SB 1070

[executioner]

Less than 50 percent of the US citizens pay taxes.

Untrue. 47 percent of U.S. households did not owe federal income taxes; however, all people purchasing goods in the United States pay state sales taxes, never mind local sales taxes and state and local income taxes and other federal taxes (such as payroll tax). The percentage of U.S. citizens who pay any kind of federal taxes is 90 percent. [Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/busin ... hardt.html]

Over 50 percent are on US government and/or state assistance programs

.

Not quite. In the third quarter of 2008, the peak of the financial crisis, 45 percent of U.S. households had at least one member receiving government benefits. That means the actual overall percentage of American citizens is a good deal lower. [Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p70-119.pdf]

Our economy is failing. Our health care system is taxed. We just can't take any more people, especially if they have no regard for the laws of our land.

Even accepting the first two statements (I would actually reverse the verbs: our economy is taxed; our health-care system is failing), it's quite the non sequitur to argue, "We just can't take any more people." Won't those people pay taxes that will provide more revenue for the government? Won't they buy things, injecting more money into the economy? "Especially if they have no regard for the laws of our land." This is true on its face; they're breaking a law by not entering legally; but, again, data show illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at rates any higher than would be expected for a group of people of their class and income levels born and bed in the U.S. [Source: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime ... ver_i.html]

This is not an anti-Mexican policy. You are blowing this out of proportion. There are about 12 million of you people over here illegally.

First, it was down to 11 million in 2008, down from 12.5 million in 2007, so I wouldn't be surprised if we're down below 10 million now. Less than 6 million are from Mexico. No one really talks about the other 5 million though. Roughly 1 million are from Asia. Yet I don't hear a lot about keeping all those Asians... [source:http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf]

There is a large population committing crimes. We have drugs coming in from Mexico. We have baby trafficing from Mexico. We have convicted felons, guilty of killing people while driving vehicles while drunk, when they had no license to drive or authority to be in this country to begin with.

Anecdotes are fun, but they're no substitute for facts, and the facts show that while, yes, illegal immigrants commit crimes, so do legal immigrants, and so do U.S. citizens, and if you take an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant and a U.S. citizen, all from the same income level and socioeconomic background, there is no difference between each one's likelihood to commit a crime. [see above]

Instead of blaming us for wanting to protect our legal citizens from your corrupted, law-breaking, illegal aliens, then fix YOUR country.

Repeating the same incorrect stereotypes does not make them any less incorrect. No one doubts Mexico needs to be fixed. But you know what's fueling the drug-and-guns crisis in Mexico? American guns and American appetite for illegal drugs. The Mexican drug trade is decimated the minute we legalize marijuana in the States. It's not just a Mexican problem.

Our Constitution binds our government to protect us, and the government is not willing to do it. So the states are going to have their fill, and voters are going to oust this nut job Obama and his whacko regime...I HOPE.

Well, as long as we're rational about it. The Obama administration has increased deportations by 10 percent over the Bush administration. Illegal border crossings are one-third the levels they were a decade ago, and it's estimated two-thirds of all attempted crossers are detained at the border. The idea that the border is this lawless outpost, with violence and beheadings and zero enforcement is patently, blatantly, laughably false. [Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =126887021]

Look, what if Russia started to invade your country with a few million people a year, until it took food out of your mouth, teachers away from your students, and then your country decided to make you speak Russian as a secondary language? What if your doctors were tied up helping the Russians in your hospitals, while you, a natural citizen, had to wait. Imagine you having to give up more of what YOU earn, to pay for someone else to live in a prison, for a murder that could of been avoided had that Russian stayed in Russia.

Ooooh, the Russians! So much scarier than the Mexicans! Look, it's not "a few million people a year." It's more like 250,000. And why do they do it? Not to sell drugs or rape women or kill babies. Because their average wage increases from $2.30 to $8.50 per hour once they cross the Rio Grande. The question of their effect on American workers is much more complicated than either side would try to make it out to be. Yes, the wages of low-income American workers are reduced by immigrants, both legal and illegal, willing to work for dirt cheap. On the other hand, the increased productivity and profits those immigrants provide lead to lower costs for the goods and services they produce, therefore increasing the spending power of all residents who live in high-immigration areas. As for using American social services, these immigrants also pay taxes -- sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes, etc. -- the benefits of which they will not receive to the degree U.S. citizens do. Studies indicate this offsets the benefits they receive, and the overall net cost to their U.S.-born neighbors is zero. [Source: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications ... nCSR26.pdf]

If I were you, I would be investigating the EU, the NWO and other organizations that view your country as a drain on the global community. They want to get rid of your country, and consolidate it. There are dark powers at play to take your country down, and it is not the USA. If anyone has given you guys the "get out of jail free card", it is the USA.

Yes, of all the countries in the world causing problems, including its own member countries of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Iceland, the EU is worried about taking down Mexico. That makes soooo much sense. How would they take it down? Coup? Assassination? Nuclear holocaust? Drive it into bankruptcy, foreclose and sell the land to Warren Buffet? Sorry, I'm a little slow to buy the "dark powers" argument.

You are listening to the mainstream press, which is all BULLCRAP. They say what the government wants them to say.

This is the point at which I realized once and for all that I just wasted my time reading everything before and after that. As a former member of the mainstream press, let me tell you: There is no vast conspiracy, no taking marching orders from the government, no big cabal out to lead the big Obamarevolution to take away all the rights and freedoms of the hard-working Americans. ... But then I would say that, wouldn't I? Mwahahaha.

