Jim, while I wholeheartedly agree with you that the United States is in need of comprehensive immigration reform, I was disturbed by the way you framed your comments at the recent press conference. I have greatly appreciated over the past several years hearing you trumpet the notion that "religion does not have a monopoly on morality" and that, while your political conviction rests on your Christian faith, it would be foolish not to include those of other faith traditions (as well as the non-religious) in conversation about moral issues facing our county.
Calling on themes from scripture seems like a good and healthy way to challenge your fellow Christians to embrace a compassionate view of immigration reform. However, I find it hard to believe that using isolated scripture quotations as the primary basis of lobbying Congress is a productive way to hold a universally accessible policy discussion. As Senator Obama wisely stated at the 2006 Pentecost conference, "(D)emocracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values." If we are to converse across sectarian lines, our motivations may stem from religiosity, but shouldn't our public discourse be steeped in reason, rather than trying to convince Congress to bend to scripture?
I was most disappointed with your rhetoric at the CFCIR press conference because as I listened to you chide legisators for not heeding the "Leviticus immigration policy," I couldn't help but wonder how you would respond if your more conservative colleagues lobbied for our nation to abide by Levitical laws. It certainly wouldn't lead to the compassion you have advocated for toward the gay community.
As ministers, politicians, and the media seek to hammer out an inclusive vocabulary around religion in public life, I hope that you will continue to help, as you have so often done, rather than hinder, as I felt you have this past week.
I agree also on the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Yet I submit that if one is to use Scripture to argue a point, then one must pick and choose the verses, for almost any argument that can be made using Scripture the opposite argument can also be made using Scripture. The opposing views argued by Jim and Lou Dobbs bear this out.
Much as I disagree with Jim Wallis on immigration policy, I have to say that Lou Dobbs' response was very poorly done. First of all, while I think Wallis does a poor job of applying scripture, Dobbs' response implies that scripture is itself irrelevant or illegitimate, which is wrong. The proper response to a poor use of scripture is a better use of scripture.
Second, Dobbs implies that Christians are all united in support of amnesty for illegal immigrants. (So much for the monopoly of the Christian Right!) But anyone who has read the follow-up to the original Wallis v. Dobbs article, or is on the FRC email list, would know better than that.
Wolverine
Jim,
As we all were once aliens you might pass on to Mr. Dobbs the following:
And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt. Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. He is your praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes.
Reference: Deuteronomy 10:19-21
While I agree with Jim Wallis on a lot of things. This is not one of them. All Christians don't believe as he does. I believe in secured borders and am not in support of amnesty for illegals immigrants. I believe the churches should be staying out of this. To imply that you are not a Christian, to want secured borders and the rule of law followed is simply wrong. This is not a Christian or non-Christian problem.
It is not a Republican or Democrat problem. It's an American problem and Americans need to get informed and wake up.
Lou Dodds in (using) scripture out of context, such as in the book of Romans warning to obey authority, apparently has misinformed even his followers about 'authorities' and their difference.
Thank God some Christians know the difference between the authority (Gentile) out of the will of God, and the authority (Supreme) within the will of God. Unfortunately today many false teachers in this manner teach being obedient to Satan and his servants.
Lou Dobbs, please warn your followers, when confronted with authorities such as the Gentile told of in scripture, and the Lord who is Supreme authority also told of in scripture, that they remain obedient in these conflicts to the Lord. Respect the (Office) of authority, but do NOT enter into or become part of the error and sin of an office-holder. Today our government (authority) reminds me of an Old Testament people and their (new) leader, betweem whom the Lord sent an evil spirit. Learn the difference between authority that tears down and divides, and authority that builds and unites into maturity.
Well said, Jim!
I heard Lou Dobbs last night quote a Catholic Priest who said that we Christians couldn't respect the borders that were put up between peoples. Dobbs called the statement "breath-taking" in its implications. Ah yes, Lou, the Gospel is truly breath-taking when it's taken seriously. Would that more would let the breath of the Spirit loose in this debate and in this country.
Dobb's Roman 13 citation is perplexing. It conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence's "- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...." His position could have prevented our actions in WWII vis a vis Germany and Japan if we acknowledged Hitler's and Tojo's invasions and reigns of terror to have been blessed by God.
Dobb's position would mean that Jesus' "render unto Caesar/render unto God" means that our politics actually is unrelated to God. I disagree.
And how can Dobbs assail our "being 'hell-bent on ignoring the separation of church and state' as we 'conflate religion and politics' by our 'political adventurism.'" Does really he believe that the 1st Amendment prevents citizens from advocating their faith through the political process? That position is ignorant of the Constitution, of America's history and of the Founders' positions.
Lou, it prevents government action, not citizens' advocacy. Dobb's entire position seems to me to be ignorant on the topic.
Aren't we commanded in everything we do - including our politics - to love our neighbors as ourselves? That's from Leviticus 19:18 as well as from Jesus. Among other things that means being truthful, respectful of people who disagree with us, and fair [also patient, kind, slow to anger, without envy, boastfulness, pride, etc. - our job description in Paul's I Corinthian 13. And he says that smooth talking without love meaningless noise.] Those are our moral values that must always apply - especially in politically tough places.
Our scripture and moral values do not dictate, and may or may not preclude, certain political options on today's immigration policy, etc., but they certainly must frame the nature and contents of an "in good faith" debate.
Given a choice between Jesus and Jim Wallis, I'd choose Jesus! Do not presume to speak for God or Jesus, Jim Wallis, on the issue of illegal immigration. There is a difference between being humane to illegal immigrants and making them legal residents. And making that distinction does not make one less of a Christian.
So does this mean every time I disagree with Jim Wallis over the interpretation of scripture, I am denying Jesus? Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.
Watching a Congressional hearing prior to the 2006 elections, it was made quite clear why we have an illegal alien problem, and it had nothing to do with border security or fences.
What was made clear in the Congressional hearing was that since approx year 2000 there had been almost an absence of Fed-law in enforcing (existing) laws that would seriously restrict our present illegal immigrant problem.
What was made clear was that in year 2000 there were over a thousand cases where Fed investigation brought US-Corp's into Fed-Court where they were found guilty and heavily fined for deliberately hiring illegal aliens. In year 2005 there were ONLY THREE (3) cases brought to Fed-Court for deliberately hiring illegal aliens.
The point brought STRONGLY home, was that the Fed-Gov stopped enforcing Fed-Law's that effectively encouraged and enabled illegal immigration that errode jobs (and wages) for everyone.
So don't blame border security that Homeland Security in taking over seriously underfunded, or illegal aliens (who benefit from Free-Trade) in South America, blame our US Corp-Government and uninformed Americans.
JIM:
I disagree that our immigration policy is broken. Our current policy functions precisely the way it is intended to function.
