1

Joe,

You probably already know this but I thought i'd make sure it was clear.

I began working for the INS in 1996 as an Immigration Inspector. In March of 2003 they abolished the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and put the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Inspectors, Immigration Inspectors and Agriculture Officers all together in the new CBP (Customs and Border Protection).

So, the INS used to be in the DOJ (Department of Justice) and the new CBP is in the DHS (Department of Homeland Security). Too many acronyms to remember!!

Anyway, just wanted to make sure everyone knew after reading the above that there is no more INS. The INS has been split into three areas. My job went to CBP, interior enforcement agents like Deportation Officers went to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the folks who give out the green cards (They are called Adjudication Officers) went to CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services).

It really is the best thing that could have happened for us officers on the border.

Before, when we were under the INS, we worked together with Adjudication officers. Well, the role of an adjudication officer was to give out legal documents to aliens applying for immigrant services.

My job was to keep out those without documents.

We always ran into the trouble of one hand helping out the aliens and the other hand trying to keep them out and at the head were all the same folks. Most of whom wanted to open the doors to anyone wanting to come in.

Alright, i'm sure i've gone far enough off topic. Glad to see you talking about immigration Joe, its my specialty after all.

2

The agency not only admits that it issues the ITINS to illegal aliens but that, “The IRS provides disclosure protection to illegal alien applicants.” Not only does the IRS turn a blind eye to illegal immigration--providing, of course, they pay their taxes--they don’t bother to report this information to other federal agencies as Congress requires them to do.

The law requires you to pay taxes, even if you are an illegal immigrant. Likewise the Bill of Rights provides that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. It seems to me that the IRS is correct in not sharing ITINS info with immigration officials. If it did then illegals would have a valid argument that they were being forced into self-incrimination.

On a practical level the good should not be the enemy of the perfect. It's better that people operate in the grey market of tax id numbers but illegal immigration status than the black market of being totally underground.

3

Ah, so the "Evangelical Outpost" speaks out on "illegal immigration."

Is there a reference to Leviticus 19:33-34?

Ah, ....no.

Here's what some Christians have actually been doing in this area; they've not been serving two masters.

4

While giving a speech earlier this week, Nevada Senator Harry Reid outlined his view on illegal immigration: “What we need is a path to legalization, no amnesty, but make sure people have the ability to change their status if they do certain things, learn English, stay out of trouble, pay taxes, get a job.”

I've been thinking about it and it seems to me a good idea would be to offer legal status to any illegal who provides a blanket fee of $30,000.

The fee or fine would serve two useful purposes:

1. It would be fair to those who 'waited their turn' legally.

2. The illegals who would avail themselves to that opportunity would be:

a. Hard workers who could raise the money on their own.
b. Well respected and trusted by friends and family who would loan it to them (or gift it to them) on their behalf.
c. At least have a good enough credit score and reputation for a bank or lending institution to be willing to take the risk of loaning it to them.

Of course this would raise a nice little sum of money at a time when we are running serious deficits. If 1 million took advantage of it that would raise $30 billion plus add some of the best of the crop of illegals to our legitimate labor force.

I don't know if it is still around but there was once a program like this that offered citizenship to anyone who was willing to come to the US with $1M to invest and able to create I think 10 jobs here.

5

The IRS is well known for turning a blind eye to illegal activity - as long as they are paid. Witness Heidi Fleiss.

6

Didn't Heidi Fleiss go to jail?

7

Boonton,
"Citizenship for the rich?" There's a nice mantra for the Left. Personally, I would just like to have some appreciation and loyalty shown by assimilating as an American as opposed to more hyphenated-Americans. This would include learning the language, the Constitution, and pledging "allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands." How radical. Unforunately. we are lucky if our own politicians pass this simple muster.

8

"Didn't Heidi Fleiss go to jail?"

Boonton,
You are missing the point. Fleiss got in trouble for not paying the IRS, not the illegal activity of running a prostitution ring. If the IRS were paid they would have turned a blind eye to the source of her income.

9

Jeff,

So-called "hyphenated-Americans" have just as much to do with how the larger culture reacts to those who are different as it does to those who wish to retain some older identity. You don't think the Irish just dropped in, assimilated perfectly, and were never identified as Irish, do you? But then if you're Irish-American on St. Patrick's day, that's just cute, right?

We're in the midst of a new wave of immigration from countries that still strike (white people) as unusual. That, I think, is why there is such an emphasis on assimilation. The Irish may have been different, but at least they were white. As a latino myself, when I hear people bitch and moan about hyphenated-Americans, I don't hear a call for more assimilation, I hear a call for more people to be white. Barring that, I get the sense that it means we should all at least act white.

10

Marco,
"Act white"? Please define. How does one "act white" or "act black" or "act" as any other race? You seem to have the typical RACIST atitude of those on the Left. Ideology has nothing to do with race and vice-versa. So-called "race" is something you either are or not as a state of being. But if someone on the Left calls Condi Rice "Aunt Jemima" or makes jokes about her eating watermelon because her ideology does not conform to the extremist expectation of what her race "should be" we are somehow expected to believe that is not racist.

I don't really know where you are coming from - I'm just trying to understand. The phrase "act white" is a red flag.

11

my former husband worked for the IRS for nearly 25 years and fully supported the IRS not sharing tax information of anybody with anybody.

think about it: how much leeway do you want to give the IRS in sharing personal information with other agencies?

What door do you want to open?

Which government agency do you want to receive your personal information?

12

Jeff,

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are racist. Calm down, and perhaps we can have a conversation.

Acting white, for me, just means acting in conformity with our dominant culture, which currently reflects this nation's anglo-american ethnic tradition. Acting white is an accent that one possesses when one speaks. It's what you wear to a business meeting. It's the music you listen to when you are at home. It's what you consider your immediate family to be. And, sometimes, it's interacting with our culture without realizing that there is tremendous privilege in being white in the U.S., even today. I could, of course, go on.

By stating that there is a way to act "white" I was simply commenting on diversity in this country and the reality of ethnic differences. Which is a good thing! I am a Christian, and I believe that diversity is a bibilical idea. I think if you check Revelations, God is pleased with the fact that someday every tongue, tribe, and nation will join together to worship him.

I was NOT employing negative stereotypes. I am no more in favor of talking about white people driving Hummers to the country club than I am about blacks eating watermelon.

My only point is that assimilation is tricky. What are we becoming? I am wary of using assimilation as a hammer which we use to bludgeon new Americans into a bland and useless unity. And I am very skeptical of much of the rancor over immigration. It honestly strikes me as xenophobic and overly hostile. Yes, Latinos are different. We speak Spanish. We are from countries many people are not familiar with. But we are most definitely here to stay. And that's the way it should be. This is the story of our country.

13

Recently I've been reading about the US-Mexican War (1846-1848). Turns out our generals and their armies were so successful that we drove all the way to Mexico City very quickly — apparently to everyone's surprise — and that created a good deal of concern back in Washington where one faction wanted to annex all of Mexico while another wanted only the northern, sparsely populated parts. This northern-parts-only faction didn't want the rest of Mexico because of the large number of people there with darker skin color. They were the same people who at that time supported slavery and they won the day on this decision.

Now, 160 years later, the issue of skin color and large numbers of Mexicans becoming Americans has returned. What's different is that Mexican-Americans have a lot of political clout within the USA, witness the recent and on-going demonstrations and the reaction of our representives in Washington.

To be clear there are two different issues:

(1) illegal immigration
(2) skin color, or more broadly, worries about people who don't look or act like white Americans

It's folly, though, to think that (2) isn't a major factor today just as much as it was a century and a half ago. Today's problems are also just as much about resources as in the past. In 1846 we wanted land, the material resources on and under that land, and a sea port on the Pacific. In 2006, we want cheap labor. Some of the ideas floating around are to obtain that cheap labor without offering citizenship in exchange in which case we'd be just like the United Arab Emirates.

14

Unfortunately it seems that race has to be brought up in EVERY issue. However, I fail to see why it has to be relevant in discussions of ILLEGAL immigration.

Could someone explain to me the logic behind breaking the law to enter a country and then demanding to be (1) made a citizen, (2) given full rights, privileges, and social benefits, (3) not be treated as a law-breaker, (4) be welcomed with open arms?

What country on the planet allows this, except the US?

Given the immigration laws in Mexico I am particularly outraged over the rhetoric of the Mexican government vis a vis our immigration laws. HYPOCRISY doesn't even begin to describe it.

