Some churches are objecting to Alabama’s tough new law that aims to clamp down on illegal immigration, saying it violates Christian principles in the heart of the Bible Belt.
Leaders of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church all have criticized the law as running counter to biblical teachings about caring for neighbors, helping visitors and showing hospitality to strangers. Episcopal Bishop Henry N. Parsley of Birmingham said the law “will make it impossible to love and be hospitable to our neighbors as we ought to be.”
“It is a profoundly disappointing decision and a sad moment for our state,” he said in a statement late Wednesday.
The churches never discuss the other side of the story, and that puzzles me. Yes, SOME of the illegal immigrants come here to work hard and live peacefully but not all do. It’s a smokescreen to evoke pity for the laborers while ignoring the criminal element also involved.
Where are the churches and liberals when illegals are involved in the drug and human trafficking trade? When they rape and murder but can hightail it back over the border to escape American justice? When they are involved in gang activity here in the U.S.? Do they realilze that MS-13 and the Zetas — both ruthless gangs made up of illegal immigrants — have set up shop in the U.S.?
The federal government has left the states no choice but to act to protect their borders and citizens. Failure to act means more trafficking, brutality, and lawlessness. And why should anyone support illegal immigration when people from other, non-Hispanic countries (read people who aren’t represented by a coveted voting block in the U.S.) go through the proper channels and wait their turn to come here? Come to that, why celebrate Hispanic illegal immigrants over Hispanic folks who emigrated the legal way?
When my son was in middle school, he was jumped by a couple of students in the locker room and beaten. I got a call at work and was told to come quickly because he might have a concussion. It turned out that at least one of the students involved was an illegal immigrant. I was going to press charges and the school administrators pleaded with me not to do so because “you just have to understand that he’s not as privileged as your son and can’t help it.” Nope, sorry, unacceptable.
That’s the same mindset as those who who fight against enforcing our laws. We have to put up with the crime, the cost, and the safety issues because they’re “underprivileged and can’t help it.” Nope, sorry, unacceptable. We are a generous country but we have laws and they need to be enforced. Otherwise, our country will no longer be in a position to be generous. We’re nearing that point now.
Note the misnomer, “immigration”. An illegal is not an immigrant. It is an alien who is here illegally.
Do Americans have the right to enter any other country–say Sweden or Switzerland–without permission, and then remain and receive the social services due a citizen of that country? If not, then what is the Christian principle involved?
#3: only if they’re avoiding military service.
Illegal IS illegal. The DNC chairwoman told us all we needed to know about the Left’s intentions the other day when she feigned shock that Conservatives consider illegals to be……well, illegal. What she meant is that the Left sees illegals as a new steady stream of Dem voters, who cares what happens to the country.
I don’t think she said that it was shocking that illegal immigration is regarded as illegal. That would be pretty strange, even for a DNC chairman.
Illegal immigration is not nearly the problem, at least numerically, as it was several years ago. Nothing like a hearty recession to influence labor migration. Of course, as some have noted here, a major part of the problem was a federal system that did not advance the national economic and security interests of the country, coupled with the complete lack of will by Congress to modernize the system. The current Administration has been far tougher on enforcement and border security than any of its predecessors in recent times. The problem has significantly abated because of this and because of the downturn in economic conditions in this country, But the issue is still catnip for state and local politicians and it’s one that is easily demagogued. The negative local impacts of illegal immigration are generally amenable to control through use of existing local laws generally applicable to all persons. When local governments attempt to set immigration policy, we have a constitutional problem of first rank. But I understand why it’s a powerful political issue and concur that the root of the problem is complete incompetence at the federal level.
A recent TV newsperson reported that new laws attempt to make illegal immigration illegal. Check out the penalties in Mexico. I think the second offense is 10 years.
Excellent post Teatime2. I believe very strongly that secure borders save lives. Mostly the lives of those who face many dangers to come here illegally. So to me it is a humanitarian issue to enforce our laws on immigration. Reform yes, but we can not close our eyes to the damage done by illegal immigration.
#6, don’t take it from me what she said,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVe1BgjE_QE
I listened to it, No.9, and didn’t hear her feign shock that Conservatives consider illegal immigration illegal. I didn’t even hear her say anything about conservatives. I think you’re projecting a bit. She certainly says a lot of things that I consider nonsense, but I didn’t hear her say that.
