Mr. Wallis,

I have a few questions:

You say that your opposition is close to making Christian ministry illegal. Would you care to elaborate on this? What sorts of ministries are being made illegal? Where is this being done? What laws are being passed that would hinder ministry?

You say you are concerned about the language being used in this debate. We also have concerns about the language being used in this debate, in particular the term "undocumented". This implies that the problem is a matter of missing paperwork, when in fact our objections center on illegal entry. As angry as the rhetoric has sometimes gotten, I have yet to hear anyone argue that we should deport anyone for losing their driver's license or passport.

Would you be willing to replace "undocumented" with "illegal"? If you would take this step, this would set a good example and might motivate all of us to pay more attention to the rhetoric we use.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 15, 2007 2:06 PM

Wolverine, you should do some research on Oklahoma's HB 1804. It makes it a felony to knowingly harbor or transport illegal aliens. While nonprofits have been excerpted from the law in certain circumstances, the bill's author Randy Terrill is quickly pushing towards more "comprehensive" legislation that would deny prenatal care to illegal aliens and basically make it impossible for them to live--and I mean live--in Oklahoma.

Speaking of redefinitions and rhetoric, he wants to redefine these people legally as "contraband."

I find it very difficult to see how someone can call another human being "contraband" under the Gospel of Christ.

Posted by: hmm | November 15, 2007 2:35 PM

I agree with Jim that the rhetoric needs to be toned down, on both sides. You can see it even in the comment section of blogs. Whoever that Arizona talk show host is, he or she needs serious help. Community organizations and charities should never be stopped from doing their work simply because someone they assist may be here illegally. It would have been worthwhile had Jim also mentioned some instances of antagonistic rhetoric from those who support legalization of illegal immigrants. Smearing all opponents of amnesty as bigots or racists as sometimes happens doesn't really help the situation either.

Maybe if Jim addressed some of the legitimate fears that people who don’t support his version of immigration reform have instead of just dismissing them as uncharitable or unchristian, he'd get more traction on this. Is it illegitimate to fear the changes that take place in a neighborhood when a large population of poor, uneducated people move in? Is it illegitimate to worry about the quality of your child's education when the public school they attend is bursting at the seams because of the children of illegal immigrants and can't keep up with the growth? Is it illegitimate to worry about the divisions that will occur when a large population of a section of the country doesn't even speak the same language as the rest of the country and has stronger ties to a neighboring country than the one in which they currently reside?

These are normal human fears experienced daily by average Americans. While Jim may believe that Christians should ignore those fears for the sake of our duty to the strangers among us, he should at least take the time to recognize them and address them. Most Christians who oppose Jim's version of immigration reform don't hate immigrants or want them shot or want families ripped apart. If they had an opportunity to show compassion to a particular illegal immigrant in their midst they would probably help him or her, but this doesn't mean that Christian teaching requires them to accept the mass exodus from Mexico that currently exists.

Posted by: Eric | November 15, 2007 3:27 PM

Another point:

[Use of the term "undocumented"] implies that the problem is a matter of missing paperwork, when in fact our objections center on illegal entry.

About 40% of undocumented immigrants DO NOT enter the country illegally. They come here on a legal visa as a tourist, student, etc., and then don't leave when they are supposed to. So talking about illegal entry eliminates 2/5 of the undocumented immigrants out there right off the top.

I'm with Rev. Wallis and the USCIS and will stick to the term "undocumented." Your asking us to use the term "illegal" demonstrates your own prejudices.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 15, 2007 3:44 PM

Don wrote:

Wolverine, the US Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, consistently and regularaly uses the term "undocumented" when referring to those who are living here without legal sanction.

Well, if the government does it, it must be right. (Please make sure the Anti-War Department at Sojo gets a copy of that memo.)

To be fair, it is likely that USCIS uses this term because it is supposed to implement policy, not make it. As such, they have an particular obligation not to prejudge the legal status of persons in their custody.

But again, nobody is proposing that anyone be thrown out of the country for losing track of their papers, nor is anyone arguing that any "undocmented" individual not be given a fair chance to demonstrate that they are, in fact, here legally. Nor is anyone arguing that persons with forged documents should be allowed to stay indefinitely.

Documentation as such is not the issue here, legal status is. Outside of a particular legal proceeding, where we are attempting to determine the legal status of an individual who lacks proper documentation, the term "undocumented" is misleading.

To give an example of how this is misleading there was an article on this very website written by a pregnant woman who observed that she was "harboring an undocumented alien". She thought that this was a keen insight but in fact her article was gibberish -- papers or no the legal status of the children of legal residents in utero is not the slightest bit at issue.

If the government agency responsible for enforcing US immigration laws calls them "undocumented," why should we use the pejorative term "illegal"?

Because, with all due respect to the infallible federal government, in the vast majority of cases "illegal" is in fact the more accurate term.

Peace,

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 15, 2007 4:18 PM

As such, they have an particular obligation not to prejudge the legal status of persons in their custody.

And as Rev. Wallis points out, since the conversation has been poisoned by heated rhetoric, anger, frustration, and prejudice, let's also nopt prejudice our conversation by using pejorative terms like "illegal". I disagree strongly that it is more accurate than "undocumented."

And I find it quite interesting, ironic, and enlightening that you who are so concerned about enforcement of immigration laws--up to and including tearing families apart--are so willing to take swipes at the very agency that enforces the laws you want enforced just becuase I pointed out that they use the term you dislike.

Whatever,

Posted by: Don | November 15, 2007 4:26 PM

No Christian (or any other conscientious American) can support the extremist voices and actions targeting the illegal and undocumented aliens. But we do not have to welcome them in our midst, no matter how much we may sympathise with their situation. We are indeed facing a serious crisis in this country because of all immigration and our politicians just won't face up to it because the solutions are painful to some and it is not politically popular to alienate some segment. The true cost of "cheap" labor is not cheap but is horribly expensive in the broader sense and is undermining our economy and our society. The American people as a whole understand this. The "illegals" are uninvited intruders in our homeland and won't leave quietly. Indeed, when you view the protests of many and listen to their rhetoric, it is often extremist and threatening. WE have been far more tolerant than most other countries. It is past time to really secure our borders and fully enforce the laws already on the books.

Posted by: Dick | November 15, 2007 4:27 PM

Mr Wallis

I have said this before and I will say it again. As an Envagelical Conserrvative Christian I am for immigration. I have assisted two families in coming to this country in the past 12 years. Help them learn english, find them jobs, getting their children into our school systems and helping them to learn. Many Christian people helped in making this happen. Filling out forms, paying fees, etc. I think that it is sinful that just because some can walk across a shallow river, never pay their fees or fill out forms so that they can be here legally that they somehow should get a 'bye' on this. We have wlecomed the stranger and given the cup of cold water, clothed the naked. But when someone cheats, subverts the system to their advantage when others do not - is that fair? I don't mind rendering to Cesear but even God has standards for His children. I just want level ground for all who desire to enter our country. Wheather by air, train, boat or walking across a river.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 4:36 PM

Eric said:
"Is it illegitimate to fear the changes that take place in a neighborhood when a large population of poor, uneducated people move in? Is it illegitimate to worry about the quality of your child's education when the public school they attend is bursting at the seams because of the children of illegal immigrants and can't keep up with the growth? Is it illegitimate to worry about the divisions that will occur when a large population of a section of the country doesn't even speak the same language as the rest of the country and has stronger ties to a neighboring country than the one in which they currently reside?"

