God's Politics

God's Politics


Sanctuary Movement Activist Arrested and Deported /by Patty Kupfer/

posted by God's Politics

Elvira Arellano, the young mother who sparked the New Sanctuary Movement and appears prominently in the current issue of Sojourners magazine, was arrested Sunday afternoon in Los Angeles and was deported to Tijuana, Mexico, within hours of her arrest. Arellano left her physical sanctuary in a Chicago church last week in order to make a more public case against the raids and deportations that are threatening to separate undocumented immigrants from their citizen children.


From the Chicago Tribune:



Federal authorities Sunday arrested Elvira Arellano on a downtown city street, ending a yearlong standoff that intensified recently after the illegal Mexican immigrant began what was to be a nationwide campaign to push for new immigration reforms.


Patty Kupfer is the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign coordinator at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(113)
post a comment
Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 11:22 am


She is illegal, and for the immigrants that friends and I have assisted in coming to the US and got all the paperwork done etc. I find the idea of her being allowed to stay here offensive to the people we helped. Her children that were born here hold duo-citizenship and can go to Mexico to be with her or stay here.
Claiming ‘sanctuary’ in a church in Chicago – she should not have left that church to go to LA. I believe that ‘sanctuary’ means you stay within the walls of that institution.
I am pro-immigration and have proven it by helping others come to the US.
I do hope that Sanctuary Cities are ready to pay for all these people that they are protecting. Granting ‘sanctuary’ to people without doing a background check etc is just foolishness.
Blessings and it is Monday – prayers were said to protect our service men and women and for victroy in Iraq so that they can come home.
.



report abuse
 

elsa

posted August 20, 2007 at 11:41 am


I find it incredible that this woman was not taken into custody long ago.
It may be time to change the laws and not allow “anchor” babies to be the means by which illegal immigrants claim their rights in the USA.
The arrogance of that “young mother” is unbelievable but typifies the massive problem we need to confront. Who is she to snub her nose at the laws and people of the US?
I wonder where she will enter the country from next?



report abuse
 

Larry Parker

posted August 20, 2007 at 11:42 am


Clearly a political arrest and deportation to pacify the talk radio callers and the like I call the “immophobes” …
Grant you, this was an act of intentional civil disobedience on her part, so she may have been consistent in saying “if you do the crime (something illegal), you do the time (accept the punishment).”
But ICE was almost gleefully willing to help her out, in that case :-(



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 20, 2007 at 11:54 am


“Phobes, phobic, phobia.”
If you won’t deal with a rational and honest opposition, you lefties tag on that phobia label quicker than STD’s are spreading in our secular school system.
(Which is very fast.)
Illegal means dishonest.
Christians should have nothing to do with the plague of dishonesty sweeping the United States that is promoted by Progressives and Liberals. Which includes Illegal immigrants among other immoral, dishonest and perverted things that the Left labels as a phobia if you also do not want to support the embracing of all things dishonest and immoral.
It is not illegal to come to America. There are honest and legal ways in which to do so. The ways my great grand parents did. I learned from their good example.
Nice lesson this woman is teaching her son. Like the children of every illegal immigrant, these bad parents are teaching their children that dishonesty and corruption is OK.
Of course the Liberals and Progressives are supporting that.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 20, 2007 at 12:30 pm


Donny and Elsa’s comments reveal the fearful impulse which encourages their opinion.
They are sincerely frightened of competition. They are fearful of overpopulation. They are concerned about abuse of social programs.
This is understandable, but unfounded, fear for loss of privilege.
It is imperative that we examine the difference between laws which protect natural rights, and those which protect privilege.
If the law is limited to protection of life, liberty, property, and the enforcement of contracts people can move about freely so long as they are willing to pay their own way. The best man will always be hired for the job, and so the best work will always be done. The competitive marketplace has everyone striving to do better work, and everyone benefits.
If the law makes room for privilege, the fight moves from improving of oneself to acquisition of the privilege. This is what the immigration debate so clearly illustrates. The law currently protects citizens disproportionately to immigrants. This is clearly unbiblical, and detrimental to progress.
If an immigrant takes the job of a laborer, that does not mean he takes his labor as well. The first man keeps his labor and applies it to another activity. So long as each produces more than he consumes (and that’s why we pay people) then everyone is better off.
Donny, and Elsa, you are behaving no better than tyrannical kings or dictators.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm


Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 20, 2007 12:30 PM
They are sincerely frightened of competition. They are fearful of overpopulation. They are concerned about abuse of social programs.
I don’t read that in their posts. They just want the laws that are on the books enforced and that we restrict it to ‘legal’ immigration so that it is a level playing field for all.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:19 pm