15

Marco, speaking as a "white" American, my concern is not color, and not even culture, but something else. My concern is that people who come to this country should be "Americans". I do not want a little "Mexico" with it's attitudes of a paternalistic government, a macho attitude toward others, like women, for example, or a tolerence of mordida as it is practiced in Mexico. I also like the idea that they have in investment in this country and try to build value. Spanish surname? Don't care. Hispanic accent or language mastery? Don't care. Brown skin? Don't care.

I have the same concerns for the Cuban communities in Florida that are more interested in being Cuban than American. That doesn't mean act "White". It does mean that these folks need to speak English and accept our laws,etc.

Unfortunately, for this example, both are Hispanic, brown, etc., so an assumption of racism toward Hispanics might be assumed. That is not the intent of the post. I just don't know of another foreign group that have made the same decision as the Cubans.

Boonton, $30,000 is a lot of money. It takes about $10,000 (or so I'm told) to get into America now. This information came from a legal who would like to bring his family here. I think that most Mexicans who want in and have the $10,000 in fees would already pay it. $30,000 just puts it out of reach.

I agree that your plan would get us the cream of the crop, but I think we are already getting the cream of the crop. The sacrifice, danger, difficulty in assimilation, hard work, language barriers, so on and so on and so one, takes a dedicated individual to achieve, whether legal or not. Long term, these are pretty good folks.

I would like to see a policy that controls the border but doesn't act like Mexicans are Palestinian terrorists. They are just folks trying to better themselves, and taking advantage of our lax policies to do it.

Boonton and Ellen, constitutional guarantees do not automatically apply to aliens, legal or not. The issue was not established in the constitution, so it is subject to change. Actually, I thought the SCOTUS decided that aliens had American rights. As such, it applies only as long as SCOTUS decides it applies. Which is the problem with all SCOTUS decisions, of course.

I have difficulty automatically transferring all
American rights to aliens just because. I have a special rash for granting those rights to illegal aliens. Sure, it's up for debate, but I think most folks have the same reservations. If that applies to income tax filings, etc., so be it.

A final thought: as Joe pointed out, employers are required to check for employment eligibility. Apparently they are not, to the tune of about 12 million illegals. If you really want to control illegals, make the jobs go away. Control the market at the source: jobs. Make a serious effort to police employers, enforce fines for breaking the law, and those employers will not hire illegals. The illegals will go home. Put this together with meaningful border control and a workable guest worker program, and a lot of problems go away.

16

"illegal aliens"

I have a lot of trouble with the issue of calling them illegal. If I were a Mexican and I needed to get to the U.S. to feed my family, I would not hesitate. It's not like it is easy to get here legally. Wait to get here legally? How long? No way, I'm on my way now!

They have done no wrong except to try to support their love ones and to look for and have an opportunity to thrive.

17

I hold what might be considered a strange mixture of views on immigration. First, I believe we should greatly tighten controls on borders to prevent illegal immigration. Second, I believe we should let in every person who wants to immigrate here permanently or work here temporarily, excepting terrorists and other elements who might be criminally dangerous.

I am a firm believer in free enterprise and free trade. Isn't free immigration simply a logical extension of the free movement of goods, services and people? Why right do those of us fortunate enough to be born Americans have to exclude someone unfortunate enough to be born in Haiti? After all, the vast majority of us white Americans are descendants of people who immigrated here when there were no restrictions on immigration (as long as you were white).

For those who are Christians, imagine the following addition to Matthew 24:

"I was desperate for a job to feed my family and you deported me." Would Jesus say that to the sheep or the goats?

I don't see too many evangelicals seriously wrestling with the question of what Jesus would do about illegal immigration. Honestly, do you see him siding with the poor illegal immigrants or with those wnating to kick them out?

18

Scott,

Honestly, I'm a bit worried about your post. You say that this isn't about culture, it's about being an American. Then you decry machismo in the Latino culture.

You do want cultural changes to occur in the Latino culture. And you want this, apparently, because you think that the anglo culture in the United States is better? I believe this to be folly.

Do we not have blindspots of our own? Are there not things we can learn from other cultures? Whatever happened to the virtues of humility and compassion?

If you want a sobering examination of our own glorious culture, I suggest you read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's address to Harvard University. We need more of that kind of humility and soul searching.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

19

"Citizenship for the rich?" There's a nice mantra for the Left. Personally, I would just like to have some appreciation and loyalty shown by assimilating as an American as opposed to more hyphenated-Americans. This would include learning the language, the Constitution, and pledging "allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands." How radical. Unforunately. we are lucky if our own politicians pass this simple muster.

I didn't say citizenship but simply an end to their illegal status so they could live and work in the US legally and I don't think it would be only for the rich. $30,000 is a lot of money but it is not an impossible debt to handle for even people who work at the low end of the scale. People often manage to get up that amount of money to buy cars, pay for education or down payments on homes.

As for your hostility towards hyphens, I think you are pushing for gov't getting involved in 'cultural management' without realizing how distasteful that will end up being. The person who does not learn to speak English in the US is mostly harming himself. Yes I know you can probably enjoy a few TV stations and there are some neighborhoods where you could do quite a bit of business but seriously, you're only hurting yourself.

As for pledging allegiance to the flag, I wouldn't abolish that as part of our citizenship requirements.

Scott:

Boonton, $30,000 is a lot of money. It takes about $10,000 (or so I'm told) to get into America now. This information came from a legal who would like to bring his family here. I think that most Mexicans who want in and have the $10,000 in fees would already pay it. $30,000 just puts it out of reach.

You're forgetting that friends, family and even lending institutions could loan them the money. I think coming up with $10,000 in Mexico is harder than coming up with $30K here. I think it provides a path to legalization for people here that is not as red tape filled as other proposals while at the same time is fair to those who are following the law.

Boonton and Ellen, constitutional guarantees do not automatically apply to aliens, legal or not. The issue was not established in the constitution, so it is subject to change. Actually, I thought the SCOTUS decided that aliens had American rights. As such, it applies only as long as SCOTUS decides it applies. Which is the problem with all SCOTUS decisions, of course.

You may or may not be right. The 14th amendment is pretty clear that it applies to all persons without regard to citizenship. So legally I suppose it is a bit of a grey zone. In reality, though, if the IRS started working with immigration to deport people who honestly report their taxes the only thing that would accomplish is having every illegal with half a brain simply stop reporting their taxes and work under the table. That's bad on numerous fronts because it reduces revenue to the gov't while increasing the size of the black market economy.

For the same reason schools, police and hospitals don't report illegals as a matter of policies. Doing so would simply cause illegals to keep kids out of schools, not report crimes to police and avoid hospitals if they are sick. A receipe that would result in huge social and public health problems while accomplishing nothing to reduce illegal immigration.

Jeff:
You are missing the point. Fleiss got in trouble for not paying the IRS, not the illegal activity of running a prostitution ring. If the IRS were paid they would have turned a blind eye to the source of her income.

Most likely because it was easier to prove she had income that she didn't pay taxes on than to prove she obtained that income through illegal activity. Two different crimes but self-incrimination still holds. If Fleiss had paid taxes and written 'illegal brothel manager' as her occupation the IRS still couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to share that with other law enforcement authoritites.

Andy:
This northern-parts-only faction didn't want the rest of Mexico because of the large number of people there with darker skin color. They were the same people who at that time supported slavery and they won the day on this decision.

My impression was that the South generally wanted the US to expand southward. Their thinking was that new Southern states would more likely than not be pro-slavery.

20

I have difficulty automatically transferring all
American rights to aliens just because.,,

In talking about the IRS and its responsibility to share information with other agencies, you have to ask:

Is the job of the IRS to make its own policies, or to follow the law that congress makes for it?

If the IRS is following privacy laws that have been made for it by congress, we should be lobbying the congress to make a law that makes it legal for the IRS to disclose confidential information.

21

A final thought: as Joe pointed out, employers are required to check for employment eligibility. Apparently they are not, to the tune of about 12 million illegals. If you really want to control illegals, make the jobs go away. Control the market at the source: jobs. Make a serious effort to police employers, enforce fines for breaking the law, and those employers will not hire illegals. The illegals will go home. Put this together with meaningful border control and a workable guest worker program, and a lot of problems go away.