I appreciate your desire to connect the divide and your level of honesty about what is truly driving this debate. You seem to understand that anti-reform sentiment is not driven by a collective anger over 'law-breaking' but instead is about demographic changes that have cultural implications. This is a good thing to begin to talk about and something few will admit to.

Whether or not these fears are real does not mean that they are warranted. I would ask, "Are we scapegoating immigrants with problems that they are not responsible for?" Immigrants pay taxes (sales, property, and income!), and more importantly what they take in services they contribute ten-fold with their labor production which has helped us to grow over the last two decades - growth we could not have achieved without their necessary labor. We must continue to encourage people to voice these fears openly but also to tell the whole story. Immigrants contribute more than they consume!

Also, we must be honest about the cultural overtones that drive this debate. Calling people 'racists' may not be helpful but neither is ignoring the fear of Latinos that is driving this debate right now. That might not be easy to hear for some, but it is nonetheless very true.

Posted by: hispanglo | November 15, 2007 5:01 PM

Dick writes:
"No Christian (or any other conscientious American) can support the extremist voices and actions targeting the illegal and undocumented aliens. But we do not have to welcome them in our midst, no matter how much we may sympathise with their situation."

Yes welcoming them in our midst is precisely what God commands in the Leviticus 19:34 passage that Jim cites at the top of this thread.

I find it telling the Jim argues in terms of caring for people and from scripture, but the various detractors argue about laws from a completely secular viewpoint. Can't people favoring restricting immigration find theological or scriptural support?

Posted by: steve | November 15, 2007 5:12 PM

Having worked as an immigration form preparer, I can tell you the myth of the patient, law-abiding immigrant being harmed by the cheating, coniving immigrant is just that. It's myth. There are no legal options for the vast majority of Mexican and Latin-American immigrants. There is no place to sign up and wait patiently for your turn to become a permanant resident. A few special catagories exist [e.g., close family memember of someone who came in under the bracero program or certain kinds of engineers]. However, other than a few special catagories only TEMPORARY visas are available.

The current situation is this: the US benefits from the labor of many more Mexican and Latin American workers than the number of permits it issues. Thus, the US enjoys the labor of a large number of immigrants while simulataneously refusing to grant all the rights and privileges to that large number of recent immigrants. It's not quite slavery, but its maybe akin to having a son who will work on the family farm, but won't be entitled to inherit any land.

Regardless of my poor example, the point I want to make is that the cheater who is benefiting from people entering the country without documents is me and you. We're the cheaters. We're getting the benefit of from maintaining a permanent pool of second-class residents to do our dirty work.

Posted by: Jason | November 15, 2007 5:13 PM

Eric writes:
"These are normal human fears experienced daily by average Americans."

This is a good point. We should make great effort to address normal human fears. And I think there are plenty of places where Sojourners does exactly that with immigration.

But Jim does not do that in this article for a good reason: the topic is not about immigration per se, but about how we talk about it.

I think there is a lot beyond "normal human fears" going on in the conversation. There are inflamed fears, being intentionally fanned to achieve a political advantage. This is the true topic of this thread -- the conversation on immigration has been poisoned by fear-mongering.

Posted by: steve | November 15, 2007 5:21 PM

right on eric, wolverine, dick. my sentiments lie with those that want immigration laws enforced. those like jim who want open borders and amnesty simply don't understand the majority of americans and can't accept that there is an opposing view. jim needs to read the polls on the drivers liscense issue and get out and talk to those who rationally oppose amnesty/open borders. for the record, i am for mass deportation which i think can be done over a long period of time and can be done humanely. i believe that many illegals would leave willingly if they new that there was a mass effort to find them and deport them and their illegal families. the problem is that politicians will not address this issue because there is no money in it for them. status quo for politicians continues the flow of money to them from those who profit from illegals. this includes the "coyotes" and thugs that prey on the illegals. jim beats the jesus/christian drum because that is where his money comes from. his christian heart is no bigger than mine and most christians i know. his efforts at immigration reform are no better or stronger than mine and most christians i know. jim, please get out into the non-christian world, the general population and on the border to find out where the real solutions are for immigration reform. you are moving your crowd toward a serious, potentially violent, divide in the general populous.

Posted by: jerry | November 15, 2007 5:23 PM

In today's "Sojo Weekly Mail," Jim Wallis mentions Oklahoma's new law. I am in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I agree that faith-based organizations and individual believers should not ask for proof of citizenship when helping needy folks.
When I went to Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry's Day Center for the Homeless, I saw a flyer on the Bulletin Board from the Salvation Army which was in the next block which said that anyone going there for financial assistance bring proof that they actually needed it.
I am a follower of Jesus the Christ. I do not go by Levitical Law and quote from Leviticus what was written for the Jews. But, when Jesus talked about meeting the needs of strangers and aliens in the lands of Israel, Judea and Samaria, they did not have said immigration laws.
It is written for Jesus' followers to obey the laws where one lives as long as those laws do not interfere with one's relation with the Lord.
We have had heads of housing construction companies go on local TV stating that they have undocumented aliens working for them at the very same wage level which a legal resident or citizen would be doing if they were hired. But, they prefer to pay cash for labor and then they don't have to do all of the things required of them if hiring regular employees and providing the required benefits. Also, it seems that an overwhelming majority of the illegal aliens are sending most of their money back to the countries from which they came.

Posted by: Joe Allen Doty | November 15, 2007 5:37 PM

The immigration debate is barely a debate. Too much of it is just screaming back and forth. What puzzles me is the people that think we should just kick out all the illegals. "They shouldn't be here illegally!"

Well, maybe not, but two factors to consider. Firstly, certain sectors of our economy practically require illegal labor to keep wages and therefore prices down and profits up. Secondly, its not feasible to do so. Lets stop worrying about that.

We need reform so badly its not even funny. I don't have a problem with border security. That's fine. But we must change the laws to allow more in legally, and we must create workable laws for those that are already here.

These people aren't going away. We can have raids and deportations, but they will keep coming. Its sad to see that our nation still has the same phobia against immigrants its had throughout our history be it the Irish, the Eastern Europeans or Asians. We are a nation of immigrants whose ancestors came here looking for a better life (excepting those forcibly brought here which is another issue). Why are we so against people today doing the same thing?

Posted by: Paul | November 15, 2007 5:45 PM

I second the comments of hispanglo and Jason. So much of the immigration debate seems to be driven at the deepest level by a primitive "fear of the other." This instinctive reaction is not a new phenomenon, as the treatment of virtually every large immigrant group to the United States, from the Irish on, shows. Living in the Los Angeles area, I see with sadness the stereotypes and prejudices which attach to my Latino neighbors (e.g., the professional Latina who enters an Anglo household and is immediately assumed to be the housecleaner). I see and appreciate the contribution that immigrants make to the local economy and hope that we can find ways to fully integrate these hard-working people into our communities and elevate them from simply a "permanent pool of second-class residents" doing our "dirty work." We need to discuss these root cultural fears openly - only the sunlight of honest debate will dispel the shadows of ignorance and allow us to recognize our common humanity.

Posted by: Justine | November 15, 2007 6:08 PM

All right, just to put your pedantic nonsense to rest once and for all, I will amend my comments slightly...

Pedantic? Nonsense? Who was the one who first suggested to Jim Wallis that he should begin using "illegal" instead of "undocumented"? Who is being pedantic here?

I was merely pointing out that "illegal" isn't the term that the gov't uses. Sorry if that throws you a curve. If you want to make an issue about semantics, I suggest you take it up with the USCIS. In the meantime, I'll continue to use "undocumented" because I don't like the connotations of "illegal." Use of that term colors the debate in an unsavory way, which, if I understand it right, is the main point of Rev. Wallis' essay here.

