The reality is that so many of these undocumented brothers and sisters are now being paid less than the minimum wage. With green cards in hand, they would be entitled to legal wages, which likely would be more than they are presently earning.

Wouldn't these newly recognized legal workers just be displaced by the next wave of illegals depressing wages?

How do you propose stopping them at the border, surely many will just bypass your nifty background check requirement?

What would you do about employers that still hire illegal workers?

How do you address the huge drain on local government resources caused by illegals?

What do you say to the Mexican government that actively promotes and aids its poor workers to flee to this country.

Posted by: aaron | March 11, 2008 11:32 AM

That's a myth perpetuated by the nativists. There's no truth to it. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and tend not to partake of social services.

You're right, I don't work for a county health department, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

If we make it easier for people to come and work here legally, which Tony is proposing and which I support wholeheartedly, there won't be a "next wave of illegals."

Are you and Tony proposing no limits provided they pass the background check or are you thinking of a finite number based on employment needs? Any limit or slow down for background processing will not necessarily stop others from entering.

What do you say about US trade policy that allows US-based big agriculture to sell their produce at depressed prices, thus putting Mexican campesinos out of business because they can't sell their corn at the same low rates? Can you guess what they do after they're starved off their farms?

Most farm subsidies are a sham, especially the latest ethanol scheme, so I won't be sad to see it go. If getting rid of it has the added benefit of decreasing demand for those wanting to enter the country, all the better.

Posted by: aaron | March 11, 2008 12:29 PM

Mr. Campolo

It looks to me like you are offering the same deal we turned down last time, but this time we don't call it Amnesty.

I have a counteroffer for you though:

How about we enforce the law, focusing on workplaces and reserving deportation for those who commit violent crimes. Illegal immigrants will be encouraged to return to their home countries, and those who do so voluntarily will be allowed to keep any earnings without any fines, and to apply for permanent residency without any penalty for earlier immigration law violations. You can even call that Amnesty!

In a few years, after the illegal immigrant population has decreased, we can re-examine immigration law with an eye towards allowing more legal immigration in general and more unskilled workers in particular. At that point, because we will actually be enforcing our law in a meaningful way, we will be able to do the revisions based on experience of how the law actually works.

Meaningful enforcement will also mean that our own unskilled workers -- the working poor -- will not be forced to compete for jobs against a large pool of illegal immigrants who can be hired without regard to our own employment laws. Without that illegal competition the working poor will be in a stronger position to bargain for better wages and even (Are you paying attention Ms. Weiss?) paid sick leave.

Half of my family were immigrants, and they came here with little, much like yours. They found a haven in the US from war-torn Europe. I like your idea of high walls and wide gates. Let's work together and make both a reality.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 11, 2008 12:36 PM

Don wrote:

What do you say about US trade policy that allows US-based big agriculture to sell their produce at depressed prices, thus putting Mexican campesinos out of business because they can't sell their corn at the same low rates? Can you guess what they do after they're starved off their farms?

I would say that if there is one issue where Sojo deserves credit, it is their opposition to farm subsidies. The government does a lot of damage by paying money to large agribusiness concerns. The subsidies create surpluses that must be sold somewhere, and the most likely place is poor countries.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree on immigration, and collaborate on this issue instead?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 11, 2008 12:44 PM

As long as we can control those Mexicans, and make sure they meet our needs for employment, and make sure they stay employees, and behave themselves, and act better than the people that are already here, then they can come to our party. God forbid that there may be an entreprenuer (sp?)in the bunch!

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 12:54 PM

The background checks are backlogged many years. Some people have been waiting over five years just for that - and not just for permanent residency, but to become citizens after they have been here legally many years.

The wait for a "green card" - permanent residency - is not just two years. That might be the case for an adopted child, or may have been the case for an immigrant spouse of a US citizen some years ago, but it is no longer.

In many cases, the waiting list is about 15 years, to even get in the line where a decision might be made favorably, or not.

Moreover, the fees have been tripled in recent years, because the immigration department was defunded by the Republican majority more than a decade ago, and the total costs for the running of the department must come from the very high application fees charged to petitioners for complicated and multiple forms.

Those forms have absolutely no set time for processing, even if they are never processed, and often they never are. There is no recourse whatsoever, either.

There is, however, a very expensive "fast track" available only to corporations for the elites they need, including actors and musicians as well as management level. This is not open to individuals or families even if they could pay the fee.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 11, 2008 1:18 PM

Mr. Campolo,

I enjoy your writings and your heart for God, and I am comforted by your faithfulness to Him on this issue.

Your father's story reminds me of Leonardo di Caprio in TITANIC: all he needed to get to the U.S. was a ticket he won in a poker game! Back then, the only prohibited classes were the very sick and the Chinese. Only 2% of arrivals at Ellis Island were turned away. No wonder there was no "illegal immigration problem" back then; they didn't make as many immigrants illegal as as we do!

Three other comments:

(1) It is even harder to get a green card than you suggest - the answer to a request for legal status is a plain "no" to many who do not fit into narrow categories, largely based on existing family ties or economic status.

(2) If you say it is wrong to have a law which provides so narrow a gate of entry (a point with which I agree), how "wrong" is it for someone to violate that unjust law? (See Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail.)

(3) Your proposed solution sounds like the immigration equivalent of bankruptcy law, which if you think about it, is really a kind of "Debt Amnesty." Framing the idea this way helps us realize that your proposal is not that radical, but is actually standard practice in the U.S. "rule of law" society. With both illegal immigration and bankruptcy, we are talking about people who have not fulfilled their legal responsibilities. In your system and in bankruptcy law, the solution is designed to enable people to be reintegrated into society despite being unable to comply 100% with what was originally required of them. In either immigration or bankruptcy, you can set up rules for how a person has to comply to be entitled to relief. In either immigration or bankruptcy, this kind of "fresh start" is not the best case scenario, but it is better than the alternative: leaving people stuck outside of society (think of an illegal immigrant's inability to work above the table, or think of a debtor's prison). Because of the social strain, we contemplate every few years whether to declare Jubilee. The bankruptcy system you propose seems a much better model, taking the nastiness about "amnesty" off the table, because this system would institute only the same kind of relief Americans regularly give themselves when their own compliance with certain obligations is in question.

Of course, let's couple this with a way of making legal immigration as easy as it was for your father, so there would be little need for immigration bankruptcy at all.

John

Posted by: John Lamb | March 11, 2008 1:36 PM

Don
Thanks for the links.

aaron
You may work for a county health dept. but I have never found one that actually asked a patient for immigration documentation before treating them. Therefore whatever you "know" is a guess I would think and at best anecdotal.

