Mike Huckabee just left the university where I work. He gave a standard stump speech, which seems to be going farther to the right. (Thank you Jim Pinkerton!) However, after the speech Huckabee had a press conference on campus and made some significant news. He signed a “No Amnesty Pledge” from NumbersUSA.
The pledge reads:
“I pledge to oppose amnesty or any other special path to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals unlawfully present in the United States.
As President, I will fully implement enforcement measures that, over time, will lead to the attrition of our illegal immigrant population. I also pledge to make security of our borders a top priority of my administration.”
Does this make Huckabee a true believer, a opportunistic convert, somewhere in between (does it matter)? He seems to have convinced (enough) two major illegal immigration groups to either endorse or support him.
Honestly, I’m still voting for Fred, but to see Huckabee’s new positions…I have to say that he’s moving up in my opinion.
Huckabee is lying through his teeth and bandwagoning Fred!’s Attrition Through Enforcement position in the process. What a shameful display. This man doesn’t deserve to be running for the GOP ticket. He’s a disgrace.
Huckabee is a pandering disaster! He is hoping that there are still a few conservatives out there who aren't really paying attention. A defeat for Huckabee and McCain is a victory for conservatism and America! The only candidate who consistantly gets large numbers of conservatives to support him is Mitt Romney. This should be a clear message to all conservatives about who they need to rally around. Mitt currently has 52 delegates and the next highest is 22. Go Mitt!
It is amazing how we can change our minds in a split second. I don't trust Hackabee he lies. Huckabee help get the mexican consulate in AK and only changed them a dollar in rent. Obama is also changing his tune as he voted for a path for citizenship for Illegal aliens. There records no not lie!!!!!!!
Voters need to challange their records!!!!!Go Fred
When will he sign the "I will do whatever will get me elected" pledge? I'm amazed anyone is taking this pandering skunk seriously!
When will he sign the “I will do whatever will get me elected” pledge? I’m amazed anyone is taking this pandering skunk seriously!
Hi Mike:
How is Obama changing his tune? As far as I can see he has consistently supported a path to citizenship.
I sure don't get how Christians can be ANGRY at people who are just trying to provide for their families by working hard in the US, BTW.
your friend
keith
I think all of the gop candidates should be <s>shot</s> ashamed of their no amnesty stance. I stand with Bush and McCain on a path to citizenship for those who can document that they've been employed, have paid taxes, and have not committed any crimes for at least two years.
Others will have to go back. The whole line about "go to the end of the line" is a total joke, since the line takes about 14-18 YEARS, even when you are sponsored by a relative who is a citizen.
BTW, this Huckabee copout has helped me narrow my primary choices down to Romney and McCain. I already have my ballot (since I always vote absentee – it's easier).
I may vote McCain just to buck the establishment, even though I thin McCain is too old.
What I want to know is how they're going to force some 10 million to leave the country. As for me, I'm for a path to citizenship – we need the workers to support me in my old age.
Why I think Huckie-boy is a danger to America, and why I hope he gets the nomination.
keith,
the reason this Christian may become upset, no matter the reason why the ILLEGALS are here, is that their ILLEGAL activity causes undo pressure on an already pressured economic situation and the ILLEGAL immigration problem builds a 3rd world population that steadily gains rights that should only belong to LEGAL citizens.
Any way, God would not want you to do anything ILLEGAL, even when trying to feed your face. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5Fwmowc8k&featur…
HI Bejamin:
the reason this Christian may become upset, no matter the reason why the ILLEGALS are here, is that their ILLEGAL activity causes undo pressure on an already pressured economic situation and the ILLEGAL immigration problem builds a 3rd world population that steadily gains rights that should only belong to LEGAL citizens.
Any Any way, God would not want you to do anything ILLEGAL, even when trying to feed your face.
I have to say, your comment about "feeding your face is rather hostile. Those who come here illegally are trying to feed their children, not get fat. But to address your point:
It's illegality that's the problem you say. Well, it was illegal for the Colonists to rebel against Britain, hiding Jews from the Nazis violated German law, but I doubt that you think those were wrong, therefore you don't believe that illegal behavior is necessarily wrong behavior. Those who come here illegally for the most part only violate laws against BEING here–otherwise they are incredibly law abiding. They cause no harm. If it's the illegality that bothers you, we could solve the problem by returning the nation to the immigration policy we had from the beginning–come if you want to work hard and raise your family. IMO it is quite unchristian to be ANGRY at people who are just trying to work hard to provide for their family. I can't see jesus commanding us to deport a mother from her child.
your friend
Keith
Keith
Keith, we agree on this item.
Didn't mean to hurt your feelins keith, but they do come here to suck the tit of Liberty and give nothing back. In fact how many millions are sent back out of our economy to Mexico?
Jesus never stood for ILLEGAL activity.
ILLEGALS are not fighting for freedom. They come here ILLEGALLY to siphon off our economy and pose a threat to our security and integrity. They are not here to assimilate only to take. That is why it is called ILLEGAL.
Illegal aliens kill, per WorldNet Daily reports, 12 Americans a day. That's 4380 a year. 21,900 since September 11, 2001. Betcha didn't know that. Thats more deaths than in the warzones of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
A study from 1999 to 2006 found nearly 240,000 illegal immigrant sexual offenders live in the United States as 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders infiltrate across the border everyday, joining gangs like MS-13.
We need to enforce the border and move toward the "Ellis Island" version of immigration, that is the LEGAL version of immigration. The long and sometimes winding path that my wife took from South America some 15 years ago.
I think that is WJWD.
Hi Bejamin:
Didn't mean to hurt your feelins keith, but they do come here to suck the tit of Liberty and give nothing back. In fact how many millions are sent back out of our economy to Mexico?
Jesus never stood for ILLEGAL activity.
Give nothing back? That's silly. "They" give their lbaor–hard labor–and in return they are paid. "They" do with THEIR money what they choose to, which for many of them is provide for their families in Mexico.
ILLEGALS are not fighting for freedom. They come here ILLEGALLY to siphon off our economy and pose a threat to our security and integrity. They are not here to assimilate only to take. That is why it is called ILLEGAL.
"They" work and they get paid; there is no siphoning. It doesn't matter whether or not "they" are here to assimilate, but the fact is by the 2nd and 3rd generation the children of immigrants are completely assimilated.
Illegal aliens kill, per WorldNet Daily reports, 12 Americans a day. That's 4380 a year. 21,900 since September 11, 2001. Betcha didn't know that. Thats more deaths than in the warzones of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
World Net Daily isn't a credible source.
A study from 1999 to 2006 found nearly 240,000 illegal immigrant sexual offenders live in the United States as 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders infiltrate across the border everyday, joining gangs like MS-13.
There is no reason to think the proportion of criminals among those who came to this country illegally is any higher than in the rest of the population. The stuff you are citing is quite analogous to neo-nazi propaganda–which I hasten to add is contrary to Christ's teachings.
We need to enforce the border and move toward the "Ellis Island" version of immigration, that is the LEGAL version of immigration. The long and sometimes winding path that my wife took from South America some 15 years ago.
I think that is WJWD.
Exactly what our immigration policy ought to be is a debatable subject, something Christians can disagree about. But what Christians ought not do is hate people who are just here to work hard and provide for their families. That is NOT WJWD.
your friend
keith
You can dismiss stats if you wish, but that does not change the facts. You must have not been paying attention to news and crime reports, prison population info, etc. Facts are facts and can not be disputed.
Jesus would not want you to break the law to feed your face.
If you want to excuse ILLEGAL activity personally, thats fine, you have that right. But don't hide behind "Jesus" to excuse or reward ILLEGAL behavior. That is what is silly.
No. It is not debateable. Immigration law is concrete but … not enforced.
Picking lettuce does not offset weight placed upon the welfare, medical, safety, sovereignty and economic issues. Not an even trade, its ILLEGAL.
The buzz word "Nazi" you have thrown out twice now concerning my comments. Name calling does not make your argument or point of view stronger. It sheds light into how you think of others that have differing opinions. I would say that keeping 3rd world citizens as cheaply paid slave labor and then allowing the dregs of those people to be allowed to rain crime upon American citizens would be more akin to something evil.
"There is no reason to think the proportion of criminals among those who came to this country illegally is any higher than in the rest of the population. The stuff you are citing is quite analogous to neo-nazi propaganda–which I hasten to add is contrary to Christ's teachings." —
What? Are you saying that just because we have criminals in our own culture that it is ok to allow "foreign ILLEGAL" criminals a pass? Me thinks Jesus would frown on rape, murder, drugs, etc. for a little cheap lettuce.
I think the Jesus I know, the Lion of Judah(not the long haired pacifist Wal-Mart version you paint)would kick a little ass on this subject. I do not think he would support ILLEGAL activity … a warrior King such as he would enforce laws, either Caesars, which he surrendered himself to remember, or His Fathers. ILLEGAL activity is wrong in God's eyes.
Hi Benjamin:
You can dismiss stats if you wish, but that does not change the facts. You must have not been paying attention to news and crime reports, prison population info, etc. Facts are facts and can not be disputed.
Facts are indeed facts, but World Net Daily isn't a credible source of facts.
If you want to excuse ILLEGAL activity personally, thats fine, you have that right. But don't hide behind "Jesus" to excuse or reward ILLEGAL behavior. That is what is silly.
Jesus would not want you to break the law to feed your face.
My post wasn't ABOUT the merits or not of our current immigration situation, it was about anger directed toward those who break our immigration laws.
Your last sentence tells me that you think the US was wrong to violate British Law by rebelling against the king. And that Chinese Christians are wrong to violate Chinese law against home churches. I actually don't believe you ARE opposed to those things, which means you have an inconsistent view about law breaking.
No. It is not debateable. Immigration law is concrete but … not enforced.
The debate I was referring to would be about what should our laws BE. If all you care about is stopping the illegality, just eliminate all immigration restrictions and that problem would be solved.
The buzz word "Nazi" you have thrown out twice now concerning my comments. Name calling does not make your argument or point of view stronger. It sheds light into how you think of others that have differing opinions. I would say that keeping 3rd world citizens as cheaply paid slave labor and then allowing the dregs of those people to be allowed to rain crime upon American citizens would be more akin to something evil.
You seem to have misunderstood my first reference to Nazis. My point was helping Jews escape the nazis was ILLEGAL activity, and yet perfectly moral. Therefore, violating the law isn't necessarily immoral.
My second reference was different though. I wasn't calling YOU a name, but I WAS comparing the questionable statistics you cited to neo-nazi propaganda. That's because they say exactly the same things about immigrants.
What? Are you saying that just because we have criminals in our own culture that it is ok to allow "foreign ILLEGAL" criminals a pass? Me thinks Jesus would frown on rape, murder, drugs, etc. for a little cheap lettuce.
That was IMO obviously not my point. My point was to criticize your broad brush condemnation of all those who came here illegally as rapists and drug dealers. There are criminals in every subgroup of humanity, and it's perfectly proper to hold them accountable for their actions.
I think the Jesus I know, the Lion of Judah(not the long haired pacifist Wal-Mart version you paint)would kick a little ass on this subject. I do not think he would support ILLEGAL activity … a warrior King such as he would enforce laws, either Caesars, which he surrendered himself to remember, or His Fathers. ILLEGAL activity is wrong in God's eyes.
There is no way Jesus would kick ass on this subject. The asses Jesus kicked were those of the powerful religious establishment, not those of poor people who just want to work hard and get paid.
your friend
Keith
Oh, I believe a warrior King would kick butt on those committing illegalities. In fact I believe that will be the near future role of said King. Israel did and does today have enforced borders. Why? To keep Gods people clean from the nations. We(the US) are different from the rest of the nations. We have the ability to feed the world, protect the world from their enemies, depose evil despots, and offer a place of sanctuary to those that wish to assimilate as American citizens, and if all abide by the LAWS of the US, all have a fair chance to make something of their lives. This great hope is cheapened by those who only come here to suck the tit of Liberty with no idea of what this nation means or is about. As an American citizen, and as a Christian man, who strives to abide by the law, because I have a great love for God and Law, I can have the righteous indignation(even like Yeshua did with the money changers)when the Gov I live under refuses to enforce the laws that exist that protects me from third world disease and the lessening of the quality of life that I should be able to be a part of, I become indignant. Even concerned. And oh my, a bit angry. This all relates to anger and the danger of anger toward ILLEGALS. If the economy bites it hard here, or any of a number things would take place, ILLEGALS would be a target for violence. Send them home, for their sake and enforce the border, in a tough NO holds barred manner.
But in keeping our discussion …
I did not use any broad brush on anyone.
Holding them accountable for their crimes? Of course! Duh! But they did not belong here in the first place and those who were killed, maimed, raped, etc., would not have been if we had enforced our law. Again, people get tired of this crap.
If you do not mention Nazi's again, I will not mention how Nazi-ism was really a religion and not a Government type. This Huckabee flip flopping and mixing of politics with evangelical qoutes … this is an actual danger. Much like the Global Warming mantra being forced down our throats. But I digress ..
Our laws should be what they are now. The problem is nothing is enforced. Its open and like the wild west with our Southern border states under seige. And no one gives a damn. Get in line, wait your turn. That is what the law states. I believe Jesus would say obey Caesar. It is not a Christians duty to say "come on in and take all you can". A Chrisitians duty would be to take care of his family first, congregation second, anf if assets allow, others.
My stats are true and researched. I only state one source. I think it has proved to be accurate, but many other sources exist. Check them out. Arguing my stats are wrong with out examining is wrong and makes point of view innaccurate. These are not Nazi-like in nature, as my heart and mind abhores such things and I would not use propaganda to make a point.
The ILLEGALS do not belong here. They have circumvented the law with the help of Drug runners, illegal weapons dealers, military and para-military outfits and with the total knowledge of a dirty Mexican gov. ILLEGALS must pass through these war zone towns, pay tolls and booty, are murdered and raped, and its not ok. We need to turn off the tap. We need to enforce our law. Its the only Christian thing to do. I think that is how a warrior King would handle it.
BEN WROTE: Illegal aliens kill, per WorldNet Daily reports, 12 Americans a day…You can dismiss stats if you wish, but that does not change the facts.
Facts do not speak for themselves. They must interpreted in context to have meaning. Your stat means nothing, even if it is reliable. To assign meaning and value to it, you need to answer these questions:
– how does that compare, per capita, to the murder rate committed by residents? If it's statistically equal or less, then illegals are no worse than residents – in any population, you'll have malcontents
– even if the number is slightly higher, that does not really mean that illegal aliens are bad – remember that the rate may be inflated by the drug dealers and traders that should not be considered part of the main immigrant population.
KEITH WROTE: There is no reason to think the proportion of criminals among those who came to this country illegally is any higher than in the rest of the population.
Keith is right – again, these stats need to be compared to stats for residents. Even better why don't you compare them to inner city stats? Perhaps if you are really interested in fighting crime, you should focus on where it is highest. But again, your stats need context or your argument fails.
BEN WROTE: Jesus would not want you to break the law to feed your face.
Ben, from your approach, I assume you are not a Christian. Is that correct? Do you have scripture to back up your contention?
What you are really saying is that if Jesus came to your door as an illegal to "feed his face", you would turn him away. You are way off on this one.
While scripture does not condone illegal behavior, if you apply that principle in isolation, and give it highest priority, compassion goes right out the window. You don't seem to have any balance.
Criminals, we can send home. People working to feed their families, we need to do something about. While the solution may be complex (like the roots of the problem), the no-amnesty position obeys the letter of the law, but not the spirit – it's hard hearted.
If you want to excuse ILLEGAL activity personally, thats fine, you have that right. But don't hide behind "Jesus" to excuse or reward ILLEGAL behavior. That is what is silly.
See what I mean? You make a good pharisee – appeal to the letter of the law! Who could argue with that? You must remember that we must obey God's law when man's laws violate them. Not all laws are just. Perhaps our immigration laws are unjust. Ever consider that?
Picking lettuce does not offset weight placed upon the welfare, medical, safety, sovereignty and economic issues.