And by the way, isn't trying to separate legal status from documentation a sort of Solomonic kind of hairsplitting? How can one separate the two? They're two sides of the same coin, aren't they? You like to bring up drivers' licenses. How can you separate legal status to operate a motor vehicle from possession of the documentation (license) that declares such legal status? Legal immigrants have the documentation to demonstrate their immigrant status (green cards), don't they? Legal visitors have their visas. Undocumented immigrants don't have documentation, do they? That's why they're undocumented and that's why they're living here illegally. It's two ways of saying the same thing.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 15, 2007 6:35 PM

While I agree that people who are here undocumented have broken some law we must stop using rhetoric that denotes hate and stirs up sentiments of fear amongst our citizens. As I am sure that most of you on this blog page know, breaking the immigration laws is NOT A FELONY. It is a misdemeanor. It is considered in the same category as driving without a license. However, we've made it look as though people who are here are mass murderers. I do not advocate for Illegal Immigration as this only creates an underclass, underserved, exploitable and enslaved society who has to live in the dark and in secret. However, I do look at the big picture. Something that many people including many of the mass media and therefore the general public are not seeing. We must examine NAFTA, CAFTA and any other free trade agreements and then we can see why the migration of workers has increased so much in the past 20 or years. We must look at our immigration laws and the system which allows people to come to our country. The media claims that over 2 million people come into our country the legal method. I suggest that we not just arbitrarily trust our media and do our own research. There are about 66 thousand H2B work visas issued each year which because of the lack of accountability, overseeing and just plain free reign the companies have with these workers this creates another class of undocumented immigrants as they escape their exploitive employers and join the secret class. We have another number that come under the H1B visas which come to work in our agriculture. We must not forget that they too are subject to abuse from their employers and often escape these inhumane situations and join that underclass. Lest we not forget the fast food industry who is bringing the J1 students which they say come to the US for a Cultural Exchange. However, they end up working for the 3 months they are here, sometimes get badly injured and not given medical attention, then return to their countries with a bigger debt then what they came here with. Because of the abuse these workers receive too are subjected to trafficking, and forced labor. You might want to read articles at the www.ciw.org page which talks about over 1,000 immigrant farm workers freed and over 6 farm owners who have received strict jail sentences for their abuse.

Immigration is an extremely complex, political and money making system. By taking on the mentality that we can fix this ourselves through shooting them at the border, or giving our local law enforcement 3 weeks worth of training on laws that even attorneys who dedicate their entire lives and USCIS agents who have been within the immigration system still do not know all of the ins and outs is really not the answer. We must make our Federal government elected officials accountable and our policy makers accountable for passing a Comprehensive Immigration Reform that will address the many complex issues that this topic entails. In the mean time I believe in the old verbage, "Do not do to others what you don't want others to do to you!" Let's live up to, "One Nation Under God..." I can't imaging that God has heaven neatly divided into sectors for those who are legal or illegal, for those who speak Spanish or English, or those who are from one ethnic group or another, or brown or black, or white or red. I believe God made us all in His image, gave us all different gifts, and just like our body has different parts so does the body of Christ, the church. I believe we each are a part of His body, and we must use all of our gifts to be whole. I need you and you need me!

Peace to all,
Vicky

Posted by: Vicky | November 15, 2007 6:41 PM

STOP THE HATE. FORGIVE EACH OTHER.

Maybe the immigrants are a GIFT from the Lord.

Be careful how you treat them.

Posted by: R.J. MacArthur | November 15, 2007 7:03 PM

I printed out and read all 19 pages of the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform document linked in this SojouMail. It speaks again and again and again about unChristian attitudes and how we need to work for more humane and understanding and merciful attitudes. I don't disagree with any of that. But when we say that, and nothing more, we are NOT making any case for comprehensive immigration reform. That would require some hard proposals for actually controlling immigration as a part of the total reform package. The left keeps ignoring that fact of life as much as the right keeps ignoring the humanity of undocumented immigrants.

Several years ago a bishop mailed out to all the clergy in our region, without comment on and therefore presuambly supportive of, an article by a California pastor saying that immigration laws are the product of selfish and greedy souls an we should throw our borders open to anyone who wants to come here. I wanted to ask if that person left his house unlocked and posted a sign saying, "Anyone who needs a place to stay, come on in."

Even after our attitudes have all become Christ-like, there will still need to be immigration laws and enforcement. That's a real-world fact of life.

Both sides of the problem need to be addressed. I don't see anybody advancing a truly comprehensvie solution.

-- Michael

Posted by: Michael | November 15, 2007 7:08 PM

Both sides of the problem need to be addressed. I don't see anybody advancing a truly comprehensive solution.

Actually, Michael, immigration reform advocates have been attempting to advance a "truly comprehensive" solution for quite a long time, one that includes immigration laws that can be enforced, border policies that are workable, a guest worker policy that allows people to come here and work legally, and some kind of recognition of status for those that are already here and that aren't going away.

Check out some of the immigration reform organizations that are listed on the Sojourners' Web site (www.sojo.net). You will find proposals that address most, if not all, your concerns.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 15, 2007 7:19 PM

Don wrote:

I have a bumper sticker that reads, "No HUMAN BEING is 'illegal'".

Do you really mean that? None? No exceptions?

So a convicted murderer breaks out of the state penitentiary. You mean to say he's not out of jail illegally? We have no right to track him down and send him back to prison?

Look, I can see why someone would support amnesty. Really. I think it's would be a huge mistake but I can see why a decent person might reach a different conclusion -- These people are poor. They can earn more in the US. It's only natural to try to get out of poverty. Most of them mean us no harm -- there's a lot of truth to all of that.

But in your eagerness to turn a temporary and illegal presence into the US into an absolute moral and legal right to remain here indefinitely, you trash the notion of rule of law -- which is a cornerstone of any civilized society.

And I've yet to see anyone at Sojourners ask about the effect that this exodus of workers and families is having on Mexico.

Now this doesn't mean we can't offer amnesty at all, that we are morally obligated to do mass deportations or shoot border crossers on sight, but it does mean that we have to think about the effects it will have on both of our countries. And I'm not persuaded that allowing a broad amnesty is in the best interests of either the US or Mexico.

Not because I hate immigrants. My mom was an immigrant. A legal immigrant, but an immigrant nonetheless. My mom and I have had our arguments, like any mother and son, but believe me: I don't hate my mom!

It isn't because of some primal "fear of the other". I grew up in Detroit. I was immersed in the "other". In some ways I am "other" myself. People who don't look like me don't freak me out.

As a brother in Christ, I'm asking you: Set aside your judgments, your assumptions, long enough to listen. I don't expect to change your mind any more than I expect you'll change mine. But give us a chance to explain what we really think and what we actually want to do. Don't presume that some hothead talk-show host in Arizona speaks for all of us.

Or we can go on hurling insults. As you've probably come to realize, I can do that too.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 15, 2007 8:09 PM

Have to return to Steve's question, what is the scriptural basis of those opposed to immigration reform? Are they arguing on secular merits or on spiritual ones?
Are they arguing first and foremost as Christians or as Americans?
Is there a higher obligation than obeying (or enforcing) the law of the land?

(and for both sides, is the higher obligation, employed consistently - with regard to abortion for instance).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 15, 2007 8:17 PM

First, I confess that I have not read every one of the extensive blogs on this website.

I grew up in New Mexico, on the Navajo Indian Reservation. (I am of north western european descent. Dad worked for the B. I. A.)