We have had border patrols, hired, trained and then put in prison for doing their job. If you think there is a major resistance, think again. We must be the only country that prosecutes it's one employees for doing their own job, protecting the citizens

I'm pretty sure their job description didn't involve shooting unarmed people who are running away from them and then covering it up, which is what those agents were convicted of doing, by a jury of their peers, in a court of law. [Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html]

If you cannot afford to come to the US, pay your way, get a job, assume our identity and our culture, forsaking your own, then the USA does not want you.

The United States has never required that legal immigrants forsake their own culture. Assimilation is not a requirement for citizenship, nor should it be. The federal government should have no role in telling its citizens what language to speak, what religious customs to observe (with certain exceptions), how to dress (with certain exceptions) or what culture to maintain in their home.

That is where the majority of us are at right now.

Gosh, I hope not.

We do not want to be a Muslim nation.

Good. Because we're not, and we won't be. Just like we're not, have never been and shouldn't ever be a Christian nation. We are a nation that has no official religion and provides the freedom for people of all faiths to practice that faith when, where and how they see fit, providing the exercise of that faith does not infringe on the rights of others to practice their faith.

We do not want to be anything else. We are about full. We are running out of land, roads, food, fuel, money, etc. It is time to lock the doors and tell other nations to get off of their asses and do for themselves for a while. Sometimes teaching people to fish is better than continuing to catch the fish for them while they do nothing. Tough love baby!

None of this is remotely true, nor wise, nor particularly useful to the discussion.

BTW, The law stated that the Mexicans would be expelled only if they were found guilty of being here illegally. Legal aliens stay.

Unless they left their papers at home. Or unless they're U.S. citizens out for a stroll without their wallet, and whoops! They're a little too "shady looking" for the police officer's taste, and now they're in a holding cell waiting for someone to bring their driver's license, which as we all know can be forged, to the station.

Why are YOU AGAINST FOLLOWING THE LAWS?

Interesting that many police chiefs in Arizona were also opposed to this law. Were they also "AGAINST FOLLOWING THE LAWS?!" Or were they merely concerned that a law like this would destroy the trust between Hispanics and the police, which is key to arresting actually dangerous people, and noticing that the one county that makes it a point to focus heavily on illegal immigration has actually seen a sharp increase in violent crime as resources are diverted from preventing it? [Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P58T20100526]

If these law breakers don't want to do it our way, it's too bad for them. Living here is not a RIGHT. It is something we earn and contribute to...under the law.

All this is true, as far as it goes. Someone who enters the country illegally takes the risk that he or she will be discovered and potentially deported. They obviously don't have a right to be here, but they're still willing to try because of the desperation they feel across the border. We can type in all caps and rant and rave about law and order all we want; that will help exactly zero people, will go exactly none of the way toward solving the problem, and will do a whole heck of a lot to turn people off to the faith we're supposed to be offering to them, regardless of their nation of origin or the legal status of their residency.

I respect all the opinions on here and I'm agreeing with what Manny is saying here. I feel its time we start looking at this matter as a Christian first and an American second. It's time our hearts change for these people and really show them what we as Christians are really made of.

[executioner]

This country is broke and we can't afford to give out more handouts. Many Americans don't understand the dire straits our country and our economy is facing. If the illegal immigrants were forced to go home, then there would be jobs for our citizens. We lost 8 million jobs during this recession (close to depression). These jobs are not coming back soon if at all. For every job that's available there are six unemployed people. There are not enough jobs and many Americans are going to be unemployed on a permanent basis with no hope of getting a job. Where is the compassion for these people? We need to take care of our own first.

I'm sorry but you are off base here. Us Americans dont want to do the jobs that they are doing. For sure not at the wage they are doing it for. Us Americans would rather stay on unemployment then go that low. I work for a large media company and I see alot about the job market in my field and let tell you 90% of the Amaericans that are out of work right are only looking for work that pertains to their field of degree; For the most part their field is gone and they can no longer do that, but as long as our government continues to give them unemployment why should they do anything else?

[executioner]

I live in Arizona legally. If you got here jumping the fence or what ever go home. We respect the law here.

Paper work is no excuse for not following the law.

This State is over run by people laughing in the face of the law, getting emergency health care and never getting a bill. Has nothing to do with race.. what a load of rubbish.

My wife is Latino, and we both support the new law fully..

Bloody Obama

Pray about it and think and feel Christian first and citizen second and I will tell you your heart will change.

[knotodiswrld]

This discussion seems to have strayed off of the one and only point that matters at all.

"Illegal" means "Illegal"!!! It doesn't matter how devoted a person is to their family, or how hard they work, or whether they pay taxes, or whether it would help or hurt our economy to loose them ... none of that is even the slightest bit relevant.

The one and only relevant point is that if someone ... anyone is in a country ... any country ... illegally then they are criminals. If they have never broken the law in any country with the exception of having slipped in illegally, then they are still criminals and must be brought to justice.

How anyone can think that "racism" plays into the desire to enforce current immigration laws is beyond me. If you believe that, you've bought into the propaganda being used by certain elements in our country who wish to use illegal immigrants as pawns for their own agenda.