Well, for the sake of argument, you can reduce their personhood to numbers, and compare what they contribute in taxes with what they use in social services. In that case, they may use more than they contribute. But what you can't measure is how much money they save employers in lower wages, and how much cheaper your food and other services are due to immigrant labor.
There are issues with how much burden our social system can handle as immigrants flood in, and there are security and economic considerations. But in this case, you are choosing one of the two extremes, and neither extreme will solve the problem. Your solution is inhumane and cruel.
A plan like GWB or McCain supports will give honest people the chance to earn citizenship. And if you really want to solve the problem rather than attack immigrants and continue to FAIL to solve the problem, you need to address all of the causes, which include:
– the corruption in Mexican government, and their failure to repair their economic system
– our byzantine and inefficient system – when it takes almost 20 years to get in legally, are you surprised when people circumvent the system?
– the lack of a secure border – it's time to build the fence
MORE LATER, i gotta eat.
A tree is known by the fruit it bears. (bible) Huckabee's fruits are already visible when he created those havens for the illegal aliens and he has endorsed illegal immigration. The bible says beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. When I see him I see a wolf.
Remember they did not call the grand compromise amnesty. This is the same thing that huckabee signed. That signing pledge means nothing. The pledge is not worded correctly from where I sit. It's all a farce for Huckabee.
Don't be fooled by his lies.
Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
Look at the fruit on the trees.
Ray …
Its a mistake to coax millions of people over our border knowing the possible Hell they will see on that journey.Its a very dirty business, trading in flesh, and it should be curtailed. The law enforced. We as a nation, if we as a people, keep encouraging this activity, we are guilty as co-conspirators in what happens to them. That is all that I am saying. There is a way for all who want to, to come here. My lovely wife being one who did. Ask her how ILLEGAL immigration makes her feel. ILLEGAL immigration is wrong and immoral on many levels. Just because it makes us feel good about ourselves does not make it right. A Christian man looks after his family first, his congregation second, and if assets allow, others. The law of Caesar should not be broken by a Christian person, no matter how emotionally good it makes us feel. Its disrespectful of God, law and our fellow man.
seeker –
Lord. I can not believe you see things like this. I do not think I have ever been called a Pharisee. LOL.
OK, let me see if I can unravel this: Seeker says –
"Facts do not speak for themselves. They must interpreted in context to have meaning. Your stat means nothing, even if it is reliable." –
If you were the father of one of the young women killed by Jose Medellin in Texas the facts would be clearer to you. The facts are: ILLEGALS have murdered, stole, raped, destroyed property, etc. Now, if the border and immigration law had been actually enforced, these activities would have not taken place. Facts do speak for themselves. These are black and white events, no gray areas here. Ask the weeping father.
MORE SEEKER:
"BEN WROTE: Jesus would not want you to break the law to feed your face.
Ben, from your approach, I assume you are not a Christian. Is that correct? Do you have scripture to back up your contention?"
Why yes seeker, have you not read "Thou shalt not steal", that certainly would be breaking the law, even if your tummy was growling. How bout showing the coin with Caesars face uopn it, in essence stating that you should pay your taxes, no matter how unfair or extreme?
And, can you show me where Yeshua stated its ok to involve yourself in illegal activity? My God man, he surrendered himself to officials, knowing he would be put to death. He had 12 Legions of angels to call upon, yet yielded himself to the officials of the Sanhedrin. He respected the law and Law that much. I can not see a man of that unmovable strength saying,"Yep, go ahead and steal". Come on man.
MO SEEKER –
"See what I mean? You make a good pharisee – appeal to the letter of the law! Who could argue with that? You must remember that we must obey God's law when man's laws violate them. Not all laws are just. Perhaps our immigration laws are unjust. Ever consider that?" –
The immigration laws have served America and legal immigrants for centuries, even your family members I suspect. What is unjust and immoral, and what I have considered, is the non-enforcement of our laws. The wild west approach which allows many to die in the desert, to be murdered, to be raped, to be enslaved by those North and South of the border, to be dehumanized in many ways. How is being a part of this Christian?
Oh,and being here ILLEGALLY is a crime.
How is enforcing our law inhumane? Not enforcing the law is the inhumane course. The sad truth is hard to swallow.
RODNEY WROTE: They come here with a hope to get rich, and live the high life back in mexico. Without paying taxes. They don't want to be citizens here. They get more benefits from us being illegal than they would if they were a citizen.
Rodney, you obviously don't know any illegals. I know at least a dozen, and to a man, they want to be citizens. Do you know why? Because nobody wants to live looking over their shoulder all of the time, thinking they could be deported, be separated from their friends and family here in the US, and from their lives here.
They are here because they can't make a decent living at home. You call it "getting rich." Some may want that, and there is nothing wrong with that, any more than you wanting to be richer.
So why be part of the problem that is destroying this great nation.
Because you have misdiagnosed the nation's problems. Most Christians informed by the bible don't think that illegal immigration is the problem in this country, but rather, the lack of individual virtue and morality, sexual immorality, the breakdown of the family, and unbelief in the church, making it tepid and useless to God.
SHI WROTE: Huckabee's fruits are already visible when he created those havens for the illegal aliens and he has endorsed illegal immigration. The bible says beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. When I see him I see a wolf….Don't be fooled by his lies.
(Eyes rolling). Shi, what makes you think that being kind to the poor aliens, who are not only poor, but having to brave the desert just to start a new life and feed their families, is unchristian? Again, I think you are falling victim to the same error as Ben and Rodney – you follow the letter of the law (like a Pharisee), while ignoring the spirit of it, which is to help others.
I say that our immigration system is unjust, and they are following a higher law – that of feeding their families. Just like those Christians who disobeyed the laws that promoted slavery, these people are disobeying our own unjust and cruelly byzantine system.
Look, the correct solution is a both/and solution – both fix the system, enforce the borders and the laws, and make a compassionate system for those who have been here for some time and contributed. The whole either/or discussion is really made by fools at the polar extremes (same with abortion, btw)
Shi, your language is that of an extreme fanatic, not a reasonable person. You portray Huckabee as some evil deciever, lying to us from his heart of darkness. Is he the antichrist? Please.
KEITH WROTE: But on that argument, giving Bibles to Chinese house churches would be sinful, as it is against Chinese law.
Exactly.
BEN WROTE: I can not believe you see things like this. I do not think I have ever been called a Pharisee.
I think your "illegal is illegal is sin" approach is Pharisaical. You may not act that way in other matters, but on this one, I think this approach fits the definition precisely.
he facts are: ILLEGALS have murdered, stole, raped, destroyed property, etc.
So have residents. Will you penalize all residents because some have committed crimes? You do with illegals. Again, your argument does not follow. Just because a minority of aliens commits crimes does not mean that the best solution is to deport all.
The FACT is, I believe the context through which you are interpreting the facts is false, so the meaning you assign to the data is wrong – just like evolutionists and creationists can view the same facts and come up with different conclusions.
No one is arguing that crime is good, but rather, that the solution you have picked is not the correct one, and your unspoken conclusion, that all illegals are equally criminal and should be deported, or that the easiest and best solution is to deport them all since we can't figure out who is a criminal, is poor.
BEN WROTE: Yeshua stated its ok to involve yourself in illegal activity?
How about where Jesus' disciples broke the law of the Sabbath in order to eat? Or when David ate the showbread? Laws are meant to protect people.
The disciples refused to stop preaching the gospel even when commanded to by magistrates.
You see, it's not just "if you break the law, you are sinning," but rather, you must also judge if the law is just in light of God's law. And even God's law, as we see with the breaking of the Sabbath by the disciples, may be broken out of compassion.
Those who want to stick to the law with no exceptions, no clarifications, and no concern for those who break the law, esp, when the "crime" is not stealing or harming others directly, but rather, a desperate attempt to make a better life, are really missing God entirely, imo.
BEN WROTE: The immigration laws have served America and legal immigrants for centuries, even your family members I suspect.
This is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Common Practice, or perhaps Appeal to Tradition.
Our system "worked" in earlier times, but it is obviously not robust enough to handle our current needs, and needs improvement.
BEN WROTE: Oh,and being here ILLEGALLY is a crime.
Circular argument – it's wrong because it's wrong. Being here illegally is against the law, and while that may make it a crime here, that does not make it wrong, because if the law is unjust, then it is OK in the eyes of God to disobey it.
How is enforcing our law inhumane? Not enforcing the law is the inhumane course.
When laws are unjust, enforcing them is inhumane and unjust. And those of us calling for a pathway to citizenship are providing a just and equitable way for people to prove their valid existing contributions, rather than your extreme "throw them all out" solution. That's just as bad as those who want to open up the borders entirely.
Hi Ben:
I have to correct you: it isn't a crime to be here illegally. Not all violations are criminal violations, otherwise people who drive a few miles over the speed limit would be criminals. James Sensenbrenner attempted to amend present immigration law to MAKE illegally immigrating a crime, but he was not successful.
Ben, I have to say I don't think you have addressed my argument about the inconsistency in your view (i.e, claiming that all illegal activity is sinful and yet not calling worship of the Lord in China a sin). If you have no answer to that point, I'd appreciate it if you'd just tell me.
your friend
keith
"Hi Ben:
I have to correct you: it isn't a crime to be here illegally. Not all violations are criminal violations, otherwise people who drive a few miles over the speed limit would be criminals. James Sensenbrenner attempted to amend present immigration law to MAKE illegally immigrating a crime, but he was not successful."
If it was not illegal to cross the border, then why do we go to the trouble to have Border Patrol arrest them? I would agree, going 55 in a 50 in ones car is illegal and you can be ticketed. But you can not compare crossing sovereign borders with speeding. It's a bit different. So I correct you.
Our laws are not inhumane. My wife was treated quite humanely and now thrives. Subjecting her to the coyotes and rapist narco dealers who enslave their own would not have been. Sorry guys, the proof is in the pudding here, Peruvian pudding at that.
Keith,I never mentioned China. So I am at a loss to your question. But if you are asking me if I believe that Chinese citizens are acting illegally in practicing what ever religion they freely choose, and the Gov of China says it is illegal, then I would say they are breaking the law of Caesar and therefore will probably pay the price at the Gov's hand. That has softened somewhat in the near past, but is still illegal. But if you apply the scripture that we must obey God rather than man, you can see that the people have a right granted by God to worship Him. Of course they may receive an AK47 round to the back of their head, but being Christian has always been a dangerous thing from time to time. I think all of this is obvious. But, as far as that applies, Jesus still would not want you to cross the border. You can be a Christian in Mexico just as easy as here. They are not looking for religious freedom, just $$$. And, again, the Gov of the US is causing undue horror upon these Mexican people, some our Christian brothers, by not enforcing our quite humane laws. No inconsistency here my friends, just a desire for law and order for all. I just do not think Yeshua would want us to inflict the indignity on another people when all we have to do is enforce our law.
Oh, and our laws are quite robust enough … we do not need more ILLEGALS. That is the fallacy.
"So have residents. Will you penalize all residents because some have committed crimes? You do with illegals. Again, your argument does not follow. Just because a minority of aliens commits crimes does not mean that the best solution is to deport all." –
Residents? Or ILLEGALS? Those who commit crime are criminal, right? Has the English language changed so much that we can not come to terms like this? You sound like BillyBob Clinton arguing the definition of "is".
I never said deport all, you are putting words in my mouth. But, Governor HuckPyle's silly ideas, and now he has pulled a 180 on it now, are assinine.
What I would do, is if you can not prove you are a citizen, then you receive no REAL ID. If you do not have a REAL ID, you do not work. All ILLEGALS will then go bye bye. Those who offer disobedience get a trip to the border and an ADIOS!!!
Remember, a Christian man must first … provide for his family,provide for the congregation,and then, if assets are there, provide for others. And Jesus despises a cheater.
Wow. "Nazi Propaganda", "Trousered apes", Not caring if Brown people are being mistreated and mislead by broken immigration policy, Not being a "Christian" if opinions are different, Not being able to carry conversation without inflammatory language, "Pharisee", etc.
I personally like that last one. Hehehe.
Oh well, Jesus said there would be days like this.
It seems the point of view here is that no matter the consequences, its OK to draw people into an ILLEGAL activity, no matter the repercussions immediately or future on the US or a people who work for low wages and live in a 3rd world conditions, if they are lucky, once they get here. How Christian.
Hmmm. "The spirit is willing but the brain stopped working", to paraphrase a scripture.
I wonder, with the anti-sovereignty pro-ILLEGAL leanings of some here, along with the inflammatory language, is this really a site for Christian perspectives? As a Christian man, I was taught principles to live and die by, but not at the loss of clear thinking. An emotionally based decision will get ya in trouble every time.
Oh, Seeker, using David as an example before. He was not a Christian, so his example does not apply. I guess you could say that even His apostles were not Christian since the term Christian was not used till after JC's death. Just a thought, not an attack, easy bro … easy.
Remember, a Christian man must first … provide for his family,provide for the congregation,and then, if assets are there, provide for others.
Jesus would not support illegal activity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBONmdeRvpM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxe1WO27B_I&featur… http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=409492672…
Food for thought. Oh, never mind the factuality, as we have discerned facts do not matter. Right?
Hi Ben:
I have to correct you: it isn't a crime to be here illegally. Not all violations are criminal violations, otherwise people who drive a few miles over the speed limit would be criminals. James Sensenbrenner attempted to amend present immigration law to MAKE illegally immigrating a crime, but he was not successful."
If it was not illegal to cross the border, then why do we go to the trouble to have Border Patrol arrest them?
I didn't say it wasn't illegal, I said it wasn't a crime.
I would agree, going 55 in a 50 in ones car is illegal and you can be ticketed…
Please allow me to enjoy our moment of common ground:-)
But you can not compare crossing sovereign borders with speeding. It's a bit different. So I correct you.
Illegal immigration and speeding are similar in that neither are crimes. We can debate which is worse some other time.
your friend
keith
hi FCL:
Why do you bother with these trousered apes? I mean it’s not like you’re arguing with Christians.
MY friend Ben IS a Christian, but even if he were not, I try to follow my Lord’s command to love my neighbor as myself. I’d rather not call people names. Sometimes I fail, and I am thankfule for God’s help back up when I stumble.
your friend (I am a Quaker BTW; we are called Friends)
Keith
keith/Ben/seeker
{Why yes seeker, have you not read "Thou shalt not steal", that certainly would be breaking the law, even if your tummy was growling. How bout showing the coin with Caesars face uopn it, in essence stating that you should pay your taxes, no matter how unfair or extreme?
And, can you show me where Yeshua stated its ok to involve yourself in illegal activity? My God man, he surrendered himself to officials, knowing he would be put to death. He had 12 Legions of angels to call upon, yet yielded himself to the officials of the Sanhedrin. He respected the law and Law that much. I can not see a man of that unmovable strength saying,"Yep, go ahead and steal". Come on man.}
Ben I agree with what you say here. Jesus does respect the law as well he does want people to be able to make choices for their self to worship god if they choose to do so. Thats why he held under ground church services with a special code to get in. "Hint the fish symbol". Thats what makes this country so great we have freedom of religion. We can worship any way we see fit.We don't need to worship underground. There is a fine line though between religion and laws. If a law stop's or hender's a person's free right to worship god then i believe he expects you to break that law. I would break china's law in a heart beat. My god is bigger than any goverment. Now on mine and Bens defence: I Believe that Jesus would like you to do things the right way, as long as doing things the right way don't effect your efforts to worship him and your relationship with god, I would think he would say go the right way. Rather it be more diffacult or not.
IF all the illegal immegrants came over the right way, I think they would all have a self worth about themselfs. I'm going to post a bible verse below:
Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
I'll write more later! "Keith i want to respond to your email above. "
one more verse:
Titus 3:1
1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,
Keith,
{I have to correct you: it isn't a crime to be here illegally. Not all violations are criminal violations, otherwise people who drive a few miles over the speed limit would be criminals. James Sensenbrenner attempted to amend present immigration law to MAKE illegally immigrating a crime, but he was not successful.}
My response:
speeding is not a crime its a violation.. Now an illegal driving over the speed limit is a crime. Because they don't have the right to drive.