Nathanael Snow,
Any sensible person is afraid of law breakers. In fact the thrid world violence brought to the United Staes should cause fear in any rational person. Alas, you progressives jettisoned reason when you embraced your leftist ideology.
“I” am not afraid of thrid world people competeing against me in anything. Five thousand poor people living in squalid conditions aacross town from me is only hurting them. They embraced YOR lies not mine.
I preach and teach honesty and morality.
You teach people to promote the breaking of laws.
And you lecture me?
“Donny and Elsa’s comments reveal the fearful impulse which encourages their opinion.”
A third world culture is much to fear. Especially living next door.
“They are sincerely frightened of competition. They are fearful of overpopulation.”
Overpopulation? It is you Lefties that want to slaughter unborn children to ease overpopulation. What is it that YOU fear from people having lots of children?
But the disease within overpopulated countries should have any rational thinking person concerned for the safety of their environment. especially from the people YOU teach to break the law.
“They are concerned about abuse of social programs.”
Where leftists go, totalitarianism rises. Venezuela ring a bell? Latin world at its best.
“This is understandable, but unfounded, fear for loss of privilege.”
My world has only changed in the form of taxes to support the dishonest people you teach to illegally use our su=ystem. Other than that, my cable TV is still on.
“It is imperative that we examine the difference between laws which protect natural rights, and those which protect privilege.”
Spoken like a true totalitarian Leftist.
Bye Nathan. Have a nice day. I do appreciate you skirting the tag “Phobia.”
Um, how about ONLY TAX Democrats and Leftists?
Imagine how good you’ll feel?



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:21 pm


Moderatelad,
I disagree. If they were not fearful then why oppose open immigration? They make a claim that they want current laws enforced, but they are unwilling to entertain arguments for changing the laws.
The point I am trying to make is that restrictions on immigration are laws of privilege, and people are always more protective of their privileges than they are of their rights.
If the state is permitted to establish a privilege for citizen workers, and is thus permitted to intervene in freely negotiated contracts between individuals, then there is no moral argument against the state doing the same thing for, say, computer programmers.
The state could, tomorrow, pass a law stating that there are too many computer programmers, and it will not allow any more programmers into the market. If you had spent some time studying programming, but didn’t have a license or “documentation” then you would be prohibited from practicing computer programming for pay.
Overnight a black market in programming would erupt, and back room programmers would begin producing at rates higher than the artificially high new rates “legal” programmers could demand because of their scarcity.
Economic resources would be redistributed and an unreasonable amount would flow toward computer programming. Programming jobs would flow overseas where there were fewer restrictions. The cost of computer programs would go up. Everyone except the programmers would be worse off.
By opposing open immigration we advocate protection for citizen workers, and necessarily push out other qualified workers who are now forced onto the black market. Citizens are better off than immigrants. But unjustly so, at to their own detriment in the long run.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:27 pm


Oh . . .
And Nathanel,
Remember tuberculosis?
In the United States of America “we Americans” wiped out this deadly “comminicable” disease from our land.
But guess who brought it back?
YOUR dishonest, illegal immigrants to the United States of America.
And YOU lecture me.
So typical of a Leftist.
And now you want me to pay for them not to infect us.
Can’t you just move to their countries and make them better? You have all the answers.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm


Donny,
You miss my position entirely. I’m not a leftist, I am a believer in natural law. Some call me an anarcho-capitalist or a libertarian. I believe the only legitimate role for the state is protection of rights and enforcement of contracts through judicial processes as described in the first seven books of the Bible.
To your points:
Third world people don’t necessarily carry third world violence with them.
“5000 living in squalid conditions only hurts them”
So why not leave them alone?
I promote the limiting of law to its proper sphere.
I have lived in cities where I heard gunshots regularly at night, from my bedroom. I am not afraid.
I am against abortion, as many libertarians are on natural rights grounds.
Overpopulated countries like Japan do not have lots of disease. Overpopulated cities like Hong Kong have higher qualities of life than the nations around them.
If an overpopulated place were disease ridden, it wouldn’t be overpopulated for long, would it?
People in poor countries have disease problems because they cannot earn enough money to pay for healthcare, or because their government is oppressive in some way.
I am actually in agreement with the problems incumbent to social programs. Christians ought to be meeting the needs of the least of these completely and voluntarily.
I would like to get rid of taxation which is used for wealth redistribution.
With 20 million immigrants your cable TV is still on, so why are you so upset? Oh, wait, Lou Dobbs is on cable.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm


