This AP report demonstrates why it is so important to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate, lest he appoint an idiot to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put a hold on several aspects of the new AZ law which goes into effect Thursday. There are several questionable aspects of her ruling:
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,"
Apparently, she believes that the federal requirement that lawful aliens maintain legal identification on their persons at all times is a restriction on their liberty. Can you say "ass-backwards"? Having proper ID is what maintains the liberty of a lawfully-present alien. This is true for actual citizens as well. If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, my liberty will be in jeopardy if I don't have any ID, since I'm supposed to have my driver's license with my while driving. If I am merely walking the street and suspected of a crime, perhaps due to a physical resemblance to a wanted individual, my liberty will be suspended if I have no ID to prove who I am, or rather, that I am NOT the person they seek. (The horrors! I would have been profiled for my resemblance to the wanted dude!)
Further stupidity in the above quote is the implied notion that for AZ officials to wonder as to the legal status of anyone arrested and without ID is somehow foreign. Worse, is the implication that there is any less burden on the arrested "legally-present" alien if their arrest came about though federal action. In fact, would it be more or less a burden on their liberty if the crime for which they were arrested was a federal crime? In some cases, I would suspect that local cops make the arrest, but hold the suspect until the feds arrive. Since the feds don't work out of local police stations, there'd be a wait involved.
The judge put a hold on parts of the law that "...made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places."
Is this legal at all anywhere in this country? Why is it a problem here, where so many citizens, some legal aliens, are trying to find work?
"She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues."
This would have been nice had they done as much for other states, like Missouri and California, that already have similar laws in place, and for the federal law itself, already in effect and unenforced.
"Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling..." dishonest fear mongering of the worst kind. Playing the race card in order to enable law-breaking is reprehensible despite how typical it is. "...conflict with federal immigration law..." it can't conflict if it was patterned upon that very federal law. It aligns with federal law. "...and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes." as does stopping motorists for broken taillights. What a BS argument. The concern for "serious" crime is a sham and only mentioned to support an already weak argument for the open borders crowd. It is used in arguments for legalizing recreational drugs. It is used for arguing against laws that restrict whatever the advocate wants to support.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
First of all, "substantial likelihood"? Says who? There is always a likelihood that cops will arrest an innocent person. So what? That's what lawyers and one's day in court is for. That's what the court system is for, to determine whether an arrest is just or not. It's more abject fear-mongering, once again playing on the racial aspects of the situation.
Secondly, no "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden" is imposed on ANY legal alien who has legitimate ID as they are lawfully required to have at all times. And really, what difference does it make WHO imposes this so-called "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden", as long as it is lawfully imposed?
"Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries."
There's no patchwork if all states enact laws that are patterned on the federal law as AZ has done. This argument is incredibly stupid coming from "authorities". And if maintaining and enforcing existing federal law "complicates the foreign relations of the United States", then I would suggest that those engaged in said relations need to be replaced as they apparently are willing to trade our sovereignty and duty to our own citizens in order to bribe other nations to be friendly. Screw that. I'll take John Bolton over such weasels any day of the week.
But here's the one silver lining and it's a lesson for the nation, but mostly for the fools who are opposing the AZ law:
"It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries."
And that's the point. DUH! Hello! Idiot lefty fools? Are you listening?
Imagine every state adopting the AZ example! This is evidence of what the anti-comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty people have been saying all along. You enforce the law and illegal trespassers leave. We won't have to "round up all 12+ million illegals", like some boneheads like to argue. Enforcing the laws already on the books is enough to make their decision to invade and stay unprofitable and uncomfortable. Rather than busting our collective asses to accommodate them, enforcing the laws makes them bust their asses to accommodate the country into which they mean to trespass. If you are illegally here, go back whence you came and get in the back of the line formed along the already established pathway to citizenship. While it is still there. I'd prefer it be closed for the next decade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
As I initially said: I'm no legal expert, I just know that this AZ law SOUNDS LIKE to this non-legal expert that it can't be constitutional.
However, I was/am willing to wait and see what the legal experts have to say.
Are you? Do you trust the system?
(I'm not suggesting the system never messes up, I'm just asking the question.)
"Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
Wait ... what? Rephrasing the sentence, "Only the federal government has the authority to impose distinct, unusual, and extraordinary burdens on legal resident aliens." Huh?
"It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries."
From the news reports I've heard, they're heading to Denver, San Francisco, Los Angeles -- all the places that boycotted Arizona over this law ... because they know where to find safe haven.
Our Constitution has a high regard for property rights. Just in considering the state as the land of the people of that state, how can fighting trespassing be unConstitutional? No one is allowed to trespass on YOUR land, assuming you own any.
But to answer your question, NO, emphatically NO, I do NOT trust the system because the system is currently being run by idiots. This issue will move to the 9th District Court, which is the worst court in the land with a terrible track record of political and ideological activism. Naturally it will then move to the SCOTUS where the odds are no better than 50/50 that reason will prevail and the AZ law will stand. If that idiot Kagan is confirmed before then, the odds get worse.
But should the courts all decide against AZ, I support their right to ignore the court and defend their sovereignty as they see fit. That will force the federal government to either war with AZ or do the jobs they so long ignored that provoked AZ's actions in the first place.
"From the news reports I've heard, they're heading to Denver, San Francisco, Los Angeles -- all the places that boycotted Arizona over this law ... because they know where to find safe haven."
That's fine. I'll just avoid ever visiting those cities.
I support their right to ignore the court and defend their sovereignty as they see fit.
Open rebellion, huh?
"If I don't get my way, I'll take my ball and go home"?
Welcome to life in a Representative Republic, brother. Love it or leave it.
Or advocate rebellion, whichever floats your boat.
That can't end well for AZ, though.
Here's a few pertinent Jefferson quotes for YOU, Dan:
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...”
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
"It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it."
"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." In this case, the state and people of AZ.
"The world is indebted for all triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression."
I would suggest that it is likely to end quite well for AZ. In the first place, there is great doubt that BO has the stones to do anything that would generate such conflict if the people are willing to rebel in any way. In the second place, all polls show that more people support AZ's actions than do not. You could very well see solidarity shown by other states voting to adopt similarly drawn bills for themselves, and do so more quickly, should the courts try to butt in to their business in such an unConstitutional manner.
should the courts try to butt in to their business in such an unConstitutional manner.
But that's the point: It is EXACTLY the Court's business to rule on constitutionality of laws. If you don't like the way the system works, feel free to leave and start your own system.
Or, feel free to complain, that's okay too.
Just don't complain because the Court is doing its job.
AZ appeals to the the Ninth Circuit...
Oh.. the fun is just begining.
The point, Dan, is that too often in today's world, the courts, particularly the 9th, have NOT done their jobs, but have dictated policy that appeals to them personally.