I pose this question: If the Federal government won’t enforce our immigration laws, then [b]who WILL?[/b] The answer should be quite obvious: [b]the STATES![/b]
I rest my case.
NoVa,
Oh, I heard that, but it was shock that the Republicans want to make illegal immigration a crime, oblivious to the fact that IT ALREADY IS! All Republicans and politicians on both sides in the border states want is for the Federal Government to enforce immigration law and secure the borders.
Here is the relevant quote, emphasis added:
[quote]I think the president was clearly articulating that his position — Democrats position — is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that, that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if some — you know, the Republican solutions that I’ve seen in the last few years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, [b]and in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all[/b]. I mean that was in legislation that Jim Sensenbrenner advanced a couple of years ago.[/quote]
By the way, calling an illegal immigrant and “undocumented worker” is like calling a drug dealer an “undocumented pharmacist”!
Jim Elliott
Florida (and yes we have our own problems with illegal aliens in this state!)
No, 11: That’s a radically liberal interpretation of the Constitution that runs hard against those of us who take a more conservative view. The states have no authority over naturalization and immigration policy, particularly given its being inextricably intertwined with the foreign affairs powers of the federal government. I think your approach would require a significant amendment to the founding documents.
No. 12: I was responding to a reference to “conservatives”, a category that is quite distinct, I think, from Republicans. The woman (of whom I am not a fan) did not “feign” shock that “conservatives” consider illegal immigration illegal. I imagine she considers illegal immigration illegal also. She did say that it is no solution to simply arrest 12 million people. I suspect, as a practical matter, she is absolutely correct on that point.
[quote]The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution[/quote]
Which is why President Obama’s job one at this point (on this issue) is to secure the border and keep illegal immigrants out of our states. IF that means putting the army in place until a secure fence is built (which is NOT anywhere near complete in spite of his assertion that it is), then so be it. Until then, and as long as he ignores the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states from invasion, the individual states have the right to protect themselves from such, until we can elect a President and Congress who takes this matter seriously. (Article 1, section 10: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, [b]unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.[/b]” — emphasis added.)
interesting and novel theory, No. 14. We’ve always had a lot of labor migration in this country and have never treated it as “invasion”, a term which I think the Founders probably intended to have some connotation of armed force from another country. There are some court cases bubbling around now on this, and I have never heard anyone argue seriously (or at all, at least not in court) that the Invasion Clause covers this situation. It looks like a very liberal departure from original intent to me, but full marks for having read the document and given it some thought.
I agree with you, however, with the implied point that this administration has given border security a great deal more attention than its predecessors. Whether, as a matter of foreign and economic policy, it is worth the cost is an open question. It might be more cost effective to make legal immigration more easy. If a migrating worker has a choice between coming across the border in a bus with a 15 minute check and dodging patrols in the desert for days, he might choose the former. We then know who, and to some controllable extent, where he is and when it is time for him to go home. I would think that those fences that you find attractive will work best if they have very attractive gates.
Oh, I’m all in favor of making LEGAL immigration easier and more streamlined, especially in terms of families.
[i]with the implied point that this administration has given border security a great deal more attention than its predecessors[/i]
That negative-to-postive flip is like saying the current administration has focused the country’s attention on the deficit and National Debt more than any other administration.
The difference being that the budgetary deficit and debt have gotten much worse under this Administration, while the illegal immigration problem, at least by quantitative measurement, is much improved. Of course, immigration (legal and illegal) will always be greater where the gradient between the health of bordering economies is greater. The major reason the flow of illegals is down under this Administration is that the US economy is not as enticing as it was under Clinton and early Bush II. But the enforcement policies of the Obama Administration are far more robust than any seen since the 1950s. The motivations for this may not be entirely pure. I suspect that at least some of the reason for the Obama Administration’s toughness in this area is paying off organized labor for political support.
Federal immigration policies still are in dire disrepair and need profound re-structuring if America is to be competitive for essential labor capabilities in the 21st century. Other countries have become far more attractive for labor in the skilled sectors. Neither party seems to be any more serious about tackling that important issue than it is about doing something meaningful about the budget and the economy.