Yes yes and if we really wanted to go back to the moon we could build a skyscraper out of bubblegum that would cover half of the earth at its base but reach the moon. What you're describing here carries with it a huge cost in massive gov't regulation of very small business. Many small businesses that employ people at this level are little more than individual proprieterships. One of the US's great advantages is that our labor markets are very flexible and our small businesses have little regulation to contend with (of course every small business owner feels like he is up to his neck but it could be a lot worse).

What you're essentially talking about is stamping out the possibility of any 'under the table' jobs in the US. That would be a pretty scarey US to live in IMO....a lot scarier than just having a 'little Mexico' in Paterson NJ as there once was a 'little Italy'.

Honestly, I'm a bit worried about your post. You say that this isn't about culture, it's about being an American. Then you decry machismo in the Latino culture.

This is, of course, just nonsense. What happens if white kids start adopting Latino culture 'cause they find it cool as they do hip-hop and rap culture? What are you going to do then? This perspective comes from a misplaced sense of entitlement. You have no entitlement to have culture managed by the gov't on your behalf. You're entitled to express your culture and others are free to adopt it if they find it appealing but that is all.

22

An addendum. For what it's worth, I lived in Brazil for ten years. Brazilians have a great love and admiration for Americans, though not always for our government. Contrary to what most Americans might believe, the vast majority of Brazilians do not want to live in the United States. We seem to have this conceit that we are the best nation in the world and that the secret dream of everyone in the world is to live here. Not so.

The not-so-secret dream of most people in the world is to have a decent life. They want clean water, good food, a nice house, friends and family close by (ok, maybe the in-laws shouldn't be too close by), opportunities for education and entertainment. The overwhelming majority of people would like to enjoy all of those things in the land of their birth. Most Brazilians I've met would like to visit Disneyworld, New York, Las Vegas, but they want to live in Brazil. They love their country and want it to be as economically successful as the US and Europe.

One result of a truly open immigration policy in the US might be a serious investment of US capital and know-how in helping the poor countries of the world advance economically and politically. Maybe we would drop our mindless farm subsidy programs that do so much harm to sugar growing countries in Caribbean and cotton growing countries in Africa.

23

"My impression was that the South generally wanted the US to expand southward. Their thinking was that new Southern states would more likely than not be pro-slavery."

One of the few things that Southerners and Northerners agreed on was that the US was and always should be a white man's country. Many Northerners (Abraham Lincoln, Henry David Thoreu) opposed the annexation of Texas and consequent Mexican War as both unjust and a prelude to the exapnsion of slavery. Very few Southerners wanted to annex all of Mexico. They just wanted the northern parts that were largely uninhabited or partially inhabited by Anglos. Almost all Americans at the time (including probably any blacks who knew what was happening) agreed that Hispanics shoudl stay out of the US.

24

Jeff Blogworthy:
Personally, I would just like to have some appreciation and loyalty shown by assimilating as an American as opposed to more hyphenated-Americans. This would include learning the language, the Constitution, and pledging "allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands." How radical. Unforunately. we are lucky if our own politicians pass this simple muster.

Why do you hate America? In America we have freedom of speech. That means speech in any language. Don't like people speaking in languages that you can't understand? Learn a foreign language.

As far as "pledging allegiance to a flag," we do that as a condition of citizenship (although I have a problem with the wording therein). Your langauge of course shows your lack of knowledge of the pledge: it's done not to a "nation," but to a republic - a particular government. (That's my problem with the pledge.)

So evidently you're unaware of both the Constitution and the pledge.

BTW, I see nobody's touched Leviticus 19:33-34 with even a 10 foot pole:

33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Bryan K Mills:
Could someone explain to me the logic behind breaking the law to enter a country and then demanding to be (1) made a citizen, (2) given full rights, privileges, and social benefits, (3) not be treated as a law-breaker, (4) be welcomed with open arms?

This remedies a convenient fiction, and doesn't break up families. Why are you against families?

My overall remedy, including the above, would include vastly increasing the number of legal immigrants - eliminating entirely caps on highly educated workers- and making it a felony to hire an illegal or anyone at less than the (substantially increased and inflation indexed) minimum wage.

25

"This remedies a convenient fiction, and doesn't break up families. Why are you against families?"

What does this mean?

I have no interest in mistreating people. I have interest in maintaining a nation of laws. I have interest in LEGAL immigration. I have no interest in rewarding people for breaking the law.

I suppose my reaction to the current protests is similar to my reaction from the Katrina fallout. Whatever happened to gratitude? "Thank you for not arresting me and mistreating me like my country would do to you were our roles reversed." "Thank you Mr. Taxpayer for spending your money on me." "Thank you America for this opportunity."

Instead I see angry, arrogant, pious rhetoric DEMANDING rights to which people are not entitled. I see "The Race" stating openly that their objective is to reconquer the southwest. I hear the President of Mexico lecturing us on how we'd better not criticize his citizens for violating our sovereignty.

The world has gone insane.

26

Mumon-
New Testament. Old Testament. Learn the difference & stop criticizing Christians for not acting like Jews.

27

Terry:

So can we assume then that you don't buy into the "Leviticus" argument against gays?

Bryan K. Mills:

I have no interest in mistreating people. I have interest in maintaining a nation of laws. I have interest in LEGAL immigration. I have no interest in rewarding people for breaking the law.

According to the Constitution, people born in the United States are US citizens.

I for one, think the courts ruled wrongly by denying aliens, illegal or otherwise, the same rights and freedoms US citizens exercise- it is the classic example of the hypocrisy of "strict constructionists" or "original intent" advocates.

So, yeah, IMO they do indeed have rights.

I like liberty.

I think everyone should have it.

28

You still didn't answer my question.

By what principle do lawbreakers get to shake their fist and make demands?

I like liberty as well. But liberty cannot survive lawlessness. WHEN the amnesty bill passes I think thieves and murderers should sue the government under the equal protection clause. "Why are you punishing me and not them?" (Please recognize that last bit as hyperbole)

29

BTW, I see nobody's touched Leviticus 19:33-34 with even a 10 foot pole:
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

I'm all for treating the alien as one of our native-born. Our "native-born" go to jail when they break the law....

Is there some problem with people mistreating legal aliens that I haven't heard about? I'm not suggesting mistreating even the illegals, but if your definition of "mistreat" = "ask that they kindly follow the law", well...you might see why I mistrust your hermeneutics.

30

You can assume anything you want, Mumon. You seem to assume a lot of things about what you have to believe if you are a Christian.
You do understand that Leviticus deals with the founding of the priestly cast of the ancient Hebrews, don't you? Do you know the place of exegesis in Christian Biblical study? I hope you didn't just search through an electronic version of the Bible until you found a verse or two that you thought supported your argument.
What would be your take if Joe wrote a post that claimed that Buddists who didn't believe in reincarnation weren't real Buddists?

31

Terry:

You can assume anything you want, Mumon. You seem to assume a lot of things about what you have to believe if you are a Christian.

Having, like many people, having once been a Christian, I know very well indeed what one has to claim to believe if one wants to be thought of as claiming to be a Christian, and I can only attribute your statement here to a lack of knowledge of former Christians.

You do understand that Leviticus deals with the founding of the priestly cast of the ancient Hebrews, don't you?

Not entirely. You understand that don't you?

Do you know the place of exegesis in Christian Biblical study?

Ah, yes you mean the deconstruction of the original meaning of the text, as provided by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, don't you? Yes, I know lots of "bible-believing" Christians are really "cafeteria-bible believing" Christians- and your attempt to evade the very, very plain meaning of Leviticus on this proves my point.

What would be your take if Joe wrote a post that claimed that Buddists who didn't believe in reincarnation weren't real Buddists?

What if he did? I would set him straight. But I've actually done nothing of the sort.

J.J:

. Our "native-born" go to jail when they break the law....

Ken Lay... Scooter Libby... George W. Bush...

Bryan K. Mills:

By what principle do lawbreakers get to shake their fist and make demands?

Well, first of all, not all those demonstrating are, in fact illegals. And secondly, it's kind of like the principle that when you owe the bank $10 Billion dollars and can't pay it, it's the bank that has the problem and not you.

32

So, Terry, what do you think Jesus would do or say about illegal immigration? And don't give me some trivial answer that merely aligns with what you already think (render to Caesar). Honestly - think about the spirit of Jesus' teachings. Think about his compassion for the outcast, the downtrodden, the poor, the hungry, the homeless. Imagine that some desert Bedouins had straggled into Israel. Can you honestly imagine Jesus insisting that they be kicked out?