What is broken is the ability of our nation to own up to its aims and purposes. Our present situation is not an unintentional o-o-o-ps! It is a carefully planned and executed strategy that accomplishes precisely what we intend it to do. Discussion on both sides of the issue are largely hypocritical. We have no intention of fixing the problem. Some are willing to exploit the issue for short-term political gain.
1. We want cheap labor. The jobs that must be done domestically because they cannot be outsourced must be done by cheap immigrant labor. Cheap immigrant labor tends to depress the wages of all workers. This permits the US to practice distributive injustice. This is the goal and purpose of our free market, capitalist system. This has always been US policy. Nothing new here.
2. We want laws on the books available for rbitrary and capricious enforcement. This means that a business that is on the government's enemies list can be cited for immigration violations. This works like a dream. Friends who support political campaigns can be ignored.
3. We want to shore up the SS system by exacting taxes from persons who will never receive any benefits. Any change to immigration law will place SS in deeper financial problems.
Congress and administrations do whatever they really want to do. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the present situation is that it is precisely what we want. If we do not approach change from the perspective that we are not at all honest about current policy, the hypocrisy will only deepen.
Jim,
Let me share with you the email I sent to Lou:
Lou, your ongoing immigration reports are full of passion. But the latest assault on religious leadership is alarming. The 20th century was shaped by wars caused by those who told the Church that Romans 13 meant they were to shut up and take whatever the State handed out. In spite of simplistic readings, the passage has as its core the statement that all authority has its source in God and that Godly values determine what authority is. Please do not confuse power with authority. Authority is that which gives life -- power may take life, but by itself cannot give it.
Perhaps the warning should be that the faithful are advised to avoid religious adventurism.
America, one nation "under God."
It is teachings of people like Lou Dobbs that seperate not only Church and State, but the servants of God from their service, and this foretold would involve being brought before rulers and authorities.
What part are we being told by the Lou Dodds to forfeit to Satan, a nation and people, or should we listen to the Lord who gives Christians power and authority in a 'great commission'?
It may indeed be true, as held by some secular humanists, that (some in the church) teach subjugation and obedience to Satan and his ways.
Illegal immigration has taken the place of slavery as a way for exploiting others. No one can object to access to this country through a legal process, but the flow of illegals across open borders is a great threat to our national security. But, as much as I may agree with Dobbs passionate appeal for closing our borders his appeal to Hitchens in his antireligion passion has cost his credibility with this old preacher. Hitchens is the best argument against immigration, legal or illegal, that I can think of.
Mr. Wallis is seeming to be more like Jerry Falwell when he attempts to paint his statements as some profession of his Christianity.
I wonder how much money the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has funnelled his way in this.. because the stance Wallis is taking, isn't in the interest of helping the poor. It is about pitting one group of poor people against another, for the profit of corporations.
Perhaps Wallis should get off his overly pampered posterior and get out in poor communities to speak with the American poor. They do exist, and in record numbers. Is Mr. Wallis blind to the fact that since the 1980s that manufacturing jobs have been eliminated in this country, that Americans are faced with an ever declining job market and the influx of illegal aliens has undermined real wages and the ability to be protected by workplace protections?
No, Jim Wallis isn't interested in helping deal with poverty, nor is he interested in following Christ's teachings, his true interest seems more to earn some big payoff from the lobbies who seek to turn the clock back in America to a time when the poor were little more than slaves to the most powerful. Shame on you Jim Wallis, I hope you are exposed as the same type of fraud Jerry Falwell is.
I see Lou Dobb's bible quotation, and the context he used it in, as the real confusion between church and state, and a rather chilling one at that. Our immigration authorities to be bowed to as the right hand of God? Does he have some the ICE raids in mind?
Migra.org reported on Lou Dobb's coverage of the recent immigration rally. Here he is, involved in this issue for so many years, and yet, throughout the evening, reported wrongly on the position of the demonstrators regarding the guest worker programs.
How does a "journalist" make such a big mistake?
See the SPLC's website for their new report out on the horrific conditions of these programs, and their recommendations for needed changes.
Our immigration system IS broken, and protecting American workers as well as redressing poverty means reforming laws that maintain slave labor conditions and underclasses, and deprive American children of the right to grow up in their own country with their own parents.
If the piper isn't paid now, he will be paid later.
The same contractors that profit from our presence in Iraq are profiting per head throwing the working poor in prisons, including children and infants.
We can build all the walls and prisons we like; it won't address the reasons why people come across the border in the first place.
Just like anyone here would too, if they were walking in that someone else's shoes.
Apparently, care and wisdom should be encouraged when addressing the strengths and weakness of government policies. This forum breaks open a clear example of why Christianity (or any other belief) should not be misused as ammunition, either pro or con. I don't see Jim Wallis representing the Church, per se. There is an obvious agenda here. We've seen it too often in the past. If debates such as this resulted in an accordance to even the smallest extent, one of the two factions could claim justification.
As erudite as Mr. Dobbs can be in his arguments of great importance, his audacity to intrerpret Romans 13 smacked of disrespect. I would bet he knows which power was being alluded to in the scriptures.
Additionally, I found Mr. Dobb's over use of the term "schism" to be entertaining. That sort of thing wouldn't exist in Congress, would it?
Lets keep our politics and our faith in separate corners. One of the reasons why I am opposed to prayer in the schools is that there are too many prayers given on which I would walk out and which I would certainly not let my children listen to. We need a humane immigration policy not a Christian one.
Dobbs' proof-texting of the Romans 13 passage is a good example of the unhelpfulness of such practice, because while this passage might indicate that government can be legitimate, nobody in their right mind would assert that anyone who claimed to be a government therefore had God's blessing on whatever they chose to do. Furthermore, there is clearly a prophetic call expressed throughout the Bible to confront and oppose the inappropriate use of any sort of authority or power, as well as a frequent command to be hospitable to the resident alien. I don't know where the dualistic choice Jim refers to (Dobbs vs Jesus) came from, but in a democracy such as ours it is the people to whom God has given the ultimate power and authority, and they then delegate it to others to serve them by leading them. The people (including religious people and their groups) also have a solemn obligation to hold their government and its leaders accountable for serving the people and their interests faithfully. To expect and require that our leaders will lead us toward compassion rather than hatred, toward harmony and reconciliation rather than toward violence and oppression, is not rebellion against legitimate authority but rather the exercise of citizenship, and anything less would be a betrayal of God's gift of democracy.
Correction on 6:53 P.M.
The migrao.org reference should have been migramatters.blogspot.com/ (without the www.).
"It is not a Republican or Democrat problem. It's an American problem and Americans need to get informed and wake up."
"...the flow of illegals across open borders is a great threat to our national security."
"America, one nation 'under God.'"
--climbing on soapbox--
It appears that the nationalists have finally found an ideal place to post their stuff.