Again, the real question is, are we to obey all laws, regardless of their justness in the light of scripture?
And if not, which ones? Just the ones that forbid religious practice or preaching? If a law is unjust, are we in the right in disobeying it? And how do you determine if a law is unjust?
It's very easy for those of us in cushy homes with nice computers and web access to say "look, if you are hungry, you should pray and not steal food." What happens when you can't support your family except through the drug trade, and you would rather make an honest living, but legally, you can't get into the US for 20 years?
This situation exists, not because people are greedy, but desperate for a decent life. I know illegals personally (unlike most of the hardline anti-amnesty types), and they are not greedy, theiving, thoughless brutes trying to scam the system. They are young people and young families trying to work up out of poverty and into a middle class life. And most came here because conditions where they lived in Mexico were very poverty like.
I think we have established biblical precident for the unjustness of our system and laws – it is slow (decades to get in legally if you are not highly educated), with little provision for welcoming and helping poor families who want to be part of the American dream. And just because an illegal has broken the immigration law does not mean they are criminals with criminal intent, as hardliners suggest. It's ludicrous, if not unintelligent and mean.
ONE MORE THING – WE SHOULD WELCOME CATHOLICS
I also want to remind us of this – the latinos that the hardliners are pissing off with their holier-than-thou, you-are-all-criminals, no-mercy approach are people we probably DO want immigrating to our country, because not only do they believe in the American dream and system, they are very much like us in that they are Catholic – usually pro family, pro life, and anti gay marriage. They are poised to support conservative values.
I am not taking merely a practical approach here while doing an end run on what is right, I am convinced that doing justice for them is right, and pinning them under the legal system is neither right, nor just, nor merciful, nor even helpful.
We should consider well what our approach will do. Perhaps you would rather have more Muslims immigrating? See the problems Europe is having on that front. I think conservatives ought to be more anti-Islam and less anti-Mexican. And I mean that – Islam is a real danger to humanity.
All i can say is WOW seeker.
I would like to see where you are getting the 20 year thing?
Everything i researched says other wise: if you follow the instructions completely it takes about 5months to 2 years. If you have commited a crime it takes longer sometimes up to five years. To confirm the time frame i recieved i looked at some blogs of real people that went through it. Oh and The application cost $250. If you come here illegal and apply it takes even longer than if you applied before you come. (thats just what i found from my research)
The amnesty in 1986 caused a huge back log. Supposely thats why the wait is as long as it is. Imagine if they did that now the wait would be even longer.
I think your letting your personal relationship with an ILLEGAL cloud your true thinking. If they believe in the American Dream, then they should come here the right way. You can't live the American Dream if your not an american. I'm not saying that they are not people with there own thoughts and dreams. I'm just saying if you want to be part of this great nation why try to side step the system. DO IT RIGHT!!!!
I like your passion to help people though
God Bless You!
Hi Ray:
I'm not trying to be combative here, but it seems to me that neither you nor Ben have responded to my argument. I claim that you and he are inconsistent because you (a) claim that all illegal activity is sinful BECAUSE it is illegal, but (b) do not call Chinese Christians sinful for disobeying Chinese law against Christian worship.
I ask you to address this point.
your friend
Keith
Seeker asks:
"Again, the real question is, are we to obey all laws, regardless of their justness in the light of scripture?"
YES, IF ITS JESUS'S EXAMPLE THAT YOU FOLLOW. NO, IF JESUS'S POINT OF VIEW MEANS NOTHING TO YOU.
To Keith, I believe I did answer your question. I paste my answer from comments above:
Keith,I never mentioned China. So I am at a loss to your question. But if you are asking me if I believe that Chinese citizens are acting illegally in practicing what ever religion they freely choose, and the Gov of China says it is illegal, then I would say they are breaking the law of Caesar and therefore will probably pay the price at the Gov's hand. That has softened somewhat in the near past, but is still illegal. But if you apply the scripture that we must obey God rather than man, you can see that the people have a right granted by God to worship Him. Of course they may receive an AK47 round to the back of their head, but being Christian has always been a dangerous thing from time to time. I think all of this is obvious. But, as far as that applies, Jesus still would not want you to cross the border. You can be a Christian in Mexico just as easy as here. They are not looking for religious freedom, just $$$. And, again, the Gov of the US is causing undue horror upon these Mexican people, some our Christian brothers, by not enforcing our quite humane laws. No inconsistency here my friends, just a desire for law and order for all. I just do not think Yeshua would want us to inflict the indignity on another people when all we have to do is enforce our law.
If this does not answer your query, I will extrapolate.
AGAIN, I SAY:
Helping or coaxing people to commit ILLEGAL(a crime?)activities, like scraping together a few bucks to give to flesh peddlers that will trade you into slavery, or leave you in the desert to die, or rape you, or murder you, or rob you, or molest your wife and children, or any combination of these heinous things, is detestable.
By not supporting legal immigration only, and supporting the thought that ILLEGALS should be rewarded for their illegal activity, then you are only insuring that many hundreds more will be mis-treated in such horrible ways.
Law must be the center, the core of any thing considered good. Whether it be the teachings of the messiah or law pertaining to immigration. The law must be fair and humane, to all involved – both guest and host, and if its mans law we are speaking of hear, it will not be perfect. Buts its the law.
By enforcing standing immigration law, you ORDERLY bring folks here who go through a process that will show the host country exactly what and who is coming into your country. This maintains the idea of coming here as special. Something to strive for. And it keeps those who come here safe, not risking life or health in the process. This is Christian, smart and proper.
Keith:
You keep saying i'm inconsistent? What am i inconsistent about? Maybe i'm not catching what you want to hear.
I responded above : you wanted bible verse to prove our point and i sent them above. Just curious did you read my last few post.
I think the bible verse (romanS 13) above proves its sinful in gods eyes. He wants everyone to abide by law. Whats your opion on that verse?
As well I respond about the chinese as well : heres what i put!
old response :"Ben I agree with what you say here. Jesus does respect the law as well he does want people to be able to make choices for their self to worship god if they choose to do so. Thats why he held under ground church services with a special code to get in. "Hint the fish symbol". Thats what makes this country so great we have freedom of religion. We can worship any way we see fit.We don't need to worship underground. There is a fine line though between religion and laws. If a law stop's or hender's a person's free right to worship god then i believe he expects you to break that law. I would break china's law in a heart beat. My god is bigger than any goverment. Now on mine and Bens defence: I Believe that Jesus would like you to do things the right way, as long as doing things the right way don't effect your efforts to worship him and your relationship with god, I would think he would say go the right way. Rather it be more diffacult or not. "
new response: Maybe i didn't make it sound clear sorry if you couldn't get my point of view about china. What i think, goes off Romans 13 god wants us to abide by law. Because the law is there because he allows it to be there.The goverments are their because he allows them to be. Their for we should follow it so we don't half to live in fear. But I believe their is an exception to that. Which is: if the law is in place to stop you from worshiping him and growing closer to him. The law is ok to Break. Such as the law in china. Church is two or more people discussing the lord!!!
If thats unclear let me know. I don't know how else to put it. I'm not inconsitant. I think me and ben are pretty solid on what we are saying. We don't keep changing our mind. We know what we think and stick to it. Unlike This Hucabee fellow. Being a Christian is never sinful my friend !!
one last thing to think about!!
The people of china are chinese citizens standing up to their own goverment (HINT OWN) They are standing up for their indivial right to worship god unlike these illegal immegrants that are running over here breaking our immagration laws. Why don't they stand up to their own goverment like the chinese. If i'm not mistaking chinese laws are changing and they are allowing christian churches.Because the chinese know they can't take god away!!! Immigration is a hole differnt ballgame.
Few questions to you:
Why wouldn't illegal activity be sinful?
What did you think after you read Romans 13?
Whats your views about china?
Hi Ben:
Here is what I claim is your inconsistency:
1. You do not believe that Chinese Christians are sinning when they violate Chinese law against Christian worship
2. You believe that violating the law is sinful.
Consistency would say that Chinese Christians who engage in Christian worship are violating the law and therefore are sinful. Or consistency would have to reject the idea that violating the law is necessarily sinful.
yuor friend
Keith
Hi Ben:
In my previous post, I addressed you but commented on Ray's words. I also commented on his question before reading his whole post, so I double blew it. Anyway, let me address yours now.
Keith,I never mentioned China. So I am at a loss to your question. But if you are asking me if I believe that Chinese citizens are acting illegally in practicing what ever religion they freely choose, and the Gov of China says it is illegal, then I would say they are breaking the law of Caesar and therefore will probably pay the price at the Gov's hand. That has softened somewhat in the near past, but is still illegal. But if you apply the scripture that we must obey God rather than man, you can see that the people have a right granted by God to worship Him. Of course they may receive an AK47 round to the back of their head, but being Christian has always been a dangerous thing from time to time. I think all of this is obvious.
I brought up China; I didn't mean to imply YOU did. My point was to explore your statement that breaking the law is a sin. But in the China example I raised you seem to be saying that IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW, Chinese Christians are not sinning when they break that law. Therefore, it is morally permissible to break some laws. What this means is that you cannot settle an argument with the claim that Jesus wouldn't support illegal activity; clearly jesus would support illegal Christian worship in China.
Now I also assume you think Jesus would support illegally hiding Jews from the Nazis, thus providing a 2nd example of illegal activity Jesus would support.
But, as far as that applies, Jesus still would not want you to cross the border. You can be a Christian in Mexico just as easy as here. They are not looking for religious freedom, just $$$.
But since you agree that Jesus WOULD support breaking SOME laws, where do you get that he wouldn't support breaking laws against immigrating here? I don't see that you have established that Christian worship is the ONLY time Jesus would support illegal activity. If Jesus sometimes supports illegal activity then you need to demonstrate which kinds if illegal activity Jesus would oppose and which kinds he would support. I don't see that you've done that.
And even if you were to show that illegal immigration were a sin, that wouldn't show that your being angry about that sin would be an appropriate Christian behavior. Surely you can understand the decision facing a person who lives in poverty, who knows that he can go somewhere else, work hard, and provide for his family. Surely you can put yourself in his place, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I". Surely this knowledge calls for compassion, not anger, whatever you believe the immigration laws ought to be, or how you think they ought to be enforced.
That's all I'm saying, really. I think there is a reasonable debate about HOW we should organize our immigration policy. But I don't see how we can justfiably be angry at people who are just coming here to work hard to provide for their family.
yuor friend
keith
keith,
This whole discussion is getting confused and kind of circular, like a puppy chasing its tail. We are moving way off topic, but by applying what Jesus was all about, I think we can get a handle on our own(the US)problems.
By the way, if you don’t mind me asking, how old are you? I speak to a few young men that I work with, ages between 20 and 35, and I like to see how they feel on different issues. Sometimes age plays a role. Its just a point of interest to me.
I will sum up my thoughts here:
All nations have sovereign laws. In China, for example, Christianity is illegal. If you steal a loaf of bread because you are hungry, you violate man’s law and God’s law. Correct? Now if there is an argument here over this point, are discussion must end. God does not want you to steal, no matter the cause, he wants you to be productive in order to pay for your eats, car, house, etc. Its the same thing in God’s eye if you steal a coin or a car. Its wrong. Now man’s law makes a difference between petty and important. Not so with God(You Shall Not Steal).
Now, where God does speak out on breaking law is where
the law asks you to do something that violates his principles. It is illegal by Chinese law to worship God, but we have that right given to us by God, so they can worship, but may pay the price at the Gov’s hands. But they have God’s approval.
KEITH——-
“But since you agree that Jesus WOULD support breaking SOME laws, where do you get that he wouldn’t support breaking laws against immigrating here? I don’t see that you have established that Christian worship is the ONLY time Jesus would support illegal activity. If Jesus sometimes supports illegal activity then you need to demonstrate which kinds if illegal activity Jesus would oppose and which kinds he would support. I don’t see that you’ve done that”. ——–
Jesus would want you to serve God, but when man says “no you can not do that”, JC says you may dis-obey.
I see not the IMMIGRATION issue as a prob, since my wife is an immigrant and a Christian. She jumped through the hoops, paid the cash, and waited her turn.
And she is very proud of that. She towed the line, and she knows the honorable way in which she handled this issue, even tho it took time and PATIENCE(a thing which seems to be on short supply in our world)she knows God can smile upon this and she has his approval. She followed the laws of man, which God allows to exist to keep the world from anarchy, the anarchy by the way that you see nearing out of control intensity in our SW, and by doing this, that is staying the LEGAL course, she did not “steal” any other potential immigrants turn who wants to LEGALLY come here. When someone ILLEGALLY crosses our border they “steal” someones turn, someone who has been standing in line, paying money, taking medical exams to make sure they do not have dangerous disease, putting their life on hold, and are the type of person that can be brought into an American society that will give something back. Those who come here ILLEGALLY are many times not cut from the same type of societal cloth, being poor 3rd worlders for the most part. MS13 is an outgrowth of allowing just anyone into our country. A legal immigration process allows a sovereign Gov to control and vet people who are going to live inside those sovereign borders. That is the duty of our Gov, common defense falls under this topic as ILLEGAL immigration, as the Mexican Mafia, the Zetas, drug traffickers and gang members all have an interest in the ILLEGAL activity. ILLEGALS become a stealth population and as such, become a security problem. EX: I do not know how your Quaker society is structured, but if there was a person of unknown intent in my neighborhood, I would want to know who the heck he is, where he lives and his intent. In the world in which we now live, it is necessary. I repeat, those who come here LEGALLY have a different mindset, they show this by their willing sacrifice of many, many things, enumerated above. They are law abiding people, using Christian principles to ultimately gain what they desire. They can come here and be Americans. And I am proud of them. And as Christians we need to support this.
Those who come here illegally are not of the same ilk. They do not give a wit to being American, only to suck the tit of Liberty, to take, not to give back. They break man’s law by circumventing it, they break Gods law by circumventing man’s law which God has put in place to keep Anarchy from ruling the day. A position of Satan, I presume. Ray has used scripture above in his posts that speak of why Gov’s exist. To hold things in order, as much as man’s imperfect law can, until something better can and will replace it. When we, as people Christian and otherwise support this type of Anarchist, ILLEGAL activity we are working against law and order, and we serve a law and order God, right? We need to be working for the greater good, not what makes us feel good for the moment.
Just because someone wants to come here does not make it OK to come here by ILLEGAL means. Either we stand for law and order, like the God of Isaac, or we do not. If not, open the border. Reel in all law enforcement and have no sovereignty. All may come in. It amounts to the same thing as excusing ILLEGAL activity. If we excuse them, we cheapen all that has been sacrificed by those who have chosen the law abiding and Godly way.
I would say that the majority of Mexican people live in poverty. Now, poverty is relative, right? But, lets say that 40% or 50% of Mexicans live in poverty under the US’s definition, why not, because I believe you think it is the only Christian thing to do, why not open that border, make it safe and take in EVERYONE who wants to be here, with no order or name taking or health screening or planning. Wow! i bet Jesus would be so so happy! Wrong. That would be stupid. And I would say he would wonder just what happened to the human IQ.
KEITH-
“Now I also assume you think Jesus would support illegally hiding Jews from the Nazis, thus providing a 2nd example of illegal activity Jesus would support”.
I hope you do not think this is so personally. I think no such thing. At the time of Jesus’s life here on Earth, the Jews were involved with Rome in an intense guerilla war, right(Masada)? It culminated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. That is why, that even though the Jews had deep family records that reached back for generations along the lines of their tribal names, they no longer can trace their genealogies. But I digress … We can assume that there were Jewish “freedom fighters” of high repute, kind of like the Roman most wanted. Jesus never hid them did he? I do not ever remember reading about that. And if it happened, I am sure one of the recorders would have writ it. In fact he never took sides at all in political actions. So, would he have hid slaves in 1864 or hid Jews and other non-Nazi party members in 1943, I do not think so. His duty was to teach and then be sacrificed. Not to support the North or South, the Nazi’s or the free French, or the Jewish rebellion against a Roman totalitarian gov.