If you want to discern whether someone is motivated by racism when they advocate clamping down on illegal immigration, ask one simple question. Ask, "Would you be in favor of using the same measures and taking the same actions against a British or Irish offender as you would a against a Mexican or Latin American offender?" If the answer is, "Well, of course, DUH!!!" then you know the person is not a racist.

And believe me, I think we should take the exact same actions and use the exact same measures against people from Britain who are here illegally as we do against people from Mexico or South America. Admittedly, illegal immigrants from Merry ole' England are a bit less common than illegal immigrants from Mexico. Perhaps the Atlantic Ocean is a little more difficult to cross than the Rio Grande.

So forget racism. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with this. Put it right out of your mind. The simple fact of the matter is that if someone enters any country illegally from any other country, they are criminals, and they need to be brought to justice.

Now, ideally that would mean long prison sentences for each and every one of them. However, there are now so many illegal immigrants in the U.S. ... because we didn't put them in prison for 10 years when there were only a few of them ... that to imprison them all would be an impossible economic burden. We simply don't have the funds to support that many prisoners.

Even deportation, at this point, might be difficult due to the sheer numbers. I think the only solution is to shut down businesses that hire illegal aliens. Padlock the doors and confiscate the property. Once businesses stop hiring illegals aliens, there will be no more incentive for them to remain. If they wish to stay, they will return to their native land ... be it Britain or Mexico, France or El Salvador ... and apply to enter legally.

Now, does the process to enter legally need to be streamlined and made more accesible? For crying out loud yes! No one ... no one denies that. People like Sean Hannity is quite vocal about the need to streamline the process, while also being quite vocal about the fact that this doesn't justify criminal activity.

But we can't "streamline" the process in such a way that it rewards people who have already broken the law. No we should not let criminals stay and reward their crime by giving them a "path to citizenship". How is that fair to all the people who came here legally; who filled out the paperwork and paid their fees and did it the right way? How is it anything but the vilest insult, the most blatant slap in the face, to people who obeyed the law and did things the right way? The very notion is an affront to every law abiding person currently residing in this country, be they citizen or a visitor with a visa.

I know the current system stinks, and it needs to be fixed. That does not make it okay to break the law.

When you cross any country's border illegally, you automatically, no matter your intentions, become a hostile invading element. As such, that country should deal with you accordingly.

Even Brother Andrew (click if you don't know who he is) didn't sneak into the countries in which he operated. Despite the fact that he carried contraband (i.e. Bibles into Communist countries), he drove in through the border stations and presented his papers to the proper officials. (Read his book, "God's Smuggler" for more on this.)

There is no justification for violating the sovereignty of another nation by entering it illegally. Mexico fiercely defends it's own borders, and treats violators very harshly. Good for them!!!! They should!!! Any country should!

If you insist on looking at it from a spiritual point of view, consider this. Violating another nation's sovereignty by entering it illegally is one of the worst crimes a person can commit against that nation, no matter what the legal penalty is. A nation, any nation, has a duty before God to defend it's own sovereignty. Romans 13 even authorizes that nation to use lethal force (i.e. "bear the sword"), if necessary, to maintain order. It is a sin for a head of state to refuse to defend his/her own nation's sovereignty.

Pray for illegal immigrants all you want. Feel sorry for them. Feed them before you turn them in if you want. But make no mistake, any nation that allows people to enter illegally without consequence is failing it's duty before God.

So, let's try to focus on the one and only aspect of this issue that matters. Violating the sovereignty of another nation by entering it illegally is a heinous act and it must be dealt with accordingly, not rewarded. That's it!!! That's all that matters.

[CatNamedManny]

This discussion seems to have strayed off of the one and only point that matters at all.

"Illegal" means "Illegal"!!! It doesn't matter how devoted a person is to their family, or how hard they work, or whether they pay taxes, or whether it would help or hurt our economy to loose them ... none of that is even the slightest bit relevant.

Well, actually, it is very relevant. If it would cost billions of dollars to round up and deport them, raise the prices of goods and services and deprive employers of a substantial part of their workforce, then perhaps the law is no longer an accurate reflection of reality.

The one and only relevant point is that if someone ... anyone is in a country ... any country ... illegally then they are criminals. If they have never broken the law in any country with the exception of having slipped in illegally, then they are still criminals and must be brought to justice.

"Justice" in this case means fining them. That's the law. There's no law that requires deportation if their only crime is being here illegally. Which indicates to me that the law isn't so interested in your legal status as how good a neighbor you are once you're here.

Even deportation, at this point, might be difficult due to the sheer numbers. I think the only solution is to shut down businesses that hire illegal aliens. Padlock the doors and confiscate the property. Once businesses stop hiring illegals aliens, there will be no more incentive for them to remain. If they wish to stay, they will return to their native land ... be it Britain or Mexico, France or El Salvador ... and apply to enter legally.

I disagree that this is an economically sound way to go about handling the problem, but it's actually a proposed solution, and I commend you for that.

But we can't "streamline" the process in such a way that it rewards people who have already broken the law. No we should not let criminals stay and reward their crime by giving them a "path to citizenship". How is that fair to all the people who came here legally; who filled out the paperwork and paid their fees and did it the right way? How is it anything but the vilest insult, the most blatant slap in the face, to people who obeyed the law and did things the right way? The very notion is an affront to every law abiding person currently residing in this country, be they citizen or a visitor with a visa.