And personal opinion and benefit is what is driving the sentiment that opposes this law. Some are not content with the procedures necessary for legal entry, so they ingore it. Some are not pleased with the intention of the law, because it differs with their personal opinion regarding immigration, so they have declared they will not enforce the law. And some are concerned by the possibility that they will lose votes, so they are suing to overturn the law. All the while, the people of AZ are overburdened by the impact of selfish and self-serving attitudes that ignore THEIR rights and privileges the law is meant and supposed to protect.
Parkmeister,
They MUST appeal to the 9th. That's the jurisdiction and the procedure before they can get to a more reasonable set of jurists. It's a formality they, as the side that respects the rule of law, must endure.
too often in today's world, the courts, particularly the 9th, have NOT done their jobs, but have dictated policy that appeals to them personally.
In which case it would be appealed to a higher court and eventually settled. Most often in a right manner, I'd suggest.
In those instances where we feel like it's gone through the whole process and still not come out "right" to our way of thinking, then I would suggest we work for change.
In instances like this where it's a more Constitutional case, I'm okay with leaving it to the Courts to sort it out. If, at the end of that process, the Courts side with AZ and their laws stand as Constitutional, then IF I think it wrong enough, I will work to change the laws.
IF I thought an egregious harm was being done (people's lives were threatened, oppression was occurring), then I might consider Civil Disobedience. Generally speaking, though, I'd tend to work for change, as CD is not always a very productive way of effecting change.
If we merely disregard with whimsy each and every law that does not appeal to us, we'll have an anarchy on our hands, which is why I'd suggest working for change within the system IF this particular ruling goes against your feelings of what is good and right.
They MUST appeal to the 9th.
Very good Ma. I'm just waiting for the post condemning those liberals in SF. One one question remains: Will your head pop writing it?
All the while, the people of AZ are overburdened by the impact of selfish and self-serving attitudes that ignore THEIR rights and privileges the law is meant and supposed to protect.
Marshall, how exactly do you think the people of Arizona are "overburdened" by immigrants? Is there oppression going on because of undocumented workers? Merely fewer jobs in a free market? What exactly is the overburden?
Dan,
Are you PURPOSELY being stupid with that question? Have you not been considering all that has been stated and proven regarding the effects of illlegal immigration on the state of AZ alone? The increase in state spending, the property damage, the crime (which has only gone down compared with new highs were previously set), the deaths? How much burden are you now suggesting another citizen bear for the benefit of non-citizens? How can you dare suggest they MUST bear it to satisfy YOUR notions of "social justice"?
Parkorama,
What the hell are you talking about? The libs in SF ALSO must appeal to that court. They can't appeal to a court outside that jurisdiction. AND, the libs ALWAYS appeal to the courts and the libs in SF to the 9th BECAUSE they know the 9th will rule in their favor rather than according to Constitutional mandates and intent.
Y'know, I already have Feodor for comic relief, but I don't mind another clown visiting for that purpose.
Marshall:
the property damage, the crime (which has only gone down compared with new highs were previously set), the deaths?
Crime and murder are already illegal, no need to create new laws to criminalize what is already illegal, right?
Marshall...
The increase in state spending...
I haven't seen any studies/reports that show that AZ have had to spend more because of immigrants than they have benefited from their presence. IF you had any evidence to support this, you might have a case on this point.
From what I've seen in general, though, immigrants more than pay their own way.
Are you suggesting that of those 9% Arizonans that are illegal and NOT breaking any more laws than they have by sneaking in are covering the costs to society for those committing crimes? That would seem highly unlikely considering the pay one would expect an illegal to earn, versus the crime that ISN'T reported as well as that for which there have been convictions and incarcerations. That doesn't include the welfare-type services of which they avail themselves, as well as the cost of unemployment and welfare-type services for citizens who can't take jobs illegals have taken at a reduced wage. I don't know what studies you think you've seen, but on either side of the issue I've seen none that really look at the whole picture.
"Crime and murder are already illegal, no need to create new laws to criminalize what is already illegal, right?"
The point isn't what is or isn't legal, but rather who's perpetrating the crime in question. As the previous post explains, there is an unequal representation in prisons and jails for the list of crimes the report presents. That's problem number one. Number two is that the illegals don't belong here to begin with and we don't get funds from their native countries to pay the costs of their arrests, prosecution and incarceration, to say nothing of restitution to victims. We bear THAT burden, too. Isn't it enough in your addled mind that we must bear the cost of all that due to citizen lawbreakers, now you think importing foreign lawbreakers is a good idea?
Finally, I'm really getting sick and tired of your constant and willful dishonesty in using the term "immigrant" when we are speaking of a particular group of people who have not chosen to avail themselves of the term legitimately. This makes you as much of a liar on this issue alone as all the liars who pretend the AZ law is about race. You purposely and consciously bear false witness with impunity and abandon. Shame on you.
Really? You don't like the term "immigrant" to refer to "Immigrants?"
You find using the term "immigrant" - which means ": a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence" to refer to those who come to this country to take up residence - you find that troubling?
Well, it's just the definition, brother. No lies. Just plain English. Relax. Really. Read a dictionary or something, man.
What I find troubling, Dan, you liar, is the use of the term in a discussion of illegal aliens, trespassers on American soil. We're not talking about immigrants, which are people who come here through legally established procedures and do all that is required to citizens of the United States. The term "immigrant" is not applicable to those who sneak in when no one is looking and take up residence like a freakin' squatter. Those are not "immigrants". They don't belong here and have no right to be here because they didn't enter the country in a legal manner.
You're playing games with words. Call them immigrants and you can lump them in with those who followed established procedures and then pretend that those of us who support the AZ law and border enforcement hate all immigrants.
You stick to strict definitions when it suits your purposes (like "socialist") and use broad definitions when it suits other purposes of yours (like "immigrants"). I'm beginning to see why Bubba refers to you as a liar. I'm also beginning to think you're as much a fraud as Feodor. Stop playing games and engage in an honest manner.
I'll have to agree with Marshall that there is a difference between those who come to the U.S. by legal means and those who don't.
But I prefer to call those who are here without the proper papers "undocumented". I support a path to citizenship for those undocumented already here and contributing to society. If deported they should be treated with dignity and respect and families should be able to stay together. Do not separate children from their parents.
The primary reason that the Dems want those open borders is to garner votes -- one the illegal invaders are citizens via the fast path of amnesty, whether or not the term amnesty is used.
One question I do have...
Why are conservatives more than happy to buy "Made in China" or... well.. food? They buy products made outside our boarders. The product is made in terrible conditions with no regard for the worker. Then, pick up a head of lettuce for seventy-five cents and don't think twice about either purchase.