As I have said before, our Immigration policy is not broken. It works, I live with living proof of that with my Peruvian relatives. What is broken is the inability or the wanton non-enforcement of law that all ready exists because politicians want votes, not caring to enforce the Constitution that they swore to uphold. And that endangers all involved, host and immigrant, in many many ways. And by endangering people, host and immigrant, by breaking law allowed to exist by God to protect all from Anarchy and what spins off from it, we act in a most un-Godly way.
If we flush the rule of law, law that works if enforced, and allow our politicians to continually junk the Constitution(the 2ndA is in this category), and allow the world court to thwart our Sovereign states right, we will be the un-Godly socialistic country we all do not want.
Hi Ben:
1. My age? Next month I will reach my 50th year. I am so jazzed about joining AARP you can't even believe it:-) BTW, thanks for asking. I share with you a curiosity about the ages of the people I discuss things with, I DO think it helps us understand each other better.
2. I really don't see the circles–the debate seems very straightforward to me. But this most recent post of yours has definitely raised some important clarifying issues, so hopefully we will understand each other better. Hopefully my response won't drag us back into the fog:-)
3. You say that we are supposed to violate human law when said law would require us to violate God's law–we must choose God's law before Man's law. But the Bible passages that say we are to submit to the ruling authorities don't give any exception clause to the submission, they don't say submit unless this or that happens. If we read those passages as God's law then this law doesn't allow for any exception–we are to submit period. And if there is a conflict between the command to submit to government and the command to worship God, then this would be a contradiction in God's commands! But since I assume God doesn't give us conflicting commands…
4. …we have to assume that either:
it is possible for Chinese Christians to submit to their government while at the same time violating Chinese law against Christian worship
or there is some implicit exception clause to the command to submit to government
or we are reading the whole thing too legalisticly.
You seem to be leaning toward the implicit exception clause, but this opens up other possible exception clauses to the submission to government law, which leaves open the possibility that illegal immigration to escape the poverty and/or oppression of your native country might be one of those exceptions.
4. You argue that illegal immigration is stealing, but what exactly are they stealing? Let's say you are 50th in line for legal immigration, and suppose I cross the border illegally. How does my illegal crossing affect your legal crossing?
5. I need to clarify something. Are you saying that Jesus would have condemned hiding Jews from the Nazis? Are you saying that being angry at those who hid Jews from the Nazis would have been justified?
your friend
keith
Keith, I will try here to better lay my thoughts out, your words in parethenses.
“Hi Ben:
1. My age? Next month I will reach my 50th year. I am so jazzed about joining AARP you can’t even believe it:-) BTW, thanks for asking. I share with you a curiosity about the ages of the people I discuss things with, I DO think it helps us understand each other better.” —–
I am 42, a Christian(prob all my life, I just did not hear it)since 30 years of age. Live in Ohio, inner city area, grew up poor. Just a little background.
“2. I really don’t see the circles–the debate seems very straightforward to me. But this most recent post of yours has definitely raised some important clarifying issues, so hopefully we will understand each other better. Hopefully my response won’t drag us back into the fog:-)” ——-
By circles, I thought I was getting my point across, being straight forward but there still seems some confusion, maybe my communication skills are not what I thought, or maybe I am “shot gunning” too much? OK, lets move on …
“3. You say that we are supposed to violate human law when said law would require us to violate God’s law–we must choose God’s law before Man’s law.” —–
I say not SUPPOSED to violate mans law, BUT, if your GOV says: you may not pray, may not congregate, or may not worship the Creator, THEN if we decide to dis-obey , and do these things against Gov dictate, then we have Gods approval. We can even be selective when confronting the difficult decision of when to dis-obey an oppressive Gov, much like Peter when he denied Christ. Peter would have been tortured to death if he would not have denied, but he lived to fight another day, ultimately leading the 1st century congregation. God given freedoms can not be suppressed legally by any form of man made law, they are self evident, and a gift from God.
“4. You argue that illegal immigration is stealing, but what exactly are they stealing? Let’s say you are 50th in line for legal immigration, and suppose I cross the border illegally. How does my illegal crossing affect your legal crossing?” ——-
Ok, the stealing thing.
Can we assume that there is a finite supply of social goodies and handouts that exist in our country. Only so much that an over extended tax payer can give to the Gov in order to run things? I think we can. Every home has a budget, every country has a budget.
Our Gov has set asides and policy and theory to handle those that come into this country LEGALLY. Its built in to the budget. Those that cheat by slipping in illegally, will at some point tap into social programs that are not legally theirs. Multiply that by 20,000,000 plus and growing all the time and you see the problem, I hope. These folks know how to play the system. Many women come here pregnant, no daddies around. They come here, have a kid, who now is a citizen, and voila!Instant tax dollars going for a purpose that should have never been in the first place, since it was ILLEGAL activity that brought momma here.
And, again I state, how about the sacrifices made by the people who came here legally? The law they follow, our US law and the law of their original country, the time in their own lives put on hold when they may not marry or have kids or start a career because they fear losing their status or place in line to come here? Who speaks for them? Who praises them for upholding their end? Why so much out cry for criminal/illegal activity? I do not want my hard earned tax dollars to support ILLEGAL activity. I want to support those, and only those who want to be an active part of AMERICAN society, not those who come here for money or handouts ILLEGALLY.
To support those who cross the border illegally with praise and tax dollars and programs, is like feeling sorry for the guy who on breaking into your home, taking what he wants, falls on your kids toy and busts his head. In a situation like that, would you pay that burglars hospital bills, or allow him to stay in your house with your wife and kids while you are at work until he is healed, unwatched and with no controls at all over him? And on being all healed up, put him up in your house, maybe along with his girl friend or wife and kids, paying for them when they need a doc or dentist, while they pay no room and board rents to you, sending what they do glean from society back to a home country? To me that is the situation. I believe that most ILLEGALS fit this niche.
I know it feels good to help folks. But I also know that if you bring a free fish meal to them every day without ever teaching them to fish in their own country, pretty soon you may be out of fish. Doing something that one thinks is nice without a total understanding of its long term outcome is wrong. A knee jerk reaction.
“5. I need to clarify something. Are you saying that Jesus would have condemned hiding Jews from the Nazis? Are you saying that being angry at those who hid Jews from the Nazis would have been justified?” ——-
I am saying, based on what is known of his adult life based on writ history in the Bible, and he being a Jew, and he living in a time in which his land of birth was under a “tow the line or else Gov”, he never took a political position. I do not think he would have condemned the action per se, but he never picked up a sling and fired one off at a Legionary either. To be a Christian means onlt two things to me as spoken by JC. 1.Love God, 2.Love your fellow man. Now, stating this, remember many Christians were put to death or imprisoned by the Nazi’s, not just Jews. 9,000,000 folks destroyed. Christians were required by the Nazi’s to worship Hitler and the party, were required to pick up a weapon and kill, were required to stand up and be counted with the Nazi’s, and ultimately to set aside Christian values and be Nazi only, a religion in itself. To be Nazi you had to forget the 2 principles that JC set forth. As a Christian, I do not think one would have been required to hide enemies of the state, but if one chose to, they should be ready to pay the price executed upon them by the Gov, just like the Christian who has to make tough decisions in China. That is the beauty of Christianity, that as long as you adhere to basic principles, one has much lee way in how to conduct ones self and how to carry on as a Christian. Like the angels dispatched by God to carry out duties that have been documented in the Bible. I think they were given a mission, say … rescue Lot and family … but were allowed to accomplish the mission by any means they saw fit, as long as they did not violate God’s law.
Jesus’ duty was to culminate the LAW, being the final prophet of God. Not to invoke policy.
I overlooked this:
"But the Bible passages that say we are to submit to the ruling authorities don't give any exception clause to the submission, they don't say submit unless this or that happens".
ROMANS 13: 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
ACTS 5:29
King James Bible
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
I dispute, based on ACTS above, that we must bend to law that violates God's principles. To look at it otherwise, it would be like an official asking you to blow the brains out of a citizen who violated some law, and you picking up a Glock and doing it. We know that God disagrees with wanton killing. He would not want you to do that, to unquestioningly pick up a weapon and kill just because a human official, say the Pres himself, orders you to.
Hi Ben:
I don't have time tight now to address the larger post, but let me comment on this last shorter one. You wrote:
ROMANS 13: 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
ACTS 5:29
King James Bible
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
I dispute, based on ACTS above, that we must bend to law that violates God's principles. To look at it otherwise, it would be like an official asking you to blow the brains out of a citizen who violated some law, and you picking up a Glock and doing it. We know that God disagrees with wanton killing. He would not want you to do that, to unquestioningly pick up a weapon and kill just because a human official, say the Pres himself, orders you to.
Yes. The Acts passage does explicitly say we are to obey God rather than man. Romans 13 doesn't explicitly allow for exceptions to the "submit to the government requirement". So either:
1. Romans 13 assumed the exception (that's what I meant before when I spoke of an implicit exemption)
2. It is possible to submit to the government while disobeying the law.
3. The supposed conflict stems from reading both passages too legalistically.
These were the three possibilities I mentioned before, so I think your other post was quite through enough. But it is helpful to me to see the both passages so I can respond to anyone who misuses Romans 13 to support the political status quo. If we take Acts 5 seriously we cannot conclude that Jesus would NEVER accept illegal activity. It would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
your friend
Keith
I think, as Christians we should always strive to submit to the Gov, for when we do, we are pleasing to God, as He allows these Gov's to exist in order to allow human kind a semblance of order. So if it seems that if we dis-obey man, on account that the issue usurps God's commands, then in actuality we are not dis-obeying anyone, although in man's Godless(in many places in the world)view we break the law. Whew !
In my view option 1 above is what I perceive to be true and what guides my thoughts.
This is just a reiteration of my thought.
HI Ben:
I think, as Christians we should always strive to submit to the Gov, for when we do, we are pleasing to God, as He allows these Gov's to exist in order to allow human kind a semblance of order. So if it seems that if we dis-obey man, on account that the issue usurps God's commands, then in actuality we are not dis-obeying anyone, although in man's Godless(in many places in the world)view we break the law. Whew !
In my view option 1 above is what I perceive to be true and what guides my thoughts.
This is just a reiteration of my thought.
Please allow me to bask in this moment of agreement; in other words, I agree:-)
your friend
Keith
Hi Ben:
I want to comment on some of the stuff you said in the long post.
Ok, the stealing thing.
Can we assume that there is a finite supply of social goodies and handouts that exist in our country. Only so much that an over extended tax payer can give to the Gov in order to run things? I think we can. Every home has a budget, every country has a budget.
Our Gov has set asides and policy and theory to handle those that come into this country LEGALLY. Its built in to the budget. Those that cheat by slipping in illegally, will at some point tap into social programs that are not legally theirs. Multiply that by 20,000,000 plus and growing all the time and you see the problem, I hope…
I would argue that the vast majority of those who come here illegally do not tap into social programs. Their children (some who are citizens) do go to schools, but paying to educate the people who live here is an investment, not a handout. The undocumented immigrants do not get tax refunds they'd otherwise be due, they pay SS taxes but don't draw SS benefits.
It also assumes that those who follow immigration law have the right to immigrate here, a right that is being stolen by those who supposedly don't have that right. Now I am not arguing that point here, but I do question it. BTW, whether or not Christians are generally supposed to obey the law is a separate issue. I would argue that the Romans had no moral right to imprison Paul, but as a Christian Paul rightfully submitted to being arrested.
…These folks know how to play the system. Many women come here pregnant, no daddies around. They come here, have a kid, who now is a citizen, and voila!Instant tax dollars going for a purpose that should have never been in the first place, since it was ILLEGAL activity that brought momma here…
To support those who cross the border illegally with praise and tax dollars and programs, is like feeling sorry for the guy who on breaking into your home, taking what he wants, falls on your kids toy and busts his head…
IMO your tone here doesn't display the compassion we Christians are supposed to embody. Imagine a pregnant woman who has no husband to take care of her and her soon to be born child. This woman is desperately looking for a way to provide for her child. There is a rich country next door where she can work hard and where her child will be able to thrive because our rich country allows for opportunities unavailable in her home country. Even if she really ought not be allowed in, it hardly seems proper to judge her the harsh way you've judged her. And this assumes that she was trying to game the system, instead of just trying to come some place where she knows she can work and provide for her child. As to your analogy about feeling sorry for the burglar: when the reason the burglar broke into your home was to buy food for his family, I think we should feel sorry for him.
And I must reiterate, the child has every right to the benefits of citizenship, and IMO it is improper to begrudge the child those benefits.
I asked you this question about hiding Jews from the nazis:
I need to clarify something. Are you saying that Jesus would have condemned hiding Jews from the Nazis? Are you saying that being angry at those who hid Jews from the Nazis would have been justified?"
I am saying, based on what is known of his adult life based on writ history in the Bible, and he being a Jew, and he living in a time in which his land of birth was under a "tow the line or else Gov", he never took a political position. I do not think he would have condemned the action per se, but he never picked up a sling and fired one off at a Legionary either…As a Christian, I do not think one would have been required to hide enemies of the state, but if one chose to, they should be ready to pay the price executed upon them by the Gov, just like the Christian who has to make tough decisions in China.
I asked this question because you originally said that Jesus would "kick ass" on illegal immigration, because "Jesus wouldn't support illegal activity". I assumed that you DIDN'T think Jesus would condemn the illegal activity of hiding Jews from the Nazis. But what I SAID was that probably you thought Jesus would SUPPORT it. When you corrected me, I misunderstood your point. The thing you wrote at the end of the above passage explains your POV: Christians ought to be willing to submit to governmental sanctions when we feel that we must (to be faithful to God) violate a government's commands. I tend to agree.
your friend
Keith
Keith,
OK. Other than a couple minor points, the real hangup we have with each others points, it seems, is that I see illegal immigration as a strain, you see it as the thing to do because its the right thing to do. Am I correct?
Let me further examine some things:
"It also assumes that those who follow immigration law have the right to immigrate here, a right that is being stolen by those who supposedly don't have that right. Now I am not arguing that point here, but I do question it." ——-
I again would say, there is only so many goodies in the bag. To think that illegals, who have no insurance, who make small wages, are not versed in US laws in the state they live in, are uneducated for the most part generally, who go through much hell to get here and suffer because of it, and who make up 30% of our prison population, to think that they will not tap into Social programs like mad is shortsighted. Look at the generations of AMERICAN people who glom onto social programs, whole generations! Katrina might be the saddest example of this. People who could not leave because they had no way, people who would not leave because they did not want to miss their check, whole huge historic districts populated by folks unable to do for themselves, being addicted to Gov "crack" in the form of free money. People always follow the path of least resistance, Mexican or American. So when offered, they will take the crack. Now with the ILLEGALS, add the fact that they are an uneducated group for the most part, making little cash, and having little or nothing then to give back to society, other than performing menial tasks. Nothing can be gained by us, the US, in importing millions of 3rd worlders.
Plus, I laid out an argument beforehand, in that because our Gov turns a blind eye, millions are drawn here, passing through the northern states of Mexico where they are raped, murdered, stolen from, sold into slavery and left to die in the desert. How is it Christian to allow this to happen and support? This is an aspect that is way way overlooked.
What I think would be better, is to stop this ILLEGAL flow, send ILLEGALS back home, and this will rob Mexico of millions in American dollars, and put pressure upon the Mexican Gov to fix things at home. The very things that cause people to leave home. I just read today that Arizona policy is close to this, and the Mex state just South of 'Zona is feeling the crunch. Bout time the table is turned.
Also, the burglar scenario. If someone breaks into your home, no matter the reason, it is B and E. If he steals it is theft, no matter the reason why he stole. And if he is aggressive, I may be forced to use force in self defense … if his actions escalate the situation. Also, in the scenario I drew, would you spend your resources to heal him, to take him in freely, leaving him in your home with your family as you go to work? All these scenarios with potentially horrible endings, all because a home(country)was entered ILLEGALLY.