The people who did things the right way did not risk being raped and murdered by thugs to get here and likely had a good deal more money with which to go through the process. In other words, they didn't sacrifice nearly as much as the illegal immigrants did to get here. For that matter, if they already have their citizenship, why should they be insulted that someone else risked death by bullet, blade, starvation, thirst, heat or cold to march hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to work minimum wage jobs in this country just to send the proceeds back home for their family? Illegal immigrants have paid dearly to get here; they just don't have the time or money their wealthier brethren have.

Also, "amnesty" isn't an unheard-of idea. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law a comprehensive immigration reform bill that provided amnesty to every illegal immigrant who had lived continuously in the U.S. since 1982. It also awarded green cards to another 2.7 million illegal immigrants.

I know the current system stinks, and it needs to be fixed. That does not make it okay to break the law.

Ok, but that's on the conscience of the immigrants. Our conscience needs to be concerned with how to show these people the love of Christ.

When you cross any country's border illegally, you automatically, no matter your intentions, become a hostile invading element. As such, that country should deal with you accordingly.

This is hyperbolic. Hostility has little to do with the intentions of the vast majority of Mexican border crossers. The natural progression of your argument is that American troops should be allowed to kill any and all border crossers on sight. They are, after all, "a hostile, invading element." I'm sure Jesus would totally be on board with that.

Even Brother Andrew didn't sneak into the countries in which he operated. Despite the fact that he carried contraband (i.e. Bibles into Communist countries), he drove in through the border stations and presented his papers to the proper officials. (Read his book, "God's Smuggler" for more on this.)

So he broke the law to do something he felt was necessary without any malice toward the country he was entering. Presumably, he should have reported everything he was carrying to that nation's customs officials, otherwise he was ... entering it illegally. Sneaking was exactly what he was doing. Was he, too, a "hostile invading element"?

If you insist on looking at it from a spiritual point of view, consider this. Violating another nation's sovereignty by entering it illegally is one of the worst crimes a person can commit against that nation, no matter what the legal penalty is.

So, they should be killed, right? I mean, if it's one of the worst crimes, then they deserve one of the worst punishments.

A nation, any nation, has a duty before God to defend it's own sovereignty. Romans 13 even authorizes that nation to use lethal force (i.e. "bear the sword"), if necessary, to maintain order. It is a sin for a head of state to refuse to defend his/her own nation's sovereignty.

This is a blatantly wrong interpretation of Romans 13:3b-4, which states: "Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain."

There is nothing in there about a nation defending its sovereignty, merely that if a Christian chooses to break the law, then the government has every right to react as it sees fit. If this nation chooses to react compassionately toward illegal immigrants, that is in no way a violation of God's word. It is certainly not a sin, and to say otherwise is sadly representative of how far off-base and irrational this argument has gotten.

Pray for illegal immigrants all you want. Feel sorry for them. Feed them before you turn them in if you want. But make no mistake, any nation that allows people to enter illegally without consequence is failing it's duty before God.

Hogwash. Twisting the Bible to fit your political beliefs might make you feel better, but that's all it will do. It certainly doesn't lend you or your argument any credibility.

So, let's try to focus on the one and only aspect of this issue that matters. Violating the sovereignty of another nation by entering it illegally is a heinous act and it must be dealt with accordingly, not rewarded. That's it!!! That's all that matters.

So, again, a "heinous act." Worthy of... death? Life imprisonment?

You know, we ALL have received amnesty. We ALL have committed "heinous acts" that should have been "dealt with accordingly." We should not have been "rewarded" with eternal life in the presence of God. Yet our ruling authority had compassion on us and did so anyway.

How quickly we forget.

[zak89]

I respect all the opinions on here and I'm agreeing with what Manny is saying here. I feel its time we start looking at this matter as a Christian first and an American second. It's time our hearts change for these people and really show them what we as Christians are really made of.

Pray about it and think and feel Christian first and citizen second and I will tell you your heart will change.

I absolutely cringe when I see nationalistic interests get tied in with "Christian" interests. And I put that in quotes because there seems to be a perspective among certain groups in this country that there is only one way to see any issue and that, of course, their way of viewing it is God's way. Our duties as Christians far outweighs any nationalistic interests we may have. I guess we forgot that whole parable of the sheep and goats sort of thing. Oh, and don't get off by reminding me that God expects us to follow the laws of the land. That's one verse (or maybe a few) plopped down in a Book that is literally filled with thousands of verses concerning how we as representatives of God are supposed to stand with and for those who are poor, have no voice, are downtroden, sick, in prison (surely not...after all, they committed the crime), naked, hungry, etc... I'm sure God will be very understanding that we had laws that came into play that let us off the hook.

Ok, but that's on the conscience of the immigrants. Our conscience needs to be concerned with how to show these people the love of Christ.

This is hyperbolic. Hostility has little to do with the intentions of the vast majority of Mexican border crossers. The natural progression of your argument is that American troops should be allowed to kill any and all border crossers on sight. They are, after all, "a hostile, invading element." I'm sure Jesus would totally be on board with that.

Ok, I think I see what's going on here.

The above statements are confusing individual responsibility (in this case, that of the Christian) with the role of government, which is by nature, a secular (though God-ordained) institution. Let's look at the government's role in the Bible (excluding Israel, because Israel is a special nation given specific laws due to it's position in God's overall plan - unless you believe all nations should adopt Levitical law, it makes no sense to treat the OT government as a pattern other than in the most broad, general sense).

The key passage here is of course, Romans 13:

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Using ESV, so nobody will accuse me of being a KJV-only freak.