Here are some thoughts to ponder:
"There is no longer Jew or Greek (or Mexican or American or Guatemalan or Salvadoran--gosh, did Paul say that?), there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female' for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."--Galatians 3:28
"For here we have no lasting city, but we are looking for the city that is to come."--Hebrews 13:14
"We must obey God rather than any human authority."--Acts 5:29
I am one Christian who will not bow to the false god of America or sacrifice compassionate treatment of my neighbors--whether they be here legally or not--on its altar. My first citizenship is in the Kingdom of Christ, and thus my first obligations are there. Yes, I'm glad I live in the USA, but I refuse to make the circumstances of my birth into an idol.
The God I serve is far less interested in so-called secure borders (a very recent concept, historically) than he is in how I treat my neighbors. The people we're talking about are strangers and sojourners here in the USA. Guess what? So am I, and so are you if you truly call on the name of Christ.
--climbing down from soapbox--
La paz de nuestro Señor Jesucristo sea con Uds. (The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.)
Have a good evening!
I have always and still do considered me a very liberal, compassionate Democrat. Lou Dobbs has historically been a very conservative commentator. But his recent conversion to opposition of the so called "fair trade" agreements (which cause world-wide environmental damage and exploit workers everywhere, especially in the United States, by making domestic workers compete with the lowest cost workers in the world) and his opposition to unfettered immigration has endeared him to many of the workers, or would be workers, that are legal residents of America.
For those that are truly in favor of a compassionate future for citizens of the less developed countries, instead of working to open our borders to any and all who want to enter and to allowing those that have already entered illegally to stay, will work to insure that their home country has a satisfactory place for them. Work to eliminate the so called "fair trade" agreements and replace them with trade agreements that encourage salaries, working conditions, and environmental conditions that enhance those countries. Agreements that attempt to lift those countries up to our level, rather than dragging us down to theirs.
Jim Wallis should focus on pro-corporate, pro-inequality groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AEI, Wall Street Journal editorial board, and Cato, not Lou Dobbs. Dobbs is on the air every night denouncing corporate power and looking out for the little guy.
Immigration has always been about cheap labor. Lou Dobbs understands this fact, as do his pro-corporate adversaries. Sure the system needs reform, but it's interesting which side of this divide you choose to align yourself with Jim.
Way to Go Jim! I loved reading Lou's article and I even mentioned it in my blog. Lou and others like him would rather people of faith stay out of the public realm all together, oh that is until they want a photo op with some religious leader like Billy Graham in order to get good publicity. What they wholeheartedly fail to understand is that as people of faith our whole lives are informed by our faith and that means when we go into the voting booth and when people of faith serve in public office that we bring our faith with us. I know its inconvienent for people who think we should just keep our faith to ourselves, but then if all non-religious people are allowed to call upon their philosophies and values then why shouldn't WE be able to? (BTW that's rhetorical)
I reluctantly confess when we move from the necessary relationship of faith and ethics to law and politics--to the application of scripture or religiously coded language to soundbites for the scoring of political points that I am pushed towards a hard separation of church & state.
The breadth of sectors within the church need to much more aggressively bring our minds, hearts and lives to bear on public issues from an explicit Christian base. We need to live out a way of life and service that gives fuller expression to the marvelous love of Jesus. And we need ways of public expressing the Christian base on which we stand.
But the minute we start using Faith language to score political points we have lost our way
I worry for this nation and the many who believe their choices are limited to the 'lesser of evils'. This is not Christ-like thinking, this a patriotism to the point of seperating Christ (Supreme Authority) from our government under God. The word of God describes the difference between Gentile authority and Gods' authority.
If they fear being brought before the authorities, perhaps they are not prepared, and for this we are commanded in Gods word.
My worry for this nation is that they are not prepared to serve God, nor do they know good from evil.
Why?
I heard Lou Dobbs last night quote a Catholic Priest who said that we Christians couldn't respect the borders that were put up between peoples. Dobbs called the statement "breath-taking" in its implications.
I agree everyone gets really confused when people of faith actually place a higher priority on their faith and the Kingdom of God than on some arbitrarity contrived imaginary border that is designed to separate people by nationality when the reality is that there is no difference between us at all! I guess its true that everything is fine as long as we all play by the rules of the game that we have contrived in order to maintain our own way of life, and once that is distrubed then people begin to cry foul!
I for one refuse to play by their rules when they hurt others, especially when God's rules are far superior and the consequences are far more damning.
This is one Christian for amnesty. It's the only just option.
p
It's also the only reasonable option, Payshun.
Dan Banks is correct that the only long-term solution is to bring up the economies of Latin America. And problems with some of the free trade agreements are contributing to the serious economic conditions there. But that's not the basic problem. The real problem is the endemic political and economic corruption in many Lat.Am. places. That can't be solved by the USA alone.
Peace,
Ditto on taht Don and Payshun.
"...But then, [Dobbs] long ago stopped being a journalist, and is now one of the leading advocates against comprehensive immigration reform." When he comes on, condemning how Congress and advocates for reform are "trying to force [reform] on the American people," I think I've somehow turned on the Fox Network instead of CNN. It has tainted the high regard I have had for the usually unbiased news on CNN.
When Dobbs quoted Romans 13 regarding governments being established by God, and the necessity of our submitting to it; would he also say the same thing if we were living under governments headed by Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin etc.????? - I doubt it!
It's useless to quote things like this, if you are not willing to apply it to 'all' governments and be consistant.
Our focus should be on taking care of the poor as Jesus commanded.
"Immigration has always been about cheap labor."
I had 25 Mexicans working for me, I wasn't looking for cheap labor, I was looking for employees who would show and work.
I am afraid I have to disagree with Mr. Wallis on this one as well. I am not sure if calling Lou Dobbs out was the best way for christians to respond to this issue. That seemed a little childish to me.
I agree with Jim on many issues, but we differ greatly on this one. They are ILLEGAL aliens and I do not think that amnesty is the answer. We cannot reward those that have repeatedly defied the laws of this country. These people make it very hard for the immigrants that are trying to come to this country the right way.
This little fued between Jim Wallis and Lou Dobbs, which Mr. Wallis started, is not the way I want people to perceive christians. Jim, you are representing many people when you talk at a press conference so please act as Jesus would.
While I agree that it is important to show compassion for others, I also believe it is important to protect the sovereignty of our nation. Illegal aliens are not immigrants. They are breaking our law just by being in this country. I doubt that people who work in the hospitality, construction or landscaping industry find it too compassionate when they are expected to work for lower wages simply because illegals are willing to work cheaper and for fewer (or no) benefits. It is a fact that wages in all these fields have declined in recent years because of the influx of cheap labor. While I agree that our immigration laws need to be revised I think our first priority should be controlling our borders to insure the security of our nation. Amnesty should be off the table. It did not work the last time and it is completely unfair to the many people who have been trying to enter the country legally.