33

ex-preacher:

I would take as a starting point Jesus' words to the lepers, and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and Matthew 25: 34-40 as starting points.

Of course, that would involve, you know, doing what Jesus did.

34

Ex-preacher-
What I believe Jesus would say about illegal immigration isn't anywhere close to the point. But I guess that if you think putting words into the mouth of the deity is an enjoyable pastime that might explain why you are an ex-preacher.

35

"when you owe the bank $10 Billion dollars and can't pay it, it's the bank that has the problem and not you."

You're right. The bank just gives up and doesn't pursue any form of action against people that owe it large sums of money.

People who declare bankruptcy usually suffer some level of inconvenience at the very least.

Full citizenship for lawbreakers... where's the inconvenience in that? We are rewarding lawless behavior (and encouraging more of it).

36

So, Terry, what do you think Jesus would do or say about illegal immigration? And don't give me some trivial answer that merely aligns with what you already think (render to Caesar). Honestly - think about the spirit of Jesus' teachings. Think about his compassion for the outcast, the downtrodden, the poor, the hungry, the homeless. Imagine that some desert Bedouins had straggled into Israel. Can you honestly imagine Jesus insisting that they be kicked out?

First render unto Ceasar is not a trivial response. Christianity believes that the state has a duty to promote order, and protect it's citizens. As long as the state is not committing immoral acts (for example, sending people to gas chambers), Christians have an obligation to support the government within Christian morality. So, is a gov't policy of sending back (we sent back 200K last year alone) illegal aliens immoral? No, it isn't.

It's easy to say that we are treating the poor and downtrodden poorly, but how are we treating them poorly? They are here illegally. Is it fair to those who wait patiently and follow the law? Or do you think that breaking the law is fine and should be rewarded?

Second, is it the government's responsibility to allow anyone in who wants to enter the country? What if we just opened our doors and allowed anyone in, after background checks, into the country? Let's assume that 100 million people came to the country over the next decade. That's not unrealistic. Suddenly 1 out of every 4 people is a recent immigrant. Where do we put everyone? What about the chaos of several different languages and cultures? How do we assimilate that mass of humanity or is more likely the case, will we end up a Balkanized tower of Babel? Notice that the recent marches had people talking about retaking the southwest and La Raza, The Race. Is this a problem for you or is it okay if we are swamped by simple numbers?

Look at Marco's statment:
I don't hear a call for more assimilation, I hear a call for more people to be white. Barring that, I get the sense that it means we should all at least act white.

I hate to tell Marco, but American culture has been white culture with a mixture of black culture. And as such, I have no problem with saying that expecting immigrants to follow and respect the norms of that culture is perfectly acceptable. Notice, though, that he believes America should adapt to his culture and not the other way around. If I went to Japan, I would adapt to Japanese culture and not suddenly demand that the Japanese adapt to me. The Japanese would actually demand that I adapt or leave. Why are we unable to ask the same of our immigrants?

Third, mass immigration doesn't help the current poor of the country. Instead it depresses wages, hurts the poor, and squeezes the middle class. Even Krugman realizes this.

Fourth, Jesus never demanded that the government help the poor. He said that you and I should. He never talked about the gov't social worker that helped the beaten man alongside the road. He said you and I should. Christianity is not a plan on how to run a government, but on how individuals should act.

Ex-preacher and Mumon, how many poor immigrants do you have living in your home? Are you providing them with food and medical care? Why not? Let's say that a couple of immigrant families showed up in your house one day. Sure they did some of the chores, but they demanded you feed them, educate them, and provide medical care. Would you call the police and force them to leave? What's if when you openly contemplated making them leave, they started marching around your house as saying that this was their land and you were the trespasser? Simply stated, you would force them to leave. Why don't the same rules apply to people who are trespassing on our country's soil?

BTW, isn't it ironic that ex-preacher and Mumon, two people who always worry about the coming Christian theocracy, are trying (poorly I might add) to use Christian beliefs to influence opinions as to what position the government should take. Either it is okay to use Christian beliefs to influence gov't positions or it isn't.

37

Bryan K Mills:

I guess you've never heard of Reverend Ike. But the issue's not with the aliens, but with the companies that hire them. And with outsourcing.

And with the Bush folks, because this whole thing is merely a show to distract from Iraq and Bush's sinking poll numbers. And it's not a very good way to go about that, either; it's clear that in terms of fidelity to Christian doctrine, this one's a flat-out, hands-down, no-doubt-about-it loser.

It's this year's Terri Schiavo, actually.

Terrence:

One hardly needs to put words in Jesus mouth to understand that being unkind and ungenerous to aliens is a no-no. Just read what Jesus himself said about the "least of these."

Chris Lutz:

Ex-preacher and Mumon, how many poor immigrants do you have living in your home? Are you providing them with food and medical care?

Actually Chris I have indeed given shelter, food and medical care to aliens- my mother-in-law and my sister-in-law, who certainly are substantially more hard off than I am, and if you had a scintilla, an iota, of any idea of what I had to do to get them here - legally- on a visitor's visa (and yes, they did indeed go back) you would be singing a radically different song. Legal immigrants and their families are being split apart by the asinine policies enforced by our government -EVEN TO VISIT EACH OTHER-and you have the gall to retreat into this nativist, no-nothing bigotry?

You simply have no friggin' clue. You are utterly, postively clueless on this issue. And you are friggin' descended from immigrants yourself.

What's if when you openly contemplated making them leave, they started marching around your house as saying that this was their land and you were the trespasser?

It was their land. It was stolen from them and people were murdered in the process. What friggin' moral right can you possibly claim here?

BTW, isn't it ironic that ex-preacher and Mumon, two people who always worry about the coming Christian theocracy, are trying (poorly I might add) to use Christian beliefs to influence opinions as to what position the government should take. Either it is okay to use Christian beliefs to influence gov't positions or it isn't.

These positions happen to be Buddhist positions as well; however, it is crystal clear as to what kind of "Christians" we have on this thread.

38

Some of you keep referring to the "illegal" activity.

That argument is ridiculous.

I was speeding the other day. According to you, I would not have the right to be a citizen.

Most importantly, they came here illegally because there is NO choice. There is no other way to get here in a timely fashion. Would you just sit on your butt and let your family not have food or would you cross the border and get a job.

If it is illegal of them, it is because our laws and processes are ethically challenged and forces them into this position.

I am sorry but the "broke the law" excuse to coming here and not granting the possibility of citizenship is a poor excuse.

Try to look at this with a Christ-like heart.

39

Now you're just being dense Mumon. My name isn't Terence, it's Terry. Says so on my birth certificate. Any idea how many immigrant relatives I have? Didn't think so. More assumptions from a guy who calls himself an ex-christian the he knows little or nothing of Christian theology. Believe it or not, Mumon, poor people in other countries do not exist so you can call people whose political ideas you don't like bigots and know-nothings.
Immigration is a complex question. You've simplified it to a "them bad, me good" statement. Must be that subtle, enlightened Buddist thought process at work.

40

I am a person who really enjoys the Latin culture. I have worked at a free clinic 3 weekends a month for about 5 years that treats mostly illegal Latinos. I do this for free. I have an Ecuadorian exchange student in my home.

I only put this out to negate the inevitable calls of racist for my position on border control. I believe a nation has the right to control the amount and make up of immigrants that are coming within it's borders. Mexico charges illegal aliens with a felony in their system of justice. Mexicans are overwhelming our ability to manage their assimilation. The incidental costs are huge. Special education needs to hospital costs. In our hospitals it is common for hispanics to give a false name so that no billing can be collected. His cost is passed on to insured patients. Remember this when you here about inflated medical costs.

Mumon's pie in the sky egalitarianism is irrational. Do we as a nation have the right to say no to Mexicans so that we can say yes to Sudanese who also long for opportunity? I believe we do. The simple truth is we are overburdened with the influx of the lower uneducated masses from Mexico. Vicente Fox needs this cash cow to continue and will do nothing to stop the exodus. We are honestly encouraging this circumvention of our laws by not inforcing our borders.

I agree that when I come across an illegal I should treat him as a brother. I also think it is OK to demand a secure border with an orderly immigration policy. Mumon: Individual responsibility and governmental responsibility.

41

Seems like I am always late to these discussions. I wonder how some of you always seem to have time to interact on here.

42

Brian in Idaho wrote: "Seems like I am always late to these discussions."
Late, perhaps, but not unwelcome. Some of us have a time zone advantage.