But look at the way that government is described! It's is not an institution designed to promote fairness and equality. It is not appointed to care for widows and orphans. It is not described as the caretaker of the poor and needy. What is it?

One who "does not bear the sword in vain."
A "*terror*... to bad [conduct]."
An "avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer"
The "ministers of God, attending to [the collection of taxes]"

This is the most in-depth discussion of secular* government in the NT, to my knowledge. And it is decidedly "libertarian", if I may say so. The government's primary (if not only) role is to be a terror - to be an avenger - to keep lawbreakers in a state of constant fear. The government is to bear the sword "not in vain". Not a pleasant institution, I'll admit, but this is the governments role - to do what individuals cannot do (that is, without chaos and anarchy breaking out).

American troops should be allowed to kill any and all border crossers on sight. They are, after all, "a hostile, invading element." I'm sure Jesus would totally be on board with that

Again, you prove my point. Jesus has nothing to say about what the US and it's troops can or can't do - though I grant you that such an policy would be wrong, Jesus never addressed the corruption governments of his time; Jesus didn't condemn war; he didn't condemn capital punishment, etc etc.

That's one verse (or maybe a few) plopped down in a Book that is literally filled with thousands of verses concerning how we as representatives of God are supposed to stand with and for those who are poor, have no voice, are downtroden, sick, in prison (surely not...after all, they committed the crime), naked, hungry, etc...

First off, when someone tries to "outweigh" one (or a few) verses with "thousands of verses", there's a good chance that they are misinterpreting something. If we regard the Bible as inerrant, than the "who has the most verses" game is quite silly - congratulations! you just proved the Bible is not the Word of God because it contradicts itself!

Obviously, that is not the case. In this instance, you are correct in saying that we (as Christians) are to care (not sure "stand with" is a Biblical term) for the poor, sick, imprisoned, etc etc. Though as an aside, I trust you are not insinuating that Christians are to help prisoners escape prison! Regardless, all that is well and fine; of course Christians should be serving all those in need, (as the feds like to say) "whether documented or not". But in a discussion over a secular law, like SB1070, that is precisely beside the point! The US is not "A Christian". It is a government, a secular institution, that has a right and obligation to deal with those who break its laws as an "avenger", "not bear[ing] the sword in vain". No crime is excusable because the criminal has a sad story to tell.

What's the Christians role then in regards to illegal immigrants? I'll admit, this is a tough one. Having dealt with it myself some years ago, I find it depends alot of the individual case. If the illegal immigrant is a professed Christian, than I believe it is our duty as fellow believers to firmly confront them with their disobedience to the law. Not because it's a drain on our economy, not because I don't want Spanish to be an official language in the US, but because they are breaking the law of this land. Nowhere in the Bible are people commanded to go to the US.

As far as non-Christian illegals, this is a tougher one to deal with. To an extant, they are in fact, like it or not, criminals - not because of their skin color or language, but because they broke the law. The fact that the law is hard to keep or obscure is no excuse - I'm a US citizen and I can't get out of a speeding ticket because I didn't see the sign or because I'm really in hurry. I'll admit, the system is broken. But come on, would bank robbery be excused if the teller system was broken, and if people were only stealing money they had in their account. I don't think so.

But of course, people always bring up the sad stories. Poor family, dad can't get a job, wife is sick, nowhere to go, etc etc. I still say that those stories can't get US citizens out of crime in the US, let alone in other countries. Harsh as it may seem, the government really has no obligation to go easy on anyone because of sorry circumstances. In general the US government will grant asylum or do other favors to help those who truly are facing immediate physical danger. As far the Christian's, again I admit this is very tricky, and probably should be dealt with much prayer on a case by case basis. If the illegal professes faith in Christ, than I believe strongly that they need to obey the laws of the land. Otherwise, I would say that their salvation is first priority - but they should be certainly made well aware that, according to the law of God and man, they are not meant to be here.

[zak89]

Even Brother Andrew didn't sneak into the countries in which he operated. Despite the fact that he carried contraband (i.e. Bibles into Communist countries), he drove in through the border stations and presented his papers to the proper officials. (Read his book, "God's Smuggler" for more on this.)

So he broke the law to do something he felt was necessary without any malice toward the country he was entering. Presumably, he should have reported everything he was carrying to that nation's customs officials, otherwise he was ... entering it illegally. Sneaking was exactly what he was doing. Was he, too, a "hostile invading element"?

Your use of the phrase "something he felt was necessary" is disturbing. If I felt it was necessary to bring in opium to the USSR (let's say I have a really sad story to back it up), I wouldn't have any reason to expect God's approval. It's not a matter of feelings, it's a matter of obedience. In this case, Brother Andrew obeyed the law as far as he could - once it came to bringing in Bibles "illegally", it was time to 'obey God rather than man'. I might grant you that this might apply in some cases to illegals in the US - but you'll have a hard time convincing me the people are pouring through the US border because of a deep, heart-felt conviction that God wants them here.

[executioner]

As of right now the Federal Law states that it is considered a misdemeaner and punishable with up to a $250 fine for a first time offense to enter this country illegaly. Second time offense its a $500 fine and detainment for up to 30 days. Illegals can not be deported unitl their third attempt to come into this country illegaly.