"We", most of "us" are immigrants. "They" did not invite "us" here.

So first of all, let us drop the word "aliens."
(After all, aliens come from the Andromeda Galaxy. Just kidding!!!!!)

I always try to remember that if we took a good look at the globe, we would find that contrary to what we are taught in school, we live on THE Continent of THE Americas. We are not THE only Americans. To learn that, one needs only to go to Central or South America and live among the people as they live.

I am aware that throughout written history at least, human beings (as well as pre-human primates and lower mammals) have divided land up into segments and claimed portions for themselves.
All over the globe, human beings are, in one way or another immigrants.

That being said, do those of persons in the United States of the Americas need to worry about the influx from south to north. Yes. It is incumbent upon all of humans to find a Christian, or at least a moral and ethical solution to this problem. Remember that moral and ethical are not always legal. Legal is not always moral or ethical. People are not going to stop coming up here.

After all, anyone who has ever studied the contents of dumpsters, knows that many people can live off of what the average middle class family throws away each day, than they can working 18 hour days in a Maquila.

Couple a long history of suppression by corrupt officials (both secular and religious I am sorry to say,) with destruction of indigineous cultures, jungle, plants, and animals, and you have poor, under educated (not stupid,) malnourished people.

The blessings of mass communication have made it all over the world though. People everywhere have access to television in public if not at home. The news is out. Here in this part of the America's people look beautiful and well fed. People have new cars. People use drugs and go in rehab a lot. That all costs money!

I can tell you one thing, If I lived south of the border, I would be trying hard to get north. Thank God, I and my children were fortunate enough to be born in the U. S. of THE AMERICAS. I try never to forget that it is luck, not inate virtue that has placed us here.

My prayer is that people will be able to open their hearts and homes and lands to those displaced by war, poverty, revolution and (never forget--global warming.) Soon enough, there WILL be two continents of the America's with, if humanity is fortuate, a large actively volcanic, island or two where central america is now.

Otherwise, my great-great grandchildren will inherit a desert "reservation" somewhere. There "keepers" will charitably offer boarding schools. Or they they will use them for target practice. That might be more "fun."

Remember, turn no one away. S/He just might be our Lord come again.

Posted by: Katharine | November 15, 2007 9:23 PM

Trent,

I will concede, up front, that in terms of pithy proof texts, Wallis has us beaten. If two Bible verses can settle this whole argument, without context or elaboration from other passages, then Lev. 19:34 would trump.

But responsible interpretation doesn't work that way. Never has. And when you look at the rest of Lev. 19, the case becomes less clear.

Lev. 19 is a collection of miscellaneous laws, most of them general moral principles. Many of these are applicable to the state, but many are not: rules regarding the harvesting of fields, against the mating of different kinds of animals, rules regarding the trimming of hair and beards, and a prohibition on tattoos.

In particular, there is no elaboration on this theme, here or in any other part of scripture, that specifies that any government cannot establish and enforce rules regarding immigration, or must allow mass immigration. This passage could be read that way, but it can be read just as easily as a prohibition on discrimination by individuals.

Lev. 19:34 cites the Israelites' history in Egypt. That history makes the use that Sojo is making of this passage rather ironic: The problem in Egypt wasn't that the Israelites weren't allowed in, it was what happened afterwards; they were enslaved. The Israelites wound up petitioning to leave, and when Pharoah refused the Egyptians were struck with plagues.

Perhaps someone will correct me on this, but I don't recall an incident where Israel was obliged to accept mass immigration from a neighboring country. To be fair, I don't recall that they turned away mass immigration either. They did allow some immigration, the story of Ruth describes this. Ruth the Moabitess apparently assimilated into the Hebrew society -- "Your people will be my people, and your God my God." -- so I don't think it's outrageous to expect immigrants here to do likewise. And she had what might be called an Israelite "sponsor", her mother-in-law Naomi.

It's worth noting that when they settled into the land the Israelites had a less than progressive policy towards the indigenous people; for the most part they wiped the locals out -- with God's apparent approval. That certainly doesn't sound to me like treating the alien like one of your own, so at least at the public policy level it would appear that there is some room for exceptions.

In short, I think it's pretty clear that we have an obligation to treat aliens fairly and humanely, and I wouldn't argue that this principle is not to some extent applicable to government. But there's virtually nothing in scripture that indicates that this principle precludes the making or enforcement of immigration law, or creates an absolute right to immigrate without regard to existing laws.

Which leads us back to mundane, secular issues of national interest.

Lev. 19:34 makes a good slogan -- and I mean that in a positive sense that Wallis has an important point that we all should bear in mind. What he does not have is an inviolable law that binds the federal government to amnesty or open borders. At least I'm not convinced of that and my doubts have some basis in other passages in scripture.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 15, 2007 10:25 PM

Dear Brother Walls:

I believe present US immigration policy works just as it was intended by the authorities who are charged with implementing our laws. A policy that serves its intended purpose cannot be called "broken". Our government, in co-operation with commercial interests, has created the present situation and is content with things as they are.

Over against our current policy stands the ancient value of welcoming the stranger. Genesis records the hospitality of Abraham and Lot to visitors to whom they gave shelter and protection on pain of death. The tradition of protecting the stranger antedates the US Consitution. So in terms of human conduct within recorded history, hospitality is the normative attitude and protecting national borders against human migration is the anomaly. In this sense, our present policy might be considered "broken" because it represents a discontinuity with the tenor of human culture.

We need to get this right because with global warming millions of human souls will be displaced. From the dawn of human existence, when humans faced flood, famine, pestilence, and sword they migrated. This is why humans are found in all places even though human life emerged in Africa. Our species has survived because we have learned to migrate and adapt to new environments. Events in the natural world will again render national borders irrelevant.

The nation state emerged when most humans were serfs or worse. Humans were owned by lords who owned all the land and needed human labor to produce wealth from the land. Since humans are no longer bound to the land, the notion of controlling the population within the borders of a nation-state has become obsolete. People will go where they can best survive and nothing will prevent this from happening. The Great Wall of China failed. Hadrian's Wall failed. The border being built in Palestine will fail. The wall between the US and Mexico will fail. Beyond physical migration is migration over the internet.

Borders presuppose certain people have an entitlement to wealth from which others may be excluded. This is an outmoded concept. Nations attempt to create the illusion that they can provide safety and security for property rights for the ownership class within the state's borders. States proclaim that safety can be maintained by keeping some persons out (which also means keeping other persons in). Reality will force us to surrender this illusion. No state can guarantee anything. Our only security is our reliance on God and seeking righteousness.

Christian faith is not bound by borders--it never has been. Christian faith emerged with a global perspective. This perspective is in conflict with idolatry to the state. Christians whose reality is shaped by the command "Go into all the world.." cannot succumb to the idolatrous demands of any state. The coin of the realm may belong to Caesar, but the righteous know their loyalty belongs to the God who is Father of us all and wills for all humankind to live as one family.

Posted by: C.D. CHAMBERLAIN | November 15, 2007 10:40 PM

I appreciate Jim Wallis's original post, which called for a review of our rhetoric -- amazing that right away, that call seemed to be ignored! I have been wanting the same thing. I live in NJ, and I hear folks speak quite bitterly about illegal immigration, yet as I listen to them talk I can't make out any way in which they even have any experience with it. While I know there are places where there is extreme strain on schools and medical systems, the people I know aren't living in any of those places. I truly believe that their bitterness stems from unwanted cultural change. It isn't even just the people they perceive as "illegal immigrants" but all kinds of "other" people - things aren't the same as they were, and won't be, and that is what makes them so angry. My concern is that all their bitterness and anger is being exploited by political forces who want to keep them there, so they won't look around at a whole host of other things they ought to be angry about (and voting about!). It's time to have a conversation about how all those "others" make "us" feel, and then to rise above it. Only when we've done that can we have a responsible conversation about our borders.