Romans 13 must be the most overly-cited passage in all of Scripture by people arguing against Christian nonviolence and compassion. It is misread (as it must be read in light of Romans 12, especially, but also Romans 14 and all other Scripture), but also mis-quoted, as people usually bust this Scripture out in a proof-texting fashion in order to make Christians who speak out against their own government feel bad or cowed. This isn't the message of Romans 13!
Since Lou Dobbs clearly hasn't read Romans very clearly, or Sojourners' statement of belief, I cannot take his opposition seriously. He is operating out of something other than the compassion of Jesus, whatever it may be. Jim, I don't think your tone was wrong or off-base: it is the choice we all must make about many different things. The constant question is, "Jesus, or ourselves?"
"I am one Christian who will not bow to the false god of America or sacrifice compassionate treatment of my neighbors--whether they be here legally or not--on its altar. My first citizenship is in the Kingdom of Christ, and thus my first obligations are there. Yes, I'm glad I live in the USA, but I refuse to make the circumstances of my birth into an idol." Don
Bravo, Don! Where can I get me some of that soap?
The Bible says that, on judgement day, we shall be gathered before God as nations, but judged according to our righteousness. Righteousness in how we saw and treated God in the least of the people.
"Illegal immigration has taken the place of slavery as a way for exploiting others. No one can object to access to this country through a legal process, but the flow of illegals across open borders is a great threat to our national security."
This is exactly right. Not only the exploitation of illegal migrant workers, but of legal migrant workers, and the poor.
I am a middle class, college educated, white dude. My job is not threatened by illegal immigration. In fact, I may well benefit from it. However, it is a moral disgrace to permit a class of people to circumvent the law, and punish those who scrap for a living in this country.
The Bush administration has abandoned its principles with regard to exhibiting compassion to the poor by kowtowing to powerful chamber of commerce interests. I'm a pro-business guy, but this is completely wrongheaded.
Apparently, the Dobbs/Wallis conflict drew some attention. A lot of good honest opinions both ways. May the dialogue continue,
For several years I have advocated for taking the borders down! There are three nations in North America - count them! Canada, US & Mexico. There are more than enough resources for all - if we could learn to share instead of protecting our "God Bless America" piece of the pie.
My theory is that citizens of Canada and Mexico, like US citizens perfer thier own home town and country, and if they could come and go freely and safely folks would do just that.
As for Lou Dobbs, this is just the kind of conversation that keeps him on the air.
Jim:
I personally find it distasteful and inappropriate to use language that pits "Jesus" against someone. . .as you did in your comments about Lou Dobbs. Disagreeing with him on principles of justice and the gospel would be quite adequate!
Shalom,
--D A
Has anyone in this generation ever heard of 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights'? It is readily available on the 'net. You all -- every one of you -- need to know something that clearly almost no one seems to know. This document is LAW.
Our Constitution says that any agreements or treaties we sign with other countries have the full force of law, the same as the Constitution.
Excerpted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is law that is binding on us, as an international treaty; we were largely instrumental in creating it, and we ratified it, so it is unquestionably binding:
> Article 15.
>
> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
>
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
> Article 25.
>
> (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
>
> (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
We seem to have completely forgotten that we signed onto this agreement. Do you understand what it is saying? People have a RIGHT to change their nationality! No qualifiers there. It's a basic human right.
But that's not all we seem to have forgotten -- or just been too ignorant to have ever known. These people pouring over the borders into our country are the descendants of the first occupants, the people we slaughtered and raped and cheated and stole from in the first place.
At the end of this period we grudgingly allowed some of them some land for reservations -- making sure it was the poorest, most useless land available.
Learn the truth about American history, and forget that garbage you were taught in school. Read Howard Zinn's book, 'A People's History of the United States' and 'Lies My Teacher Told Me', by James Loewen. Learn the truth about how we acquired what we have.
And then learn some recent history. Learn the truth about 'free trade' and 'globalization', about NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA. Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' by John Perkins and find out how we have put so many small countries in a stranglehold for the sake of enriching the already very rich and enslaving their people -- a process now going on right here in our country.
Learn about those wars going on in Central America back when Reagan was President -- and what he had to do with keeping them going, and how the CIA was dealing drugs to finance them.
When you learn what we have had to do with impoverishing those countries, including Mexico -- millions of small farmers in Mexico have lost their land due to our greed and, just as so many have here, lost their livelihoods; they come north in desperation.
And the truth is, we are all in the same boat, so it behooves us to get off our high horses and recognize our common humanity, our common needs, and that the only help for us all is to work together.
The United States government has been secretly, behind our backs, working with the Canadian and Mexican governments to create an entirely new entity -- the North American Union. The plan is to dissolve our national borders, abandon our constitutions, replace our current governmental structures with a corporate-type governing unit -- completely bypassing the will of the people and any semblance of democracy.
If you doubt it, Google it. As for that biblical passage about how all authority on earth is put there by God, I rather imagine Paul might have changed his mind at the end of his life, when his beloved Rome was getting set to execute him. Those who edited the New Testament had their own motivation for having people believe that. Read some real Bible scholars and learn all about it.
I had 25 Mexicans working for me, I wasn't looking for cheap labor, I was looking for employees who would show and work.
Then you may well be the exception to the rule but here in Central Kentucky and Southern Indiana (where I used to live) far too many employ undocumented workers because it does cost them a lot less, 1) they don't have to pay minimum wage, 2) employers they don't have to pay employment taxes, 3) they don't have to give benefits. This happens all the time here on the horse, and cattle farms, and in the tobacco fields. And quiet honestly its the only way that many of these farmers are able to make any profit at all. (mega-horse ranches excluded).
Recently a farm storage shed burned to the ground near us, it was used to house tractors and other farm equipment, it was also being used as living quarters for several undocumented workers, and it was not remodeled to serve as an apartment.
What we have here in our area is 1 hispanic male who speaks english and he works as a broker between the farmers and the workers, and the workers pay him a fee. We recently tried to begin teaching ESL classes (English as a Second Language) at our church and I asked the farmers in our church to gauge the interest with the workers. I received lots of support from the farmers because they wanted to be able to more easily communicate with the workers. Guess who the resistence came from........the broker. And with out fail each of the farmers came to me afterwards and said that they were not able to push the ESL issue because the broker would have steered good workers away from their farms. I still want to do the ESL but right now I'm stuck, because I can't reach the workers without the broker.
After reading through many of the post that oppose amnisty, let me just say this, nations are arbitrary, what exactly separates El Paso, Texas from Juarez; Eagle Pass, TX, and Piedras Negras, MX? The answer is a River, and some line that someone drew along that river that now says that the people who live north of the line are going to have more opportunities than the people who live south of the line. Let me tell you, as a husband and father of two if I lived south of the line, and did not speak english but I knew that going north of that line meant that I could send money to my family so that they could be taken care of, even if it meant that I might be arrested and sent back across the line. Well, hear this, I would cross that line, legally or illegally. And anyone who knows the abject poverty that so many live in down there and would still suggest that they wade through our bureaucracy and immigration laws, might do well to check their conscience.