The law and order answer simply doesnt cut it. Conservatives are more than willing to break the law for their benefit. Its not an economic issue. The "illegal" immigrants contribute far more than they "take".
So, what gives?
Marty,
Your preferred term is also dishonest. It mitigates the truth of what is happening in that illegals have trespassed by sneaking in and squatting on public or private lands. If I lose all my identification in a house fire, I'm "undocumented" but still a legal resident of the United States; a citizen. Many illegals HAVE documents that are either legal and expired or fraudulent. It doesn't matter. They're still ILLEGAL aliens.
The worst part is that by not calling this evil by its name, you deceive yourself as well and give overt approval to such illegal activity.
Regarding a path to citizenship for these people, one already exists and has existed for quite some time. This path is a line that forms somewhere on the other side of our borders and leads through already established immigration procedures and protocols. Illegals have opted to ignore these in order to profit, while law abiding people wait in line. YOU may say that they do it because they're poor and desperate. Thieves say the same thing. Neither is justified in breaking the law. At least our own thieves are breaking the laws of their own country.
Think of it this way:
You and all your neighbors have all you own stolen. After some time, the thief is found and he is living a relatively good life, but he is using some of his booty to establish some form of charitable activity. He's contributing to society. Will you and your neighbors allow him to keep what he's stolen, perhaps pay some measely fine and go on about his business? Very doubtful and if you said otherwise, I'd question your honesty.
But with illegals, that's what "path to citizenship" would mean---a slap on the wrist but tacit approval of their actions, which would encourage more illegal entries.
As to deportation methods, whatever indignities illegals suffer is a result of their own actions. I fully doubt that humiliation is something that is consciously authored into the procedure. Is it dignified to remain in a local or county lock-up for breaking any of a number of statutes, such as disorderly conduct? Of course not. To suggest that anything untoward is being done TO illegals apprehended is simply more dishonest distortion of the reality. Their plight is self-inflicted.
I also protest the continued use of the emotionally enflamed charge of "splitting families apart". This too is a lie. I have never seen any proof that families are being forced to split up as a direct intention of immigration enforcement policy. This nonsense and another self-inflicted action. Do you expect us to believe that immigration enforcement officials are forcing illegals to leave behind their American born children? Or that they are forcing citizen husbands and wives to remain while their spouses are deported? Nonsense. If I'm deported, there's no one that could prevent my taking my children or spouse with me except the knowledge that there is someone to take them in after WE decide to proceed in that manner. NO ONE is telling illegals to leave their family members behind.
AOW,
That is beyond questioning. Dems always act on their own self-interest regardless of whether or not the country is best served. Their counter is that the GOP wants open borders to exploit cheap labor. But that only assumes that ALL business is run by Republicans. We know that's not true so the charge is just cheap Dem rhetoric and nothing more.
The worst part is that by not calling this evil by its name
EVIL? You think people crossing an imaginary line and violating a whimsical rule is EVIL?
wow.
Man, not everything you disagree with is of the devil. Not every little action that hurts your feelings is evil.
Who died and made you a god?
I'd challenge you to find ANYTHING in the Bible or any other major philosophical writing that would call undocumented immigration EVIL, in and of itself.
If a man leaves Mexico to find food for his family to keep them from starving and comes to the US to do it, that just isn't evil, by any definition.
Park,
What makes you think conservatives are "more happy" to buy products from other countries? If you really paid attention, you would know that conservatives are quite pissed that Dem taxation and regulatory policies are what have driven manufacturing overseas. There is no doubt that conservatives would prefer to always buy American. (And now idiot Obama wants to penalize businesses that move their manufacturing overseas---the left will drive us away and then punish us for leaving---how can anyone be so stupid as to support them?)
When sense and reason dictate our tax and regulatory policies, as well as our border and immigration policies, we'll not have such worries about source of the products we need and want.
By the way, do you check the label before purchase and do without anything that is only made in foreign sweatshops? Do you grow your own produce or employ illegals to do so at a "living" wage?
If I were to concede that conservatives break the law for their own benefit, even if I were to concede that they do it more often than lefties, does that justify the breaking of the law by the lefties? I don't think so. The "two wrongs make a right" attempt is childish and doesn't fly.
And no, it is NOT an economic issue. It's a breaking the law issue. A breaking and entering illegally issue. A disrespect for our national sovereignty and the rights of legal property owners issue.
And I've disputed the notion that illegals (to put the word in quotations is to lie---it seems clear that dishonesty is common on your side of the issue) pay for themselves or that any contribution of their more than compensates for the trouble they bring. But here's the more definitive truth: profit, even if our nation profits by the presence of illegals, is NOT a mature argument for tolerating illegal action. Indeed, profit is what drives illegal activity. You could not have better shown the lack of character required to be on your side of the issue if you were to try.
"EVIL? You think people crossing an imaginary line and violating a whimsical rule is EVIL?"
I think breaking the law is a level of evil, yeah. You don't? What Bible are you reading, anyway?
As to the border, it is indeed NOT imaginary to ANY country on earth. Each one extends to the heavens and likely to the center of the earth. Try flying over someone's airspace without permission. And no greater idiocy can be found for anyone to suppose he can call immigration laws "whimsical".
"Man, not everything you disagree with is of the devil. Not every little action that hurts your feelings is evil."
Dan---Master of the Irrelevant and Undisputed Obvious Statement.
What's more, if all you've got is to jump on my use of an expression to make my point, that should indicate to even you that your position is crap. "Calling evil by its name" is no more than a euphemism. Try keeping it in your pants, Dan.
I don't have to find anything in the Bible to refer to illegal invasions. I only have to refer to "render unto Ceasar" and other references to abiding the lawful authorities, who, as the Bible points out, are there by His Will. Take it up with Him.
"If a man leaves Mexico to find food for his family to keep them from starving and comes to the US to do it, that just isn't evil, by any definition."
That's assuming that every, if not "any", illegal is trespassing in order to stave off starvation. Go ahead. Try to make that case. And try to prove that there is no place in their home countries for the starving to steal food. This is nothing but more dishonesty, Dan. Something for which you are becoming more well known. If it's just a matter of starvation, this country spends billions on relief efforts all over the freakin' world, and I'm sure countries south of the AZ border are recipients of American largess. Don't try to run that BS "starvation" crap in order to try to demonize those who no longer want to have illegals mucking up the countryside, or their personal properties, not to mention other infringements of the rights of US citizens.
I think breaking the law is a level of evil, yeah. You don't? What Bible are you reading, anyway?
One that says I must obey God, rather than men.
Take it up with God.
You know, the one who commands us to be welcoming to the foreigner and the outcast. The one who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their lack of hospitality to strangers.
Take it up with THAT God.
"One that says I must obey God, rather than men."