Posted by: Sue | November 15, 2007 10:46 PM

I'm really relieved to hear discussion emerging about the needs of desperate people. I feel confident that God is looking on the heart of his brown-skinned, Spanish speaking children. I don't believe he's concerned if some law labels them "illegal". I think he loves them anyway and wants good for them. I also think God commands me to do the same.

Posted by: Gladys | November 16, 2007 12:21 AM

Don,

Don't like the term "illegal alien"? Find it carries too much of a stigma? Could you settle for "unauthorized"? Conveys the sense that we are talking about people who are here without government approval, but much less of a moral stigma, and less risk of people getting confused that this is just about missing papers. Used by Congressional Research Service and Government Accountability Office. Think about it.

C'mon folks, work with me. I'm trying to create some room for a meaningful conversation here. You say that's what you want...

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 16, 2007 12:38 AM

Weren't we all immigrants to this land at some point? Besides Native Americans.

Let's love ALL our neighbors (outside or inside our borders) as ourselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 1:21 AM

Weren't we all immigrants to this land at some point? Besides Native Americans.

By anom

We are a nation of immigrints . I think its always been our strength and our strongest virtue , even though many here do not believe we have virtue .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 2:16 AM

Don't you agree?

Posted by: N.M. Rod

Of course !!!!! Now we are on the same page . I just happen to believe because of our acknowledgement of that very fact ! , and a Constitution and dedication by the people to keep trying to get it right , even after we fail , we also happen to be the greatest nation in the world that is offering hope , freedom and opportunity for all its people . And hopefully for those who wish to come here in the future .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 3:14 AM

I definitely understand the concerns of people who oppose having ‘undocumented’ persons living in this country. I believe that everyone in this country should be documented and share the same rights and responsibilities as U.S. citizens.
I believe that obtaining legal status in this country should be streamlined, simplified supplied at the lowest cost possible and not limmited in any way. If we truly made legal immigration this simple, I could understand anyone’s concerns with someone who is not willing to undergo the process. But if anyone has objections to this very welcoming policy, I would ask them to search themselves and see if it does not stem from prejudice, selfishness, or love of comfort. I understand that if we allow mass immigration into this country that some of us may find it harder to find a job, there may be some issues with overpopulation, and there may be language and cultural difficulties. But we must see past these things and love others more than ourselves. Being a follower of Jesus is difficult, there are sacrifices to be made. Jesus did not say “love your neighbor, if it is convenient”. On the day of judgment God will not stop short of condemning us, saying “ I was a stranger and you did not let me in… but that’s ok I understand how difficult it would have been for you.” We are commanded in the Bible to welcome the stranger and love our neighbors as ourselves and I find it enlightening that when questioned “who is my neighbor” by a teacher of the law, Jesus tells a story of a Samaritan man(a foriegner in the land of Judah) helping a Jew. I believe that we, as Christians, should petition for a system which allows easy access to this country. I believe that in the meantime we should treat the undocumented immigrants who are here with compassion and dignity. If that means giving them free healthcare, then so be it. Christ never turned away anyone wanting to be healed. If it means housing them against the authority of the law,then so be it. More than once Jesus challenged the Pharisees for their adherence to the Jewish law in circumstances where it prevented Him from loving and caring for people. And this Jewish law was handed down by God Himself.

Posted by: Ryder | November 16, 2007 4:37 AM

C'mon folks, work with me. I'm trying to create some room for a meaningful conversation here. You say that's what you want...

Wolverine, I already told you I'll stick with "undocumented." It doesn't carry the emotional baggage that other terms do.

You can, and will I'm sure, continue to use the term you choose. But I thought Rev. Wallis asked us for a "review of our rhetoric." I'm also asking. Why should we use a term that poisons the debate from the get-go?

I would also say that "unauthorized" isn't much better, but nobody I know uses that term anyway.

By insisting on using pejorative terminology, you are contradicting yourself, because you are not "creating room for meaningful conversation," despite your protest to the contrary.

lg wrote:
Christians who argue that it is only a misdemeanor are on a slippery slope. What misdemeanors do we give a wink?

How many Christians, you perhaps included, give our motor vehicle speed laws a "wink"? They're also misdemeanonrs. But I am reguarly passed on the highway by vehicles sporting fish symbols or other Christian bumper stickers and who are clearly breaking the law, some by quite a large amount.

So be careful, lg, how you argue your case.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | November 16, 2007 7:42 AM

Don,

By insisting on using pejorative terminology, you are contradicting yourself, because you are not "creating room for meaningful conversation," despite your protest to the contrary.

I am not contradicting myself by attempting to find new terminology. You illustrate your closed-mindedness by rejecting my suggestions out-of-hand and failing to suggest neutral terms that we might both agree to.

By insisting on using the term "undocumented" to the exclusion of all others, you only confuse yourself. The fact is this is not about missing papers, it's about legal status.

How many Christians, you perhaps included, give our motor vehicle speed laws a "wink"? They're also misdemeanors. But I am reguarly passed on the highway by vehicles sporting fish symbols or other Christian bumper stickers and who are clearly breaking the law, some by quite a large amount.

Wrong Again! Simple speeding violations are typically "civil infractions" Civil infractions are not generally treated as criminal violations under US law. (One is held "responsible" rather than "guilty") Civil infractions involve a lower standard of evidence, (preponderance of the evidence) than crimes, and penalties are limited to fines or "points" on one's drivers license. Civil violations do not create a criminal record.

Misdemeanors are petty crimes. As criminal violations a finding of guilty requires evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". Misdemeanors carry a meaningful risk of at least a short term of imprisonment, and while they are often expunged after several years of good behaviour misdemeanors do create a criminal record that must be reported to employers and government agencies.

Don, you seem to know a lot of things about the law. Unfortunately a lot of things you know happen to be wrong.

But don't let that stop you from making grand pronouncements on the bad faith of your opponents based on random guesses about what the law is. I find your combination of self-righteousness and ignorance entertaining in an oddball sort of way.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 16, 2007 9:33 AM

Bottom line for most of us conservative evangelicals...

We would just like the laws on the books inforced. We are pro-immigration, we just believe that the same standards for those that have to apply and when given permission to come to this country and have to board a plane to get here. Those same standards should apply to those that can walk across the border to gain enterance.

Not too hard. Equal access for all.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | November 16, 2007 10:03 AM

I am really tired of the bleeding hearts who feel that those who cross the borders illegally are like innocent, needy children who need a helping hand. The "helping hand" that some are giving is in conflict with true Godliness.

I am a foster mom and currently have custody and care of a baby who came to us as a 10 week old infant with multiple broken ribs and limbs and other neglect. His unmarried parents are illegalls from south of the border. They are also chronic liars with criminal associations and have ridiculous stories about how this baby was "accidentally" hurt. Doctors and xrays have verified more than one incident of malicious violence against this baby.

What we take issue with is that those who represent the "human rights" of these lawless invaders are more concerned with protecting them than the life of this baby. The birth mother followed the father here to have his baby while he lived with another woman. When our Oklahoma immigration bill, HB1804 came up, the father became highly interested in custody of this baby, whereas before he didn't care. The child is an anchor baby, and our open borders and lax laws are allowing people like this to come here, soak "the system" and put their children in horrible peril.