Oh, and you can turn this into a security issue, if you want but that is just laughable, because I don't hear much talk about the Canadian border, and it is much easier to cross than the Mexican border, thousands of miles of the Canadian border are completely unprotected, and unmonitored. I wonder why we build a wall on one border and leave the other almost completely unattended? I wonder why that is? But, surely its not because we are trying to secure the borders, because that is laughable in view of the evidence. Not to mention that its a lot like shutting the barn door after the horse gets out. I'm afraid that the real reason we want a secure border with Mexico is because of race and economic status, two things that scripture warns us Christians about focusing on.
I have been inspired and disappointed numerous times by both Jim Wallis and Lou Dobbs. This is one of the times I am disappointed by both. It is my considered opinion that when we talk about the person rather than the issues, we are losing focus on God's plan and also his commandment to "love one another". Whether you choose Jesus or Lou Dobbs is not really a legitimate question, as I believe that Jesus does the choosing and my educated guess is that he has chosen both of you and while neither are perfect you are both forgiven! Enough already!
I am a middle class, college educated, white dude. My job is not threatened by illegal immigration. In fact, I may well benefit from it. However, it is a moral disgrace to permit a class of people to circumvent the law, and punish those who scrap for a living in this country. Kevin S.
You have made it clear, Kevin, that you prefer free markets over government regulated ones. I have more respect for somebody like Juristnaturalist who wants totally free markets in terms of both the exchange of goods and the flow of workers. Your are ideologically inconsistent. In order for a free market to really work, you need a free labor market. But you would rather just ship 'me back to where they came from. You are intellectually inconsistent, Kevin.
The border is an 'arbitrary line' as is the 'speed limit' as is the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' as is the name 'citizen' as is language.
We can reduce everything to meaninglessness if we desire.
The government, on behalf of 'the people' in submission to the Creator is responsible to create and administer justice. The government is a responsible steward; and in this case is steward of a border and citizenship. Our primary need now, in my mind, is not for a particular policy but for a clear bipartisan commitment to administer immigration with responsible justice.
Maybe I have been fooled. But in so many issues we debate; it looks to me that our interests are really very close. We just speak to different sides of the issue--not staking out positions that are really in opposition.
The problem I see, as often, is 537 elected officials in Washington DC who corporately refuse to act responsibly to steward a sane and just policy. Yes there are complexities. But really, it is not that hard!!!!!
If I read Lou Dobbs' interpretation correctly, he would have us saluting the British Union Jack and singing God Save the Queen. I guess he hasn't read the Declaration of Independence: governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. As the wife of an immigrant, I can only applaud the work of Sojourners on this subject.
It's about time the Christian community confronted Lou Dobbs about his hateful, exclusionary views on immigration. You notice that he hauled out that old "obey the authorities" chestnut to bolster his anti-Christian views. That one has come in handy on many occasions--supporting slavery, Jim Crow laws...the list is a long one. Christianity does not promote exclusion and walls to keep out the unwanted. We reach out to our neighbor in love, even if it means risking our comfortable lives.
Janchief
I think what disturbs Lou Dobbs and what makes him over-react is that the Catholic Church has declared that it will work, not just to change the laws, but to actually defy immigration laws.
Unfortunately, it gives the appearance that the Catholic Church has a thinly-veiled agenda of trying to boost its sagging membership and coffers by importing illegal aliens.
Should the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society be deserving of compassion, comfort, and our assistance? Of course.
If these people have broken our immigration laws, obtained the social security numbers of thousands of U.S. citizens and used these to their own advantage, without regard to the harm that they are causing to the people whose identity has been stolen, I believe that we should apply the concept that we should love the sinner, but not the sin.
We are all strangers in a strange land, but we are not all guilty of breaking U.S. law. Immigrants are welcome. "Illegal alien" is a term that means that the individuals have entered this country illegally. It would be applied to me if I entered another country without permission.
The conflation of true immigrants with the plight of illegal aliens only confuses people and does not help us address the problem. Illegal aliens will say, "No one is illegal", as if it is a personal judgment, when in reality the term refers to the legal standing of a person that has entered this country unlawfully, breaking immigration laws.
I would like to see Christians pursue an agenda of helping the illegal aliens in this country without encouraging them to break the law. I would also like to see Christians work to change laws that they disagree with, rather than just defying them.
As others have pointed out, any verse can be lifted out of the Bible and used properly or improperly to support a particular view-point. I have to give credit to Lou Dobb's choice of scripture. My scripture would be "Render unto Caesar...".
I was disturbed yesterday when Lou Dobbs, apparently in an attempt to tweak the nose of Catholic Church leaders, had Christopher Hichens on the show, promoting his book, "God is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything." I would feel much better if both sides of the debate avoided extremist rhetoric, and focused on finding a solution to the problem.
The Christian Church should hold itself to a higher ideal, and not use the tactics of the Bush Administration's false choices and appeal to emotions rather than reason. In the Bush White House, there is a Winner and a Loser on every issue, and they believe that they should "win" in everything that they do. Of course they ignore the fact that people on the opposite of an issue, as "losers", are sometimes harmed by this no-holds barred ideology of "winning".
"My theory is that citizens of Canada and Mexico, like US citizens prefer their own home town and country,"
As a Canadian I happily affirm that. As a descendant of people who fled the U.S. because they disagreed with the revolution that brought the nation into being (and there were very many) I find it interesting that those who use Romans 13 never apply it to the rebellion against England in the 18th century. Would Lou Dobbs(whoever he is)?
I marvel that no one ever brings up the fact that except for our indigenous peoples we are all immigrants (some, of course, at the forced hands of their owners). If the rules that we apply to immigrants today were applied to our ancestors when they made their journey here, most of them would have been sent back. If Louisiana had had more strict immigration laws many of the French people expelled out of my country by the English would have died homeless on ships. (Got a French last name?)Examine your own last name and investigate the horrors that led people to leave everything to find a welcome elsewhere. And now that we are here and settled in so nicely we want to say "this is our place and there's no room for foreigners"? Our ancestors were brave pioneers and today's immigrants, legal or not, are lazy leaches with no regard for the rule of law?
Very strange.
William:
"If these people have broken our immigration laws, obtained the social security numbers of thousands of U.S. citizens and used these to their own advantage, without regard to the harm that they are causing to the people whose identity has been stolen..."
Do you have evidence that this is happening? Yes, many use forged IDs to obtain jobs, etc. but stealing identities? Give us evidence to back this up.
Further, the only immigration law that the Catholic bishop in question said they would disobey was that unjust law proposed last year that would have made assisting undocumented immigrants in any way a crime (such as feeding them). I would disobey such a mean-sprited, unjust law myself.
And if we want to be less prejudicial in our terminology, let's stop using the terms "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien." Instead, let's use the INS's term and call them "undocumented."