N.M.Rod is also correct. The system has been skewed in such a way so as to create illegal activity. It is a mess from top to bottom.

Wolverine
It is good to hear a slightly more moderate tone from you and to hear you call for common ground, but you seem to neglect the gist of Mr Campolo's writing.We should be seeking to "make room" for the alien, and not just emphasizing the retribution aspects.
We are also to blame for this mess since we made the screwed up laws and chose to ignore the border. I find it hard to believe that harsher protectionist laws (which in large part caused the problem since they allowed no legal means of entry and kept people here longer than they historically would have)will right the wrongs or cure the problem.
The high fence and the wide gate is a very sane idea.
Compassion and the "Rule of Law" is a win win scenario.

Posted by: wayne | March 11, 2008 1:52 PM

"What I propose is that our country should have a "high wall and a wide gate" at our borders. By a high wall, I mean that our borders should be secure. America should protect itself against drug pushers, criminals and possible terrorists. There should be a background check on every person who crosses into our country so that such undesirables would be kept out. "

Must be something I am missing , for this makes perfect sense to me . In fact Tony's whole piece is one of logical commonsense mixed with Christian love and principles. I guess the problem is making that high fence with the wide gates appears not to be on anyone" priority list . Do it first , and I would think more would be agreeing then disagreeing .

Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 2:18 PM

Joekc: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Wolverine, it's a good start. I agree with Wayne that your tone seems more moderate than it has been before. I still don't see why those we need to send people home if they're applying for permanent residency, however. But maybe we can work on that matter later. Let's see if we can work toward some kind of meaningful border management system that opens the wide gates but keeps the fence up, as Tony says.

Regarding farm subsidies, that's really a mixed problem. In principle, I don't think the government should be subsidizing agriculture. But while on the one hand, I definitely think we should drop subsidies to agribusiness (as well as any other form of corporate welfare), the fact remains that cutting off some crop subsidies cold (such as the big one, tobacco) could cause many families to lose their family farms. We need some kind of way to wean family farms away from subsidies, and some kind of way to help the growers of tobacco and other subsidized specialty crops to transition to other crops that would be just as profitable for them to grow.

And I agree with aaron that the corn ethanol subsidy programs ought to be terminated. There are sound environmental arguments against it, as well as economic ones. There may be economically and environmentally viable sources for alcohol fuel (e.g., switch grass perhaps), but corn isn't one of them.

The problem with agriculture and Latin America goes beyond agribusiness subsidies, however. Part of it has to do, yes, with NAFTA (and its related agreements) and its provisions that allow Big Agriculture to dump grain on the Latin American markets. Small farmers in Latin America really do need protection from predatory pricing by US agribusiness, because even without subsidies, they can outproduce at lower costs the small Latin American farms (although high fuel prices might change that in the short term). While the free trade agreements have been beneficial in some ways, we need to recognize that they have also hurt many in other ways. We only need to look at the border situation to see some of problems these inequalities have contributed to.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 11, 2008 2:34 PM

I'm talking about local demographics in my last post.

Posted by: aaron | March 11, 2008 2:47 PM

"It's possible that homeschooling will be declared illegal in California."

It already has been by three fruitcake judges.

"Will those Christians who want to round up illegal immigrants put as much energy into rounding up illegal homeschoolers?"

I don't think anybody is "rounding up" anybody. I expect that the vast majority of Christians will abide by the law.

"Or will they say, "This law is unjust! We must work to change the law!""

They will say that the law is unjust, and will use the ban to bludgeon the rabid teacher's unions who support it. Not all laws are just. Laws against illegal immigration are, in my view, and Campolo's as well.

"Perhaps they will open their churches as sanctuaries for escaping homeschoolers."

Or, more likely, simply send their kids to Christian schools.

This analogy is terrible.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 11, 2008 3:20 PM

Hillary won't help but Obama's going to have to make his bones with the Teacher's Unions. He'll go after homeschooling with the biggest, most hopeful grin you've ever seen.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 11, 2008 3:37 PM

Hi, Don, I don't quite know how you could have not heard this interpretation before. The reference to "brethren" and "my brethren" would have meant one thing and only one thing, to the Jewish disciples. It had to do with Jews, who referred to themselves as "brothers" within the synagogue, the "brethren" of whom Jesus spoke. And yes, he was speaking to Jews when he spoke this story, but please note - - it is "sheep" and "goats" that are separated, depending on how they treat "the brethren." And, in the initial setting up of the story, Jesus clearly says, "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory. . . . before Him shall be gathered all nations. And He shall separate them, one from another. . . etc. . ." The reference to "nations" simply means "everyone but Israel," as it does all through scripture. Jesus is reminding His disciples that, as they move forward in following Him, they should never forget that Jews are God's original 'chosen,' and there is nothing in Jesus' teaching here to negate that.
But we shouldn't get too far from the main point here, which is simply that Jesus did not speak of treatment of "the alien" here. He speaks only of the Jew, and how he is to be treated by gentiles. Hitler would have done well to read this passage before he embarked on his sick mission.
There is no reference to "aliens' in this passage, and we are wrong to use it as justification.

Someone also asked the quesiton, "Am I my brother's keeper?" as if this question, asked of God by Cain in reference to his brother Abel, is relevant to this story. It is not. And notice, God never answers that question, either. He simply says, "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. . ."

There is, indeed, plenty of reference to how we are to treat aliens and strangers within scripture. All I am suggesting is - - let's be honest and filled with integrity when we use scripture to justify something. In this case, Mr. Compolo errs.

Posted by: joekc | March 11, 2008 4:33 PM

There is no reference to "aliens' in this passage...

Indeed there is: "I was a stranger and you welcomed me..."

I repeat: I have never heard the interpretation that the "brethren" Jesus refers to were Jews and only Jews. I don't think that interpretation would hold up by most bible scholars that I'm familiar with.

And even if it did, in the original context, mean only "Jewish brethren," don't passages like Acts 10 or Romans 11 (esp. vs. 11-21) during which it is clear that the blessings of "Israel" are offered to the Gentiles through Christ expand the meaning of "brethren"?

But I'm not home to look up my resources, so I cannot say for sure. It will be a while before I can do that. But maybe someone has a bible dictionary handy who could fill us in on the theological/etymological meaning of "brethren" in this passage.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 11, 2008 4:47 PM

Tax ONLY Democrats to pay for all of the costs incurred ... Posted by: Asking questions

Hi, again, Donny. I see you're playing on that single-stringed instrument again. So we're all humanists because we want to help out some people, sort of like Jesus told us to do.