There ya go deceitfully picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. To obey the laws of our lawfully appointed and selected authorities IS obeying God.
Nobody on this side of the issue is talking about not welcoming foreigners, Dan, and to imply that is further deceit. If any of those 9/11 scumbags survived their attacks, would you be welcoming them as well? How about armed invaders, such as the criminal elements flowing across the border along with your mythical starving people? Welcome them, too?
We welcome all who enter via proper procedures, Dan. You welcome lawbreakers under some unproven pretense of starvation.
And the one true God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for merely a lack of hospitality, you preacher of false claims. That's a totally incomplete statement and arguably not the main reason for the destruction in the first place. Merely one of a list of things. But you don't like that truth.
There ya go deceitfully picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. To obey the laws of our lawfully appointed and selected authorities IS obeying God.
Yes, it is. UNLESS it is disobeying God's law. THEN we must disobey it.
Don't argue in circles, Marshall, it just looks silly. ("we must obey civil law because that's what God would want, and God wants us to obey it because it's civil law, which is what God wants us to obey.")
Daniel gladly stood up and REFUSED to follow the kings orders. He DISOBEYED the law, at some cost to himself, because it was the right thing to do. He believed that God did NOT want him to do what the king had commanded, so he wouldn't.
Similarly, I DO NOT believe that our immigration laws are just and good, I do not think they would please God.
And so, if it comes down to it, I would disobey human law in order to pursue God's will. For instance, I WOULD NOT turn in a foreigner simply because he had not gone through the right procedures in order to get here.
Would you have me disobey what I believe to be good and right? I hope not, but even if you would, I MUST obey God, not Marshall, so you'd be out of luck if that was your wish.
When you think you're capable of explaining how ANYTHING in the Bible suggests our current immigration laws might in any way displease God, why you go ahead and try. I'm always up for a laugh. As it now stands, there is nothing in our immigration laws that would in any way displease God. That's my position and now you are charged with trying to show why that position is wrong. I can't wait to see how you misapply Scripture to this end.
BTW, Dan. Don't even dare to simply quote verses. I want to know how it applies to our laws, how it might show our laws to be outside God's will, particularly when they are meant to benefit the citizens of this nation.
"I'm no legal expert, I just know that this AZ law SOUNDS LIKE to this non-legal expert that it can't be constitutional."
OK, Dan, I guess no one else is going to call you on this one.
Please explain how the Arizona law is unconstitutional, considering it mirrors the Federal law exactly.
I'll give you the thirty second liberal clock, too.
Go.
Dan Trabue: "Crime and murder are already illegal, no need to create new laws to criminalize what is already illegal, right?"
What new law was being created? It is an enforcement law, a law that tells the authorities to enforce the laws that exist. And, as such, the apparent argument is that it is unconstitutional to enforce the law. Not getting that at all, but you seem to, so maybe you could say why?
Dan Trabue: "I'd challenge you to find ANYTHING in the Bible or any other major philosophical writing that would call undocumented immigration EVIL, in and of itself."
How about Romans 13?
Dan Trabue: "I must obey God, rather than men."
That's certainly true. Now, you challenged Marshall to find anything in the Bible that would call violating the law as evil. How about offering anything from God that commands crossing the border against the law? (That would be the command you'd have to find, not the one about being charitable to strangers. That command, if it exists, is to you, not to those crossing the border. Remember, the "evil" that Marshall referred to was what you described as "people crossing an imaginary line and violating a whimsical rule". To make your point you will need to find a command from God that requires them to cross that line and violate that rule.)
Don't be ridiculous. The Bible is quite clear that we are to be welcoming and kind to foreigners. No other rule "requiring" foreigners to immigrate is necessary to still require that we treat them well.
Criminalizing them, arresting them and/or shipping them back does not seem to me to be treating them well.
Thus, as you agree, I must obey God, rather than men. MY UNDERSTANDING of God is that God would not appreciate our laws as it relates to immigrants, thus, if it came down to it, I would NOT cooperate with such laws.
I hope you can understand that much, but if not, I still must obey God, rather than Stan.
And exactly how does requiring foreigners to enter in a manner that provides for easier monitoring in the interest of national security and public safety represent something that God would not appreciate? All those that enter in this manner, respectful of our laws and customs (which God DEFINITELY appreciates of them) are certainly welcomed, whether they are here to stay for good or merely to visit. Indeed, even those with communicable diseases, which would prohibit their immigration, are welcomed by appealing to our health care system for assistance they can't get at home. So we are already QUITE welcoming and kind despite or horrible and cruel desires to protect ourselves. You dare call us ridiculous? It is YOU who would ignore God in this issue, Dan. That is crystal clear. You once again misapply Scripture to appease your liberal bent. (Once a conservative? Now THAT'S ridiculous!)
You know, Marshall, there are more things that are true than any of our tiny imaginations can picture.
That is, just because you can't imagine it that X, Y or Z can't be true, does not mean that these aren't true or that other people don't actually believe them for what they feel are legitimate, good, Godly reasons.
Fortunately, no one of us is the arbiter for all that is good and right in the world. We'd be foolish to dare to suggest such a thing.
I'm sure you'd agree.
Dan,
I don't "imagine" what is true unless I've come right out and said "I don't know for sure, but I suspect..." or words to that effect.
I don't "believe" that anything is true in the sense that I take it on faith except for those things of God that I cannot know whilst I yet walk the earth.
What I KNOW to be true I KNOW is true because I've been shown that it is true, either through example or experience. I know a punch in the face hurts because I've experienced it. I know a punch in anyone else's face hurts because I've seen them both grimace and express negative emotions. Therefor, I KNOW a punch in the face hurts. This is a fact that I KNOW to be true and despite exceptions where either the puncher is really weak or the punched is really huge, it is still a fact in the general sense.
What I know regarding Scripture is a result of the example of Its teachings which are plain to see, easy to understand and that covers at least 95% of It. If you "feel" you have good, legitimate and Godly reasons for what you think you know to be true, you likely don't know anything. I don't "feel" I have reasons, I KNOW I have Scriptural proof and support which is why I KNOW what I KNOW is fact and/or truth.
"Fortunately, no one of us is the arbiter for all that is good and right in the world. We'd be foolish to dare to suggest such a thing."
Which is why I have yet to dare suggest any such thing. I don't make any such claim and never have. This is something YOU bring up when you cannot convince me (or yourself) of what you claim to believe to be true. I have never done more than express what I KNOW to be true and I don't make any claims about that which I don't know. The closest I've ever come is to suggest what I think MIGHT be and the distinction between the two is never in doubt.
So the problem here is not that I'm wrong or that my position is flawed. The problem is your confidence in your argument is shaken and that provokes a defensive response in you, hence the last comment, which resembles so many other similar episodes over the course of our years of engagement.