Peace,
Mr. Holt,
What about Pres. Bush's stance on immigration reform do you consider "false choices and appeal to emotions rather than reason...a no-holds barred ideology of "winning".
I am not disputing. I don't know his actions very thoroughly. Just want to know what you refer to.
The most important element in this issue is the law and others definition of compassionate.
It is not healthy for our country to close their eyes to an obvious breaking of our laws. We do not want a system that picks and chooses which laws are to be inforced. My good friends from Poland returned to Poland with their two American born children because the law required it.
How have we failed so miserably in asking that the same law be applied to everyone. If you want to look at it politically - the money earned in this country is generally spent in this country supporting our economy. The third largest source of income for Mexico is money sent from the U.C. and being spent in Mexico.
One town recently fined employers for hiring ILLEGALS, raised the salary by $2.00 for americans and legal foreigners and the community has improved economically. I think it is imperative that we look at all of the factors in making this decision. We will then be doing God's will. Our brain was given for us to use and not over riden by emotions/good intentions. The two must be combined. Sara
Sara
"It is not healthy for our country to close their eyes to an obvious breaking of our laws. We do not want a system that picks and chooses which laws are to be inforced [sic]."
True. But when the laws in question cannot be enforced with equity--because economically desperate people who want to come here to work cannot do so legally--it's time to change the laws. We need laws that we CAN enforce. We need to manage this migration that we cannot stop with some kind of guest worker policy, unless and until the economies of Lat. Am. dramatically improve.
And in the course of reforming the laws, we need to do something about the 12 million or so who have been living here without documentation, some for many years, some with citizen spouses and/or children. What's the most compassionate, equitable, and practical thing we can do with them? I submit that some kind of provision that will allow them to stay is the only real solution.
"The third largest source of income for Mexico is money sent from the U.C. and being spent in Mexico."
That says a lot, doesn't it? But it's a better foreign aid system than when our government sends money to often corrupt officials who are lining their own pockets. At least the funds go to people who need them.
Later,
Are ID's used to obtain jobs forged or stolen?
Don--Is there an ethical or legal distinction here that I am missing?
I see no better illustration of the government's failure to steward the laws and immigration. The government knows the exact location of employers from whom they receive approximately 10,000,000 W2's with bad Soc Sec numbers. This is not some huge mystery. Social Security pulls in some $10 billion a year in payments from people who will never be eligible for benefits.
We need laws which allows people and businesses and government to function justly. Our government is not governing; which means our elected officials are not meeting their obligations.
This, to me is the call of Jim Wallis and Lou Dobbs. President Bush, Nancy Pelosi,........do your job.
regarding this use of Romans 13: "submission" is by no means the same thing as "obeying." the law of the world clearly stops, according to the arc of Scripture, when God's law contradicts it.
letjustice:
The distinction between a forged ID and a stolen ID should be obvious--identity theft causes serious and lasting harm to the person whose ID is stolen.
Who is really harmed by a *forged* ID, presuming it has the bearer's actual name on it and he/she isn't using it for some truly criminal purpose?
I think you and I are on the same page. We do need laws that will allow people and business to function justly. We need laws that won't force economic refugees to resort to buying a forged SS card or drivers license just to get a job.
Later,
Laws are supposed to protect. We value the law for this reason. Current immigration law is not doing what it was intended to do. It is not just because it is not enforced. It is because it is not enforcable.
Some employers are taking advantage, as those mentioned in previous threads. Many more are just employing people who want to work and this is the job pool available to them. Many employers, such as California Farmers, Landscapers in Pennsylvania, and resorts across the nation are understaffed and cannot find enough people to work.
The Laws must be changed. The only questions we should be asking on this blog is "In what way? How are we to do this so that we accept our responsibility for not changing the laws sooner? How do we do this and remain sane and humane people?"
The demand to reform these laws must become so strong that it over rides our legislator's fears and forces them to do the right thing.
If anyone deserves the term "illegal" it is those senators and congressmen who have failed us in this matter.
Lou Dobbs is just selling fear and laughing all the way to the bank.
He deserves every negative thing said about him. He deserve it from Christians because it is the truth.
Jim has been more than nice to poor old Lou.
Don I understand your forged vs stolen distinction. But the use of a Soc Sec number that is not one's own is a theft, it is illegal, and it is dishonest.
And yes, I find the entire situation full of dishonesty and unethical behavior. But I do not think we get to just solutions without an ethical clarity.
If we as Christians are not enthusiastic supporters of the law--we will have little enthusiasm for just laws.
can'twe:
Am I encouraging or endorsing lawbreaking? I don't think so! But if we cannot understand the level of desperation that drives people to do these kinds of things, we will likewise not have the clarity to devise workable solutions.
Peace,
Agree with you Wayne on demand for reform. I see no 'winners' in the present system. The varied parties have just calculated how to compropmise the system for their own ends. This is very bad use of the law. If lawmakers do not act, something atrocious will happen that will be followed by draconian measures.
President and Congress must act.
Dobbs has committed a mistake that often occurs with those not familiar with the scriptures. Where theologians try to draw the meaning out of a given text, the Greek term for this is exegesis. What Lou Dobbs did was eisegesis, which means to read one's own opinion into a given text.
I am so pleased that Jim and other religious leaders have taken the time to address this unholy policy. God's map of the world is not divided by black lines, it is us who have marked up the land like a side of beef.
I won't speak for you Don. I endorse lawbreaking. There are persons I know who have moved back and forth across the border. Their needs and circumstances, the incapacity for the government to accomodate what the society demands (business needs for labor), etc. lead me to support them in taking illegal steps.
To me, that is what our society has selected. All I am saying is that in a climate of such moral confusion, we will not add clarity and clear-headedness if we cannot be ethically clear.
Sorry Rev Wallis ;
In my view you've fallen from grace. you,ve joined the PAT ROBERTSON of single minded ,self serving ,stiff necked and blind. Yes I do consider myself a God living and fully depending on JESUS CHRIST AS MY LORD AND SAVIOR !
As far as I'm concerned you both spoke unwisely, with far less wisdom than I would expect.
What you don,t see that DOBB's is doing ,what most people won't .He is speaking for MILLIONS of citizens who are under paid ,no health insurance and a very dim future. H e is very critical of our VERY WELL COMPENSATED CONGRESS who are not doing any thing for the AMERICAN CITIZENS who are their paying salaries. He is not against immigants, as he said many many times. The key word is illegal!!!!
I,beleive you might look at Dobbs program differenty if you followed it more closely.