Then call me a humanist. It's a false accusation, but I can deal with it.

God's (Israel's) laws aren't America's laws. So what's the point?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 11, 2008 5:26 PM

Tony's "high wall and wide gate" is an attractive concept. But, sadly, there are some major flaws in it. A wide gate one has to wait years to enter because of restrictive requirements such as background checks is actually a very narrow gate. One post referred to why there were few illegal immigrants in earlier times - simply because the bar was low enough to let almost everyone in. As long as keep the bar high, we will continue to have the same problem, and "illegal" immigration will persist. Why are we so pre-occupied with poor Mexicans? Could it be we don't like their "foreignness", as in brown skin, cultural differences, fear of being "engulfed" by (let's get real now) people of color who speak a "foreign" language? Or are we afraid of "terrorists" getting in? Odd, how we hear so little about our Canadian border, which is incredibly more "porous" that our Mexican border. I appreciate Tony's invocation of scriptures about welcoming alients. If we are serious about that, we need to do so. His proposal, well meant, falls short.
Conrad

Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | March 11, 2008 5:42 PM

Conrad -- I think the point of "Wide Gates" is that we revisit immigration law and fix the problem with background checks and also re-examine some of the other barriers to legal immigration and make sure they really serve valid purposes. As one of the more ardent critics of Sojo's overall approach to this issue (Note to Don and Wayne: If I came across as more moderate, I assure you it wasn't on purpose.) I can tell you that the backlog on background checks is a real problem that needs to be cleared up as a matter of good government and fairness to legal immigrants.

Again, here's some common ground that we may be able to work on.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 11, 2008 6:15 PM

Tony is totally reasonable.

I concluded the problem is not the problem.

So I stopped trying to calculate an answer to an unsolvable issue.

There are different, and reasonable, approaches to better govern borders and immigration. No perfect solutions.

But until Washington politicians decide to govern instead of tossing up their hands and going home--Tony, you and I can propose solutions 'til the cows come home'.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 11, 2008 6:17 PM

Does anybody know of any illegal immigrant home-schoolers? Those guys are really in trouble.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 6:30 PM

When you say that the words for "aliens" and "strangers" in Scripture are not exact equivalents for our modern situation involving undocumented workers, that's a responsible exegesis taking context into account

but--

when I say the "arsenkoites" or "para physin" are not exact equivalents to our modern understanding of homosexuality as an inborn orientation, that's Scripture twisting meant to justify my lusts.

Could it be that you are twisting Scripture about aliens and strangers because you want to justify your lack of compassion?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 11, 2008 6:41 PM

"Oh, Tony . . . what happened to the "foreigner" that violated Israelite (God's) laws, while sojourning in the Hebrew lands? As you stumble to find the "right" words, I'll help you, they were to be held to the "law" of the land, and NOT break it. You are not going to inflict humanism on us as easily as you thought Tony.

Here's an analogy for you: in the past, laws against people with dark skin marrying people with light skin applied equally to married couples, whether or not they were racially mixed - so that was "fair." But in point of fact, the laws were aimed precisely unequally, at only those who were racially intermarried.

If a person is defined as "illegal" - and there are some people who fall into the cracks of these laws where it's not entirely clear due to special circumstances or residency, birth or parent status - then by definition, a priori, he's broken the law, even though there's no way for the "legal" to fall into the same category, no matter how many times he crosses the border - or for such people to be legal, except by simply not existing.

There may be people who committed the misdemeanor of entering illegally - there are different criteria of different laws applying to different circumstances - but the persons themselves are not "illegal." The system we have, though it allows for detention of suspects, can't label anyone as convicted of this offense until it's proven that they entered illegally or had no right to entry. It's possible, after all, for citizens to enter illegally, too, upon return. And in some circumstances, there are informal entry procedures that aren't necessarily illegal depending upon self-reporting.

Moreover, the service isn't exactly responsive in issuing in a timely manner, as required by law, the documents that legal residents require, rendering them "illegal" as well, technically.

This is the most broken-down, inefficient and error-prone bureaucracy you can imagine. Because of this, when it errs on the side of security it finds it safest to never do anything at all, in full cover-your-ass mode.

Posted by: Ikura | March 11, 2008 6:49 PM

I have trouble seeing a reason to punish people who came into this country illegally. I have known some of those people. Some came to work and send money home so their children could wear shoes or pay school fees. Some came to work and save enough money so they could buy land in their home countries and stay there. They did honest work, and gave considerably more than they received, whether one considers the work they did and the wages they received or the money they paid to the social security system from which they will never benefit.

I do hear the concern about the difficulty American citizens face in getting decent wages and benefits for their work. And I see that it’s easy to assume that expelling ‘illegals’ who work for low wages would solve the problem. But I think the problem is inherent in our global economic system. If cheap labor is not available in the country, then more work can be outsourced to other countries whose wages and worker safety/environmental protection standards are even lower.

I hear the concern about safety. I don’t pretend to know which stories or statistics are most accurate. Even if poor and nonwhite people are more likely to be arrested than rich Anglos, that may not mean that they commit more crimes. But, beyond that, I think we need to recognize that we cannot keep ourselves safe. If 9/11/01 taught us anything, it should have been that--our wealth, our military strength, are totally inadequate to keeping us safe. That could be depressing. But as Christians I think we all believe that our lives are in God’s hands, that our safety is n God or it is not anywhere. The Bible has warnings about putting our trust in horses, in princes, in armies. I think we need to accept the fact that we cannot manufacture our own safety, and should go back to the things we can do, such s loving our neighbors. Yes, that is hard. Clinging to the illusion of security may be harder in the end.

Posted by: Pelerin | March 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Re: "high walls"
The idea of screening terrorists et. al. is a red herring. If we have 12 million + "illegals" (btw- good point Ikura- innocent until proven guilty is a basic human right) which we cannot process and there have been no attacks proven to have originated with them, what makes us suspect "the Mexican Invasion". What exempts a "legal" Canadien (Mr. Canuklehead excluded of course) or a home-grown terrorist (maybe a wall around Detroit and it's suburbs would do the trick)from suspicion? We are the most incarcerated people in the world and we're talking about "rounding up illegals" when we won't even round up the "pot" users. What a joke! Jesus took down the wall of enmity and we are putting them up. (Ephesians 2-3)

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 8:12 PM

Wayne--I agree we must yell to get legislators to act. And that was my point. Congressional inaction opens the door to citizens yelling nonsense at each other about who cares about what, more; instead of demanding Congress do its job.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 11, 2008 8:30 PM

Wolverine: Ever heard of the "Left Behind" series?