43

If you don't want to pay a lot more for fruit, vegetables, and meat -- you have to accept current rates of immigration. That's why Bush's preferred solution is wrapped around a guest worker program.

44

Tim L,

I've put my email address in this message, you just need to click the link, can you please send me your address?

The reason I ask is because I work on the border. I meet men, women and children every day that have little food and clothing trying to make a better life for themselves by coming here to the United States. I do my job and turn them around whenever I catch them.

But, truth be told, my heart goes out to them. Mexican culture that Marco is so proud of has caused them to live in poverty. The fact that they cannot or willnot adopt American culture and values means they will continue to live in poverty and struggle to feed themselves, clothe themselves and put a roof over there head.

But you said,

They have done no wrong except to try to support their love ones and to look for and have an opportunity to thrive.

Apparantly you think it is acceptable to break into this country just so long as you are doing it to support your loved ones and look for an opportunity to thrive.

So, for those that I turn around, I know they will come back and sooner or later they will make it into the United States.

I'd like to give them your address so that they can break into your house and take your things. I mean, they have no other choice.

I will ask them to line up in front of your house and ask you kindly for you to give them your things, food, water, clothing, shelter, but i'm sure that you won't be able to handle all of the poor suffering Chinese, Russians, Mexican's and more that come across the border illegally every day. So some of them will have to break into your house.

But apparantly, you are fine with that.

So, i'm waiting for you to send me your address.

45

Terry :

You'll have to forgive me. I was watching the "Mohammed cartoon" episode of South Park and I must have confused you with a Canadian cartoon character on that show.

46

Terry:

Didn't think so. More assumptions from a guy who calls himself an ex-christian the he knows little or nothing of Christian theology. Believe it or not, Mumon, poor people in other countries do not exist so you can call people whose political ideas you don't like bigots and know-nothings.

You've never come near the points I've made, but if you're going to go near an argument that "physical proximity" makes one a neighbor, and therefore entitled to more compassion than somebody far, far away who looks different, I think I'm going to retch.

I'm not calling ideas I detest bigots and know-nothings, I'm calling the people that are so blind to the causes and effects of their actions in this world, to even legal immigrants bigots and know-nothnings. Because they are, I've been there multiple times, both from the standpoint as somebody legally trying to get somebody into this country for employment situations - at prevailing, market wages- and as somebody trying to get family into this country.

Ideas have consequences, and the bigots and know-nothings that have created the torturous immigration system that exists today are doing only harm to America. Period.

47

Bryan in Idaho:

My wife is Chinese; my in-laws are Chinese. The way they were treated -as though they were already criminals by the immigration system, even though they were frankly socially fairly far above the officals in status was appalling. I applaud your work, btw.

I believe a nation has the right to control the amount and make up of immigrants that are coming within it's borders.

I believe Robert Burns' words are especially applicable here:

What is right, and what is wrong, by the law, by the law?
What is right, and what is wrong, by the law?
What is right, and what is wrong?
A short sword and a long,
A weak arm and a strong, for to draw, for to draw!
A weak arm and a strong, for to draw!...

Then let your schemes alone, in the State, in the State!
Then let your schemes alone, in the State!
Then let your schemes alone,
Adore the rising sun,
And leave a man alone, to his fate, to his fate!
And leave a man alone, to his fate!

Ah those words:"I believe that..." How did you get that "belief?" How is it tested in reality? What are the origins of that belief?

For most people that "belief" is something semi-conciously or not put into their heads so that they basically don't have to re-think the fundamentals. The words "I believe that..." are a justification for any old craziness; it allows the compulsive gamber to think that he will have "luck," it allows the politician to snooker his constiuents, it lets so much pass by, undetected, where it can do damage, those two words.

I think there's cause and effect. For decades the US economic and political system has fostered, and encouraged, the poverty and oppression of much of the world; we pointed to countries such as Cuba as models of the failure of Communism, but turned a blind eye to our "ally" Haiti who (still) has it far worse.

Incidentally, this whole discussion in the US is practically guaranteeing a leftist victory in Mexico in the coming elections.

The simple truth is we are overburdened with the influx of the lower uneducated masses from Mexico.

The simple truth, is 90-95% of our highest skilled technical workers are immigrants, and they are not made welcome in the US to get employement. I know this for a fact; as somebody who's had to deal with immigration lawyers in this regard. Don't believe me? You're in Idaho? I believe Micron's in Idaho; call their HR department and ask about how easy it is to hire non-citizen technical professionals. Go ahead try it. I don't know them from Adam.

48

AndyS:
If you don't want to pay a lot more for fruit, vegetables, and meat -- you have to accept current rates of immigration. That's why Bush's preferred solution is wrapped around a guest worker program.

Actually, the amount you spend on labor for fruits and vegetables is 15 cents or lower. Raising wages or switching to mechanization isn't going to cause astronomical prices suddenly. This is just a scare tactic. Anyways, since when did the price of something dictate whether we should follow the law.

Tim L:
That argument is ridiculous.
I was speeding the other day. According to you, I would not have the right to be a citizen.

No, what you just said was ridiculous. If you can't distinguish between breaking the law to enter the country and speeding, then you need help. People who come here illegally are not citizens for the very simple reason of they broke the law to get here.

If it is illegal of them, it is because our laws and processes are ethically challenged and forces them into this position.

So what? Is it our duty to allow everyone into the country who want to come here? What effect will that have on our culture, economics, and the poor we already have?

Try to look at this with a Christ-like heart.

I'll ask the same question I asked Mumon and ex-preacher, how many illegals do you have living in your house? If none, why none, since according to you that is the compassionate thing to do. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. Separating love and compassion from intelligence is a recipe for disaster.

Mumon:
Actually Chris I have indeed given shelter, food and medical care to aliens- my mother-in-law and my sister-in-law,...

Family members really don't count. How many people you don't know in any way?

Legal immigrants and their families are being split apart by the asinine policies enforced by our government -EVEN TO VISIT EACH OTHER-and you have the gall to retreat into this nativist, no-nothing bigotry?

Cry me a river. I'm not talking about your family Mumon. We aren't talking about legal immigration. We're talking about people who come here illegally. I'm sorry your wife's family was split, but that's what happens when you change countries. I didn't know it was our job to make sure once one member of a family entered a country we should make sure every other member gets into the country. If you want to work to change the law, fine. Otherwise, they BROKE THE LAW. If you break the speed limit, do you tell the officer that you shouldn't get a ticket because you think the speed limit is too low?

It was their land. It was stolen from them and people were murdered in the process. What friggin' moral right can you possibly claim here?

We fought a war and the territory was ceded by treaty. It's not their land any longer. Possession is 9/10ths of the law otherwise we'll be going back to the dawn of time trying to figure out whose land it really is. So, when are you giving up your property and moving back to the country of you ethnicity? If you stay, you are complicit in the crime after the fact. What moral claim do you have then?

These positions happen to be Buddhist positions as well; however, it is crystal clear as to what kind of "Christians" we have on this thread.

Yet, you aren't arguing from a Buddhist point of view. You're attempting to argue from a Christian one.

49

Mumon wrote;

My wife is Chinese; my in-laws are Chinese. The way they were treated -as though they were already criminals by the immigration system, even though they were frankly socially fairly far above the officals in status was appalling.

How were your Chinese relatives treated like criminals by the immigration system?

Your words are a little bit confusing. You begin by saying they were treated like criminals by the immigration system, and you end by comparing their social status to the social status of the "officials" whoever that is.

Were they treated like criminals by the system? If so, how? Or were they treated like criminals by a rude immigration officer?

50

Chris Lutz and Eric think that the following is a great argument against a more lenient immigrant policy:

"Ex-preacher and Mumon, how many poor immigrants do you have living in your home? Are you providing them with food and medical care? Why not?"

Frankly, I think this is an incredibly lame argument.

The illegals in this country are not asking anyone to give them free shelter or food. They are here to work. Of the adult male illegal immigrants in this country, do you know how many are working? The answer is 96%. As a rule, they work incredibly hard and long hours. They are not asking for charity, just an opportunity to work, provide for their families and be part of the American dream.