MAY WE ALL CONTINUE TO SEEK THE HOLY SPIRITS GUIDANCE ALWAYS
GRACE AND PEACE TO ALL
KENT
Re: Romans 13:
... where it is written: "Everyone 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. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
This is often quoted by right wing Christians to justify following Bush. The fact is, however, under the US Constitution, authority ultimately rests with We the People, not with the president, who is an elected public servant, nor with Congress, whose authority as Representatives derive from the citizens they represent. Bush is flouting the authority of the Constitution and of We the People, who are the sovereign ones- fulfilling Matthew 5: 3- "the meek shall inherit the earth"
In the name of the Prince of Peace,
Carol Wolman
Sven, the very first comment on this thread, says it all right here: "As Senator Obama wisely stated at the 2006 Pentecost conference, "(D)emocracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values." If we are to converse across sectarian lines, our motivations may stem from religiosity, but shouldn't our public discourse be steeped in reason, rather than trying to convince Congress to bend to scripture?"
Who is harmed by forged ID's?
I dunno, how bout everyone who has a legitimate ID? Or everyone who flies, drives, or does business that checks ID to confirm that the people they do business with is who they say they are.
In short, just about everyone.
Wolverine
Dobbs cites statistics of Protestants and Catholics who favor deporting aliens. Then, without any further statistics, claims there is a broad schism between Christians and their leaders on this issue. There are at least two problems with this line of thinking.
First, how can he be so sure that such a schism exists? Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think that the majority of Christian leaders are more in line with Dobbs on this one.
Second, there are a multitude of issues on which Christian leaders probably do not agree with their congregations. That fact alone does not make the leaders wrong. Their job is to help transform our hearts, minds and actions into that of Christ.
Finally, Dobbs seems to be addressing Christians as an outsider. In other words, he seems to be posturing as someone who is not a church member or Christian. If that's the case, it takes a lot of balls to interpret our scriptures for us.
Thanks anyway, but I'm much more inclined to hear Rev. Wallis' take on Romans 13.
"If given the choice on this issue between Jesus and Lou Dobbs, I choose my lord and savior, Jesus Christ."
--Can we all agree that lines such as these are too arrogant and obnoxious to be a part of civilized political debate? It sounds like something Jerry Falwell would say. Nauseating.
Jim,
I enjoy your daily comments from "A" Christians point of view regarding the interpretation of the Bible for daily living. And for most part on your interpretation of the Bible regarding our political process.
I also enjoy Lou Dobb's assessment and reporting of the daily news. I donot always agree with him editorially.
However, when the both of you begin to use single Bible verses to support your positions I suggest you stick to interpreting the Bible for daily living and stay out of politics. And I suggest that Dobbs stick to reporting the news as it happens and editorilizing without using the Bible as support.
"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Ephesians 4:29)
This message thread has been visited by a God's Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts. Click here for a detailed explanation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct:
http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp which includes:
Courtesy and Respect: You agree that you will be courteous to every Beliefnet member, even those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members. You agree not to engage in derogatory name-calling, including calling anyone evil, a liar, Satanic, demonic, antichrist, a Nazi, or other inflammatory comparisons.
Disruptive behavior: You agree not to disrupt or interfere with discussions, forums, or other community functions. Disruptive behavior may include creating a disproportionate number of posts or discussions to disrupt conversation; creating off-topic posts; making statements that are deliberately inflammatory; expanding a disagreement from one discussion to another; or any behavior that interferes with conversations or inhibits the ability of others to use and enjoy this website for its intended purposes.
Vulgarity: You agree not to display words, information, or images that are vulgar, obscene, graphically violent, graphically sexual, harm minors in any way, exploit images of children, or are otherwise objectionable.
Copying Content: Beliefnet discussions are intended for interactive conversation; members are encouraged to express their own ideas in their own words, not to parrot the words of others. You agree not to create posts that consist substantially of material copied from another source.
Help us keep the conversation civil and respectful by reporting inappropriate posts to: community@staff.beliefnet.com
I sent the following to Lou and provide to you for your thoughts.
Lou,
Be watchful of what you preach. Catholics were bared from political process in England during the rise of the Church of England in much of the 1600s and early 1700s based only on their religious affiliation. Why bar any faith based organization and its members from political process. The separation of church and state rhetoric sounds much like the charge of patriotic heresy to criticize the Iraq war. Founding fathers constructed government to prevent state control of faith practices. Founding fathers were obviously politically vocal with their rhetoric based in their spiritual beliefs. It is very dangerous to our civil liberties to bar individuals and leadership of faith from speaking openly about practical application of values and ethics preached from their Sunday Schools and pulpits. And certainly no different than active campaigning by any special interest group, or individual for candidates, legislative issues and funding priorities. Many by the way enjoy non-profit, tax free status. Am I weary of the religious right thumping their political drum? Sure I am, but that drum beat is really just a call to debate and dialogue that requires each of us to leave the comfort of the status quo to exercise our civil responsibilities. But please reconsider your tactics of using the old fear factor and stigma of separation of church of state to limit this group from the political process. If this had been done in 1776 and your Romans quote applied, the founding fathers would have largely been banished from the Continental Congress and this country would still hold the Queen as sovereign by divine right.
Jesse,
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it nauseating, but I have to say that Wallis decision to call out Dobbs at the press conference, without any explanation, just didn't work. I mean, are we supposed to be surprised that Wallis would pick Jesus over Dobbs?
Wolverine
Don asked:
"Do you have evidence that this is happening? Yes, many use forged IDs to obtain jobs, etc. but stealing identities? Give us evidence to back this up."
I first saw this on the mainstream media newscasts. They interviewed people who were identity theft victims. One memorable victim, who was U.S. citizen, and a woman, had many people using her social security number - all were illegal aliens. She had to spend many thousands of dollars to get the IRS to recognize that she was the true owner of the SS number. She also had ruined credit ratings, and difficulty on job interviews where they would do a background check and find out that she had a criminal record, even though she had never been in trouble with the law.
Here's the U.S. government article regarding the identity theft by illegal aliens, and a snippet of the article:
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsr...es/
061213dc.htm
"U.S. Uncovers Large-Scale Identity Theft Scheme Used By Illegal Aliens to Gain Employment at Nationwide Meat Processor
"Worksite enforcement investigation reveals that hundreds of U.S. citizens and lawful residents may have been victimized
"WASHINGTON, D.C. – Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Julie L. Myers, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras and Cache County (UT) Attorney N. George Daines today announced that approximately 1,282 persons have been arrested as part of an ongoing worksite enforcement investigation into immigration violations and a massive identity theft scheme that has victimized large numbers of U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. residents."
---
I hope this answers your question. You can search Google with the following: "identity theft" "illegal aliens" and you will turn up more articles.
The problem appears to be that there is much money to be made by brokers that are responsible for stealing and selling Social Security numbers and other identity information to illegal aliens trying to establish an identity for themselves in the U.S.
The illegal aliens are not stealing the identities. They are just purchasing the stolen identities from brokers who are taking advantage of their customers as well as their victims.
"Your are ideologically inconsistent. In order for a free market to really work, you need a free labor market."
By this argument, I am inconsistent if I oppose child labor. I am not in favor of anarchy. I don't see illegal labor as necessary for a free market.