You also, like so many against whom I debate and have debated, cannot cope with my confidence in my positions and like them may see me as stubborn and inflexible. I do not compromise on fact and truth and right vs wrong and which is which. This is only because none of you present convincing arguments or compelling evidence in support of your positions. My positions were formed by such and are equally capable of being changed by the presentation of stronger, more convincing arguments and/or more compelling evidence. None has yet been forthcoming. It's as simple as that.
Your suggestion is that we are to be welcoming to foreigners no matter what, on their terms instead of those of our gov't, which developed the current law in the interests of and for the benefit of all citizens of THIS country, which is its duty under God. That is entirely preposterous, impractical and dangerous and so is suggesting God wants it that way.
Dan, you skipped a step in the logical discourse. Here is how it went:
Point: Breaking the law to cross into this country is immoral.
Counterpoint: How is it immoral? You can't prove that.
Point: The Bible says we're supposed to obey the government.
Counterpoint: We are to obey God, not man.
Point: How is illegal entry into this country obeying God?
Counterpoint: "The Bible is quite clear that we are to be welcoming and kind to foreigners."
The "evil" that Marshall addressed (regardless of whether or not it is "evil") was not whether or not you should be kind to foreigners. The "evil" was the illegal entry into this country. The "evil" was the violation of this country's laws. You are arguing for being kind to strangers, but you are not providing any biblical command that would make it good for these strangers to violate the law. The question is not your cooperation with said law. The question is their violation of it.
(I'm leaving off entirely the subsequent question. If it is "right" in some sense that they violate the law to come to this country and right in your version to encourage them when they do, then what is "wrong"? If they come here -- giving the most charitable view -- to "make a better life for their family" and that value is good enough to violate the law, then what about the thief who steals to "make a better life for his family"? And, of course, there is the other question hanging in the air. If it is wrong for a nation to create ... what was your term ... "imaginary lines", then on what possible moral basis can any government exist? Since "nations" are fundamentally your "imaginary lines" within which they set their laws and govern their people, wouldn't that be fundamentally immoral? But, as I said, I'm leaving these questions alone -- I do not seek any answer to these -- because you have failed to answer the basic question: What command of God makes it moral for those outside of our country to violate the laws of our country?)
(Oh, and please note, I've asked questions, not offered mandates. Please leave off that nonsensical "I still must obey God, rather than Stan." I've made no commands.)
If they come here -- giving the most charitable view -- to "make a better life for their family" and that value is good enough to violate the law, then what about the thief who steals to "make a better life for his family"?
The difference is that no harm is done by a foreigner coming here, getting a job and saving his family from starvation.
With theft, harm is done. With someone leaving one nation, coming to another, finding work and making money, we just have capitalism at work in its best sense. Opportunity is missing there, so they come here.
Leaving their family to starve is not a good solution, getting a job here IS a good solution with no serious harm done.
Does someone taking a job mean that someone else might miss a job? Yes, but that's not harm, that's capitalism. That's the way it works. The immigrant is not "stealing" a job, he's applying for a job and - if an American is applying for the same job - the employer weighs the two applicant and hires the best one.
No harm.
This is why I don't understand the approach some take to laws. Dumping some amount of waste into streams or blowing off mountain tops - both of which have measurable harm - ought NOT be criminal, according to at least some here. But a fella with a starving family getting a job, THAT ought to be criminalized?
Where's the logic in that?
I'm generally supportive of laws that regulate or criminalize harmful behaviors. I'm generally opposed to laws that criminalize harmless behavior, or victimless crimes.
You want to smoke marijuana or tobacco? Okay, go for it, no harm done except for possibly yourself. You a guy that wants to marry a guy? Go for it, no harm, no foul.
You want to come here and get a job because your family is suffering where you come from? Go for it.
You want to blow up a mountain top, dumping the waste into streams below? Hell, no!
What is wrong with you those who want to criminalize some stuff that harms no one and give a pass on stuff that actually DOES cause harm? I must say, I see no consistency, morality or logic in that reasoning.
I say we stop responding to Dan's comments until he starts using the proper terms, such as "illegal alien" instead of the more innocuous sounding (and inaccurate)"immigrant" which as everyone here knows, including Dan, is an obfuscation.
Who's with me?
I say we stop responding to Dan's comments until he starts using the proper terms
Y'all gave up using proper terms a long time ago, bro. Socialist, fascist, etc, etc, they all mean just what you want them to mean, actual definitions be damned.
I, on the other hand, am using the actual meaning of the word, "immigrant," according to the dictionary.
I know and you know that we have criminalized some forms of immigration and this is what you are speaking of - not all immigrants. That doesn't change anything that makes it incorrect for me to use the term "immigrants" to describe, well, immigrants.
Proper terms? That's ironic.
Dan,
I've shown that you apply exact definitions in a dishonest fashion in order to make your case. Apply the terms "socialist" and "fascist" to people acting in a socialist or fascistic manner is quite appropriate even if they claim to be something else. Their actions determine the word that best applies to them. You're actually doing a reverse of the Feodor lie, wherein the idiot claims AZ officials are racist and their new law is proof (which is a lie he cannot support), but instead you prefer to say that despite the proof that abounds, Obabble is still not a socialist. That is equally a lie and just as consciously perpetuated.
Another lie is that there is no harm done by someone entering illegally (and that is after the lie that they are all here because their families are starving---do you have evidence that even ONE such case exists---I'm talking actual starvation. If not, you're lying.).
First of all, it is not the regulated capitalism you claim to prefer. People come across without the knowledge of authorities and lend themselves to exploitation, where they will be paid less than what that employer could otherwise offer to legal residents. This depresses the market by it's artificial effect on supply and demand. It also leads more citizens being unemployed causing tax dollars to be spent where they would not otherwise need to be spent. It is absolute stupidity to suggest that an unregulated influx of people would not harm the economy of the people who are citizens of the invaded nation. And this is true even if we are only invaded by the alleged hard-working alien.
There is also harm in the fact that by allowing such activity, the actions that led to the decision to trespass will continue unabated. Why do these people have starving families in the first place (assuming that is even true)? Why do they create families they did not have the funds to support? If they engaged in procreative activity and now find themselves unable to care for their families, how does that justify breaking the laws of another nation? To allow them to enter unabated to avail themselves of our resources only invites more of the same behaviors that led to such invasions in the first place. The harm is to themselves and others who see their behaviors as permissable since the consequences of their behaviors will be resolved by simply moving to America. The harm is in the perpetuation of the cycle.
As with all leftist proposals, others must bend to pay for the bad behaviors of others.