Most traffic tickets carry a heavier fine then $250 now a days. Let me ask everyone how many times to you go over the speed limit on a daily basis? How many times to you fail to make a complete stop at a stop sign? How many times a day do you make a right turn and fail to stay in the right lane for the law required 1,000 ft before moving over to the left lane?
What I'm trying to say is we all do these things on a regular basis, and each time we do them we break the law. Most of the illegals in the country have only broken the law once, but most if not all of us break the law everyday we get in our cars. How does that make us any different from them?

[CatNamedManny]

Ok, I think I see what's going on here.

The above statements are confusing individual responsibility (in this case, that of the Christian) with the role of government, which is by nature, a secular (though God-ordained) institution. Let's look at the government's role in the Bible (excluding Israel, because Israel is a special nation given specific laws due to it's position in God's overall plan - unless you believe all nations should adopt Levitical law, it makes no sense to treat the OT government as a pattern other than in the most broad, general sense).

There is no confusion. This is a government of the people. The individuals ARE the government. Now, everyone interprets their role as Christians in government differently. I am arguing that we as Christians should be advocating for a more compassionate government. Others argue we should advocate for a Christian government to the exclusion or repression of other religions. I disagree with that wholeheartedly, but to the point that a secular government can align with the heart of Christ, we should advocate that.

But look at the way that government is described! It's is not an institution designed to promote fairness and equality. It is not appointed to care for widows and orphans. It is not described as the caretaker of the poor and needy. What is it?

One who "does not bear the sword in vain."
A "*terror*... to bad [conduct]."
An "avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer"
The "ministers of God, attending to [the collection of taxes]"

This is the most in-depth discussion of secular* government in the NT, to my knowledge. And it is decidedly "libertarian", if I may say so. The government's primary (if not only) role is to be a terror - to be an avenger - to keep lawbreakers in a state of constant fear. The government is to bear the sword "not in vain". Not a pleasant institution, I'll admit, but this is the governments role - to do what individuals cannot do (that is, without chaos and anarchy breaking out).

Context is important. Paul was writing in the time of the Roman empire, which was all these things. The United States is a far different government, with far different aims, than that institution. Here's a more applicable description of the "government" with which we deal on a daily basis:

"Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I'll note the references to justice, general welfare and liberty, none of which were in abundant supply at the time Paul wrote Romans.

Again, you prove my point. Jesus has nothing to say about what the US and it's troops can or can't do - even if I were to grant you that such an policy would be wrong, Jesus never addressed the corruption governments of his time; Jesus didn't condemn war; he didn't condemn capital punishment, etc etc.

This is the exact same cherry picking you accuse others of doing later in your post, only you're doing it in reverse: Ignoring the body of Jesus' teaching to focus on what he did not say explicitly.

So, yes, Jesus did not condemn war per se, but he did say the greatest commandment was to "love your neighbor." Hard to love your neighbor while you're killing them, or demonizing them, or referring to them as a "hostile invading force" that deserves whatever punishment that verbiage implies. Are you truly arguing Jesus would approve of the mass killing of Mexican nationals who crossed the border? There's a word for that kind of atrocity: genocide. That's not in the Bible either; I guess it must be OK.

But of course, people always bring up the sad stories. Poor family, dad can't get a job, wife is sick, nowhere to go, etc etc. I still say that those stories can't get US citizens out of crime in the US, let alone in other countries. Harsh as it may seem, the government really has no obligation to go easy on anyone because of sorry circumstances.

Except this happens all the time: Pretrial adjudication, which doesn't go on your record, is very common for first-time offenders. Then there's probation and suspended sentences and time off for good behavior. All these things reduce or mitigate entirely the penalties under the law for defendants based on their specific situations. The law is much more elastic than you're willing to acknowledge.

[CatNamedManny]

Your use of the phrase "something he felt was necessary" is disturbing. If I felt it was necessary to bring in opium to the USSR (let's say I have a really sad story to back it up), I wouldn't have any reason to expect God's approval. It's not a matter of feelings, it's a matter of obedience. In this case, Brother Andrew obeyed the law as far as he could - once it came to bringing in Bibles "illegally", it was time to 'obey God rather than man'. I might grant you that this might apply in some cases to illegals in the US - but you'll have a hard time convincing me the people are pouring through the US border because of a deep, heart-felt conviction that God wants them here.

Well, it is something he felt was necessary. And illegal immigrants coming here to feed their families are also doing something they feel is necessary. You and I (and God) would place different priorities on these activities, but secular governments should not. In the eyes of the law, he and they are both entering a country illegally. I'm sorry if that disturbs you, but it's the truth.

[zak89]

There is no confusion. This is a government of the people. The individuals ARE the government. Now, everyone interprets their role as Christians in government differently. I am arguing that we as Christians should be advocating for a more compassionate government. Others argue we should advocate for a Christian government to the exclusion or repression of other religions. I disagree with that wholeheartedly, but to the point that a secular government can align with the heart of Christ, we should advocate that.

Well, you and I may may have to agree to disagree there. I know full well that we are in a different kind of government in the US - but the government "of/by/for the people" is a concept absent from the Bible, so I am not willing to just "wing it" and come up with something new. Government is government - Romans 13 did not qualify it's message because the people were under a tyrannical dictatorship at the time.

Context is important. Paul was writing in the time of the Roman empire, which was all these things. The United States is a far different government, with far different aims, than that institution. Here's a more applicable description of the "government" with which we deal on a daily basis:
"Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
I'll note the references to justice, general welfare and liberty, none of which were in abundant supply at the time Paul wrote Romans.