"But you would rather just ship 'me back to where they came from. You are intellectually inconsistent, Kevin."
I would rather have an influx of legal immigrants. That isn't inconsistent. You are stretching here.
We need laws that won't force economic refugees to resort to buying a forged SS card or drivers license just to get a job.
Don
If we tax immigrants at a higher rate then there is less money going back to Mexico and less reason to come her to work. Immigrant taxes goes up ours goes down and if they need to get proper citizen status to keep more of their money then the work to get citizenship will improve, learning the history, language, etc.
Increased taxes could pay for checking illegal status.
Taxes are a great way to affect behavior, look at tax breaks for large corporations.
Wolverine,
I agree that it's not surprising that Wallis would choose Jesus over Dobbs. The cause of my nausea is really Wallis' implication that Jesus is on his side of the issue. This is the same thing he criticizes conservatives of doing.
I would hope that I would never end any political debate by declaring "I'm sorry, but I'll choose Jesus over you." Such rhetoric politicizes the gospel and is insulting to your opponent.
I find no dichotomy between strict enforcement of immigration laws and treating persons with dinigity and respect.
As a country, the U.S. has the right to control it's border and determine whom it wants to allow to enter the country.
For the persons whom the U.S determines do not have the right to be in the U.S. the U.S. authorities can treat with dignity respect.
Treating people with dignity and respect is done at the invidual level. Immigration policy is not based upon the invididual, but rather at the collective level.
A civil society requires social order and the U.S.'s current policies on immigration issues is leading away from a civil society to immigration anarchy. The current policies must be changed.
But if we cannot understand the level of desperation that drives people to do these kinds of things, we will likewise not have the clarity to devise workable solutions.
Don
Don you are a good soul.
I simply don't believe in associating our strategies for changing and improving the immigration system with Jesus.
If Lou Dobbs is not inline with our calls for changes, it is not necessarily about whether he is inline with Jesus.
It's a rhetorically dangerous approach.
I myself would like the US to help establish an Alaska Permanent-fund-like yearly income transfer for Mexicans, possibly from oil-wealth that we took from their country many years ago.
This will reduce the demand for them to immigrate to the US. We can also at the same time mandate that they share their oil wealth better and with better fire walls against public and private corruption.
Now, if Jim and Sojo's doesn't get on the (rather small at this point) bandwagon that I am on, am I going to accuse them of not following Jesus? Maybe we have diffs on what is and isn't feasible for reforms?
Anyways, I always want to both critique and defend Wallis, but I fear his statement wrt Dobbs may have gone too far...
dlw
Identity theft is an on going concern. Just as driving without a license or insurance is a big problem.
Let see, what answers could we possibly come up with?
I know! Lets deny all undocumented workers drivers licenses. Refuse to allow them any way to become legal. Tell them if they leave their families here, or take them back to whatever dump they lived in before they came here, we will forgive them for being here and carrying our luggage and cleaning our bathrooms.
Yeah that oughta work! Good idea!
I think we should market a new wrist band. "ICJOLD" which of course stands for "I Choose Jesus Over Lou Dobbs" and then just to be fair we could make one with "CAUTOLD" "Christians Against Unfair Treatment of Lou Dobbs" We'll clean up!
I agree wayne
p
Sven said, in the very first combox response:
"As Senator Obama wisely stated at the 2006 Pentecost conference, "(D)emocracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values." If we are to converse across sectarian lines, our motivations may stem from religiosity, but shouldn't our public discourse be steeped in reason, rather than trying to convince Congress to bend to scripture?"
I think, Sven, you have put your finger on one of the things that really bothers me about Wallis's approach, and I also agree with what Barack Obama is saying here.
Religion may inform an individual's attitudes towards particular social issues, but when it comes to persuading one's fellow citizens who may not share the same religious convictions, "proof texting" from scripture is not enough.
I have to give credit to Lou Dobb's choice of scripture. My scripture would be "Render unto Caesar...".
The only problem here is that WE are Caesar; remember that whole "of the people, by the people, for the people thing....well guess what as Caesar we choose which laws remain, which one's get changed and which ones get thrown out all together. So ok you want to quote it fine, Render unto Caesar...now tell me what that really looks like in our context and not in a context where we are governed by a dictator, but in a context where WE are the lawmakers, or at the very least where we choose the lawmakers. Something tells me that this pet verse looses some of its preceived punch when it has to stand up to our own personal responsibility and we can no longer pass the buck to some disembodied "government" that is somehow distant from us. We decide, and since we are called to be imitators of God with all of our lives, then my guess is that as we are Rendering unto Caesar we had better be rendering those same things unto God.
Take responsibility, no more passing the buck, we will succeed or fail as a nation because of OUR choices, and our actions. Presidents aren't the only one's who are judged by future generations you know. Personally, I want to be seen as a generation who cared for those whom support much of our nation.
"If given the choice on this issue between Jesus and Lou Dobbs, I choose my lord and savior, Jesus Christ."
--Can we all agree that lines such as these are too arrogant and obnoxious to be a part of civilized political debate? It sounds like something Jerry Falwell would say. Nauseating.
Actually, I think it was a brilliant move, becuase what would have otherwise been an easily ignored press conference, has all the sudden gotten a lot of attention, sure they want to focus in on the sound bite but in doing so they have to discuss the issue. Tacky? Maybe, but it sure did get us talking about the issue, did it not?
But if we cannot understand the level of desperation that drives people to do these kinds of things, we will likewise not have the clarity to devise workable solutions.
Amen! My step-father's brother; walked, hitched, jumped trains, to make his way from the slums of Honduras to the Mexico border. It literally took him weeks, when he got there he was basically held captive by the "coyotes" until my mother and her husband could bring the $1,000 from Florida to Houston to pay the "crossing fees". If they did not pay, the "coyotes" would have taken him into the desert and left him, the implication was that he would not be alive when they did so.
I wonder how many of us would have gone through what he went through not to work as a CEO of a fortune 500 company, but instead to just be able to work as a migrant worker at farms and orchards, in order to send money back to his family in Honduras.
Religion may inform an individual's attitudes towards particular social issues, but when it comes to persuading one's fellow citizens who may not share the same religious convictions, "proof texting" from scripture is not enough.
Proof texting?! So are you trying to say then that care for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized is not a major theme throughout the Biblical narrative? How about abuse of cheap labor? I hardly think that Wallis was "proof texting" instead he quoted a passage that is representative of a MAJOR Biblical theme, found most notably in the Egyptian Captivity/Exodus account. Where a nation was built on the backs of a foreign people.
Lou Dobbs, Bill "O'really" and others like them have used Romans 13 etc. for proof texting many times before this press conference. They all talk about the "rule of law." never admitting that this idea springs from the concept that all people are due the rights we enjoy because they come from God, not our legislators. If they can use God's Word, or religion in general why can't Jim?
I understand Barack Obama's thoughts an