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 9:06 PM

At any rate, I've heard lots of criticisms of Dispensationalism, but I have yet to hear a compelling account of what exactly they got so terribly wrong.

This is off topic, so I'll try to be fairly brief. I see several problems with Dispensationalism:

1. Its underlying presumption is that that God has two peoples in the earth: Israel and the Church. Israel has an earthly destiny, but the Church has a heavenly destiny. Israel's earthly destiny is in suspension right now--God is currently working through the Church--but that will end, and God will turn his attention back to Israel, after the church is Raptured. This to me is problematic because of all the New Testament language that talks about Jew and Gentile being on equal footing in Christ and there being no divisions, the Church as the "Israel of God," etc.

2. Their mechanistic view of prophecy. They call it "literal interpretation," but it really isn't. It tends to ignore the sometimes radical ways that the (inspired) writers of the NT interpreted the OT prophets, almost as if the NT hadn't been written. (They try to get around that fact by saying that this prophecy is for Israel and that one is for the Church.) This wooden, literalistic hermeneutic is the support for the Israel-Church dichotomy, because the promises to Israel have to be fulfilled literally to Israel--the descendants of the Old Covenant nation. And in order to fit certain prophecies into their framework, they take some decided and sometimes extreme liberties with the meaning of "literal." The best example is their interpretation of the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9, which distorts "literal" beyond recognition.

3. As you mentioned (Wolverine), their tendency to speculative interpretations of the end times. Further, the tendency, throughout its history, to want to set dates for the Second Coming (or the Rapture, or both), despite clear teachings in the Gospels that the time is unknowable.

4. The fact that this system of interpretation is a new kid on the block. It's only 170 years old, and it was originated by a disgruntled Anglican. Whenever a "new understanding of Scripture" is offered by someone who has become disaffected or estranged from the historical churches, I get suspicious.

By the way, the teaching that God works mankind's salvation in stages, or dispensations (from which the system gets its name) is actually a relatively minor point of the system and isn't something that dispensationalists alone believe. The major focus of the dispensational hermeneutic is the Israel-Church dichotomy.

Having said all that, most dispensationalists are solid evangelical Christians. Maybe it gets a worse rap than it deserves, though I actually don't think so. Dispensationalists tend to think that their system of interpretation is the only valid one, and often use it as a test of orthodoxy. In fact, they often don't even recognize it as an "interpretation": their response often is, "I don't interpret the Bible; I just read it." The problem is that nobody simply reading the Scriptures without their prompts (e.g. their study Bibles) would come up with this elaborate hermeneutic. It's just not there.

Well, this is longer than I meant it to be. But maybe we can revisit this topic on a more appropriate thread.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 11, 2008 9:20 PM

that last sentence should have read "Our faith informs our responsibility..."

Posted by: wayne | March 11, 2008 9:28 PM

vangelical Christians. Maybe it gets a worse rap than it deserves, though I actually don't think so. Dispensationalists tend to think that their system of interpretation is the only valid one, and often use it as a test of orthodoxy.

Posted by Don

Don you really seem to come to this issue often , I notice people who have no presumption of orthodoxy but when using the scriptures aligning with immigration issues , government helping with the poor etc cause them to utter claims of not following Jesus , you know that is true . My denomination is Assembly of God, I suppose many in my denomination you would consider Dispensationalists . I assume that means you believe we were grafted into God's people by our Faith in Christ ?
Perhaps I am a dispensationalists because I believe Israel is part of prophecy in the Bible for things to come . And when I listen to an orthodox Jew who has accepted Christ , I do get a sense of something special about that . Is that wrong ? I guess I don't get the big deal . Is it because you believe this Belief system lets Israel get away with murder ? Literally .

I find a Bibical understanding that makes Israel's connection with Bibical Promises totally different then defending Israel when they are doing something wrong .

Lutherans will not let you receive communion if your not a member , but if you make an arguement to a lutheran about it , I think you may find the same passion if you are telling any person of faith what they believe is nonsense .

Its a denominational difference , not a deal breaker .

Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 9:47 PM

Don,

I'll be brief. Maybe I miss your point, but it seems three of your four objections at least partly relate to end-times questions, which I thing can be seperated from Dispensationalism as such. The dispensations themselves are "in there", in the sense that the events that set them off are described in the Bible, but I'll admit that it is entirely possible to make sense of the Bible without thinking of the dispensations at all.

As for point four, watch it buddy! I'm a "disgruntled Anglican" myself. Well, a disgruntled Episcopalian anyway. Close enough to say that I can certainly sympathize with anyone who's had struggles with the Church of England.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 11, 2008 9:51 PM

Wolverine: Part of my point is that you may be underestimating the influence of the popular media over current evangelical thought. "The first ten, with sales of more than 55 million copies, comprise the fastest-selling adult fiction series ever."
"In addition to the more than 65 million Left Behind series books, Tyndale House has sold more than 10 million related items, such as computer screensavers, postcards, calendars, board games, music, apparel, and collectibles. There is a Left Behind kids series (Left Behind: The Kids -- 34 books published with sales of more than 10 million -- targeted at 10-14 year-olds), an audio series, two movies, and a television series that premiered in 2003. The Left Behind web site attracts more than 60,000 hits a day." (source: rapidnet.com)
You might want to check in on the influence of a recent endorser of John McCain-John Hagee.
If you don't know any fans you should visit your local mega-church.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 10:03 PM

Wolverine: Ever heard of the "Left Behind" series?

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples

I have never read one ,but watched a low budget movie based on it . What is really weird is the concern about the books to me .
I hear liberal organizations , even secular ones constantly making reference to it . I guess I just never understood denominations who marry same sex couples and call themselves affirming
trashing fiction based on Bibical what ifs. Where is the tolerance ? Getting so upset about a book series fictionalizing the devil coming back and raising all hell . Don't buy the books , I didn't .

Ever read Frank E. Peretti's
This Present Darkness and The Oath, and some others , I have read . Basically spiritual warfare , from an Evangelical perspective They are great . Piercing the Darkness also.

Good books .

Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 10:16 PM

Rev. Staples,

Just to be clear, the first movie was a flop on the order of Ishtar, I'm pretty sure the second was released direct to video where it languishes in bargain bins.

Got a chuckle out of the idea of Left Behind Kids though. Didn't know the story went that far. Will the Tribulation never end?