I have witnessed several cases in which women come here pregnant with no father for the child. My wife worked as a translator for Spanish speakers, for a small firm that assisted area hospitals. This pregnant momma thing is an old game played by these women. They know if they drop the kid here, they are Golden, as the Gov does not have the guts to do what is right. American taxpayers again sacrificed … the law ignored … the lawful immigrants, unable to be told from the illegals by sight, are mistreated and or frowned upon. And the population of the uneducated grows.
I did not say I do not feel sorry for people, I do. I totally support those who want to come here, but legally. That, to me, is the way. As I have said before … a Christian man must 1)take care of his family…2)take care of the congregation…3)take care of all others if possible. On that number 3 choice, I sure would feel a lot more fulfilled as a taxpayer and a Christian if I knew these assets were supporting a legal activity.
Another Border Guard killed trying to stop drug smuggling vehicle from Mexico … he leaves 2 children behind. Turn off the spigot.
BELOW IS TAKEN FROM US BORDER PATROL WEBSITE: http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol90b.ht…
Death Toll Calculator:
If it is Monday, January 21, 2008 5:04:28 AM, then:
Illegal aliens have murdered more than 240 people inside the USA so far this year, and:
Illegal aliens have murdered more than 27876 people inside the USA since 9/11. ——-
Moving millions of illegal aliens across our southern border each year takes planning. People do not just wake up one day and decide to march north. There is an entire sophisticated infrastructure in Mexico that supports the invasion. Food and accomodations and even transport all require planning. Along some parts of the Mexican border even Mexican school buses are used — off hours of course — to transport the illegals directly to the border. Further, the Mexican government is complicit in this process. Any interference in drug or illegal alien trafficking over our border is not taken lightly and sometimes we have what to any isolated American border town sheriff or Border Patrol Agent could be construed as a written threat. In the present case the driver of a smuggling van loaded with illegal aliens tried to run over a deputy sheriff and he fired at the driver.
A Christian should not support this activity. I believe the negs far out weigh the pro's.
Hi Ben:
You wrote:
OK. Other than a couple minor points, the real hangup we have with each others points, it seems, is that I see illegal immigration as a strain, you see it as the thing to do because its the right thing to do. Am I correct?.
Not exactly. It’s more that I am not certain that in most cases immigrating illegally is immoral, and even if it is wrong, I think it is perfectly understandable, and it is wrong to condemn it even if it is right for the US to prohibit it. I also think it is wrong for me to participate in enforcing immigration laws, therefore I will not turn in anyone who has come to the US illegally.
I again would say, there is only so many goodies in the bag. To think that illegals, who have no insurance, who make small wages, are not versed in US laws in the state they live in, are uneducated for the most part generally, who go through much hell to get here and suffer because of it, and who make up 30% of our prison population, to think that they will not tap into Social programs like mad is shortsighted.
1. I must challenge your statistics again. I got this from Michael Medved, hardly a liberal:
Taking the total state-federal prison population (2,193,798) and the total number of non-citizens in both systems (122,708), the actual percentage of “criminal aliens” in our prisons amounts to 5.5% — not even remotely close to the 29% or “one third” claimed by clownish demagogues.
And note that the 5.5% is non-citizens in general–this includes legal residents as well as those who are not here legally.
2. For the vast majority of those here illegally, it’s not even feasible for them to apply for government benefits–the risk of deportation is far too great. Add that to the fact that most people want to work and be productive and there is very little reason to think that “illegals” are overburdening our social systems. Many did indeed go through hell to get here, so they are generally very risk averse when it comes to dealing with government agencies.
Plus, I laid out an argument beforehand, in that because our Gov turns a blind eye, millions are drawn here, passing through the northern states of Mexico where they are raped, murdered, stolen from, sold into slavery and left to die in the desert. How is it Christian to allow this to happen and support? This is an aspect that is way way overlooked.
That people would TAKE those risks is a testimony to their desperation–apparently they think staying is worse than taking their chances. I don’t see how we are helping them by keeping them trapped in the conditions that were bad enough to get them to leave home. There are definitely things we ought so as not to “allow this to happen” (reforming NAFTA so it benefits more than just the corporations for example), but double locking the door to opportunity doesn’t seem like that would help them at all.
Also, the burglar scenario. If someone breaks into your home, no matter the reason, it is B and E. If he steals it is theft, no matter the reason why he stole. And if he is aggressive, I may be forced to use force in self defense … if his actions escalate the situation. Also, in the scenario I drew, would you spend your resources to heal him, to take him in freely, leaving him in your home with your family as you go to work? All these scenarios with potentially horrible endings, all because a home(country)was entered ILLEGALLY.
But you initially argued against feeling sorry for the burglar; my point is that whether you should feel sorry depends on his circumstances. Should we provide help for the hypothetical burglar who is trying to feed his family? Surely that’s what Jesus would do!
I have witnessed several cases in which women come here pregnant with no father for the child. My wife worked as a translator for Spanish speakers, for a small firm that assisted area hospitals. This pregnant momma thing is an old game played by these women. They know if they drop the kid here, they are Golden, as the Gov does not have the guts to do what is right.
I don’t doubt that there are pregnant single moms who come here AND have a child on US soil. What I am questioning is what proportion of those are simply trying to game the system. You talk about the government doing what is right? I would say that the child who is born here has just as much right as you or I to the privileges of US citizenship, and I would say that deporting the mother either commits the abomination of effectively exiling the citizen child (if she takes her child with her) or the different but equally abominable act of ripping the child from her mother.
your friend
Keith
"But you initially argued against feeling sorry for the burglar; my point is that whether you should feel sorry depends on his circumstances. Should we provide help for the hypothetical burglar who is trying to feed his family? Surely that's what Jesus would do!"—–
I would help him, maybe if he asked me, and not sneaking(ILLEGALLY crossing the border)in to my house, but by knocking politely(applying to legally come here). I would be much more inclined to help those who help themselves.
"For the vast majority of those here illegally, it's not even feasible for them to apply for government benefits–the risk of deportation is far too great. Add that to the fact that most people want to work and be productive and there is very little reason to think that "illegals" are overburdening our social systems. Many did indeed go through hell to get here, so they are generally very risk averse when it comes to dealing with government agencies".——-
Well it is good that they can not apply, as those benefits are not theirs to have. BUT, and this is the center piece to my contention , there are those out there that would allow even greater power to organizations that embrace ILLEGAL immigration. Such as the great assinine experiment called Sanctuary Cities, where there is no enforcement of Federal law dealing with ILLEGAL immigration. The activity has always been ILLEGAL, just not enforced, and now the problem numbers into the millions. And because of that it has grown into a great heart breaking emotional problem, because those in charge chose to by proxy allow ILLEGAL activity to be viewded as a near legal activity. Shame on us, shame on them. Also, I fear the empowerment of agencies who support ILLEGAL immigration, especially with our Gov sliding more and more left. And if this empowerment grows, that will be the UBER magnet for illegals, as the left leaning Gov will not stem the tide, since this means votes from those who were once ILLEGALS but now are legal. This skews what our process is all about. Once the process is skewed, we no longer have the US, but a blended border, with all of the national security problems that exist now times a thousand.
Nothing of such great value should be given away so freely, especially since citizenship in the US has always meant so much to the rest of the world. The last sentence on the placard at the Statue of Liberty states this: "I lift my lamp beside the golden door!",
meaning that lamp is a beacon for all to see, meaning freedom to be strived for, yearned for and worked for. To give it away is a crime, to me, against humanity. That lamp is lifted beside a golden door, golden because it is rare and special. And its a door, not an open border, so I say to all that wish to be my brother and fellow American, USE THE DOOR. Do not burglarize my country or my home(speaking of our Burglar example before), do not sneak through the window of my home, I may feel I have to defend whats mine. Please, if you need my hand, knock on the Golden door.
More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study says
By Jim Brown
AgapePress
February 22, 2007
(AgapePress) — Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.
Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.
"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, … the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.
"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."
This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.
The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."
The federal government's Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. According to the U.S. State Department website, the waiver program was established in 1986 with the objective of "eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel," stimulating America's tourism industry, and allowing the government to focus consular resources in other areas.
Cutler says the U.S. retains the Visa Waiver Program because the nation's travel, tourism, and hospitality industries want America's borders wide open. In other words, the former INS official contends, the nation's security is being compromised in the name of trade.
A SECOND REPORT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Hi Ben:
But you initially argued against feeling sorry for the burglar; my point is that whether you should feel sorry depends on his circumstances. Should we provide help for the hypothetical burglar who is trying to feed his family? Surely that's what Jesus would do!"
I would help him, maybe if he asked me, and not sneaking(ILLEGALLY crossing the border)in to my house, but by knocking politely(applying to legally come here). I would be much more inclined to help those who help themselves.
IMO even the hypothetical burglar should be helped.
"For the vast majority of those here illegally, it's not even feasible for them to apply for government benefits–the risk of deportation is far too great. Add that to the fact that most people want to work and be productive and there is very little reason to think that "illegals" are overburdening our social systems. Many did indeed go through hell to get here, so they are generally very risk averse when it comes to dealing with government agencies".
Well it is good that they can not apply, as those benefits are not theirs to have…
And thus they are NOT getting all those goodies you complained about.
BUT, and this is the center piece to my contention , there are those out there that would allow even greater power to organizations that embrace ILLEGAL immigration. Such as the great assinine experiment called Sanctuary Cities, where there is no enforcement of Federal law dealing with ILLEGAL immigration.
The reason cities choose not to enforce immigration law is that citizens of those localities benefit. When those who come here illegally are afraid of the local police they are afraid to cooperate with the police, which hurts all of us.
Also, I fear the empowerment of agencies who support ILLEGAL immigration, especially with our Gov sliding more and more left. And if this empowerment grows, that will be the UBER magnet for illegals, as the left leaning Gov will not stem the tide, since this means votes from those who were once ILLEGALS but now are legal. This skews what our process is all about. Once the process is skewed, we no longer have the US, but a blended border, with all of the national security problems that exist now times a thousand.
Right leaning government that supports the interests of the economically powerful instead of the rest of us are the problem. The right wing busted the unions, giving the economically powerful more power to seek out the lowest labor costs, whether they export the jobs or import the labor. Also, the unregulated "free" trade they promoted helped create economic instability in Mexico, driving thousands from their homes to here. If you want to reduce the flow of undocumented immigrants you need a left leaning, pro-union government. The right wing uses the poor immigrant as a scapegoat IMO, the distract people from the real problem–too much economic power in the hands of a few.
your friend
keith
"The reason cities choose not to enforce immigration law is that citizens of those localities benefit. When those who come here illegally are afraid of the local police they are afraid to cooperate with the police, which hurts all of us".—–
THE REASON THEY DECIDE NOT TO ENFORCE THE LAW IS BECAUSE THE GOV'S OF THOSE CITIES ARE LEFTIST(JUST LOOK AT THE LIST). THEY ARE ANTI LAW AND ORDER FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, A ANYTHING GOES TYPE APPROACH WHICH USUALLY IS VERY SHORT ON COMMON SENSE. LIKE GIVING STATE DRIVERS LICENSES, ETC. THEIR APPROACH IS NOT BASED ON LOVE OF THE IMMIGRANT, AU CONTRAIRE, IT IS BASED ON CONTROL AND VOTE COUNT. I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT ALL ABOVE, "those who come here illegally". AS A CHRISTIAN AND A QUAKER, WHAT WAS THE LAST ILLEGAL ACTIVITY THAT YOU WILLFULLY TOOK PART IN? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
"Right leaning government that supports the interests of the economically powerful instead of the rest of us are the problem. The right wing busted the unions, giving the economically powerful more power to seek out the lowest labor costs, whether they export the jobs or import the labor. Also, the unregulated "free" trade they promoted helped create economic instability in Mexico, driving thousands from their homes to here. If you want to reduce the flow of undocumented immigrants you need a left leaning, pro-union government. The right wing uses the poor immigrant as a scapegoat IMO, the distract people from the real problem–too much economic power in the hands of a few." —– NAFTA WAS A BILLY BOB ISSUE ……..
KEITH, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT EITHER SIDE DOES NOT USE THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE FOR THEIR INTERESTS. THEY BOTH DO. HEY, AND ITS HILLARY THAT THROUGH OUT RACE CARD ON B.O., SO THE "RIGHTEOUSNESS" OF SOCIALISM IS IN QUESTION, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN MY EXPERIENCE.(I HAVE SEEN WHAT SOCIALISM CAN DO FIRST HAND IN CENTRAL AMERICA IN THE 1980'S.). THE DEMS WILL NOT ALLOW A BLACK MAN TO CARRY THEIR TORCH, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES BILL FALLS ASLEEP AT CHURCH ON MLK DAY. AND AS TIME PASSES, THEY ARE NOT THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE, AS THEY TAX AND PLAN TO TAX MORE EXTENSIVELY, PAINTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RICH, WHO EMPLOY MOST AMERICANS, AS EVIL. WHAT THEY DO NOT TELL US, IS THAT AMERICA'S RICHEST PEOPLE ARE DEMS. THE VERY PEOPLE THEY DAMN, BECAUSE IT BAITS THEIR VOTERS, BELONG TO THEIR PARTY AND THESE SAME ULTRA RICH ARE USUALLY EXTREMISTS, SINCE THEY HAVE LOST CONTACT WITH FOLKS LIKE ME … AND THEY ARE IN ESSENCE A POWERFUL ARISTOCRACY. THEY ARE THE PARTY OF LEGALIZING DRUG USE, HOMOSEXUALITY, RACE BAITING, CONSTITUTION DE-CONSTRUCTION AND ONE WORLD SOCIETY. HEY GOOD TIMES FOR ALL. LINCOLN WAS A 'PUB,. BILL A DEM. NUFF SAID.
BUT THIS HAS TURNED INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE. I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ITS HORRORS BEING SUPPORTED BY CHRISTIANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
"IMO even the hypothetical burglar should be helped".——-
TO WHAT EXTENT? IF THAT BURGLAR WAS INJURED, AND HAD NO INSURANCE, WOULD YOU:
A)pay out of your own pocket the medical expenses?
B)keep him in your house until he is healed?
C)once healed, offer him a place to stay rent free under your roof?
D)and, if he stays, and my goodness he will, are you going to bring his family and friends in too? You just might run out of rooms. But I guess you could take from your neighbors monies(taxes)and build some shacks(low income housing)in your back yard or fields, since being a Quaker you may be involved in agriculture? You got the room. Build those shacks! Man it feels good to support ILLEGALS.
PLEASE ANSWER a-b-c-d, please.
I REPEAT FROM ABOVE:
Nothing of such great value should be given away so freely, especially since citizenship in the US has always meant so much to the rest of the world. The last sentence on the placard at the Statue of Liberty states this: "I lift my lamp beside the golden door!",
meaning that lamp is a beacon for all to see, meaning freedom to be striven for, yearned for and worked for. To give it away is a crime, to me, against humanity. That lamp is lifted beside a golden door, golden because it is rare and special. And its a door, not an open border, so I say to all that wish to be my brother and fellow American, USE THE DOOR. Do not burglarize my country or my home(speaking of our Burglar example before), do not sneak through the window of my home, I may feel I have to defend whats mine. Please, if you need my hand, knock on the Golden door.
KEITH, RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT WHAT WE HAVE IS SPECIAL YET FINITE. ALLOWING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR HOME IS STUPID, WRONG, NOT AMERICAN, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY NOT CHRISTIAN. LETS NOT RUN ON FEELINGS, LETS RUN ON JUSTICE AND POINT OF LAW. THAT IS WHAT MAKES US SPECIAL, THAT PEOPLE STRIVE TO BE HERE. WE SHOULD INSURE THAT STRIVING MEANS WANTING ALSO TO BE AMERICAN, NOT A STEALTH POPULATION. USE THE DOOR PLEASE, DO NOT BREAK MY WINDOW.