Though I have only scratched the surface, I have shown that it isn't a case of no harm being done by illegal entry, but only that you refuse to consider that there even might be. You, like all libs, look at the superficial and play on emotions in order to support bad behavior. All bad behaviors have negative impacts on society. It is true with tobacco use, homo unions, recreational drug use, illegal border crossings and not regulating the numbers of people trying to enter as well as the character and quality of those people.
What's ironic is that some complain about money sent to other countries "when there is so much we can use the money on here". So instead of sending the money out, you want to bring the problems here. And then you pretend no harm is being done.
You know that saying it three times doesn't help it make any more logical or moral sense, right?
The problem is that there is no consistency in your position, it's entirely whimsical and partisan.
Tell me this: On what basis would you have laws created? Is it only to prevent harm, as I lean towards? Or is it the whimsical "well, I like THIs law, I don't like THAT law" approach you seem to favor?
I'm not saying that this IS your position (whimsy, that is), but that this is how it seems to me - I see no coherent, logical, systematic approach to when you would and wouldn't create laws.
Perhaps you could illuminate a bit?
re: immigrants aren't here to work to save their families...
When NAFTA was being negotiated, 3 million producers, or 40 percent of all Mexicans working in agriculture, were cultivating corn.
Mexico’s corn producers were hit the hardest by NAFTA. Mexico’s borders opened 10 years ahead of schedule to allow cheaper imports of corn and beans from the U.S. and Canada.
As a result, small, poor farmers who produced for the local markets were forced to compete with cheaper imports. For those that did not lose their jobs, monthly income for self-employed farmers fell from 1959 pesos a month in 1991 to 228 pesos a month in 2003.
With this case study, for the first time, there is a quantifiable, accurate picture of the differences NAFTA had on men versus women. For example, poverty increased by five percent in female headed households since the implementation of NAFTA.
In addition, quality of living dropped dramatically; there was a 50 percent decline in the basic goods (such as food, clothing, health, education and housing) that Mexicans could afford to buy between 1990 and 2000, exacerbating poverty issues for women...
...almost 1.3 million agriculture jobs were lost in Mexico due to NAFTA (1 million men and 300,000
women). The TIR discovered that these jobs were primarily small and subsistence farmers in the rural sector that worked with corn and bean production, in essence the poor.
source
You break it, you buy it.
You reap what you sow.
The sins of the father are a curse upon his children, to the third and fourth generation.
What you do not do for the least of these my children, you do not do for me.
cont'd...
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy...
...Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter...?
...do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor...
...Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some have entertained angels unawares...
Interesting reading outside of the Bible can be found here, at a Catholic Worker commentary with much salient and valuable information and first hand evidence.
Dan,
Of course you know that blogger is playing games again...
Your link ain't workin', but you've tried this crap before. There's a lot going on that such articles about NAFTA do not take into account as we've discussed before, mostly regarding shortcomings and corruption in Mexico. That doesn't make us responsible for the havoc said shortcomings and corrpution wreaks upon their own people.
"The sins of the father are a curse upon his children, to the third and fourth generation."
Funny. The last time this concept was discussed, you were arguing this no longer is in effect. But of course, you dishonestly equate foreign economic policy to sin since you don't support it. The sin is in the shortcomings and corruption in Mexico.
"What you do not do for the least of these my children, you do not do for me."
What we in this country, whether privately or by gov't mandate, for the "least of His children" is never enough for fools like you, despite being incredibly generous. Yet you personally make every effort to avoid doing something more by clinging to "simple living". Hypocrite.
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy..."
A blatant lie about America and conservatives from the very leftist people guilty of that very sinful behavior. If you were really concerned about the poor and needy of other countries, you would teach them proper living and work to influence their gov'ts to adopt the very means and methods that led to America being the most prosperous nation in history. Faker.
"...Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?"
This is what this country does routinely with both our money and our might. What YOU'RE asking for is to act at the expense of legal citizens. THAT is NOT justice for them, that is oppressing them by forcing them to do for others what they won't do for themselves in their own country. Worse, YOU do as little as possible and pretend you're doing much.
"Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter...?"
You expect others to share their food while you do as little as possible in the name of "simple living". You would swing wide the doors until everyone in this country is as poor as those you think you're helping in order to provide for others, thereby hurting everyone. Good plan. And who remains behind to develop those countries from which your poor have fled in order that no more poor are generated? More socialist crap, more draining of the fruits of the labors of the industrious and productive.
"...do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor..."
Not happening by America or conservatives under current law, but you jokers perpetuate the cycle that creates such a situation. Nice going.
"...Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some have entertained angels unawares..."
Not happening in the one nation that allows more people in by lawful means than any other country on earth, including the countries from which most illegals came. Preach to Mexico. Over 600,000 enter legally each year. Pay freakin' attention.
Dan,
I read your second link which did work. What it showed does NOT support the whine that NAFTA is at fault. What it showed was that "collective" ownership of Mexican farmland (sounds communist to me) was subsidized by the gov't. This means that these people had no hope of prosperity without someone else footing the bill. Though NAFTA changed this equation, it doesn't mean that the agreement is malevolent in any way. The previous system was a fraud. If it was working, they wouldn't have needed subsidies to survive, which, as it happens didn't exactly lead to prosperity and a well educated population.
Thus, your argument fails on every level. Your preaching is totally misapplied (what a surprise) and the only whimsy is in your own poor mental functions.
Soooo... what consistent moral and logical ethic do you have for creating law?
As for 99% of the rest of your comments (like these...)
The last time this concept was discussed, you were arguing this no longer is in effect...
What YOU'RE asking for is to act at the expense of legal citizens...
You expect others to share their food while you do as little as possible in the name of "simple living".
... etc, etc, you have failed to understand or correctly repeat back my actual position, thus you're arguing against no one on those sorts of points.
Let me know if you'd like to discuss my actual positions sometime.
Here is that broken link, which should take you to...
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=25999
Dan Trabue: "The difference is that no harm is done ..."
I can only guess here, but it seems that, since you only responded to one of the questions for which I specifically stated "I do not seek any answer", you must be admitting that you have no answer for the real question I asked: What in God's commands requires that people enter this country illegally? I am still guessing, but I can only assume that you will not admit that you have no answer and that you simply changed subjects (from "It is illegal for them to enter this country" to "I won't recognize that law").
"Soooo... what consistent moral and logical ethic do you have for creating law?"
You're changing the subject here. I don't need to discuss how I'd craft a law. The issue revolves around you insisting there's something wrong with the laws we're discussing. You've offered nothing to that regard.
100% of my comments have been responses to yours, specifically, showing why your comments are goofy.
My comment regarding your "sins of the father" comment was in reference to a past discussion whereby you alluded to a notion that we aren't held responsible for the sins of the father. We spoke of consequences of the father's actions suffered by his descendents. Now, YOU imply, by the use of the verse, that we ARE to pay for some alleged sin by the legislators who passed NAFTA. Is this an incorrect inference, and if so, what's the proper meaning?