Again, see above. I don't believe that because we have a different system of government we are to relate to it differently as Christians. At least, if we do so, we cannot claim Biblical basis. You are essentially saying that what the Bible says about a Christian's relationship to government is out-of-date. I disagree. I don't believe the Romans 13 is contingent upon the government being a dictatorship.

This is the exact same cherry picking you accuse others of doing later in your post, only you're doing it in reverse: Ignoring the body of Jesus' teaching to focus on what he did not say explicitly.

I am cherry picking. But I'm not claiming to be taking the whole tree. I apply the Biblical principles that are given to Christians to Christians *only*; ditto for other entities. I also cherry pick verses about virtually any other topic. Rightly dividing the word of truth, you might say.

So, yes, Jesus did not condemn war per se, but he did say the greatest commandment was to "love your neighbor." Hard to love your neighbor while you're killing them, or demonizing them, or referring to them as a "hostile invading force" that deserves whatever punishment that verbiage implies. Are you truly arguing Jesus would approve of the mass killing of Mexican nationals who crossed the border? There's a word for that kind of atrocity: genocide. That's not in the Bible either; I guess it must be OK.

At this point, I think you and I can't get any farther. You still insist on applying commandments given to Christians to a secular institution (the government); if we can't agree on that, then we have a sever impedance mismatch. I'll repeat, the government, any government, was never commanded to "love it's neighbor". I would certainly agree with you that Christians should not be killing or demonizing anyone. But the government is another story. As far whether Jesus would approve of mass killings, I think you are again missing the point. Jesus never made any judgment on the murder of John the Baptist. He never rebuked the political leaders of His day. His only reference to Ceasar was to "render unto [him] the things that are [his]". Jesus was decidedly aloof from the government of His day. I don't believe His commandments given to His followers have any true bearing upon a secular institution.

Except this happens all the time: Pretrial adjudication, which doesn't go on your record, is very common for first-time offenders. Then there's probation and suspended sentences and time off for good behavior. All these things reduce or mitigate entirely the penalties under the law for defendants based on their specific situations. The law is much more elastic than you're willing to acknowledge.

You cut off my quote a bit early. Let me finish:

In general the US government will grant asylum or do other favors to help those who truly are facing immediate physical danger.

I don't see a major difference in what you said and in what I said, if I am quoted fully. Also, I am not arguing what the government is or is not able to do based on current laws. I'm just saying that the government clearly has the right to do what R13 lays out.

[zak89]

Well, it is something he felt was necessary. And illegal immigrants coming here to feed their families are also doing something they feel is necessary. You and I (and God) would place different priorities on these activities, but secular governments should not. In the eyes of the law, he and they are both entering a country illegally. I'm sorry if that disturbs you, but it's the truth.

Exactly!!! Far from disturbing me, it is exactly what I've been trying to say! I didn't say that the government should look upon both cases differently - we (as Christians) should. Both illegal immigrants and Brother Andrew were breaking laws. I believe (and history bears me out) that God was behind one, and not (necessarily) the other.

[CatNamedManny]

Again, see above. I don't believe that because we have a different system of government we are to relate to it differently as Christians. At least, if we do so, we cannot claim Biblical basis. You are essentially saying that what the Bible says about a Christian's relationship to government is out-of-date. I disagree. I don't believe the Romans 13 is contingent upon the government being a dictatorship.

I don't think I said anywhere that we should relate to the Bible any differently as Christians. Probably because you never argued in that vein. You're shifting the goalposts. You cited Romans 13 to show what the government's role should be; I responded by saying that passage described a specific country's government. We should still obey the laws. That doesn't change. But of the two of us, I wasn't using the Bible to argue government should be one way or another.

At this point, I think you and I can't get any farther. You still insist on applying commandments given to Christians to a secular institution (the government);

No, I do not. I am insisting on citing Jesus' view of the world -- as evidenced by the commandments he gave his followers -- as one we as Christians should strive to emulate where possible, including through the government of which we are all a part.

I'll repeat, the government, any government, was never commanded to "love it's neighbor". I would certainly agree with you that Christians should not be killing or demonizing anyone. But the government is another story. As far whether Jesus would approve of mass killings, I think you are again missing the point. Jesus never made any judgment on the murder of John the Baptist. He never rebuked the political leaders of His day. His only reference to Ceasar was to "render unto [him] the things that are [his]". Jesus was decidedly aloof from the government of His day. I don't believe His commandments given to His followers have any true bearing upon a secular institution.

The government was not, but the leaders of Jesus' day were. He was talking to the Pharisees and Saducees, who were for all intents and purposes the authorities over the people of his day. He criticized them quite a bit for oppressing and cheating the poor, for being unjust, for lining their own pockets at the expense of the needy. Jesus was decidedly aloof from the political machinations of government, but he was deeply invested in how the poor and downtrodden were treated by those in authority.

Further, Jesus' commands to Christians, as I note above, are a window into his own priorities and values, the ones we should emulate. Presumably, those are the same values we should want our government to emulate, as well.

Let me distill my original point to this: The attitude toward illegal immigrants expressed by some here is decidedly out of sync with what I perceive to be Jesus' attitudes toward people like them.

You cut off my quote a bit early. Let me finish:

In general the US government will grant asylum or do other favors to help those who truly are facing immediate physical danger.

I don't see a major difference in what you said and in what I said, if I am quoted fully.