Hi Ben:
I will be addressing the questions you ask me at the bottom of the post. But I think our discussion might all talked out right now. Here is my summary of the issue (I hope I haven’t left out stuff you think is important, if I have let me know).
1. My main objection to your stated position ISN’T the immigration policy you support (which includes vigorous enforcement of existing immigration law). My problem is with the hostility and anger you express toward those who have violated that immigration law. They did indeed violate the law (as did the Christians who hid Jews from the Nazis, as did the American colonists when they rebelled against England), but it seems to me there is a difference between someone who breaks a law so he can work hard to help his family escape from poverty and just law breaking in general. This isn’t to say the law ought not be enforced in both cases, but it seems wrong to me to be so disgusted by the person whose family lives in poverty south of the border, who will work incredibly hard when he gets here.
2. I here a lot of folks say this: we’re not against immigration, we’re against illegal immigration. Presumably you’d want a policy that drastically reduced illegal immigration. But it’s not just the illegality they are complaining about, because if it were, I could design a policy that would with no enforcement at all reduce illegal immigration to zero–open the borders. If all immigration were legal then there’d not BE any illegal immigrants. Of course, no one on your side would accept such a policy because it IS about more than illegal immigration. The “illegal” part of the discussion distracts from the real objection: you guys want to limit or even reduce immigration our country. YOU have of course been open about this.
3. You argue that we only have so much of the good stuff to go around here, and that we cannot afford to be so generous with the American Dream. I think you guy have an exaggerated view of the strain to our system, based on wildly inaccurate stats. An example In one of my previous posts I showed an example, quoting conservative columnist Michael Medved’s debunking of the claim that 1/3 of the prison population are “illegals”.
Now for your questions:
AS A CHRISTIAN AND A QUAKER, WHAT WAS THE LAST ILLEGAL ACTIVITY THAT YOU WILLFULLY TOOK PART IN? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
Most recently? I chose to drive above the posted speed limit. This is not uncommon for me, I must confess.
“Right leaning government that supports the interests of the economically powerful instead of the rest of us are the problem. The right wing busted the unions, giving the economically powerful more power to seek out the lowest labor costs, whether they export the jobs or import the labor. Also, the unregulated “free” trade they promoted helped create economic instability in Mexico, driving thousands from their homes to here. If you want to reduce the flow of undocumented immigrants you need a left leaning, pro-union government. The right wing uses the poor immigrant as a scapegoat IMO, the distract people from the real problem–too much economic power in the hands of a few.”
—– NAFTA WAS A BILLY BOB ISSUE ……..
I don’t know what you mean by a “Billy Bob” issue.
…KEITH, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT EITHER SIDE DOES NOT USE THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE FOR THEIR INTERESTS. THEY BOTH DO. HEY, AND ITS HILLARY THAT THROUGH OUT RACE CARD ON B.O.
I haven’t seen Hillary do anything of the sort (I voted for Obama BTW, but I think the feud between them is stupid). Obama hasn’t flip flopped on the war, he didn’t praise Reagan’s policies, and Hillary wasn’t insulting MLK when she accurately pointed out that it took government officials like LBJ to get the Voting Rights Act passed. The press loves ridiculous cat fighting because that’s easier than analyizing policy proposals.
, SO THE “RIGHTEOUSNESS” OF SOCIALISM IS IN QUESTION, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN MY EXPERIENCE.(I HAVE SEEN WHAT SOCIALISM CAN DO FIRST HAND IN CENTRAL AMERICA IN THE 1980’S.)
Even Chile under Allende was capitalist, so where did socialism even get a try in Central America? But you don’t have to be a socialist to recognize that the working class in capitalist USA was better off when we had strong unions.
THE DEMS WILL NOT ALLOW A BLACK MAN TO CARRY THEIR TORCH, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES BILL FALLS ASLEEP AT CHURCH ON MLK DAY.
I seriously doubt that the Dems will reject Obama if he wins the most delegates in the primaries. It’s questionable that he’ll do that. BTW, it looked funny when Bill fell asleep but in fairness to Bill he hasn’t gotten a lot of sleep since he is campaigning hard for his wife. Running for President is crazy hard work.
AND AS TIME PASSES, THEY ARE NOT THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE, AS THEY TAX AND PLAN TO TAX MORE EXTENSIVELY, PAINTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RICH, WHO EMPLOY MOST AMERICANS, AS EVIL.
The Dems do not paint the rich as evil (not even John Edwards does). They do plan to increase taxes ON the rich, but the rich being evil isn’t part of any Democratic ideas.
WHAT THEY DO NOT TELL US, IS THAT AMERICA’S RICHEST PEOPLE ARE DEMS. THE VERY PEOPLE THEY DAMN, BECAUSE IT BAITS THEIR VOTERS, BELONG TO THEIR PARTY AND THESE SAME ULTRA RICH ARE USUALLY EXTREMISTS, SINCE THEY HAVE LOST CONTACT WITH FOLKS LIKE ME …
There’s rich people in both parties, just as there are poor people and middle class people in both parties.
AND THEY ARE IN ESSENCE A POWERFUL ARISTOCRACY. THEY ARE THE PARTY OF LEGALIZING DRUG USE, HOMOSEXUALITY, RACE BAITING, CONSTITUTION DE-CONSTRUCTION AND ONE WORLD SOCIETY. HEY GOOD TIMES FOR ALL. LINCOLN WAS A ‘PUB,. BILL A DEM. NUFF SAID.
The reason the Republicans gained power in the 80s was because they took over the South, which occurred because Dems courageously pushed integration. The South went Republican for the 1st time since Reconstruction when Goldwater was their standard bearer. There was no other reason for this strangeness except that Goldwater OPPOSED the Voting Rights Act while LBJ pushed for it.
BUT THIS HAS TURNED INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE. I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ITS HORRORS BEING SUPPORTED BY CHRISTIANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
But the reason it turned political is because you brought up Right vs. Left.
“IMO even the hypothetical burglar should be helped”.——-
TO WHAT EXTENT? IF THAT BURGLAR WAS INJURED, AND HAD NO INSURANCE, WOULD YOU:
A)pay out of your own pocket the medical expenses?
B)keep him in your house until he is healed?
C)once healed, offer him a place to stay rent free under your roof?
D)and, if he stays, and my goodness he will, are you going to bring his family and friends in too? You just might run out of rooms. But I guess you could take from your neighbors monies(taxes)and build some shacks(low income housing)in your back yard or fields, since being a Quaker you may be involved in agriculture? You got the room. Build those shacks! Man it feels good to support ILLEGALS.
IMO the analogy you are posing with these questions is flawed; it is based on the same exaggerated view I mentioned before of the impact of immigration. But…
If you are asking me what I would do, I would remind you that I am pretty less than perfect. But here’s what Jesus said we are SUPPOSED to do–we are supopsed to love God with all we’ve got and love our neighbor as OURSELVES. So to figure out what to do, we can substitute ourselves for the burglar in the example. Remember, this is the burglar who burgled because his family was starving. So what should I do with the burglar? Let’s take it one question at a time:
A)pay out of your own pocket the medical expenses?
If I would pay for doctoring for me, loving my neighbor as myself would mean that I pay for his medical care too since he is too poor to pay for it himself.
B)keep him in your house until he is healed?
Since I would keep myself in my house until I was healed, loving neighbor as myself would mean I’d keep HIM as well. Loving neighbor as yourself is radical stuff.
C)once healed, offer him a place to stay rent free under your roof?
Rent free? I’d want to work just like I’d want him to.
D)and, if he stays, and my goodness he will, are you going to bring his family and friends in too?
There’s no reason to think he’d stay in my house once he got healthy. I disagree with the premise.
your friend
Keith
"1. My main objection to your stated position ISN'T the immigration policy you support (which includes vigorous enforcement of existing immigration law). My problem is with the hostility and anger you express toward those who have violated that immigration law. They did indeed violate the law (as did the Christians who hid Jews from the Nazis, as did the American colonists when they rebelled against England), but it seems to me there is a difference between someone who breaks a law so he can work hard to help his family escape from poverty and just law breaking in general. This isn't to say the law ought not be enforced in both cases, but it seems wrong to me to be so disgusted by the person whose family lives in poverty south of the border, who will work incredibly hard when he gets here" ——-
YOU CAN NOT COMPARE ILLEGALS TO ANY OF THOSE SIGHTED ABOVE, JEWS HIDDEN FROM NAZI'S OR THOSE LEAVING ENGLAND FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS OR THE COLONISTS REBELING AGAINST A TYRANNICAL KING, I COULD SUPPORT MEXICANS FIGHTING TO TAKE BACK OR CONFORM THEIR COUNTRY, AT LEAST IN SPIRIT. "They did indeed violate the law", YOU SAID IT ALL RIGHT THERE. EITHER WE ARE A NATION OF LAW OR LAWLESSNESS. BECAUSE OF OUR NOT AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCING OUR LAWS, IN THE PAST TWO DAYS, ONE MORE AMERICAN(A BORDER GUARD)HAS DIED, AND AN ILLEGAL HAS BEEN ARRESTED ON 46 COUNTS OF RAPE OF YOUNG GIRLS. THAT BURGLAR BROKE OUR WINDOW, CAME INSIDE AND RAPED OUR DAUGHTERS. HAVE I, HAVE WE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY? COME ON MAN, ALL THE COMPASSION FOR FOREIGN BORN LAW BREAKERS BUT NONE FOR OUR OWN COUNTRYMEN? RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION, EMPHASIS ON RIGHTEOUS.
"Even Chile under Allende was capitalist, so where did socialism even get a try in Central America? But you don't have to be a socialist to recognize that the working class in capitalist USA was better off when we had strong unions". ——-
I DID NOT SAY SOUTH AMERICA, I SAID CENTRAL AMERICA. CUBA WAS INFLUENCING LATINO GOVERNMENTS THERE IN THE EARLY TO MID 1980'S. VIVE LA BEARD.
UNIONS PRICED THEIR WORKERS OUT OF THE MARKET. AN AMERICAN AUTO WORKER MAKING $22 AN HOUR VS A JAPANESE WORKER AT $16 AN HOUR, AND THE JAPS BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT, MEANS BEFORE TOO LONG THAT AMERICAN WILL BE WORKING AT WAL-MART. ITS A GLOBAL ECONOMY NOW … NO GOING BACK. I DISLIKE THE IDEA TOO, I WORK IN I.T. AND SO MANY OF THOSE JOBS HAVE LEFT THE COUNTRY. UNIONS HAVE PROVED THEMSELVES DINOSAURS.
"IMO even the hypothetical burglar should be helped".——-
I AGREE, IF HE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR. IF HE COMES THROUGH THE WINDOW, HE WILL BE IN STRIPED PAJAMAS BY MORNING AND TIAJUANA BY NOON.
I DID NOT SAY I DID NOT LOVE FOLKS, I DO. BUT IT WOULD BE MORE LOVING TO FORCE POLITICAL ACTION IN THEIR OWN HOME COUNTRY BY SENDING THEM BACK AND FORCING MEXICO TO FACE THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE. WHICH IT SEEMS THAT CALDERON MAY ACTUALLY BE ENFORCING MEXICAN LAW FINALLY IN THAT THE MEX GOV HAS BEEN IN TWO MAJOR FIRE FIGHTS LATELY RIGHT ACROSS THE RIO GRANDE. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THE POLICY BEING IMPLEMENTED IN ZONA AND TEXAS IS HAVING AN EFFECT. TEACHING A MAN(MEXICO)TO FISH. ALLOWING THIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY TO GO ON AT TREMENDOUS LOSS OF LIFE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER IS WHACKED AT BEST AND INHUMAN AT WORST. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IN SOME ONE, TAKE IN THAT WIDOW AND HER TWO KIDS OF THAT BORDER AGENT. THEY WILL NEED LOTS OF SUPPORT NOW. AND THEN VOLUNTEER TO DIG SOME FENCE POSTS ON THE BORDER.
IF SPEEDING IS THE EXTENT OF YOUR LIFE OF CRIME, THAT GOES TO SHOW ME THAT YOU STRIVE TO BE A LAW ABIDING MAN. THAT IS GOOD. I DO ALSO STRIVE. AND BECAUSE I HAVE A LOVE OF LAW AND VALUE IT, I SUPPORT THOSE WHO FEEL AS I DO ABOUT ORDER. I CAN NOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SUPPORT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. NOTHING GOOD WILL ULTIMATELY COME FROM IT. IT IS BASED ON THE FALSE PREMISE THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THAT ILLEGAL DOES NOT REALLY MEAN ILLEGAL. WE REAP WHAT WE SOW AS A NATION.
Nothing of such great value should be given away so freely, especially since citizenship in the US has always meant so much to the rest of the world. The last sentence on the placard at the Statue of Liberty states this: "I lift my lamp beside the golden door!",
meaning that lamp is a beacon for all to see, meaning freedom to be striven for, yearned for and worked for. To give it away is a crime, to me, against humanity. That lamp is lifted beside a golden door, golden because it is rare and special. And its a door, not an open border, so I say to all that wish to be my brother and fellow American, USE THE DOOR. Do not burglarize my country or my home(speaking of our Burglar example before), do not sneak through the window of my home, I may feel I have to defend whats mine. Please, if you need my hand, knock on the Golden door.
This thread is probably dead and buried, but after talking a bit with Seeker I was convinced to come back (Yes, we are still friends).
While Benjamin9 along with his anti-illegal immigrant following are all adamant about the ills to America from illegal immigration (debatable with current CBO figures-that's Congress), the whole Amnesty Pledge being taken by presidential candidates is nothing more than pandering to an small voting block to get elected and nothing more.
At the end of the day, the pledge means nothing once a candidate gets elected and faces the reality of governing the country and just how important low wage migrant workers are to the agricultual output of this country.
Secondly, the examples of immigrants coming here legally from South America carries almost no weight. If you look at the economic plight of Latinos south of the border, by in large the areas of greatest risk for illegal influx of immigration are those from Mexico, Guatemala, and San Salvador. So the waiting patiently thing while a good thing for a society at large, is a circular argument.
And before anyone goes mouthing off about my not knowing anything about this, the old regulars and Seeker will probably tell you that I know what I am talking about here with my Latin American background, and previous career experience in international affairs.
We can cite figures all day long from a variety of sources–some dubious and less dubious. Personally I trust the figures of the Congressional Budget Office and RAND over anything else, but hey..whatever.
There is no doubt that illegal immigration is a problem, but these pledges are nothing more than election year pandering. As they said in Jerry Macguire, "Show me the money."
– Silver
silver,
of course they are pandering. both sides. pro and con.
i was not speaking of just south americans, since the rule of law must apply to all, whether you are mexican or middle eastern or from peru. thats the point. rule of law. for everyone. any thing else is inhumane.
anything the democratic congress "finds" on illegals i would take with a grain of salt, as the aztlan folks are considered a great potential voting block. imagine that, illegals and there offspring, future dem party voters. all is right in the universe.
mexico needs to fix their problems and stop pushing their people here. shame on mexico. shame on our gov for allowing their own population to pay for gutless policy. shame on those who would support illegal activity. who cries for the dead border guard? the raped and murdered children? the ranchers dealing with damage to their private property? our country and the armed incursions by another nations army? why so many damn apologists for having more than corrupt countries?
law gentlemen. controlling who comes into your home is what it is about here. excusing bad behavior is bad for all. if that can not be plainly seen, then i am sorry for how far we have sank. i think this excusing attitude comes from those who are, in some ways anti American sovereignty.
i can see now how france has gotten themselves in such a state of chaos with their ghettos filled with muslims. open border with no guiding principles on either side of the border is crazy .. criminal.
Benjamin9,
I will address your other points later as I am at a party, but you should be aware that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)is a non-partisan federal agency that is the direct counterpart of the Office of Management and Budget and the CBO serves the entire Congress not the majority party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office)
The wiki entry only scratches the surface of what they do.
The staff of these organizations are civil servants and are non-partisan…period. So, while you may doubt the integrity of the democratic party, one should not doubt the integrity of the massive think tank of the economists and trade experts that work there.