I'm saying that what YOU are insisting upon is a burden on the citizens of this country and thus you are supporting that we bear this burden, and to some unspecified degree. This IS your position, whether you intend it or not. It is the consequence of your position were it to be enacted.
"You expect others to share their food while you do as little as possible in the name of "simple living".
This is EXACTLY the case and again, the consequence of your position. You are the one who continues to insist upon "simple living" as the highest calling, while at the same time expecting WE THE PEOPLE to cough up all sorts of charity for those in need. How are you doing all you can to help those in need if you willfully and purposely avoid activity that would grow your own wealth and thus your ability to do more? You purposely stop short of REAL effort and hold up what little you do as justification for demanding from others; as if YOU are justified in expecting more from those who have busted their asses to accumulate more.
I'm more than aware of your ACTUAL positions, Dan. I've just cleared away the false facade.
Dan,
I read your re-posted link. This also does not make us the bad guy. It only tries to. It tries to blame NAFTA for not making everyone in Mexico better off, as if Mexico has no part in it. I also haven't seen in this link the mention of the subsidies to the farmers before NAFTA. This means that this article isn't dealing with all the facts. What need is there for subsidies if the farmers are doing well without them? They weren't obviously or they wouldn't need the subsidies and the removal of those subsidies after NAFTA wouldn't be an issue.
The fact of the matter seems to be that things sucked before NAFTA and because the Mexicans didn't take care of their own that somehow we are now to allow their poor to just walk across the border in any fashion they choose, or in any number that chooses to come because fools think that NAFTA caused their plight. It didn't. They were already screwed, either by choice or consequence of having a faulty or corrupted gov't.
None of it justifies open borders or unregulated numbers of people crossing illegally. This is true even if we concede that NAFTA was designed to cause the problem. Poverty does not justify breaking the law. That a law is hard for a poor person to abide does not make the law bad or worthy of elimination.
I don't need to discuss how I'd craft a law.
You mean you can't. Your positions are internally inconsistent and not supportable logically and morally. This is why you can't address this issue.
That's how it seems from here.
Stan...
you must be admitting that you have no answer for the real question I asked: What in God's commands requires that people enter this country illegally?
I have addressed this by pointing out that you all are not talking about my actual positions, just making up strawmen to knock down.
I have not SAID that God requires people enter this country illegally.
I have said that God requires/expects us to be welcoming to strangers.
Here:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy
Jailing or deporting immigrants is not helping the poor and needy, I can't participate in that. When they come here at least partially because of OUR policies (our statutes, to put it in biblical parlance) and then to kick them out when they come to simply try to get jobs is NOT consistent with helping the poor and needy...
do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor...
...Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some have entertained angels unawares...
If we have statutes that have contributed to a (specifically poor) people losing their livelihood, then that to me IS oppressing the poor, the sojourner, etc. Kicking them out of this country when they come merely to try to get jobs is NOT showing hospitality.
This is my reasoning for opposing these laws, why I can't comply with them. This and dozens (hundreds) more passages like this compel me to not comply with these sorts of laws.
That is my position. I've not said that God requires that they come here, so I don't need to defend that position. Strawman.
"You mean you can't. Your positions are internally inconsistent and not supportable logically and morally. This is why you can't address this issue."
No. I mean I don't have to. A method for how I'd craft a law is irrelevant to this discussion. What the hell don't you get about this fact? And what do you find "inconsistent" about anything I've said? It is YOUR positions that lack logic OR a proper sense of morality because you project immorality upon the wrong people in order to assuage your socialist sensibilities.
We ARE welcoming to strangers to the tune of about 600,000 per year. YOU don't provide any jobs. YOU don't expend effort to create wealth to throw at people YOU think is owed it. You simply insist that anyone be allowed to enter anytime, for any reason at any point along any of our borders and under the stupidly misguided pretense that GOD expects it of us. That's crap.
The fact is that you don't care what the impact to our nation would be with an unabated influx of immigrants would be because you have no intention of doing anything that would increase the wealth of this nation to mitigate that impact. You somehow believe that a constant flow of uneducated, unskilled people who don't know the language will somehow benefit this country and lead it back to prosperity.
So you have not said that God requires them to come here? But you haven't shown how the laws are unGodly. You haven't shown how we benefit by ignoring or changing laws meant to protect the integrity of our economic system, or by allowing others to ignore those laws.
I've shown how your strawman regarding NAFTA is used as an excuse to dismiss all that was truly the cause of the poverty and the lack of opportunity that resulted from it, but you want us to bear ALL the burden for whatever inability NAFTA had to cure all of Mexico's ills. NAFTA gave Mexico a boost and they dropped the ball in using it's benefits to solve their problems. That isn't on us, especially since it was agreed to by Mexico and not forced upon them.
Your arguments are shot full of holes, Dan, and you misapply Scripture to fill them up.
Your arguments are shot full of holes, Dan
Kettle, pot.
That's funny coming from the fella who can't give even an idea of how we ought to create laws (in his opinion) because his own beliefs are chuck full of holes big enough to drive an SUV through.
First, remove the plank from your own eye..., right?
And, yet again, suffice to say that your summaries of my positions do not, in any real world way, actually represent my positions.
Strawmen are so much funner to knock down...
For your review:
Marshall Art: "They're still ILLEGAL aliens. The worst part is that by not calling this evil by its name ..."
Dan Trabue: "EVIL? You think people crossing an imaginary line and violating a whimsical rule is EVIL?"
(Stop for a moment and review. The "evil" that Marshall identified was crossing the border against the law. The "evil" that you ridiculed was crossing the border against the law. All on the same page here.)
Dan Trabue: "I'd challenge you to find ANYTHING in the Bible or any other major philosophical writing that would call undocumented immigration EVIL"
Marshall Art: "I think breaking the law is a level of evil, yeah. You don't? What Bible are you reading, anyway?"
Dan Trabue: "One that says I must obey God, rather than men."
You're still on the same topic. Marshall called it "evil" for illegal aliens to break our laws by crossing the border. You challenged him to produce a biblical reason for such a claim. His biblical reason was that breaking the law is biblically evil. Your response is right there.
Since then, I've asked you to explain your statement "One that says I must obey God, rather than men." I didn't disagree with your statement. I simply asked what command from God was being followed when an illegal immigrant crossed the border against the law. That's what I've asked all along. That's it. Your best answer is "Don't be ridiculous. The Bible is quite clear that we are to be welcoming and kind to foreigners. No other rule 'requiring' foreigners to immigrate is necessary to still require that we treat them well." This is not an answer to the question. This answers, perhaps, why you won't defend the border or agree with immigration enforcement or ... however else you won't comply, but it does not answer the original question. What command of God requires foreign nationals to violate U.S. law by crossing the border? That was your original claim -- "One that says I must obey God, rather than men." I've simply asked you to explain that claim in regards to the question to which it was applied. You haven't.
