continue to be a benefit to our economy. If you want to start trading studies, send me your email and I will send you three months of reading material. The overwhelming majority of scholarly thought shows favorable data on the side of immigration.

"This speaks to the issue that is at the crux of the present political debate. Ideology aside, most people will support some form of amnesty, provided that it stems the tide of illegal immigration. The problem is that pro-amnesty advocates want amnesty first, and enforcement second (or not at all). That's the issue in talking point form, I'll grant you, but that's the gist."

This is not true. Every comprehensive package I have seen includes serious enforcement provisions in it. The current SAVE Act in congress now, for example, was taken almost ver batim from Gutierrez' STRIVE Act minus the legalization stuffs! The point is, when we say comprehensive we mean it. When you say you care about legalization on the other hand, so far enforcement-only folks have been just that.

"In other words, twenty years down the road, when we are dealing with another 15 million illegal immigrants who have entered our country with the confidence that amnesty surely awaited, will we be forced to provide it on account of our alleged complicity?"

Not if we do the right thing now and create needed legal entry points for labor to access industry! This is the main lesson from the 1986 Amnesty debacle - the lack of future labor flows. Immigrants that I know don't know anything about some 'amnesty' in the 80's, they came for a job not for 'amnesty'. A chance at earned legalization is merely what we owe them.

"If an amnesty law passes, isn't a law like the one passed by Oklahoma precisely what is needed to prevent future complicity?"

Sure, but not in isolation. It must be attached to legalization principles. Please stop using the word 'amnesty'; it means nothing now. Earned legalization is what we are advocating for...

"Would you agree that these are fair questions to ask before we pass a mammoth immigration reform bill?"

Questions of employer sanctions, border security, etc. are dealt with better in my opinion by the comprehensive voices than by the Tancredos of the world who would rather waste, spend and grand stand than look for workable solutions.

"Probably. But Wolverine is correct that pro-amnesty advocacy groups are parsing the law to make it sound far more oppressive than it is. Both sides are trying to create polarity on this issue (hence the "RAN AWAY!" poster image)."

Thanks for the tone of your post - I feel listened to. I hope you feel the same. You need to spend some time with my youth group of talented, engaged, immigrant youth who cry with me over their anxiety due to their immigrant status. IT IS REALLY SAD! This is their life man. And because of draconian legislation like that of Oklahoma, their futures' are seriously at risk. It isn't made up by the liberal media or Jim Wallis.

Posted by: hispanglo | November 19, 2007 4:10 AM

Ohhh, Canucklehead...I always appreciate your humor!

Uhhh, yeah. Aren't you kind of hoping that no Native Americans happen to wander onto this board? And read all these choice words about sending illegal immigrants back home?

Think we better start packing, eh?

Hellooooo France!

Maybe I'd get a special green card because I'm 1/16th Sioux.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 19, 2007 4:33 AM

"That is association. And what about the adult teenage girl who falls madly in love with her Mexican high school sweetheart who entered the country illegally and thus cannot"

Please ignore the above language in my last post. I failed to delete it.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 19, 2007 5:24 AM

Unfortunately , I see as much racism , in fact more coming from the left then the right . Simple fact is if was Canada no one would have a problem of saying wait a second , no more of this , people from Mexico want to come here too . Mick Sheldon

Mick
You asked for some history on immigration and how our policies have changed. I quoted you above to refer to one of those changes. The history of Canada and immigration is that until recently you did not need a visa or a passport in order to come here from our northern neighbor. They just came through one of the many ports of entry and left when you wanted to. Many stayed and started businesses and/or bought homes. They were regarded as undocumented but, unless they committed some real crime, no one cared really.
Mexico, and our other southern neighbors have been another matter entirely. If anyone who was poor came from Mexico they had to do so illegally through the desert. As long as they were just picking grapes no one cared much. It has only been since mainly poor uneducated Hispanic people have been coming and doing more than working at migrant farm jobs that this has become an issue. Even in the recent past when no one cared much about "Mexicans" coming over the border, they were treated differently than a Canadian probably because language and skin color made them more obvious.
I do not think it is fair to say people would rise up against Canadians in favor of Mexicans. There really is no way for those who have crossed our borders in the past twenty years to have done so legally. None. We have never allowed for our need for their labor. The fact that they were undocumented helped farmers pay them less and gave us cheaper food. We wanted them to come here illegally. (That is just one of the reasons why it is wrong for us to demand that they go back now.)
To my knowledge the only legal method we have ever had for Mexican labor was the Bracero program instituted during WWII. This program allowed for farm workers to come here but put them in camps and then told them what farms they were to work for and what wage they would get paid. It was not repealed until the mid 1960's, obviously long after the war, because it lowered wages for farmers who wanted cheaper labor. It was only when Cesar Chavez protested this program that it was finally done away with.
We needed their labor for this work back then and still do, but no one is going to have much of a chance to get even the farm labor portion of a comprehensive reform bill through. It isn't because someone is accusing them of unchristian like behavior though. That is not what is standing in the way.
Mick all of these argument have been aired before I would ask you to look up this history. Find out how we never used to ask for people from Europe to apply for visa's but processed them here, once they arrived, yet how we never did the same for any citizens from Mexico. There is no west coast or Texas equivalent of Ellis Island that i know of.
My grandfather came here from Germany in 1900 at the age of five. His parents never applied for a Visa. By 1914 he was in the army and eventually went to Europe to fight against his German brothers. The only immigrants we have ever feared and abused in mass, like we are now, were either Hispanic or Chinese. If there is no racial reasoning behind our immigration policies why is this true?

Posted by: wayne | November 19, 2007 9:23 AM