Years ago I took that stuff seriously. Back then the big deal was the European Common Market, which had ten members, and some monster from Revelation had ten horns, and that just couldn't be a good sign. Then the EU added two members, but some minister at a nearby Megachurch (who I respected up to that point) went on acting like it still had ten. I was of the opinion that if the prophecy doesn't fit the facts you rework the prophecy, but in the process of doing that I came to realize just how much guesswork was involved and eventually decided it wasn't worth the bother.

Trying to figure out revelation is still a fun parlour game. Don't ask me how I know this, but it's even more fun when you've got a good buzz going.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 11, 2008 10:34 PM

Let's dispense with the dipensational and get back to those pesky Mexicans.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 11, 2008 10:46 PM

With all due respect, from one charismatic to another, people like Shane Clairborne, Peggy Gish and others of their ilk are conducting more "spiritual warfare" than Mr Peretti ever imagined.

Pastor Jeff

I know you respect all of us Pastor , but living life as a little person , without the great accomplishments or courgage of the people you mentioned ,

I doubt very much if the evil in this world cares if the people he attacks have little social status among the Christianity Today Crowd . Peretti books take on much importance to people because he has the ability to make spirtual warfare relevant to us who people , as your comments suggest appear out of the war .

I have heard Perreti speak at our church , not exactly a great speaker , but has a great view .
He belongs to the AG and lives near by .
Obviously from your statement you would have to know him , so I will take your word for it .

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 12:19 AM

Gay theology is a human invention designed to twist Scripture to feed our lusts.

Hmmm.

Posted by: Ashpenaz

///

Yup. By Humanists.

Posted by: Donny | March 12, 2008 12:55 AM

Crossing the border illegally to get to a job is no more illegal than folks who drive over the speed limit to get to their job.

I frankly do not see amnesty as a reward for illegal activity anymore than the fact the Highway Patrol Officer I sped past yesterday did not stop me.

The problem with the 1986 legislation was not the amnesty provision; but the failure to establish and govern a legitimate system of immigration and borders that matches the realities of our economy, society, and global populations on the move.

Tony Campolo can sit down in less than an hour and turn out a proposal. Congressional leaders could carve out two days (frankly, 3 hours would do), lock themselves in a room, and solve the governmental side to this issue.

In other words, they could solve it in less time than we have spent on this one thread on God's Politics.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 12, 2008 5:16 AM

"But that's not to say Campolo isn't playing a bit of a game here: the passage in my Bible says "I was a stranger and you invited me in". The verse that Campolo cites from Deuteronomy also uses the word stranger. But later Campolo shifts to aliens. An alien is a foreigner (or a sentient being from another planet) but a stranger isn't a foreigner necessarily, he's any unfamiliar person" Wolverine

Certainly if Campolo errs, it would be on the side of limiting those verses to foreign nationals. I don't believe he is doing that, though. The term "stranger" would include people unknown to us who are legal or illegally present in the United States and undocumented immigrants are certainly included in that term. So you can argue that he is improperly limiting the term to undocumented immigrants, but you certainly cannot state that he is improperly applying it to undocumented immigrants.

"How about we enforce the law, focusing on workplaces and reserving deportation for those who commit violent crimes. Illegal immigrants will be encouraged to return to their home countries, and those who do so voluntarily will be allowed to keep any earnings without any fines, and to apply for permanent residency without any penalty for earlier immigration law violations. You can even call that Amnesty!" Wolverine

Your proposal does not come even remotely close to solving the problem.

First, I note that you no longer wish to force the departure of non-criminal aliens. That is a step forward from previous posts where you have rightfully earned a great deal of criticism for being willing to force the departure of undocumented immigrant parents and, in turn, their US citizen children. You previously pointed out that US citizen children put in this horrendous position could stay here with legally-present friends and family members. You even tried to draw the obviously false analogy of missionary kids going abroad with their parents fully ignoring (not caring) that missionaries when sent abroad get support from donors in this country. You ignored that fact that it would be unfeasible for departing undocumented immigrants to obtain similar support.

Well, you have now had a change of position and we will no longer force the departure of non-criminal aliens. I do not know if that was occasioned by a change of heart or if it was just plain embarrassing position of having to defend your prior indefensible, unconscionable position.

However what you are proposing is hardly a better alternative. You want strong workplace and border enforcement. Progressives want the same thing. But in so doing, you would not give work authorization to those illegally present. That means that they would go from job to job as the workplace enforcement takes place, continually losing employment but not being deported. You hope, obviously, is that once they are deprived of a means of providing even minimal support to themselves and their family members, many of whom may be US citizen children, they will simply give up and leave this country. Have you given thought to the devastating effect that such instability would have on those families? Have you thought about what that would do to the children who would have an even less stable family situation now? Your intellectually modest proposal is hardly a step forward. It is only slightly less insensitive than your previous unacceptable position.

One of the principles that you alluded to in your strong opposition to amnesty was the rule of law. Your position would bring us no closer to the rule of law. The law clearly states that those unlawfully present in the United States are subject to involuntary removal. Nobody on either side of this issue can argue against that. Your position would advocate as an open policy “no deportation” for non-criminal aliens. How does that uphold the rule of law that you so loftily alluded to in the past?

What is obvious from everything you say is that you want these people to leave. What is equally obvious is that you are willing to use the most inhumane of measures to accomplish that end. You accuse Campolo of playing games with words. He does not do that. You, on the other hand, would play games with people’s lives- something much worse.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 12, 2008 6:29 AM

Perhaps if some of the $ spent on weapons could be spent on R&D to work out the best ways to upgrade living conditions from where people come from. Then to implement the policies.

They may then go home.

In fact some US citizens will probably also leave.

Please, its time we lifted our sights, rather than just continuing to blaming the victims.

Posted by: JohnH | March 12, 2008 8:50 AM

James Martin wrote:

First, I note that you no longer wish to force the departure of non-criminal aliens. That is a step forward from previous posts where you have rightfully earned a great deal of criticism for being willing to force the departure of undocumented immigrant parents and, in turn, their US citizen children. You previously pointed out that US citizen children put in this horrendous position could stay here with legally-present friends and family members. You even tried to draw the obviously false analogy of missionary kids going abroad with their parents fully ignoring (not caring) that missionaries when sent abroad get support from donors in this country. You ignored that fact that it would be unfeasible for departing undocumented immigrants to obtain similar support.

First, I have never called for mass deportation. I have always supported a workplace-oriented enforcement strategy that eliminates most of the under-the-table employment out there, changing the incentives so that illegal aliens eventually return to their native countries on their own.