The only political appointee in CBO is the director, who as of this writing is still a Republican, but hey whatever.
Since this research arm of the Federal Government is involved in everything from Force Manpower Studies for the Military, the economy, and yes impact of immigration, I would not begin to doubt the validity of this source, unless you think all economists are idiots (which I don't think is the case).
I guess you are just not really that familiar with how policy and economic analysis is done in this country at the Federal level. That's OK, not many Americans do, which is a shame. It makes for having an informed discussion and debate difficult and almost impossible to have without delving into assigning stereotypes and labels.
Breaking issues that are complex into a Republican vs. Democratic thing and whom we trust is just a tiresome exercise and will never get the country anywhere.
The rest of your points I will cover later.
Silver
silver,
what you said was all gloss and no explanation. but you said you would explain later on the economic impact?
i do not care if someone who comes here craps golden bricks, they need to do things legally. that is my point of view on this discussion.
with the militant view of the mexican gov, along with the militant view of mexican/latino extremist groups who say they support their poor brothers south of the rio grande, and the US gov(oh yes dems and pubs)ignoring the threat(national sec risks) and allowing loss of life on all sides by non-enforcement(which no champion of the illegals here in this forum has wanted to discuss, showing to me, an attitude that the desired ends justifies the means),
there seems to be something afoot here that lies right below the surface film of the snake oil that is being sold to the US citizenry.
i await your thorough diatribe …
party on
Hi Ben:
…and allowing loss of life on all sides by non-enforcement(which no champion of the illegals here in this forum has wanted to discuss, showing to me, an attitude that the desired ends justifies the means),
I think I did touch on this issue in one of my posts to you, but let me go into more detail:
1. Those who come here illegally take great risks, that is true. Apparently thing are bad enough where they are that they think it's worth the risk. It's paternalistic for us to try to save them from themselves.
2. By making it more difficult for folks to come across we have driven people to take more risky routes to the US, thus increasing the death toll. You can say this is tragic but we have every right to enforce our laws, and that the tragic result of their attempt to violate them is their fault, but you cannot argue that we are helping them by making it more difficult to escape the conditions that drove them to take those risks.
your friend
Keith
keith …
"1. Those who come here illegally take great risks, that is true. Apparently thing are bad enough where they are that they think it's worth the risk. It's paternalistic for us to try to save them from themselves." ——-
its not our duty to feed them. it may be are duty to over through the mex gov if they prove themselves incapable though. then give the country back to the people.
yes, of course its worth the risk. that is why people leave the various hell holes around the world to get here. i understand that things in most places suck when compared to here. but you can not take in everyone … it is not our duty to offer liberty's tit to every hungry mouth(maternalistic)in the world. that is why immigration law exists, to offer millions of people hope. as i have said before we might as well not have a border or enforcement. is that what you want? or would you want to work within the framework of the law? the US feeds the world, fights for the world, comes to the rescue of the world in times of natural disaster, etc. we can be very, very proud of who we are. we have always stood for the rule of law, that is what makes us different from 3rd world s$!t holes around the globe. importing a 3rd world population will not elevate civilization. it never has historically.
and as the lone super power, i think we can act a bit paternalistic with illegals, since their father figure in the form of elected officials in their homelands seem to be absent. what would the "founding fathers" think? accent on fathers.
"2. By making it more difficult for folks to come across we have driven people to take more risky routes to the US, thus increasing the death toll. You can say this is tragic but we have every right to enforce our laws, and that the tragic result of their attempt to violate them is their fault, but you cannot argue that we are helping them by making it more difficult to escape the conditions that drove them to take those risks." ——-
there is no reason to make illegal activity easier. illegal activity by its very definition is not lawful.
there is no reason to believe that the flesh peddlers, drug dealers, bandits, slavers, etc., would not exist if the border was wide open. there are always those who will take advantage of the defenseless.
we have a sovereign border, right? do you not see that the flow of who or what ever across that border is a dangerous situation?
if something comes over that border that can not be ignored(a disease of especially virulent nature or a crude weapon like a dirty bomb)you will see a great backlash against illegals and very possibly the loss of more of our rights. that why enforcing the law is so important.
Hi Ben:
I am not here arguing that our nation has a duty to take care of the foreign poor, and I am not here arguing that we shouldn't enforce our immigration laws. We could debate such issues some other time. My point in this post was very focused: it is invalid to argue that toughening up our immigration policy is for the good of the poor immigrants who die trying to come here. I don't agree with you about immigration policy in general, but my objection here was to a specific part of your argument.
You said this about paternalism:
and as the lone super power, i think we can act a bit paternalistic with illegals, since their father figure in the form of elected officials in their homelands seem to be absent. what would the "founding fathers" think? accent on fathers.
I don't think the fact that we are the strongest military on earth implies we have a right to treat those who come here illegally as their daddies. I don't believe the government IS a father figure–small "d" democracts cannot accept that metaphor.
None of the above comments have anything to do with the fundamental issue of border enforcement, of course, but the attitude that considers "illegals" to be like children is not worthy of those who believe in democracy, it doesn't seem to me.
your friend
keith
sorry my friend … i did not miss your point. but i think we may agree on more than you think. i think i was shooting all around the target there and missed responding.
i think that a real enforcement of the border would be best for illegals, well all folks really. the half hearted, not even that in reality, attempt to enforce the border is what breeds the black market that destroys what should be an uplifting and upbuilding event in the lives of immigrants. the wink and a nod policy towards mexico(for votes)has made the whole immigration process a pathetic mess.
a real enforced border would mean that if no one can get through, no one dies, as they would not attempt in the numbers that do now. yes, i know, there would be times when ones could attempt, but if you make it too tough, as least by over land, it would halt. look at israel and their double layer fence, 0 bombings.
"I don't think the fact that we are the strongest military on earth implies we have a right to treat those who come here illegally as their daddies. I don't believe the government IS a father figure–small "d" democracts cannot accept that metaphor.
None of the above comments have anything to do with the fundamental issue of border enforcement, of course, but the attitude that considers "illegals" to be like children is not worthy of those who believe in democracy, it doesn't seem to me." ——-
ah, we agree here, mostly i think. what i am saying is, when i mention US strength, is that we are the last bastion of true democratic strength, that we are different in that way, that we can offer all who want to come here, by legal means, the ability to escape the brutal darkness of the world. and we have the ability to, when we say something, we can back it up. all other "powers" on the globe are only play acting and really pose no danger in the military sense. i hate to think that we would cheapen our abilities, and to me allowing law to be broken or ignored in the process does this.
yes, small "d" dems, well, socialists and marxists pose a unique danger to the US.
Hi Ben:
For one thing, we both agree that Jesus is Lord.
your friend
Keith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i7dyp_nK_Q&eurl=h…
keith, please view. i would like to hear your thought.
Hi Ben:
Here are my reactions:
1. I think Juan Hernandez' position–that Mexican-Americans should think Mexico first, from new comers to the 7th generation and beyond is a ridiculous position. IMO there is no danger that Mexican-Americans will adopt such a view. My friends who are naturalized citizens still have loyalty to Mexico–the same as I have some loyalty to Kentucky even though I live in California–but they are not disloyal the nation they CHOSE.
2. That Hernandez worked for the corrupt Fox administration makes me suspicious of his motives–I don't believe he is acting for the good of the citizens of Mexico.
3. I don't agree with Teddy Roosevelt about "divided" allegiance. I am a Kentuckian, a Californian and an American. Also, I am a Christian, a person who identifies with the Kingdom of God. These different loyalties are not divided loyalties, you can be loyal to more than one thing.
your friend
Keith
Hi Ben:
The problem is, and I think this very dangerous snake oil sales man position is worse than ridiculous, is that this ass who is a very dirty politician from a very dirty Mexican gov, is PART OF A POTENTIAL PRESIDENT of the United States advisory group
The potential President is John McCain, wasn't that what the clip said? If that gives you a good reason not to vote for him, then good:-)
You list several stats about illegal immigration. I have to repeat my skepticism about the accuracy of the stats anti-immigration groups cite. I already showed how conservative pundit Michael Medved debunked the "1/3 of our prison population are 'illegals'" claim–it's not even close. But let me address a smattering of the list you cite:
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
This figure is dubious since LAPD doesn't keep info on the immigration status of suspects. (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200702160002)
47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
What is true for LAPD is generally true all over California, so this stat is also dubious. This stat has been posted nearly verbatum all over the web; it appears to be something that has been cut and pasted over and over, the original source for it being long since forgotten–it might as well be an unsourced claim–no reason to accept it.
That's pretty much true for all those kind of claims–they are either totally false or unverified assertions that are cut and pasted and posted all over the web like urban legends and chain letters. The stats are useless or worse–they help fan the fear of immigration that is distracts the beleaguered middle and working class from paying attention to real reforms that would help. It plays into the same kind of scapegoating that the economic powerful have always used to maintain their economic power.
your friend
Keith
well, since we can not see eye to eye on "internet" style data, and other points of interest, let me just say this.
Rino's like McCain and his crew, like Hernandez and all of the other special interest buffoons, who endorse illegal activity no matter the cost in economic and human life and sovereignty, give me, all the reason I need to feel assured, that my "feel" on the subject has to be correct. Not supporting such multi-cultural fools who do not mind seeing people die in order for their personal political views to be fulfilled is the right course on my moral compass needle. Especially seeing and listening to Hernandez, an agent of the corrupt Mex gov. By not supporting his point of view, I know I am doing something right, instinctually.
McCain is no RINO, he just refuses to tow the hard right line on immigration and maybe some other insignificant issues. He's, in my estimate, a true Republican, not some immigrant-hating security monger. Paul may be a RINO (he's really a libertarian), and so may Giuliani be, but only far right crazies think McCain is somehow a leftist or moderate. It's crazy.
Security monger? It does not make one a security monger to want US citizens to be safe(although this nazi pharisee would be ok with that. Better for US citizens to live a more secure life than to kowtow to Mexico). I think that is a Constitutional duty. But that no longer matters … we are all melding into one grand party it seems.
If you are relying on the likes of Juan Hernandez as a person who you talk to for ideas on immigration, you are no Republican, not the party I knew. Now, if this tranformation is taking place, so be it. A third party for real Constitutionalists will form. As far as thinking that McCain isn't leaning left is silly. That is why Dem's love him, right seeker?
He is an apologist for America, a hater of deep magnitude. McCain, not seeker. He is an apologist for Conservative thought. HRC looks 40 years old next to the new Bob Dole. Oh well, true freedom was good while it lasted.
I was hoping we would have a president who was going to insure the humane treatment of the tax paying citizenry, not the invaders. Viva la Juan !
Hi Ben:
As a person who is trying to live according to jesus' mandate to love ALL my neighbors, I hope we have a President who will work for the humane treatment of both citizens AND immigrants–whatever their immigration status.
your friend
Keith
I'm with you on this one Keith. I watched the state of the union, and I feel Bush is right on with his approach.
which Bush approach? 2006 or now?
its always seductive to take the easiest approach, but not always the wisest.
oh, and by the way, it is not loving taking the easiest approach in this case, it is the emotional reaction to a situation.
Now that a summerlong Homeland Security crackdown along the Arizona border is concluding, the results are in and they spell lethal failure. Since the fiscal year began last October 1, the statewide toll has reached a record 164 migrants perishing while trying to cross into the United States —– From a 2004 article. Sacrifice for cheap lettuce and lawn service.
HRC: "I do not think it is appropriate to give a drivers license to someone who is here undocumented, putting them frankly at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally." ——-
Putting them at risk to get caught and deported she means. Not that they may pose a threat to US citizens. You gotta love Marxists.
Hi Ben:
Come on now! Marxist? There is nothing Marxist about any of the Democratic Party. For crying out loud, there is barely anything Marxist other than rhetoric about the corrupt regimes in Cuba or China! You right wingers need to update your political name-calling to the latest enemy. Maybe you should calling Obama Muslim:-)
your friend
Keith
"You right wingers need to update your political name-calling to the latest enemy. Maybe you should calling Obama Muslim:-)" ——-
i do not follow you here. i really do not think i am a right winger, although that is cool. i prefer Constitutionalist, i think that describes my line of thought mo betta. why would i call Obamessiah a Muslim? i studied Buddhism for years but would not consider myself one, although some tenants make sense to me but on the whole seemed incomplete.
I do not think he is Muslim … but he does belong to what appears to be an all black church with allegience to africa for what ever reason. an odd combo for a prez i think. any church that is not inclusive of people of all backgrounds is anti-Christian.
Marxism: "The political and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as developed into a system of thought that gives class struggle a primary role in leading society from bourgeois democracy under capitalism to a socialist society and thence to Communism." ——-
sounds like HRC to me. a classic Marxist at that.
the truth stings …
Hi Ben:
Oh Ben, you're teasing me. The web is filled with those false charges against Obama, "Obama is a Muslim" "Obama took his oath on the Q'uran", "Obama went to one of those dangerous madrassas as a child", that's the latest version of McCarthyism.
Also Obama's church doesn't preach exclusionism, it explicitly opposes such; that's another one of the false things floating around about Obama.
About HRC you wrote:
Marxism: "The political and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as developed into a system of thought that gives class struggle a primary role in leading society from bourgeois democracy under capitalism to a socialist society and thence to Communism." ——-
sounds like HRC to me. a classic Marxist at that.
the truth stings …
That sounds nothing like HRC; seriously Ben, where do you get such?
And BTW, the truth doesn't hurt at all, so don't be afraid to check it out sometime:-)
your friend
Keith
"Oh Ben, you're teasing me. The web is filled with those false charges against Obama, "Obama is a Muslim" "Obama took his oath on the Q'uran", "Obama went to one of those dangerous madrassas as a child", that's the latest version of McCarthyism." ——-
i did not say that these charges did not exist, i am saying that i do not think he is a muslim. he is a part time christian prob.
"Also Obama's church doesn't preach exclusionism, it explicitly opposes such; that's another one of the false things floating around about Obama." ——-
i went to the web site and have researched a bit, the church leader(s) seem a bit extreme and racist.
"That sounds nothing like HRC; seriously Ben, where do you get such?"
nah, HRC with cradle to grave governmental control of medical care(which is a failure before it begins)and the exploiting of class envy among the people in hopes of redistribution of wealth, these our two examples. classic marxism. ah, and the belief that government is but an implement to be used to "help" the poor poor subjects who can not help them selves("oh, for the children" mantra)is also classic. a strong Christan nation would not need any form of gov intrusion in an individuals life, but religion has been under attack increasingly, and so, a self fullfilling prophecy is born, in that gov must be there to pick up the poor slob, since that very samr lefty gov has demonized Christians. Louis and his outlook is the perfect example of this in the microcosm of this forum.
I have to say, Obama's pastor (youtube) does sound racist (anti-white).
Note O'Reilly's very fair and balanced introductory comments, not to mention his balance of guests. I also note that the woman supporting the pastor never smiles!
Hi Ben and SEeker:
I didn't hear any racism at all. It is not racist to recognize that there is such a thing as the social concept of "race"–race really isn't a biological concept in that there are far more differences within a given "race" than there are between them. The tiny clip of Reverend Jeremiah Wright just had him referring to the existence of the "White Church", the church that has existed since slavery when black churches were not even allowed. There is nothing racist about acknowledging the social separation, and there would be nothing wrong with noticing when any of us in the church fail to live up to Christ's universalism (there being no slave nor free, nor male nor female in Christ). From what I can tell about Trinity is that they are a church that is affiliated with a predominately white denomination but are located in a predominately black neighborhood. Given that, they choose to try to help their members grow as Christians suffering in a society that still has some racism. I see no indication that they'd be unwilling to allow me–a white dude–to join their church and be a member in great standing.
your friend
Keith
"That sounds nothing like HRC; seriously Ben, where do you get such?" ——-
nah, HRC with cradle to grave governmental control of medical care(which is a failure before it begins)and the exploiting of class envy among the people in hopes of redistribution of wealth, these our two examples. classic marxism. ah, and the belief that government is but an implement to be used to "help" the poor poor subjects who can not help them selves("oh, for the children" mantra)is also classic. a strong Christan nation would not need any form of gov intrusion in an individuals life, but religion has been under attack increasingly, and so, a self fullfilling prophecy is born, in that gov must be there to pick up the poor slob, since that very samr lefty gov has demonized Christians. Louis and his outlook is the perfect example of this in the microcosm of this forum.