They also pay billions in taxes. Of course many of them do not pay income taxes, but the truth is that the vast majority of them wouldn't owe federal income taxes. In fact, many of them would actually qualify for child tax credits. But they do pay FICA taxes (but do not receive benefits). The last time I checked at Wal-Mart, they charge illegals the same sales tax rate as citizens, 9%. They pay property taxes (or rent to landlords who then pay property taxes). They pay gasoline taxes. Their patronage of American stores (and 90% of their income is spent in the US) enables those stores to pay corporate income taxes. Consider the money they send back to Mexico. Would you like to know the name of the #1 retailer in Mexico where that money is spent? Wal-Mart. If the question is paying taxes is the real issue, there's a simple solution: make them legal.

Like it or not, the illegal population is foundational to much of the US economy. What would happen if they were all suddenly deported? Essentially the saem thing that would happen if 11 million citizens suddenly died (except that immigrants work at a higher rate of employment, have much fewer retirees, and virtually no one on welfare). Overnight the US GDP would fall by at least 10%. The stock market would likely crash. Our economy would go into a depression. Not a recession, a depression.

Back to the "if you don't let them in your house" argument. To point out the utter lamitude of that argument, let's apply it to some other areas:

"If you aren't willing to personally adopt at least 7 unwanted babies, then you shouldn't be pro-life."

"If you aren't willing to personally strangle someone, you can't favor the death penalty."

"If you don't go and fight in Iraq yourself, you can't support the war."

"If you aren't willing to personally go pick fruit in California, become a roofer, clean hotel rooms and wash dishes, you can't be against illegal immigration."

All really lame arguments.

51

Eric and Lisa,

Just to be clear, I'm not Mexican-American.

Second, I'm confused as to what your argument is. You say that the reason they are poor is that they refuse to adopt American values and culture. So the Mexican immigrants currently in this country who are able to feed and support not only themselves, their loved ones here, and their loved ones in Mexico, have obviously adopted American culture and values? But isn't the complaint that they come to this country and FAIL to adopt American culture and values? I'm confused. Could it really be that American hegemony is directly related to the superiority of Americans and their culture? God help us if people really believe that.

Third, your post about sending some imaginary immigrants someone's address was dripping with bitter sarcasm. I think you've mentioned before that you are a Christian. If so, that makes me very sad.

Finally, I'm also saddened that people here, many who claim to be Christians, exalt following the law above all else. If you read all the posts, the Christians sound like Javert from Les Miserables and the non-Christians sound like Jean Valjean. Shouldn't it be the opposite? Seriously. Where is the grace? Is there none?

52

Chris Lutz,

Of course, I meant if I was not a citizen and I was caught speeding then I would not be able to become a citizen.

Sorry, but you have not adequately explained why one breaking of the law is worse than another. If anything, my speeding is a worse breaking of the law. I did it for selfish reasons to get to point B from point A faster. The illegal immigrant did it likely for selfless reasons to be able to support a family. Chris, you just tell them to starve and live in extreme poverty because of archaic, bigoted laws. Apparently, you don't have a problem with that.

"Separating love and compassion from intelligence is a recipe for disaster".

Feeling that the two need to happen to have a Christ-like heart is showing a real lack of intelligence.

"how many illegals do you have living in your house? "

Difficult question, none have come to my house! (So yes, the answer is none). However, I have been to Guatemala several times to help make the conditions better there! If people are trying to get into our country, that means something is wrong with where they are coming from. Also they wouldn't be here if there was not work for them to do! It would be no good to come from Mexico to work if there was no work.

It appears to occur to NOBODY that the answer lies within Mexico. We have an obligation to help so that the situation is better there. (And I mean help, not take over or make them do what we want to do).

I honestly don't know the best way to help is, but helping them helps us in many ways including economically.

53

Although, I also do not fully understand what Erik and Lisa are saying there is some truth to what they are saying about "American culture and values".

I don't think they mean dress, or celebration of church or other such things. What they mean is respect for our laws and at I feel that people should attempt to learn English! A host should be gracious, but a guest should also be respectful. Ignoring our values and purposely violating them is just as wrong as expecting others to fully adapt to us!

Of course some may expose me as being a hypocrite regarding respecting our laws. If suddenly there was little food here and practically limitless food in Mexico, I'm going to get food in Mexico, even if it were illegal.

And yes there is a big lack of compassion and grace for many on this particular subject and yes it is a shame.

54

oops,

The last post is suppose to be addressed to Marco (polo?) ;-)

55

As a rule, they work incredibly hard and long hours.

At incredibly low wages which (1) undercuts current workers (story recently out of New Orleans where a number American construction workers in the rebuilding were given their walking papers once the Mexicans showed up) (2) means they have to be provided with medical care, schooling, and other social services, and (3) doesn't address that in the southwest illegal aliens make up a huge proportion of the prison population.

They also pay billions in taxes...
And drain billions more out of the system.

If the question is paying taxes is the real issue, there's a simple solution: make them legal.

I'm glad you have simplified American citizenship down to just being able to pay taxes. I think most people believe America has a culture and is more than paying taxes. Otherwise, I guess anyone willing to pay our taxes should be allowed to be a US citizen. The issue is more than taxes.

Like it or not, the illegal population is foundational to much of the US economy.

They make up 5% of the workforce. That's not a foundation, especially when they predominately operate at the low end range. They also do not make up a majority in any economic category. All they are doing is driving out lower income Americans. Why do you think black unemployement has been going up? Anyways, I hate this growing concept that Americans aren't willing to work hard or do certain jobs.

What would happen if they were all suddenly deported?

Ah, the strawman argument. It's taken us decades to get to this point and it will take time to reverse the trend. The goal is to reverse the flow of illegal immigrants so that we start to have a net loss and the number of illegal immigrants drop. Business will either pay higher wages or find a way to automate. The entire scenario of economic disaster is for those who benefit off of having a class of Helot labor.

Frankly, I think this is an incredibly lame argument.

You challenged the compassion and Christianity of anyone who thinks we should send back people who are here illegally. Yet you somehow expect everyone else to pay for mass immigration by low-skilled workers, especially the current poor. I just want to know what you personally doing to help illegal immigrants beyond claiming moral superiority and demanding that we accept their lawbreaking.

The point I was making, since if you look originally it was a bit more than my later statement, was how would you react if someone showed up, moved into your home, and demanded you provide for them? You would call the police and have them removed. Yet, somehow, that same concept doesn't apply to us as a country. Eric's point is along a similar vein.

"If you aren't willing to personally strangle someone, you can't favor the death penalty."

Actually, if you aren't willing to be the executioner, then you shouldn't support it.

How many immigrants should we allow?
Do we as a country have a right to determine who immigrates to this country?
Does the US have a culture that immigrants should conform too?
Should we reward people who break the law?

56

Eric & Lisa:

The presumption of immigration officials in Shanghai seeing an old, very frail Chinese woman (who didn't speak Mandarin, let alone English! - she had to use her daughter as an interpreter) is that she will overstay her visa and become a nanny!

I kid you not!

The rudeness was just icing on the cake.

I eventually corrected the situaton after being on the phone to the Shanghai consulate, speaking to their public affairs division by telling them I was going to the media about the treatment she received.

As I said, you simply cannot believe what you have to go through.

57

Eric & Lisa:

One more thing: the presumption I alluded to above is standard operating procedure for anyone seeking a visitor's visa to the US from China to visit family! I was told this by some section head over there. He was appropriately chewed out by me.

So yeah, it's the system in spades.

My mother in law - as I anticipated- did not particularly like staying in the 'burbs in a neighborhood where you needed a car to go anywhere, where the beds were all to soft, and where the food was horrible tasting (to her), and was grateful to go back home 1 month after my son was born.

58

Chris Lutz:

You most certainly are talking about legal immigration; if you are defining the parameters of what's illegal, you're defining the paramters of what's legal.

I just hope you or your family a) never marries someone with relatives from another country, or b) that you might become a refugee.

You know, the "least of these," as a messiah once discussed.

You are getting into an area where you are pontificating about specific people's families, and at the very least a modicum of respect is expected in these situations.

Were I not the person I am, and if this conversation were to take place in a bar or similar circumstances, I would not want to be you.

59

Mumon,

I debated whether to reply to you at all, since trying to reason with you based on what scripture teaches is clearly “throwing pearls before swine.” However, I finally decided to do so – not for your benefit – but for the benefit of others on this thread. Besides, since we are nowhere near one another, you will – fortunately for me – be unable to turn and tear me to pieces.