You bleeding heart enablers should look more deeply into the reality of many of the lives and character of these aliens for whom you want to provide sanctuary. We have enough criminals and child abusers in the U.S. to deal with.

Grace

Posted by: Grace | November 16, 2007 10:05 AM

I've always had the greatest respect for Jim Wallis and Sojourners. I agree with them on the war in Iraq and many other issues. But I do not fully agree with this piece on immigration. Yes, there are bigots out there who are using the immigration issue for their own evil purposes. We must condemn them. But there are also many working class Americans who see illegal immigration as a real threat to them and their communities. I have absolutely no problem with legal immigration. But a civilized country must oppose illegal immigration. Because its illegal. And also because (in the case of illegal immigration from Mexico), it is due to the ruling elites in Mexico dumping their problems on the US taxpayer. The late environmentalist Ed Abbey said his solution to the illegal immigration problem from Mexico was to catch each illegal, give them a gun and send them back into Mexico. I abhor violence, and am queasy about Abbey's hyperbole, but his underlying point was valid. And, it is wrong to assume that I am anti-Hispanic. I speak Spanish and my kids and wife have built houses for the poor in the barrios of Tijuana and Tecate. Also, don't forget that the illegal immigration problem comes also from countries other than Mexico as well. I am personally aware of people from Hong Kong who defrauded the immigration system to get into the US and have defrauded American public school systems while here. Yes, the Bible requires that we welcome the stranger. But that does not require that we allow corrupt regimes to dump their problems on us or that we allow crooks to game our system, at the expense of honest taxpayers. I say this as a Democrat and a guy committed to social justice. Welcome LEGAL immigrants by all means, they've played by the rules.

Posted by: Bill | November 16, 2007 10:36 AM

"You purport to lecture us on the fine points of law, get the law wrong, and jump on us failing to point out all the legal angles that you yourself failed to mention. And then you accuse us of hypocrisy!" Wolverine

"I can't make up my mind if this is funny or sad. I do know you knuckleheads have taken up more than enough of my time."Wolverine

I didn't get the law wrong. I am an attorney. I specialize in immigration law. I did point out where Don might have been wrong, or at least inprecise. Dialog with you is useless because there is an unbridgeable chasm in values. You have stated in the past that if deporting undocumented immigrants means forcing their U.S. born kids out of the country as well, you have no problem with that. I don't have a hard time making up my mind. It is not funny. It is sad.

I agree. You should not waste anymore time here on this subject. The differences are irreconcilable.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 16, 2007 11:39 AM

Well, Mick, your ancestors came here uninvited and stayed on and on and you're just another anchor baby, too...

The thief is always the one most afraid of other thieves... he knows about the worst that can happen because he's intimately familiar with the mindset.

So many of the selfish remind me of the historical "Know-Nothing" Party who were proud of their intransigence...

Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 11:59 AM

Comprehensive immigration reform failed because the people of this country do not trust the government to follow through on what it says. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

From what I read and hear, I do not trust what our government says about our relationship with Mexico and, as a consequence, our border policy.

I coming to believe that there have been back-room deals between the US and Mexico which have not been disclosed to the American people. The stories from the border are just too wierd to explain any other way.

Why are two border patrol agents serving ten years in jail and why did the guy they shot in the butt have the DA's card on him? Why is nobody following up on the kidnapping of American citizens along the border?

I believe we have a real problem at a foundational level: trust.

I'm probably sounding like a kook, but we don't have all the pieces to the immigration puzzle up on the table. There are hidden agendas. I think that is partly responsible for the heated (and unChristian) rhetoric. People are just frustrated.

Posted by: John Rallison | November 16, 2007 12:42 PM

"Comprehensive immigration reform failed because the people of this country do not trust the government to follow through on what it says. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I think this is absolutely correct, which is why sanctimonious preening isn't going to change any minds on this issue. Calling people heartless, or Godless, or whatever pejorative you want to use only reinforces the notion that the pro-amnesty side of the equation does not understand the issue.

And the speeding ticket comparison is absurd.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 16, 2007 1:01 PM

I guess Kevin S. has gotten some speeding tickets!

Speeding endangers your own life, that of others as well as property.

50,000 people die each year in auto accidents and multiples of that are seriously maimed. This is a behavior problem with consequences far greater than some poor people crossing the Rio Grande in search of work.

It is highly irresponsible and selfish, sinful behavior.

But since it's your own sin, well, minor stuff, right?

Why not obey the law? Are speeding laws not just? Why are your own selfish desires put above the safety of others?

No, speeding has the potential to harm people in grievous ways while the act of people crossing an imaginary line (just like migratory birds or animals who have more rights than human beings, apparently) does not harm anyone physically at all - unless some cowboys take the talk radio host's incitement to murder them.

However, one could say, "there goes the neighborhood."

But, we know how little many love their neighbors, let alone their enemies. After all, they think so little of them that they endanger their lives, health and property through the selfish behavior of speeding.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 16, 2007 1:22 PM

I'm in my usual last minute dither: our group leaves tomorrow. This is our third trip to Guatemala this year, one of many like trips, to build houses with Habitat for Humanity/Guatemala. We raise money for land, then take groups down to build on that land. When we go back to the little housing groups we've built, we find people settled in, children going to school, little businesses flourishing. As you may know Habitat builds homes with the homeowner's sweat equity, no interest charged, no profit. The cost of the repayment for materials is usually less than they had paid for renting a dirt-floor shack. Immigration reform? Quite possibly.

Read "Enrique's Journey," a documented story of immigration, by Sonia Nazario. Read a bit of the history of US/Central American relations in the past half century. And read about "Free Trade" and its effects on the economy of those countries.

Posted by: Betty Neville Michelozzi | November 16, 2007 1:46 PM

When anyone quotes Leviticus, I always ask if they think all the rules in Leviticus should be followed? Like not eating pork or wearing clothes made from different cloths. Do you agree with the Jews who say God gave them Palestine so the non-jews living there have no rights?
I live in a conservative area but belong to a progressive group that discusses political topics. I rarely run across anyone that is going to support any kind of comprehensive reform (amnesty in any form) until we get the borders in control. I predict that this is going to be the wedge issue that is going to damage the Democrats in the election. The Democrats are supporting Bush on immigration. That is not a good sign.
Do you believe we should throw our borders open to anyone in the world who can make their way here, or just those from Mexico?
Last night on NPR a guest was upset that undocumented immigrants don't get health care. Shouldn't we worry about our own citizens getting health care first?
What we should be protesting is the corrupt system in Mexico that does not provide a decent education or income for their own people. Mexico is in such good shape as a country that they hold U.S. paper. We are in debt to them. Ask their elites and our corporate executives that have plants down there why they pay their people so little that they can do much better coming here and working for less than our minimum wage.
Solve those problems and you will affect the immigration problem. Making them citizens or giving free aid to those here illegally is just throwing gas on the fire.

Posted by: Curt | November 16, 2007 2:55 PM

I love that - "greatest country in the world for freedom and opportunity and the best hope of the world" - with a big sign reading, "Stay Out! This Means You!"

And its citizens willing to give up their own freedom to make sure of it!

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and western Europe are all areas of the world where freedom both personal and economic are now greater than in the U.S., though that didn't used to be true. As in so many other areas where we led the way, our once-great nation has fallen behind.

The one area we have undisputed supremacy is in overwhelming military might and the near-1000 foreign military bases we occupy, and the amount we spend on the military which outspends by far the entire rest of the globe.

But we're going far into debt to maintain and expand that and our national character is more and more defined by the hardness and cruelty of the martial spirit.