I don't blame you for this one, there have been a lot of immigration threads, and I've acknowledged before that my writing has gotten sloppy on a couple of occasions to the point where one could think that was what I wanted. But such was never my intention. To the contrary I came to the conclusion pretty early on that mass deportation could result in a humantarian crisis.

Of course, a family returning to their native country as illegal work dries up may still have to make a tough decision about where their US-born children should live, so the question of "dividing up families" is still relevant.

I don't know why you think it would be infeasible for Christians in the US to provide support to illegal immigrants returning to the native countries. We're all filthy rich aren't we, so we have some dough to spare. Are there no churches in Latin America that we could partner up with? Are you so sure this is impossible, or are you just determined not to try?

After that you still have the possibility of leaving US-born children in the care of relatives in the US. You have yet to even begin to tell me why this cannot be done.

You want strong workplace and border enforcement. Progressives want the same thing. But in so doing, you would not give work authorization to those illegally present.

No, progressives do not want the same thing. If you wanted the same thing you would understand that allowing 12 million illegal aliens to have permanent residence is no way to start enforcing a border.

Meanwhile, letjusticerolldown writes:

Crossing the border illegally to get to a job is no more illegal than folks who drive over the speed limit to get to their job.

Ah, the traffic law argument. I see we're back to going around in circles.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 12, 2008 9:47 AM

As for point four, watch it buddy! I'm a "disgruntled Anglican" myself. Well, a disgruntled Episcopalian anyway.

My point was that John Nelson Darby (the founder of the dispensational hermenutic) was estranged from the historic churches, not the particular fact that he was Anglican. If he had been a disgruntled Catholic or Methodist, it wouldn't have made a difference.

And I'm married to the daughter of an Episcopal priest. So I'm familiar with the current Episcopal church situation, which is totally unlike what Darby was reacting to, anyway. (I don't know for sure, but I think he was unhappy with what he saw was ritualism as well as the hierarchy.)

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 12, 2008 10:38 AM

I do not know what is going on with me. I keep submitting without carefully proof reading.
I omitted that the word Alien to the Jewish mindset could easily entail the ideas of, "Not Wanted", or even "Illegal" since Moses was both in the eyes of Egypt.
I would guess that a law forbidding the entry of honest immigrants from any location would have been seen by Moses as a violation of God's Law. That would not mean a law monitoring immigration or regulating it would be wrong, necessarily but it would mean that a law that represented itself as such yet provided no real means of actually entering the country for honest purposes would not just be wrong, it would be unjust.
To Wolverine
I think the difference between the church and the state here would mean that we the church should do all that we can to help the undocumented, assist them and speak up for them as advocates for justice. The Government has the duty to regulate immigration but not to impede it. It is not the role of Government to insure that "we" are the only ones here.

Posted by: wayne | March 12, 2008 10:47 AM

"Crossing the border illegally to get to a job is no more illegal than folks who drive over the speed limit to get to their job."

And, once caught, speeders aren't allowed to speed any more. We don't issue a ticket and then raise the speed limit to accommodate them. If you continue to speed, you lose your license, and if you continue to speed after that, you go to prison.

Are you advocating prison for illegal immigrants? If not, then your analogy isn't valid.

"Congressional leaders could carve out two days (frankly, 3 hours would do), lock themselves in a room, and solve the governmental side to this issue."

Well, Campolo could churn out a solution within an hour because he essentially parroted the Congressional version.

The problem, for Congress, is appeasing Chambers of Commerce and farmers while not alienating (no pun intended) what constitutes a powerful future voting bloc.

That would be easy to do, were it not completely at odds with what the voters want. So they have to find a way to sell this to the same voters who saw right through Congress' first attempt to razzle-dazzle them.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 12, 2008 11:15 AM

Don wrote:

Let's take for argument's sake that a quarter of the undocumenteds leave- 3 million- most of them to Latin America. You are going to try to tell me that US churches are going to help these people reestablish themselves in Third World countries where they have no realistic prospects of employment. And how long are they going to support them? At what level will they support them?

Okay, lemme get this straight: We've got a group of people who were able to find work in the US in spite of having no contacts, not knowing the language, and not having legal status. And they have "no realistic prospects of employment" back home where they have friends and family, do speak the language, and are legal citizens. You expect these same people to pay stiff fines to remain in the US, but they have no savings to ease their return to their home countries. How would they pay the fines then?

I know the Mexican economy isn't great, but I smell more than a whiff of hyperbole here.

You're going to tell me that churches that worry mainly about pastors' and organist's salaries are going to suddenly re-vamp themselves and send lots of money to these people in Latin America? Okay fine. By the way, I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, wanna buy it?

You're telling me that church groups that have been lobbying, marching, preaching, blogging, and even intentionally harboring illegal immigrants in some cases, could not reach into their own pockets to help those same people land on their feet after they return to their home countries?

So you want to help these people, but only on your terms, and only if it doesn't cost you anything? I've said it before, I'll say it again: We conservatives are supposed to be cold-hearted and indifferent to human suffering. What's your excuse?

In your glee to make fun of my traffic law analogy, you have ignored one important fact: many of your fellow supporters of an enforcement-only immigration policy consider illegal immigration to be a serious crime, similar to rape, murder, armed robbery, or assault.

That wasn't glee, that was "here we go again" exhaustion with just a hint of ennui. But you keep forgetting that the legals consequences of illegal entry or overstaying a visa is repatriation. If illegal immigration isn't a serious crime under current law, then it follows that returning the illegal immigrant to his or her country of origin can't be considered a particularly severe penalty.

If repatriation is a severe penalty, then it only follows that illegal immigration is a serious crime.

Either that, or the immigration law is incoherent, and shouldn't be taken seriously as a guide to what is, or is not, a serious threat to the national interest.

Earlier I mentioned that we had some common ground on the background check backlog and the need to reduce or reform farm subsidies. Those are things that we might be able to work together on that would make things better, not perfect all at once, but better. But here we are having the same arguments all over again. I think I hear demons giggling.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 12, 2008 12:32 PM

"Either that, or the immigration law is incoherent, and shouldn't be taken seriously as a guide to what is, or is not, a serious threat to the national interest."

The immigration laws are ABSOLUTELY INCOHERENT and are certainly not a guide to what is or is not a serious threat to the national interest.

I do not see any other way of looking at it. To say otherwise is to deny the reality of the situation. That is why they need to be changed. It is not because we are soft on crime or that we just love poor people. The laws, as they stand are unworkable, out of sync with reality, and wrong.

Posted by: wayne | March 12, 2008 12:41 PM

Joseph and Mary journeyed as illegal immigrants to Egypt in order to have a better life for their family--did they sin? Did Egypt sin by not sending them back to Herod?