[Matt 7:6 Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. NIV]

I notice you are so fond of ridiculing and mocking the beliefs of Christians (or “people of the lie” as you like to call them) that you have made it your favorite pastime. I wonder if your own “faith” stands up to scrutiny. Apparently, ridicule, mockery, and putting words in other people’s mouths is ok for Buddhists.

Since you seem to be so interested in the teachings of scripture, I will quote this passage to you:

[Matt 18:6-7, 6 … whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! NASU]

Many people believe that this passage is talking about children. It is in fact talking about believers who must become “like children.” The “little ones” referred to here are Christians and you, Mumon, are a proud “stumbling block.” Enjoy while you can.

Mumon said:

Why do you hate America?

Mumon, Mumon Mumon…When did you stop beating your wife? Why do you persist in twisting the truth so you can lie and deceive?

Don't like people speaking in languages that you can't understand? Learn a foreign language.

Here is another lying assertion of your own making. Expecting Citizens to be able to communicate in English has nothing to do with the freedom to speak a foreign language or otherwise and certainly nothing to do with my like or dislike of the same. It is a perfectly reasonable request with very practical implications. Like reading street signs for instance, or understanding the judge when you go to court, or being able to tell the doctor what is wrong. It is for the good of everyone.

As far as "pledging allegiance to a flag," we do that as a condition of citizenship (although I have a problem with the wording therein). Your language of course shows your lack of knowledge of the pledge: it's done not to a "nation," but to a republic - a particular government. (That's my problem with the pledge.)

I realized that when I wrote it. I wondered who would point it out and try to negate my whole point. Unfortunately, you have no point. Pledging allegiance to America the nation and the Republic is the same. Yours is the double-talk of the traitorous and seditious. “I support America, but not its form of government.” That’s rich, Mumon. Please, tell me another one.

BTW, I see nobody's touched Leviticus 19:33-34 with even a 10 foot pole:
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Well, allow me. You show a remarkable ability to cut and paste from the Daily KOS. Again, you have no point. As a rule, the aliens living with us are treated in just the manner described – not just by Christians but also by everyone. That is the very reason they want to come here so badly in the first place. As others have already pointed out, this is not a commandment for the establishment of government policy. An open borders policy is insane. No nation can maintain its sovereignty with such a policy. But then, that is the real idea isn’t it?

By the way, have you looked into the scriptural requirements for Citizenship in the nation if Israel? Does treating the alien “as one of your native-born” mean that the Israelites allowed aliens to enter the temple beyond the court of the gentiles as Jews could? Do you even have the slightest idea what I am talking about?

Here is another passage of scripture:

Amos 9:4, 4 Though they are driven into exile by their enemies, there I will command the sword to slay them . I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good." NIV

Why not apply this one? You are the cafeteria-style eisegesist.

Having, like many people, having once been a Christian, I know very well indeed what one has to claim to believe if one wants to be thought of as claiming to be a Christian, and I can only attribute your statement here to a lack of knowledge of former Christians.

Once been a Christian? There may be some in-house debate here, but the predominate evangelical teaching, and, I believe, the teaching of scripture is that once one becomes a Christian they are reborn, the old has become new, one has died to self and has risen to new life forever. You were never a Christian – you are deceiving yourself.

…I know very well indeed what one has to claim to believe if one wants to be thought of as claiming to be a Christian…

Mumon, your phraseology here is so bizarre I don’t even know where to start. The very statement indicatives an attempt to deceive the Almighty and other believers (what one has “to claim” to believe “to be thought of” as a Christian?) and also proves my point directly above.

By the way, I would be very interested if you would outline what, in your understanding, one has to “claim to believe” to be a Christian. Since you are so well-versed, please enlighten me.

Lastly,

It was their land. It was stolen from them and people were murdered in the process. What friggin' moral right can you possibly claim here?

By this idiotic assertion, virtually no nation on earth has the right to exist. Your ability to simply rationalize away the most basic truths is astounding. America is here, she is sovereign, she is great, she is a Republic. I know it hurts your spirit to see such unparalleled peace and prosperity ushered in by Christianity, but get over it.

60

Chris Lutz: Actually, the amount you spend on labor for fruits and vegetables is 15 cents or lower. Raising wages or switching to mechanization isn't going to cause astronomical prices suddenly.

15 cents of every dollar, per pound, ...?

From Alternatives to Immigrant Labor?:

The hand harvesting of fruit and vegetable crops in the United States is a labor-intensive operation that accounts for about 50 percent of total production costs.

Commercial use of harvest machinery also slowed because of several technological hurdles. Mechanical harvesting technology may be adopted by one production area, but not by another because of the unique differences in factors such as climate, soil, terrain, labor, crop mix, market, utilization, variety, and tree or plant type.

Most important of all is the mechanical damage incurred during mechanical harvest, which has been the major deterrent to continued development of mechanical harvesting systems for fresh fruit and vegetable crops.

So there are barriers to mechanization. And the size of the problem is not small. From a 2005 article:

The numbers of available farmworkers in California and Arizona has been declining for about five years, but the first acute shortage resulted after a U.S. Border Patrol crackdown on illegal immigrants during the November 2004 lettuce harvest in the Yuma, Ariz., area.

Growers were able to harvest only 30 percent of their winter lettuce crop, and the result was $1 billion in agricultural loss, said Tom Nassif, president and chief executive of Western Growers [a trade association].

Nassif, a Republican who was ambassador to Morocco in the administration of President Ronald Reagan, said there probably will be a similar financial loss this year in the Central Valley.

There are about 1.25 million undocumented workers in the United States, 600,000 of whom live and work in California, said Feinstein, citing U.S. Labor Department data. The number 1.25 million represents about 50 percent of the agricultural workforce, Feinstein noted.

I think the issue is complex. Labor costs in agriculture and meat packing are artificially low because of the desperation of illegal workers to find any work at all. I've no idea what a fair wage might be for someone who must spend their workday with a sharp knife cutting up a dead cow or bent over in a field picking lettuce and strawberries, but it sure doesn't surprise me that they are jobs taken up by people who can find nothing else. Because they require a lot of physical endurance, they are also not the sort of jobs that someone can do for a lifetime.

Short of drafting our young people and forcing them to work the fields and meat processing plants, what do we do? Personally I don't like the idea of paying low wages to immigrants to work hard jobs in difficult conditions, jobs which in the case of agriculture are seasonal. It's simply exploitation and, even though we have a long tradition of that, it's still wrong. Giving them a chance at citizenship is at least a little more fair but then we are faced with adding a half million people a year to our population — hardly a long term solution. But anyone who advocates stopping illegal immigration and sending back those here illegally has to propose some practical way of keeping agriculture and meatpacking going.

61

Jeff Blogworthy: I know it hurts your spirit to see such unparalleled peace and prosperity ushered in by Christianity, but get over it.

I have no gripe with Christianity, but this sort of claim is just way over the top. If you are thinking of the founding fathers you have to accept at least Deists as well as Christians as being influencial. If you are thinking of the rise of American culture, tecnology, and the economy you have to include Jews, Asians, and Africans among others.

Then, of course, there's slavery — a very Christian institution at the time and written right into the US Constitution (three-fifths compromise).

Unparalled peace? Let's not forget about the Civil War.

62

Andy S:

I did not mean to say that only Christians are deserving of credit here. I am sorry you interpreted it that way or that I was not clear enough. I was speaking in general terms. Of course Deists and other faiths deserve credit. Practically speaking, Deists and Christians were not far apart in their guiding philosophy. My point is that it happened within a society that has been predominantly and pervasively influenced by the teachings of Christianity - not that only Christians are deserving of credit.

I do not have the time right now to go into the other aspects of your comments in detail. Good books have been written on the subject. For you to say that slavery was a "very Christian" institution is not at all fair. Many Christian churches spoke out against the institution of slavery and there were Christians on both sides. There were TWO sides after all, and one of them prevailed.

As far as the three-fifths compromise, you do realize taht this was imposed by the Anti-slavery faction, don't you? Misguided, but logical at the time, they thought they were helping slaves, not hurting them.

To be sure, we have had some dark periods but they are the exception to the rule.

The idea of equality among the sexes and races is a "very Christian" one.

Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NIV

63

Instead I see angry, arrogant, pious rhetoric DEMANDING rights to which people are not entitled. I see "The Race" stating openly that their objective is to reconquer the southwest. I hear the President of Mexico lecturing us on how we'd better not criticize his citizens for violating our sovereignty.