"About 100 people who came from Nepal to work at a north Alabama factory seemingly vanished from a pair of apartment buildings, along with a lot of furniture and appliances, and can't be located, officials said Tuesday. Immigration agents are trying to determine what happened to the Nepalese workers, among hundreds brought to the United States to work at a DVD factory operated by Cinram Inc., said Lauren Bethune, a spokeswoman for the Alabama Department of Homeland Security," the AP reports. "Reports last fall said Cinram had hired about 1,350 foreign workers to package DVDs at its plant in Huntsville. Cinram – which describes itself as the world's largest maker of pre-recorded multimedia products – said it turned to foreign workers because the area job market couldn't fill its needs. Bethune said about 100 immigrants were believed to be missing. Agents are trying to determine exactly what type of visas they used to enter the United States." ——-
ohhhhhhhhhhhhh(holding head in hands) ………….
Hi Ben:
nah, HRC with cradle to grave governmental control of medical care(which is a failure before it begins)…
Government run health insurance is much more efficient than the private system we have in the US, what with the huge overhead our private system displays compared to Medicare. Even our version of actual socialized medicine (the VA) is much better than our private system as my father can attest to. This is why the industrialized countries can have better health care systems at half the cost
and the exploiting of class envy among the people in hopes of redistribution of wealth, these our two examples. classic marxism….
Class envy? You might as well say that the Voting Rights Act just exploited blacks envy of the White right to vote. On its own, capitalism doesn't produce a just distribution of wealth and power (so say us liberals) so government intervention is a necessary corrective. And Marxism goes far beyond merely correcting some of the excesses of unregulated capitalism, it's silly to equate small reforms around the margin of capitalism with Marxist socialism. HRC is in the center/left of American politics–that's somewhat to the right of the center/left in most of the rest of the world, the same is true of all viable Democrats.
ah, and the belief that government is but an implement to be used to "help" the poor poor subjects who can not help them selves("oh, for the children" mantra)is also classic.
That's the very justification the Founders gave for government–to do for the people those things they cannot do for themselves! There is nothing Marxist about that, that idea predated Marxism.
a strong Christan nation would not need any form of gov intrusion in an individuals life,…
If the nation followed the way of Christ there'd be no NEED to redistribute wealth because we'd be doing that ourselves. If people really loved their neighbors as themselves–we all fall so short of that standard–we'd be voluntarily following the Marxist formula "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". BTW I am not a Marxist. I've read of bit of Marx and IMO the things he said that were right were platitudes, and what he said that was wrong was, well, very wrong.
but religion has been under attack increasingly, and so, a self fullfilling prophecy is born, in that gov must be there to pick up the poor slob, since that very samr lefty gov has demonized Christians. Louis and his outlook is the perfect example of this in the microcosm of this forum.
We Christians cannot blame the government for our failure to help the poor. And in America, there are no Christians being fed to the lions, there are no Christians being imprisoned or executed for worshipping the Lord the way there are in our trading partner China. That some people call us names is not that big a deal.
your friend
Keith
The current mortgage debacle is the best argument for government regulation I can think of.
As with most christianistas, benny-boy is so blinded by his hatred of gays that he can't fathom why we would oppose the extension of christianism's power in this country. A "strong Christian nation" would be a disaster, as theocracies always are, and something I would oppose with force if necessary. It always amazes me how christianists can excuse any and all evil on their part while parsing others' behavior with a microtome. What is it about that religion that makes people stupid, cruel, and heartless?
“Government run health insurance is much more efficient than the private system we have in the US, what with the huge overhead our private system displays compared to Medicare. Even our version of actual socialized medicine (the VA) is much better than our private system as my father can attest to. This is why the industrialized countries can have better health care systems at half the cost” ——-
lord help us. when has the federal government ever efficiently ran anything?($375 toilet seats). the reason privatized med is not as efficient as possible is that gov has its long fingers in the pie and bogs down the free market by making it not really a free market. and i can attest that the VA is not efficient , so much so that i carry my own insurance. the VA is a scary form of federally ran med and is woeful. believe me. and anyway, Kaleefornya failed to pass its version of hillary (s)care this week, praise be to God, this speaks volumes. maybe people, even in Kali, are not the sheep lib gov wants them to be. we will see, i am sure the attack on free will is not over yet. the Obamessiah made mention of something the other day, in that under the plan of the wife of the former boyfriend of Monica Lewinsky, people will be forced into it, and if they say no to the plan, they are fined or docked in some way? a gentle cattle prodding from our beloved poli’s? hey now thats American. wait, i forgot, words like American and sovereign and citizen doesn’t mean anything in comparison to “progressive”. thats what we need to strive to be at any cost, even personal freedoms.
TRUTH:
AUG 12, 1974: “What is it, in a few words, that all Republicans believe? We believe – along with millions of Democrats and Independents – that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” ——- a fact which seems lost on Americans.
“Class envy? You might as well say that the Voting Rights Act just exploited blacks envy of the White right to vote. On its own, capitalism doesn’t produce a just distribution of wealth and power (so say us liberals) so government intervention is a necessary corrective. And Marxism goes far beyond merely correcting some of the excesses of unregulated capitalism, it’s silly to equate small reforms around the margin of capitalism with Marxist socialism. HRC is in the center/left of American politics–that’s somewhat to the right of the center/left in most of the rest of the world, the same is true of all viable Democrats.” ——-
gov control of medicine is not a small reform. to believe that would be silly.
its not the Constitutional job of Gov to step in and take profits from one and give to another. if one finds their government wanting to do this, it must be resisted. its not the duty of gov to try and make everything fair, life is not like that. its up to the individual to make their own way, and if gov really would want to do something for me, cut my taxes and get the hell out of my way. let me exercise my free will and abilities with out having to say “mother may i”. that would be good gov. but of course the left philosophy does not trust its subjects(DC handgun case comes to mind).
“That’s the very justification the Founders gave for government–to do for the people those things they cannot do for themselves! There is nothing Marxist about that, that idea predated Marxism”. ——-
the states were to have power over themselves, not the Feds over the states. the power of the Fed gov was to be and should be now very limited. for the feds to lord over the states would lead to a restriction of basic freedoms, much as we see today. the whole reason that statehood works so well under a capitalistic system is that each state could operate as one of 50 labs in the Democratic experience. the gov was to uphold the Constitution and defend those God given values there in. read: stay the hell out of the way of the individual. that way, as a whole, the nation thrives. even an event such as 9/11 or Katrina or an earthquake or a one off nuclear attack from across an unenforced border can not do it lasting harm. the closer that Fed gov knits us as individuals to them, supplying our needs and taking our rights away, the more we become subjects, and since all gov is corrupt and becomes more corrupt as time goes on, it is unwise to seed them great power(ussr, cuba, haiti, canada, the list continues).
so the founders did not say we need to grant every wish, they said, and the great promise of this country is as it was when splitting from a corrupt government then(that is why you and i have had spirited discussion on immigration,people still want a piece of that dream), to live a free life without a huge unfeeling bureaucracy over our heads, either a king or a ponderous federal gov of any type.
“If the nation followed the way of Christ there’d be no NEED to redistribute wealth because we’d be doing that ourselves. If people really loved their neighbors as themselves–we all fall so short of that standard–we’d be voluntarily following the Marxist formula “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. BTW I am not a Marxist. I’ve read of bit of Marx and IMO the things he said that were right were platitudes, and what he said that was wrong was, well, very wrong.” ——-
almost. as christians, we would and do, i hope, reach out to our fellow human beings, but it should follow this path: our family first, then our congregation, and then if assets allow, others. as christianity grows, this net of coverage grows.
but gov takes(stealing really, if i reached into your pocket and withdrew your wallet and spent your money how i see fit, i would be cuffed and stuffed)what we rightfully earn and gives it away for any number of things, some we may even find immoral. that is coercion and should never be used in lieu of true giving. if some wish to pay more taxes for what they feel is a greater good, the IRS takes cash, MO’s and checks. what, about 45% to 50% feel this way possibly? send that x-tra cash in you were gonna send to your local PBS station or spend on carbon offsets(Jesus …)if you wish. or, use your head and buy your own insurance. whoa, free will. cool ain’t it !!
keith, you are in Kali, i think? what would moderate health insurance cost a family of 3. i choose this number as this is the size of my family. i pay about $60 a week for mine. just wondering.
“We Christians cannot blame the government for our failure to help the poor. And in America, there are no Christians being fed to the lions, there are no Christians being imprisoned or executed for worshipping the Lord the way there are in our trading partner China. That some people call us names is not that big a deal.” ——-
this is true in my eyes, what you say. i was just thinking about, and posted on, the things i have witnessed over time. the slow erosion of things spiritual and holy from a christian point of view in the public square. gov worried that if you pray in school we some how blur lines that a poli made up. a steady moving away from the judeo-christian values that this country was founded on and a pretending we are a secular country. pure bunk and to me and an insidious movement of some strength. as JC asked will this faith even exist on his coming. there seems to be a real nastiness pointed toward christians that i can not fathom, since i was a non christian for a time and i never housed any ill feelings toward any one. i work with a leftist, a 27 year old fella, and he is a hoot to listen to and discuss faith/religion with. my point, this anti christian bent seems to originate from the far left.
Hi Ben:
lord help us. when has the federal government ever efficiently ran anything?($375 toilet seats). the reason privatized med is not as efficient as possible is that gov has its long fingers in the pie and bogs down the free market by making it not really a free market.
I’d say you are quite wrong. The reason privately insured health care isn’t as efficient as public is that it costs a lot to process so many different claims with different forms and rules and such depending on which insurance you have, and because private insurance has to devote a significant amount of money screening out sick people and marketing to healthy ones. The overhead for private insurance is far higher than the overhead for public insurance.
and i can attest that the VA is not efficient , so much so that i carry my own insurance. the VA is a scary form of federally ran med and is woeful. believe me.
I’ll believe my dad instead. My dad has been covered by the VA for years and he has received incredibly good care, from heart bypass surgery to colon cancer treatment to the treatment he gets for his conjestive heart failure.
and anyway, Kaleefornya failed to pass its version of hillary (s)care this week, praise be to God, this speaks volumes.
The Terminator’s plan was nothing like Hillary’s plan and frankly I’m glad it didn’t pass because I am afraid that with the Republican’s stranglehold on our budget, a system that mandates individuals buy health insurance runs a serious risk of hurting people who can’t afford private health insurance. Single payer is really the way to go.
maybe people, even in Kali, are not the sheep lib gov wants them to be. we will see, i am sure the attack on free will is not over yet.
It wasn’t the people who stopped Terminator-care, it was the budget deficit that our taxaphobic Republican party make impossible to balance.
the Obamessiah made mention of something the other day, in that under the plan of the wife of the former boyfriend of Monica Lewinsky, people will be forced into it, and if they say no to the plan, they are fined or docked in some way? a gentle cattle prodding from our beloved poli’s? hey now thats American.
In principle it’s no different from making people buy car insurance. Uninsured people make health care costs bigger for everyone else. It’s no different in principle than making everyone pay taxes to support police protection.
“Class envy? You might as well say that the Voting Rights Act just exploited blacks envy of the White right to vote. On its own, capitalism doesn’t produce a just distribution of wealth and power (so say us liberals) so government intervention is a necessary corrective. And Marxism goes far beyond merely correcting some of the excesses of unregulated capitalism, it’s silly to equate small reforms around the margin of capitalism with Marxist socialism. HRC is in the center/left of American politics–that’s somewhat to the right of the center/left in most of the rest of the world, the same is true of all viable Democrats.”
gov control of medicine is not a small reform. to believe that would be silly.
No one is proposing government control of health care. The proposal is to change the way health care is paid for.
its not the Constitutional job of Gov to step in and take profits from one and give to another.
On the contrary, it is one of the stated purposes of the Constitution to “promote the general welfare”. There is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that taxation is theft nor that the government can choose to spend tax revenue according to the way the people through their representatives choose to do so.
if one finds their government wanting to do this, it must be resisted. its not the duty of gov to try and make everything fair, life is not like that.
I’d say you are mistaken about that. The Preamble explicitly says one of the purposes of our constitutional government to, and I quote, “promote Justice”.
its up to the individual to make their own way, and if gov really would want to do something for me, cut my taxes and get the hell out of my way. let me exercise my free will and abilities with out having to say “mother may i”. that would be good gov. but of course the left philosophy does not trust its subjects(DC handgun case comes to mind).
Well, I prefer the Constitution to the anarchistic individualism you propose.
“That’s the very justification the Founders gave for government–to do for the people those things they cannot do for themselves! There is nothing Marxist about that, that idea predated Marxism”. ——-
the states were to have power over themselves, not the Feds over the states. the power of the Fed gov was to be and should be now very limited.
The balance between the States and The National Government is a separate issue from the general principle about the purpose of government; my comment was in response to your disagreement with the idea that government should do for people what they cannot do for themselves. That said, I think the States Rights view you seem to support has been pretty discredited by the Civil War and Jim Crow.
the whole reason that statehood works so well under a capitalistic system is that each state could operate as one of 50 labs in the Democratic experience.
Like the American Apartheit practiced by the South prior to LBJ?
“If the nation followed the way of Christ there’d be no NEED to redistribute wealth because we’d be doing that ourselves. If people really loved their neighbors as themselves–we all fall so short of that standard–we’d be voluntarily following the Marxist formula “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. BTW I am not a Marxist. I’ve read of bit of Marx and IMO the things he said that were right were platitudes, and what he said that was wrong was, well, very wrong.”
almost. as christians, we would and do, i hope, reach out to our fellow human beings, but it should follow this path: our family first, then our congregation, and then if assets allow, others. as christianity grows, this net of coverage grows.
Until Christianity grows we don’t have a strong Christian nation? We didn’t have a strong Christian nation when White Christians owned slaves, or burned crosses, or denied blacks the right to vote. If our nation was strongly Christian, we’d have enough assets so that we could follow “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.
but gov takes(stealing really, if i reached into your pocket and withdrew your wallet and spent your money how i see fit, i would be cuffed and stuffed)…
Taxes are not theft, they are the price we pay to live in a our great nation.
keith, you are in Kali, i think? what would moderate health insurance cost a family of 3. i choose this number as this is the size of my family. i pay about $60 a week for mine. just wondering.
All I know is what they take out of my paycheck for health insurance: about 90$ a month for me and my daughter.
“We Christians cannot blame the government for our failure to help the poor. And in America, there are no Christians being fed to the lions, there are no Christians being imprisoned or executed for worshipping the Lord the way there are in our trading partner China. That some people call us names is not that big a deal.”
this is true in my eyes, what you say. i was just thinking about, and posted on, the things i have witnessed over time. the slow erosion of things spiritual and holy from a christian point of view in the public square. gov worried that if you pray in school we some how blur lines that a poli made up.
As a Christian, how can you want the government schools to organize praying in the public square the way the Pharisees d[id]? There is no prohibition against groups of christians praying together privately.
there seems to be a real nastiness pointed toward christians that i can not fathom, since i was a non christian for a time and i never housed any ill feelings toward any one.
There are definitely people who harbor a lot of anger toward Christians. But for the most part, people don’t. I get annoyed at some of my secular liberal friends with some of the goofy things they say about Christianity, no doubt. But I don’t think things are that bad for the faith.
i work with a leftist, a 27 year old fella, and he is a hoot to listen to and discuss faith/religion with. my point, this anti christian bent seems to originate from the far left.
Although I know a few libertarian minded rightists who are atheists as well. I also know some folks (besides me) who are far left Christians.
BTW, after Feb 6 I’kk be gone for awhile. I do Lent, and what I give up is internet forums, focusing instead on prayer and spiritual stuff.
your friend
Keith