Who would have believed that 42% of Americans would eventually think torture and suspension of the constitution are just fine?

That is the conscience of Empire talking.

Posted by: Semper Hi | November 16, 2007 3:55 PM

"In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."

Benjamin Franklin, lamenting the large number of German immigrants who were coming into the colony of Pennsylvania, 1753

Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 5:23 PM

Ben coulda been right, too many of those peacenik Mennonite and Amish
into Pennsylvania. That William Penn was a bummer peacenik too.

Course when that was written Ben was a #1 fan of England and a partisan Britisher!

Only when a private letter of his was intercepted outlining secret duplicity and he was hauled before Parliament did he turn against England, out of personal pique. That fit of Ben's temper and thirst for personal revenge changed the course of history, for then he turned against England, moved to France and dedicated himself to undermining England and trying to provoke the French into open warfare with England again.

Even his own son, who he'd had appointed a British governor in the colonies, refused to go along with Dad's reversed course and later moved to England.

Maybe we'd all have been better off if Ben hadn't been such a Deist and been closer to Christ, brilliant man though he certainly was. Then the nation would not have been conceived in violence and our current belief in its redemptive nature wouldn't be so tied up in our national roots.

Posted by: Franklin Stove | November 16, 2007 6:04 PM

Pilar, thank you for that compelling post! God bless you!

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 16, 2007 11:02 PM

I am always sorry when we humans start calling names, such as "bleeding hearts," "conservatives," liberals." Those terms usually play a role in shutting people down. I do not think of myself as a "bleeding heart." Rather I am a hard headed pragmatist, who knows that what we do to others will come back to us.

What I would like to comment on is the massively destructive nature of NAFTA. I voted for NAFTA, because I could not see clearly enough how dredfully exploitative it would be. The big Maquilas are owned by the wealthiest of USA corporations.

Let me tell you of an advertisement that I saw in one year in the late 90's and then what it was the following year. A nice, respectable looking caucasian (white) employer is seated beside a colorfully dressed native Mestizo. He says, "Rosa Gonzales is a very colorful person and you can have her skills for $0.59 per hour. He holds up a lovely garment meant for a USA child.

The very next year, the exact same man and woman with the exact garment and he says, "Rosa Gonzales is a very colorful character and she will work for you for $0.39 per hour.

That shirt will sell at Wal Mart for $19.95. Not only that, but Rosa is the ONLY member of her family that can have a job at this Maquila. Her young children are home in the care of a boy who cannot go to school, because he must care for the children whilst mother works.

Mother is not allowed to bring her own lunch or drinking water. She is required to eat at the company canteen and the amount of her food is deducted from her pay. Deducted also is the birth control pill that her supervisor forces her to swallow each morning before she sit at her sewing machine. And, should this married. Catholic woman cheek the pills and become pregnant, she will be given injections to produce an abortion. This is also taken out of her pay. If she refuses, she looses her pay AND NO ONE ELSE FROM HER FAMILY CAN COME TO WORK FOR THAT MAQUILA.

It may be many miles to the next closest Maquila.
Many teenage girls are killed and hundreds are kidnapped on their way to work. There is won town in Mexico where over 3900 young women have gone missing. It is so bad that some USA women lawyers are looking into it with the Mexican authorities.

There some good things happening. Aid workers, church groups, and individual volunteers such as myself go to these countries to build clinics, teach skills, pay a fair wage. I taught English at a very poor village in El Salvador. I did not receive pay, just love and appreciation. I had to pay my own travel. There I met people who had worked in the USA for about 20 years during the Salvadorenean Civil War. They had sanctuary. they have returned to their country and are now helping their countrymen with money they saved in the USA. How happy I was to see that.

The Maquila's are like prisons. they are big, uniformily colored, with large razo0r wire and electrified fences. A pretty building with flowers is what you see from the road and you have to hike back to see the rest. There you may face men with guns and dogs.

As a US American, and older, I told them I was lost and wondering how to get into the compound to ask directions. They asked me where I wanted to go and they directed me out.

Like all people, there is a criminal element. I spent 33 years working for the Department of Social Services amd Mental Health Centers, in Colorado. What I know in spades is that every race and every economic class sexually abuses their children or the children of others. Every race and every social class has theives in high and in low places.

Wolverine, what exactly is a knucklehead? My father used to call me that. Sometimes it was in fun and said with affection. Other times, well, ... Please continue to "waste (your) time with us." Talking is the best way to learn and solve problems. I always like to hear what the persons who bring up the controversaries are saying. I hope to get to know and understand all of you on this blog better, so that I can enter into the discussion more knowledgably.

Peace and Love, Katharine

Posted by: Katharine | November 17, 2007 6:02 AM

I have watched several programs with spokesman from both sides of the political fence about the two border guards that are in prison. This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that the drug runner who was shot was in custody at the time he was shot. Those supporting the criminal generally seem to think those guarding our border are all vigilante thugs. Regardless of what you think about those who think they have the right to come here and work and receive benefits, there are also a lot of criminals coming across the border, preying on our citizens and othere immigrants and ending up in our jails. We get to support thim at a high cost also. A high percentage of the illegal drugs in this country are also coming across the border.
Are we to condone a system where each of us can pick and choose the laws we want to obey? Some don't like immigration laws, some don't like traffic laws, some don't like tax laws, some don't like environmental regulations, some don't like equal rights laws and on and on. That would be anarchy. Our President sets the example by issuing signing statements that say "this law applies to everyone but me".
To Hispanglo: I don't know who you get your information from. I do know that you can get any result you want from a survey by carefully choosing the questions you ask and their phrasing. I would not vote for anyone whose only issue was closing the borders. There are a lot of other issues. If you think illegal immigration isn't a hot button issue, consider what happened with the drivers license issue in New York and what it did to Spitzer's popularity, and the effect it has had on Hillary and Obama in recent debates. And that is among the Democrats.
Katherine relates how tough life is in Mexico. I have a lot of sympathy for the people and can appreciate their incentives for coming to this country. I have friends who volunteer at clinics in Haiti. They don't even have Maquilas to work at. If we catch any of them crossing our shores we send them back. Nobody seems concerned about that. The Mexican people are willing to work very hard under harsh conditions. They have the gumption to make the difficult journey to the U.S. Those characteristics are listed as some of Mexico's resources along with raw materials and a tourism industry. As I said, it is not a poor country but it has a lot or poor people because of a corrupt social system. Katharine says 3900 young women are missing and some USA lawyers and Mexican authorities are looking into it. Think about what that says. Would anyone be "looking into it" if there weren't foreign lawyers there?
People living in terrible conditions throughout the world. Many of them are working for U.S. multinationals so we can go to a big box store and get a deal. The answer to this is not to just throw open our borders to anyone in the world who can get here. That will just bring world poverty to the U.S. Katrina reminded us that our cities already have a lot of misery.
We were told that the comprehensive reform in the 80's was going to fix the immigration problem. It was just an incentive for more. We were told NAFTA would fix the problem. It has been a disaster for workers in this country and the other countries. The main beneficiaries are the CEO's, large stock holders, Wall Street traders, and the politicians who soak up the contributions flowing from the others. We are slowly building a Mexico-like society here as the rich and powerful are getting richer and more powerful while the middle class is under attack and being pushed toward the lower class.
Those of us who say "fix the border first" are not going to accept any more hollow programs that say they will fix the borders later. Our message is fix the borders first and then we will talk about what we are going to do with people here who are not citizens. Fixing the borders does not mean stopping immigration. It means having a set of rules that are enforced.
One last thought and this is going to open a whole new can of worms. When is anyone going to start talking about the growth of the human population on this planet? I think that many of the difficulties around the world today are the result of more people being produced that an area can support. All the experts predict that unless there is some catastrophe the population of the world will be 50% greater by 2050 than it is now. That means when today's babies are 43. Think of all the cities and suburbs being 50% larger. Where will all the water, energy and other resources come from? What will be the effect on global warming? If the world standard of living also increases, each of those people will be consuming more resources than today's average. Is it more likely that there will be more desparate people willing to fight wars to get an advantage? Today's problems may look trivial. There are no easy answers.