Look, Dan, this is simple. You just say, "Look, guys, I can see that I changed directions there. It happens. The conversation took place over time. I lost track of the point. My mistake." It doesn't say you were wrong that you must obey God rather than man. Hey, I agree with that. It doesn't say that Marshall was right in his characterization of illegal border crossing as "evil". It simply acknowledges that your didn't properly align your arguments with the question. It could happen to anyone.
And, of course, I'm pretty sure you don't actually have an answer for the question (the one that has never been answered), but you will surely not admit to that, so I won't expect that much.
Marshall called it "evil" for illegal aliens to break our laws by crossing the border. You challenged him to produce a biblical reason for such a claim. His biblical reason was that breaking the law is biblically evil.
1. Breaking a law is biblically wrong UNLESS it is an ungodly law.
2. I challenge the presumption that crossing the border is a biblical wrong.
3. There is no biblical support for the notion that crossing a national boundary is a wrong (much less an evil).
4. In fact, the Bible repeatedly comes out in support of treating migrants/foreigners well. Thus, if we are required to treat them well, then arresting them or sending them back would be contrary to this notion.
I hope that explains my position.
To help further clarify:
5. We can see that we are required to treat foreigners well.
6. Thus, if there is a law that requires to treat them NOT well, then that is a law that I can't obey.
7. I think arresting or deporting a fellow who's here working to send money to his poor family in Mexico IS treating them wrongly, thus I can't comply with laws that would cause me to turn him in or support in any way his deportation or arrest.
I must obey God rather than men.
I hope that makes it even more clear.
Dan,
Now you expose more fully the rank stupidity of your position. Let's review:
"1. Breaking a law is biblically wrong UNLESS it is an ungodly law."
There's no disagreement here until you try to apply it to our immigration laws. It doesn't work because you haven't established that it is in any way inherently unGodly. It isn't. You only say it is because you believe anyone who wants to come here should be allowed to without any pre-conditions whatsoever, including following our protocols, which are designed to protect the interests of our citizens.
"2. I challenge the presumption that crossing the border is a biblical wrong."
Challenge all you want, but even if the law itself is "unGodly", which isn't the case here, one must abide or suffer the consequences. And since we welcome hundreds of thousands of people entering the country every year, we are in no way in violation of God's will that we BE welcoming to the foreigner by regulating who comes in and how many. When you can support THAT goofy proposition, then you'll have gotten back on track in this discussion.
"3. There is no biblical support for the notion that crossing a national boundary is a wrong (much less an evil)."
National boundaries are established by the lawful authorities of each nation. Lawful authorities have God's sanction (see Romans 13). Breaking laws established by said lawful authorities is indeed evil if God insists we're to abide such laws. Totally supported Biblically. Your welcome.
"4. In fact, the Bible repeatedly comes out in support of treating migrants/foreigners well. Thus, if we are required to treat them well, then arresting them or sending them back would be contrary to this notion."
We treat well around 600,000 foreigners every year. That ain't hay. It is foolish to say we're mistreating anyone if we're enforcing the laws they're breaking. If that was the case, then we are mistreating everyone who gets a parking ticket by exacting the proscribed punishment or procedure for the breaking of that law. Holding people accountable for breaking the law is NOT mistreatment in any way, shape or form.
The rest in the next comment---
"5. We can see that we are required to treat foreigners well."
And we do. There is no Biblical support for allowing foreigners to set the terms for entry into another country, which is what you are supporting.
"6. Thus, if there is a law that requires to treat them NOT well, then that is a law that I can't obey."
This implies that the intention of our immigration laws is to mistreat foreigners. Go ahead and try to make this case. It's as stupid as Feodor's case that the AZ law is intended to allow for racial discrimmination. In addition, you're assuming that enforcing the law is intended to be a mistreatment of the law breaker. And you dare question the soundness of MY arguments!!!
"7. I think arresting or deporting a fellow who's here working to send money to his poor family in Mexico IS treating them wrongly, thus I can't comply with laws that would cause me to turn him in or support in any way his deportation or arrest."
Thus, to be consistent, you must feel that arresting someone for knocking over a liquor store in order to support his family is treating him wrongly. There are acceptable ways to accomplish the foreigner's goal, none of which requires breaking any nation's laws. If there are jobs aplenty here for such people, then aquiring a temporary visa should be easy to get and renew. If there are limitations on such visas, then that must not be the case and to enter illegally and allow one's self to be paid poorly is to inhibit the ability of an unemployed citizen to find work.
"Do you expect us to believe that immigration enforcement officials are forcing illegals to leave behind their American born children?"
No not at all. I'm saying that when families are placed in detention centers many times the children are separated from their parents within the detention center. Children should be able to stay as a family unit in these facilities.
"Children should be able to stay as a family unit in these facilities."
I don't have a problem with that. I would have to assume, however, that in some cases there is not the space to accomodate both families AND more unsavory characters being deported and keeping kids away from them is the idea. But where possible, a room for families is an acceptable idea.
"If there are jobs aplenty here for such people, then aquiring a temporary visa should be easy to get and renew"
There are requirements for obtaining work visas. Many desperate to cross the border for work probably can't meet those requirements.
United Methodist Women saw to it that children were able to continue their education in these facilities. I am very proud to be part of a group of women who seek this type of justice for a children.
First (and again), "arresting them or sending them back" is what we do, not what they do. And the question has been about what they do.
Dan Trabue: "There is no biblical support for the notion that crossing a national boundary is a wrong."
I'm pretty sure you know this, so I'm just putting it out there for clarity. The biblical support would be "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1). Now, if, by "no biblical support", you mean that there is no biblical comment on the morality of national borders, I'd have to agree with that, obviously. But ... I'm not at all sure you want to go there. There are a lot of laws on the books for which there is "no biblical support". Take, for instance, oh, I don't know, how about our right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and that sort? Nothing in the Bible hints at "It is immoral to limit my freedom of speech." Even smaller issues would get pretty nasty pretty quickly. I'd be free to travel whatever speeds I chose on the freeway and ignore whatever tickets I got because "I must obey God rather than man ... and God never said anything about speeding."
But, if I'm understanding you correctly, the command "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" has no effect if there is not a specific command in Scripture that the governing authorities are trying to legislate. And, it would seem that you believe it is wrong for a nation -- any nation -- to attempt to control its borders. Since you said, "Breaking a law is biblically wrong UNLESS it is an ungodly law", I can only assume that you mean that borders are ungodly laws. Since I don't actually find any such command in Scripture, I'm not sure of your basis for that position, but ...
Post a Comment