Another moldy oldie. Only one slight problem: Egypt and Palestine were both provinces of the Roman Empire. Joseph and Mary didn't move from one country to another, they moved between different parts of the same jurisdiction.

When Florida starts booting out folks from Michigan, be sure and let me know.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 12, 2008 12:53 PM

"And they have "no realistic prospects of employment" back home where they have friends and family, do speak the language, and are legal citizens. You expect these same people to pay stiff fines to remain in the US, but they have no savings to ease their return to their home countries. How would they pay the fines then?" wolverine

Yeah, it's called coming from a Third World Country. If they had been able to find suitable employment there, they would have never left.

They would pay fines from their US earnings.

"You're telling me that church groups that have been lobbying, marching, preaching, blogging, and even intentionally harboring illegal immigrants in some cases, could not reach into their own pockets to help those same people land on their feet after they return to their home countries?" Wolverine

Yeah I am. When it comes to millions of people, I don't see my assumption as being unreasonable. Your expectations of the ability of church to handle this are.

"So you want to help these people, but only on your terms, and only if it doesn't cost you anything? Wolverine

We want a solution that will work. Not some half-baked solution of private charity helping millions of displaced people that you propose.

Your remarks about what I am or am not willing to give up to help others is something that you cannot ascertain from our exchange here. It merits no further discussion.

So why do you want these people to leave at all costs? Is it just an aversion to people unlawfully present or is it some deeper racial or cultural bias?

"I'll say it again: We conservatives are supposed to be cold-hearted and indifferent to human suffering. What's your excuse?" Wolverine

You have described the terms that you would apply to your position, to wit, "cold-hearted indifference to human suffering."

My position doesn't suffer from that problem. No need to further comment on your red herrings.

"If repatriation is a severe penalty, then it only follows that illegal immigration is a serious crime." Wolverine

False analogy. You fail to account for the factors that caused the foreign nationals to be compelled to come here.

I think I hear demons giggling. Wolverine

I do too when Christians advocate such blatently inhumane policies.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 12, 2008 1:04 PM

(Please forgive the length. I hope someone takes the time to read this, and even respond.)
And as a reminder, "migration" is not just a modern, American issue but an ancient, worldwide phenomenon. There are over 250 million people, primarily people of color moving from the poor Southern Hemisphere to the rich Northern Hemisphere, i.e. U.S. Western Europe, Japan, China, and other rich, powerful countries. No one has even mentioned the worldwide issue of human and sex trafficking.
There are so many ironies here: How many white American business men travel to "third world" countries and pay to have sex with minors? It's been documented. Or what about these young American service men who are stationed in places around the world, i.e. Phillipines, where one of the biggest markets of child sex trafficking exists, and utilized by some of our good ol' American boys. I'm not here to attack anyone.
Did anyone here know there is more slavery today than existed in the 1800s? And when we look back at "slavery" isn't amazing how slavery through the "law," even in the name of religion and Christianity, was justified!
The migrants are people! There are human beings! They are not criminals! I believe in the law, and a country protecting it's borders but when any law is inhumane and unjust, I have a right to not follow the law.
I have a lot more to say; I will pause here.
Thanks to the wonderful posts, the God inspiring posts of compassion, mercy, empathy, and justice for the migrants who do not have a voice.
Peace, Jose
PS Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. towards the end of his life discerned the three main evils of this world: war, poverty, and racism. Oh, I see at least two playing out in the current immigration issue, most notably poverty and racism.
I don't remember who posted something about the issue of "criminality" here are some facts:
1. there in no link between "immigrants" and "terrorism." Not one terrorist has been caught coming through our Southern border w/Mexico. In fact, some have been caught coming through the Northern border with Canada. Why aren't we talking about building a fence there? It is because Canada is a white country=Racism.
2. Most individuals who commit individual crimes, robbery, theft, etc. are because they are driven by poverty, a social evil. Now get me right, I say this not to abdicate or dismiss "personal responsibility." Most of the evil committed in this world is done by "good respectable people." Looking at history, the Nazi Concentration Death Camps were built by good respectable people, some who even called themselves Christians! Dr. King also said once, "Evil exists because good people sit around and do nothing."
(Please forgive the length. I hope someone takes the time to read this, and even respond.)
Love you all!

Posted by: Jose | March 12, 2008 2:04 PM

"As long as we can control those Mexicans, and make sure they meet our needs for employment, and make sure they stay employees, and behave themselves, and act better than the people that are already here, then they can come to our party. God forbid that there may be an entreprenuer (sp?)in the bunch!"

Pastor Jeff

Pastor of what? Bigotry - sterotyping - generalities "those Mexicans' as if you were talking about "those blacks" or "those Jews" or "those Chinamen" When you say "Make sure they meet our needs for employment" It sounds more as if you are talking about an item rather than a God created human being. Remember, if you were born in this country - it wasn't by your choice, it was by God's. So please Mr. preacher man when you make comments about other people of whatever nationality or social status, you should try to sound a little more compassionate toward them, a little more Christ-like.... And that is me simply being constructive here, and not intending to attack you personally. Reread your own comments Jeff, and see if you don't agree that you may have come across as being a little insensitive here. doug

Posted by: Doug | March 12, 2008 3:26 PM

Did Jesus ask His Apostles to sin when He sent them out into all the world as undocumented workers to preach the Gospel? Should He have limited them to preaching within the Roman Empire?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 12, 2008 3:34 PM

Doug--and I think I came down a bit hard on you. I should have just said, "I think Pastor Jeff is speaking ironically here."

But I'm in the midst of grading some essays that haven't all been the best I've ever seen. I shouldn't take it out on my comments here, though.

Sorry.

Don

Posted by: Don | March 12, 2008 3:54 PM

Regarding dispensationalism:

It's heretical on many levels. First it limits the person of God to specific dates. First the age of the patriarchs, then the Law, the kings, then the prophets and then... One idea they use is that God used prophecy up until the the first century, then the word (bible) became the only criteria for judging one's relationship w/ God.

It seeks to denigrate the role and person of the Holy Spirit. The theology plainly states that the age of the Holy Spirit ended after the first apostles died. That's ridiculous.

It ignores a living, breathing relationship w/ God by:
1. Worshiping the Bible
2. Promoting Legalism
3. Limiting the Way God works in history

It distorts the bible by making claims that God's revelation is closed, when it's not. I could keep going here. The age of revelation never closes because God is always in the business of revealing himself to his people.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 12, 2008 4:15 PM

Actually, I'm going to come back just long enough to clean up one loose end.