Posted by: Curt | November 17, 2007 1:56 PM

Not a one of us had ANYTHING to do with where we were born. Love accordingly!

Posted by: canucklehead | November 17, 2007 9:45 PM

Listen, those two convicted felons border guards isn't an isssue of being "for the illegal alien they shot" or "for our wonderful border guards."

Of course the person was in custody. These two lawless people in uniform abused their position and became lawless.

Investigations by their own peers uncovered the whole story and they confessed to falsifying reports and planting evidence.

The whole wellspring of support for them comes from a crazed kind of belief that at the border, you "do what it takes" in the style of civil-rights abusing sheriffs in the old south who participated in mob lynchings and using attack dogs against the "damned niggers."

That a popular talk-radio host promotes the shooting of people at the border - and he is a big supporter of the two disgraced border patrol people - shows that it's a popular sentiment. Hey, unlike Imus, he never lost his job, right?

Remember that there is a huge problem - backed up by the stings and successful convictions - with unscrupulous border patrol employees participating in drug smuggling, bribery and crime. It's no surprise that some people were already or become unethical in the job. They have to be dismissed and if they committed crimes, that has to be dealt with.

Even in a criminal investigation, faking evidence, shooting suspects without charge, brutality and making false reports to investigators and superiors will get you dismissed from the police department.

Do YOU want to be subjected to being in the hands of someone who sees no problem with abusing their authority and is lawless?

Posted by: Honest Cop | November 18, 2007 12:51 PM

Non Liberal, above: In all seriousness, perhaps you should consider removing your name from the mailing lists of the major anti-immigrant political groups, since their attitudes are so harsh and punitive.

Posted by: Conservative Democrat | November 18, 2007 3:22 PM

"Of course the person was in custody. These two lawless people in uniform abused their position and became lawless."???
Interesting how the person trafficking drugs is "the person" and the border agents are "lawless people in uniform". I guess we all have our axe to grind.
Apparently there are two very diverse stories on what happened. One is that the agents pursued someone they suspected of transporting drugs. Shots were fired but the suspect got away to Mexico. Not knowing they hit anyone and not wanting to fill out a lot of papers that would just go in a file, the agents did not enter a report. The suspect reported being shot back through some relatives. It came to the law's attention and the agents admitted that shots had been fired and they did not file a report.
The other one is apparently that the suspect was in custody when he was shot. I presume he was in custody of the two agents, otherwise whomever had him in custody would have reported it or would also be in jail. What was he in custody for? How did he get away after being shot? Why was the DA so willing to grant repeated immunities to a drug trafficker? If the agents just confessed to falsifying reports and planting evidence, why are the penalties longer than some get for murder?
There are a lot of questions in this story and it is being used by both sides to inflame people. I hope there is an independent investigation that will report whatever the real truths are.

About the immigration department: I have a friend who worked in foreign aid in poor countries around the world. He voted for bush because he thought the Clinton's had mismanaged foreign aid by appointing cronies who did not know how to manage. He said "at least Republicans know how to manage things." He doesn't have much to say about it lately. Maybe Bush appointed someone like his friend "Browny, you're doing a heck of a job" or Rummy or Gonzales or countless other incompetents. The incompetence related in the first three chapters of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" is enough to make a buzzard puke. That has destroyed millions of lives. I had to put the book down for a while. I hope we have learned what happens when we vote people into office who want to cut funding for everything but the Department of Defense, who believe that government can't do anything right and seem bent on proving it. (As a Vietnam veteran observing the military mess we have gotten ourselves into again, I am sceptical of this nation learning lessons from anything.)
Not that the Democrats don't have their problems, but at least they approach governing with the belief that they can do some good.
They all seem to believe in cashing in for themselves and their financial backers.
In the meantime almost nothing is being done on immigration or any of our other major problems. Welcome to broken government. And we are telling other countries to "be like us"??????

Posted by: Curt | November 18, 2007 3:41 PM

Another thing about those two border guards who lied and falsified evidence up the chain of command. Because of minimum sentencing laws, there was no leeway for lesser punishment than the absolute maximum since the felonies were aggravated by use of a firearm during their commission.

There's no doubt that they broke the law and violated the trust placed in them. It's true they committed their crimes while engaged in arrest of a previous felon, as I understand it. (Haven't seen the actual convictions though.)

For that they must, for the rule of law to mean anything and for there to be honesty and trust in those assigned to carry it out, be dismissed and there needed to be criminal penalties. We've got big problems on the border and we don't need to harbor problem individuals inside the service to distract and undermine our efforts.

The bad guys in the Border Patrol need to be rooted out; there are too many involved in smuggling themselves and leaving those types in might actually mean they are selling out since they are liars and given to creating false evidence. Why if someone that serious got away after being shot was there no report? Wouldn't you call for backup? These persons, known to be liars, cannot be further trusted for our border to have integrity.

There's a case to be made for penalties less than the mandatory maximum; but it was law and order conservatives who pushed through these draconian provisions that don't allow judges any leniency due to mitigating circumstances once a jury determines beyond any reasonable doubt guilt.

Posted by: Honest Cop | November 18, 2007 7:13 PM

And we are telling other countries to "be like us"??????

Posted by: Curt

Curt , not that we should tell anyone to be like us , but have you read about how Mexico handles people who illegally come into their country ?

No comparison with the way we do , and no compassion or justice at all . Not even a protest .

Posted by: Anonymous | November 20, 2007 7:41 PM

I wish people would stop arguing over rhetoric and get down to solving the problem, whatever the solution is.
People coming across our borders, if we don't know who they are, are a national security issue.
I'd love to go to New Zealand to live or work. I hear it's beautiful. If I do, I have to have permission. Same for any other country.

I'll admit immigration is an issue about which I have a lot to learn. So I'll read the rest of the blog entries here, maybe I"m wrong.

I'm not advocating we split up families or deny medical care to illegals (or undocumented workers), I'm not inhuman.
At the same time we need to stop the influx over the borders.
They won't do it though, because it's a convenient supply of slaves to do 'jobs Americans won't do," And that's wrong. Wasn't slavery abolished a long time ago?

I know of a company who is in the same profession as me, and they have an undocumented immigrant working for them. This guy is taking a 'real' job that should go to an American IMO.

It seems that we can extend grace to the stranger by going through legal channels. We are not obligated to let people in when we don't know who they are. We don't know if someone is a terrorist, or if they have a criminal past.

Illegals, undocumented immigrants, whatever. Our system is clogged with them. We are paying the price for having done nothing in the past.
I'm ashamed to admit it but I feel resentment every time I have to sit through a Spanish menu when I make a phone call. There is an apartment complex on the other side of the park from our building that is pretty much all Mexican and I feel resentful every time I see it. I don't want to feel that way, but I do. I'm normally someone who's very open and loves other cultures. When they come here legally. I hope I can personally move past this resentment but it seems to grow as time goes on.

Posted by: L | November 27, 2007 2:59 AM