Acknowledging that the government grants requests of asylum does not in fact change your point at all, which is why I didn't include it in my rebuttal. You argue essentially that the only reason we should treat an illegal immigrant differently is when they are escaping persecution back home. My argument is that the law in fact grants leeway to lawbreakers in much less dire straits than those and factors in much less life-threatening circumstances, such as first-time offense, type of home, how contrite the defendant is, the childhood and background of the offender, etc. In other words, even allowing for "immediate physical danger," your argument fails to account for the substantial elasticity of the law.

[CatNamedManny]

Exactly!!! Far from disturbing me, it is exactly what I've been trying to say! I didn't say that the government should look upon both cases differently - we (as Christians) should. Both illegal immigrants and Brother Andrew were breaking laws. I believe (and history bears me out) that God was behind one, and not (necessarily) the other.

Ok, so we have a good deal of agreement. Let me try to hash this out in some sort of list for clarity's sake:

1. This is a secular, not a Christian, government.
2. As such, the government should not make laws based on the Bible or any other religious text.
3. Among other things, this means, for example, that gay marriage should be allowed (because the sole basis for condemning homosexuality is religious). [Yes, I threw that in partly to be provocative, but I'll come back to it.]
4. Every American citizen is a member of the government.
5. Every Christian has a duty to live according to the values and commands of Christ.
6. Jesus emphasized compassion for the poor, the needy, the downtrodden.
7. Christians therefore should have this same compassion and exercise it within the context of their society.
8. The principles Jesus upheld are generally considered, even by unbelievers, to be universal, timeless moral principles that benefit society as a whole.
9. Governments implementing these universal moral principles can therefore maintain their secular nature while still upholding the principles of Christ.
10. Christians should be happy when this occurs.

I don't want the government telling two people they can't get married just because the Bible says it's wrong. Just like I don't want the government telling my wife she can't wear shorts because sharia law forbids it. But I do want the government, wherever practical, to mirror the principles and values I view as most important, which are the principles and values Christ viewed as most important.

Which is why I want this secular government to be compassionate, just as I should be compassionate, when dealing with the vast majority of illegal immigrants, who are here peacefully and wish only to feed their families through the opportunities this great country affords all who come here.

[zak89]

I don't think I said anywhere that we should relate to the Bible any differently as Christians. Probably because you never argued in that vein. You're shifting the goalposts. You cited Romans 13 to show what the government's role should be; I responded by saying that passage described a specific country's government. We should still obey the laws. That doesn't change. But of the two of us, I wasn't using the Bible to argue government should be one way or another.

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here. IIRC, your response to my use of R13 was that we have a different type of government; "of/by/for the people", liberty and a few other things. My response was that I don't believe that a governments roles, nor the relationship of a Christian to the governments, are contingent upon a certain type of government (ie, monarchy vs dictatorship vs republic).

I am insisting on citing Jesus' view of the world -- as evidenced by the commandments he gave his followers -- as one we as Christians should strive to emulate where possible, including through the government of which we are all a part.

Again, that's where you and I part ways. I don't believe the government can or should emulate the self denying, self abasing, and humble lifestyle Jesus manifested. Can you imagine a government where the enforcers of the law were commanded to "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile", etc etc? The life that Jesus lived and wants His followers to live is simply not compatible with the role of government.

In addition, you appear to condone the idea that we are all a part of this government. While I agree from a secular perspective we are, as a Christian I regard myself are first and foremost a citizen of heaven, and my role here on this planet and in this country is that of an ambassador. It is not my place to attempt to influence the government of this nation or any nation to act like Christ - that is not only an unbiblical concept, it is nonsensical - a secular government *cannot* govern and be "Christ-like" at the same time. One day Christ will govern. That day is not yet.

The government was not, but the leaders of Jesus' day were. He was talking to the Pharisees and Saducees, who were for all intents and purposes the authorities over the people of his day. He criticized them quite a bit for oppressing and cheating the poor, for being unjust, for lining their own pockets at the expense of the needy. Jesus was decidedly aloof from the political machinations of government, but he was deeply invested in how the poor and downtrodden were treated by those in authority.

The Pharisees and Saducees were religious leaders, claiming to be the representatives of God for peace and reconciliation (not wrath and judgment). To them Jesus had harsh words and stern rebukes. To Herod and Ceasar, He had nothing to say. In the temple of God He overturned tables and drove out the money changers. To the corruption and inequality in the government, He said nothing.

Further, Jesus' commands to Christians, as I note above, are a window into his own priorities and values, the ones we should emulate. Presumably, those are the same values we should want our government to emulate, as well.

Perhaps, but there is no Biblical basis for that presumption. And I still contend that it would be impossible to govern if most of Jesus' commands were carried into the government. Even the Reconstructionists, who believe that Christians should run this government (and all others) realize this; hence their emphasis on OT law and order, which can to some degree be imposed with government power. The NT is a barren field for the recons. There is a reason.

Let me distill my original point to this: The attitude toward illegal immigrants expressed by some here is decidedly out of sync with what I perceive to be Jesus' attitudes toward people like them.

Here, I can wholeheartedly agree. The attitude of the Christian toward illegal immigrants should be one of love, compassion, and service. After all, all of us are illegal in the highest possible way; we all have broken God's law, forfeited our right to live on this planet, and only through Christ's sacrifice can we be reconciled and made "legal" again.