I wrote:

Not a family, or a band of evangelists, but illegal immigrants.

That was sloppy writing on my part, and some explanation is in order. The point is, you can't just say "these are families" and have that negate the fact that we are dealing with illegal immigrants too. Just because a family does something together that doesn't make it all right. The Corleones were a family too.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 12, 2008 5:00 PM

wayne. the laws are okay. it is the enforcement or lack of enforcement that is messing things up.
don; read the arizona star newspaper articles i gave you . all the statistics are there for legal immigration and you might see the reality of the situation. we are letting millions in legally every year.
wolverine; don't stop dealing with this immigration issue here. the problem here is that the illegal alien supporters have no interest in u s citizen's rights, no interest in our government structure, and a pretty poor sense of fair play. all their bible thumping is irrelevent to our government. in 2006 this country issued about 5 million visitor visas knowing that 45% of those visitors will not return to their home country. do they think that is good? the illigal alien supporters, including campolo simply will not accept the reality that this country cannot support all the people that want what we got. maybe a good depression will put a different spin in their heads. when umemployment goess to 10% overall and minorities are hurt most there may be an ugly backlash against those who are here illegally.

Posted by: jerry | March 12, 2008 5:29 PM

Wolverine said:

"Not the church, but the government.

Not Rome, but the US. (Much as you like to claim the two are similar, they aren't exactly the same.)

Not in ancient days, but today.

Not a family, or a band of evangelists, but illegal immigrants.

Not three, or a dozen, or even several dozen, but twelve million."

Wolverine suggests that the Biblical context is not the same as our modern context, so the Bible does not apply exactly to our situation or our modern understanding. But, if I say the EXACT SAME THING about homosexuality, I'm twisting Scripture.

Not Rome, but the US--which has psychologists whose God-given vocation it is to discern root causes of behavior and who have determined homosexuality is not the result of heterosexuals turning to idolatry but is, in fact, an inborn orientation

Not ancient days, but today--when we have germ theory and other medical advances which were not available to the New Testament writers which help us understand things like homosexual orientation

Not a family or a band of apostles, or ancient heterosexual temple prostitutes--but baptized Christians who want to live in a lifelong, sexually exclusive same-sex partnership

Not 3 or a dozen--but a naturally occurring 2-3% of any given population.

We are not arsenkoites and our behavior is not para physin--you can't take those ancient descriptions and apply them to our modern day understanding any more than you can find an exact Biblical equivalent for undocumented workers in America.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 12, 2008 6:30 PM

The bottom line is that most Americans want the advantage of so-called Free Trade with other countries, but they don't want the ramifications what comes with it. Aren't we trading our commodities for their labor? What's good for the goose..... We've lost the ability to sacrifice for the greater good, because materialism reigns in this country.

Posted by: Ando | March 12, 2008 7:33 PM

This is kind of deep into this thread but here goes anyway: While reading the preface to Fredrick Douglas' autobiography I thought how similar the language of the illegal aliens and that regarding fugitive slaves is. At the risk of inviting a long history lesson, Sojourner Truth, if you are out there, how far off base am I?

BTW- no offense taken, Doug. You are not the first person to ask that question on these threads. What I was really doing was echoing the essence of the arguments preceding that post. If we can "limit" the problem to government and economics then we can somehow rule out morality. When pragmatism trumps ethics we've been converted to facism.

Thanks for the back-up Don. You are very encouraging.

Pastor Jeff Staples (ABC-USA-NYS)

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 12, 2008 10:24 PM

"Either that, or the immigration law is incoherent, and shouldn't be taken seriously as a guide to what is, or is not, a serious threat to the national interest."

Precisely.

The primary deterrant to illegal immigration right now is not a system of laws and enforcement--but the creation of an illegal, working, underclass. This is profoundly corrosive. It provides the context for illegal activity. Mississippi and Alabama (and others) tried this before and remain at the bottom of the States in almost all measures of development many decades later.

Defeating reform legislation is not governance.

This is one of those issues where there is all kind of vicious attack--but really very little conflicting interests

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 12, 2008 11:45 PM

Amy G., hat was a very moving story. I might be able to help. Feel free to email me at jgmartin82@hotmail.com and identify yourself as the person who posted on the blog.

Jim

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 13, 2008 5:20 AM

JM--Thankyou for your offer to help. It seems they need someone to walk with them. The story may be more complex.

Amy--I pray God grants the hope and peace needed for you and family to pursue the life you believe is God's best desire for you.

blessings

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 13, 2008 8:55 AM

Katy,

I agree w/ your assessment, up until the last wave of Asian Immigrants I would say that Asian immigration was racist. But after the Voting Rights Act and other legislation passed that changed and it became more open then it ever was before.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 13, 2008 9:46 AM

I believe that the alien spoken of in the passage of Matthew spoken of by the author is not of an immigrant, but rather a sojourner. That is, one who is passing through. So when someone is passing through your nation, you lavish him or her with comfort and assistance. But this 'alien' should be on his or her way within a couple of days and pass through to the other side. The 'alien' concept does not deal with those who settle permanently, thus it cannot be applied to immigration.

Posted by: matt | March 14, 2008 9:18 AM

I notice not one person has made a comment about the corrupt Mexican government and society. Why are the elites in Mexico let off the hook by everyone? Shouldn't some of heat generated here be directed at Mexican elites instead of Americans?

Posted by: Gary | March 15, 2008 11:29 PM

Sharing your interest in Tony Campolo’s work, I thought you might like to see this video of him: www.eastern.edu/change

Posted by: Thomas Rockett | March 17, 2008 5:00 PM

The discussion seems to be going all over the place. I think we need to consider why the "illegal alien" issue is actually an issue. The real issue is race and behind that, fear. We would not be having any of these conversations if we we talking about? million Canadians or English who were in this country illegally. A population of Hispanics in America rapidly approaching 50 million scares the devil out of people. It's sad but much of what we want to talk about in America has it's roots in our racist heritage. What Americans did to Native Americans, I'm sure, is not thought to have any semblance to the illegal hispanic population in America.
When we speak of the Hispanic drain on the economy we know this is simply inflamatory rhetoric. In Las Vegas 1/4 of the population is Hispanic, 500,000 people and their purchasing power in the community is estimated at over 15 Billion dollars a year, hardly a drain. The drain on the economy is POVERTY, but to say this would mean we have to address it and we don't want to do that.It's much easier to find a scape goat and beat it like a pinata. Our current pinata is illegal Hispanics in America.

Posted by: Don V. | March 18, 2008 7:30 PM