I think it is natural that people are going to resent being condemmed to second class status forever. It's a fact that millions are here illegally but they are doing what is essentially a fundamental right of any human beign, provide for themselves and their families. That doesn't mean they are entitled to citizenship but they have a point that it isn't right that we keep them here but as illegals. While some entertain fantasies of a 'project wetback' that sends back all illegals the reality is that is not going to happen.

Full citizenship for lawbreakers... where's the inconvenience in that? We are rewarding lawless behavior (and encouraging more of it).

Lawbreaker != lawless. We have always tolerated to some degree people who break laws...especially when we perceive their lawbreaking to be either harmless or out of necessity. So we don't think of the occassional pot smoker or the guy who steals a loaf of bread the way we think of the person who rapes or murders.

Eric & Lisa
How were your Chinese relatives treated like criminals by the immigration system?

I can't speak for Mumon but I have had people who have legal immigration status tell me that dealing with the Immigration services makes any state department of motor vehicles look as customer friendly as Donald Trump's butler.

Chris
I'm glad you have simplified American citizenship down to just being able to pay taxes. I think most people believe America has a culture and is more than paying taxes. Otherwise, I guess anyone willing to pay our taxes should be allowed to be a US citizen. The issue is more than taxes.

I asked before and got ignored, what is this 'culture'? I don't recall the Constitution having any provisions for gov't 'culture management'. AS I asked the person before who doesn't like Latino culture what would he do if white American citizen kids started copying Latin culture as they did with hip-hop culture? You have no right to have culture imposed or managed on behalf of your personal tastes. You only have a right to trade culture with others, taking things from them that you like and rejecting things you don't.

Chris Lutz: Actually, the amount you spend on labor for fruits and vegetables is 15 cents or lower. Raising wages or switching to mechanization isn't going to cause astronomical prices suddenly.

Here's a bit of logic from the market system. Most illegals are here to work. Since they are paid for their work by people who have no legal obligation to hire them then obviously their work must be valuable so someone or else they would just go ahead and buy the machines or pay legal labor slightly more to do the job.

BUT let me throw a bone to the 'take away their jobs' crowd. The US gov't wastes millions in subsidizing farmers to grow unneeded crops (thereby generating demand for illegal labor) and at the same time puts up tariff barriers to crops like sugar that grows best in South America (thereby generating unemployment and increase the incentive to leave for the US). Anti-illegals like Pat Buchannan, though, are among the most notorious of protectionists and enemies of the very same free trade policies like NAFTA that result in win-wins for everyone involved and do more good than 1,000 extra border guards.

64

"The illegals in this country are not asking anyone to give them free shelter or food. They are here to work. Of the adult male illegal immigrants in this country, do you know how many are working? The answer is 96%."

Not all of the work is exactly honorable if you consider that 29% of the people in So Cal prisons are illegal, and in Anahiem and Santa Ana it's close to 50%, (according to some cop friends).

They may not be asking for free food or shelter, but the "free" schooling is taxing the system. The 'free' medical-using the ER as a family physician location-has closed down a few hospitals in Los Angeles. Perhaps citizens should just pay about 20% more in taxes to pay for everything and just open the borders.

My big question is, if you can muster millions of people in only a few weeks to protest and make demands for a better life in a foriegn country, why in the heck don't they just go back and demand those things in Mexico? Mexico is a beautiful country with incredible natural resources. Put those millions of people to work back home and throw out the corrupt officals. I'd love to buy a place down there, but Americans can't. Double standards.

65

Do all the families with loud, rude and annoying children in your neighborhood get guilt tripped over their 'free education'? Strangely when the topic of vouchers come up it suddenly becomes the parents money after all. Anyway if your education is funded by property taxes illegals pay for it in the form of rent. Sales taxes then when they buy things. Income taxes you may or may not have a point (but then you should fairly have a beef with anyone who works under the table, including that cute waitress you flirt with down the street!).

My big question is, if you can muster millions of people in only a few weeks to protest and make demands for a better life in a foriegn country, why in the heck don't they just go back and demand those things in Mexico?

Geee, do I take an opportunity that will provide for me and my family today or start a mass movement to fix my country (which seems to have been broken since the beginning of time) that will take decades.

66

I understand what you are saying about the hospital that closed but this is more a function of many illegals concentrated in one area. The fact is our taxes and cost of living is probably lower because of illegal immigrants. This doesn't excuse their lawbreaking but it does fairly mitigate the punishment.

In the ideal world, of course, gov't would see how your community may have gotten all the problems while everyone else got to divide only the benefits and compensate accordingly. Some of this would be automatically solved by a path to legalization since that would let many illegals set down real roots and stop having to live in the black market.

I suggest you take a peek at my $30K proposal..

67

Jeff Blogworthy:

Once been a Christian? There may be some in-house debate here, but the predominate evangelical teaching, and, I believe, the teaching of scripture is that once one becomes a Christian they are reborn, the old has become new, one has died to self and has risen to new life forever. You were never a Christian – you are deceiving yourself.

That's blasphemy according to your religion, you know.

The fact is, it's not for you to decide a) who a Christian is or is not, and b) whether one once did in fact believe Christian teachings.

It's rude, it's dishonest, it's paternalistic, it's disrespectful and its ignorant to boot.

The very statement indicatives an attempt to deceive the Almighty and other believers (what one has “to claim” to believe “to be thought of” as a Christian?) and also proves my point directly above.

One can, to other human beings, only claim to be a Christian; I for one, might suspect that you are not a Christian because there is no evidence of a metanoia, a repentence. But it would be rather blasphemous, rude, arrogant, and what-not to claim that you, in fact, are not a Christian because the requisite Christian charity has never quickened within you.

By the way, I would be very interested if you would outline what, in your understanding, one has to “claim to believe” to be a Christian. Since you are so well-versed, please enlighten me.

The Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed are standard issue in most Apostolic Churches.

And to your last point: exactly. No nation has a "right" to exist. They murder to do come into existence and often to continue to exist. Doesn't exactly seem to convey a "right" to me.

68

I agree with whoever said that Mexico needs to reform itself. No question. It may be that one of the best ways we can do that is to allow more Mexicans to come to the US. Why so, you say? Exposing Mexicans to a democratic, relatively corrupt-free, free enterprise system with free public education will teach them how it's done. With a more relaxed border, Mexicans who already here would feel more free to travel back and ofrth rather than stay here because they're afraid they'll get caught if the y go home and have to sneak back.

Mexicans who have been exposed to the American way of life can then take those lessons home and reform their government. You can make a good case that the US helped make Europe more democratic in the 19th and 20th centuries in part because of people who moved back and forth between the US and their native country.

69

Why not a North American Union consisting of Canada, the USA, and Mexico in a loose federation? We have much in common, each having been conquered by Europeans. It's never made sense to me why the USA has not gone out of its way to establish close relations with Mexico given that we share a 2000 mile border. They export oil we need and have an economy in excess of 1 trillion USD.

The U.S.–Mexico border has the highest number of both legal and illegal crossings of any land border in the world. Besides the closeness of the two countries, differences in living standards on the two sides of border is the primary driving force behind these migratory flows. (link)

It would be far easier to enforce border control with a neighbor who had a vested interest in doing it because of the ecomonic advantages they would get from a closer relationship with the USA. No matter what sort of border security we implement, the driving force behind illegal immigration won't change until the Mexican economy improves.

70

Mumon, sorry it has taken so long to respond. I thank you for your kind comments. First let me say I have dealt with government services my whole life on do not believe yours is an isolated experience. The government offends equally. Go to your local V.A. and see how we treat citizens who have demonstrated loyalty to our country.

Second, are you an academic? My buddy, a professor, has the same bent of egalitarian/socialistic thinking. He has a six figure income btw. Comparing two failed systems, Cuba and Haiti, will give us little accurate data. Your supposition is that the reason the U.S. economy succeeds is at the expense of poorer nations. You may be right. However, is it not the better system that prevails? Should we tie one hand behind our backs so the third world can compete? Which is what Kyoto would have accomplished.

My opinion after being in places like Turkey, Haiti and Ecuador is corrupt governments are at least as big a problem as American efficiency. We had to pay the police to provide care for the poor! This common with all aid agencies. I can see that you are concerned for the plight of the worlds disadvantaged. I think that the collapse of the U.S. would exasserbate not alleviate the problem. My only proof for that is to look at all foriegn aid and it is clear that the U.S. gives the lions share.

Third, it just so happens our Equdorian exchange students two best friends husbands both work for Micron. One is Chi