Nathanel,
So what happens when the black market programmers are legalized but don’t write programs in English?
Do all of the people in America have to learn a foreign language or not be able to use their computers?
You can play Aesop all day long Natan, but Spanish speaking people are coming to America legal and illegally and refusing to speak English AND DEMANDING that WE speak spanish. They are setting up “exclusive” community and culture and disallowing others a part of it. That’s discrimination Nathanel. Is it not? Is it OK if the bigotry is on the immigrant foot?
If you want to see fear, you will see it during the civil strife in the United States if this is allowed to continue.
The single biggest problem I have with Progressives/Socialists like Sojouners and their supporters; the wilfull ignoring of reality.
It appears that you Leftists want the same violent overthrow of the governmental system here in the United States of America as you perpetuate in every country where Leftists take root within the population and political system. If you think I fear Socialsts and Socialism I do. I do not want to be forced to react the way they cause others to react in every country where Socialists set up power.
Historical facts do not always define fear, but they certainly expose truth.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm


Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 20, 2007 1:21 PM
Even I would like the laws enforced. I am willing to have them changed as long as it is to make them clear and restrictive so that they are no questions as to who – how – when can enter our country. They also need to understand that when they come here – they can practice their religion and have their traditions and convictions as long as they line up with our laws. In MN, I believe that we are being used by the radicals to see how much they can get away with.
a) the Imams at the airport – this will be interesting to see how it plays out.
b) taxi’s where the operator is Islamic – refusing to take anyone that has a dog or carring liquor or that has been drinking.
c) demanding foot-wash stations in public restrooms – installed at tax payer expense.
d) check out clerks refusing to handle pork for customers
And we have a Rep. that has ties to radical millitant Islamic groups in the US and he never discussed it when the question was brought up – of course the Star-PayTribute would never ask that question.
I believe that we have legit concerns about immigration – we can come to terms about it – but something constructive needs to be done.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm


Donny,
You miss my position entirely. I’m not a leftist, I am a believer in natural law.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist
\\\
Then the poor and weak are doomed. It is natures way.
Please do not think I do not know what you represent. I wasn’t always uncomfortable with dishonesty.
Stop taxing better individuals to pay to implement privileges and rights on those that nature has put into their environment to be denied them.
You cannot implement evolution/natural law into the rights and privileges of man debate.
It fits as badly as do mankind does in our natural world.
“Christians” cannot support “illegal” immigrants Natahnael. Otherwise we may as well support . . . never mind.
These dishonest people should go back to where they come from and do the right thing. That way, Christians can do the right thing too.
How can The State, protect the rights of law breakers? The only reaction of The State to illegal behavior is prosecution, judgment and punishment.
Look, either be a Christian or be a progessive (or Anarcho-capitalist libertarian). You can’t be both the way you are so comfortable with promoting and supporting dishonesty.
(I make that charge on Progressive ideology without cease.)



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm


Donny,
The issue about use of the English language is interesting to me. Since you have changed the subject, I must assume that you have conceeded my previous points.
I have no problem with people getting together in small exclusive groups speaking their own language. Christians do this all the time at church with their Christianeese.
As far as forcing others to speak Spanish, I’m against that too, but millions of Americans have lived for hundreds of years peacefully in America speaking other languages. If they want to do business, THEY suffer the higher transaction cost by having to hire a translator.
If you are referring to public schools, I’m against those, too. Why should anyone pay for another person’s child’s education? I’m also suspicious of what kinds of things a state school would indoctrinate children with. I do have two kids in public school now, so I’m a hypocrite.
I’m not opposed to discrimination, but I am opposed to state support of it.
You are right that socialism is bad. Conservatism is bad, too. It imposes morality as law and punishes people for victimless crimes. It also places too great an emphasis on tradition for tradition’s sake.
The bottom line is that the state is bad. It is a pagan institution, which God intended for the Israelites to be without. Laws are good if they agree with God’s natural law. They are bad if they grant unearned privilege.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 20, 2007 at 2:03 pm


Nathanael,
If you want them to do the right thing, then I’m OK with that.
I’m out.
You have a good day too.
Donny
(seeking lolipop)



report abuse
 

Sojourners

posted August 20, 2007 at 2:13 pm


A friendly reminder of the guidelines for posting on this site. Lively debate is encouraged, from all points of view. Name calling and sniping does not add (positively) to the discussion, so please keep your comments on topic and not personal comments directed at anyone.
Blessings – Sojourners.
(Lack of) Courtesy and Respect: You agree that you will be courteous to every Beliefnet member, even those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person’s ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members. You agree not to engage in derogatory name-calling, including calling anyone evil, a liar, Satanic, demonic, antichrist, a Nazi, or other inflammatory comparisons.
Disruptive behavior: You agree not to disrupt or interfere with discussions, forums, or other community functions. Disruptive behavior may include creating a disproportionate number of posts or discussions to disrupt conversation; creating off-topic posts; making statements that are deliberately inflammatory; expanding a disagreement from one discussion to another; or any behavior that interferes with conversations or inhibits the ability of others to use and enjoy this website for its intended purposes.
Vulgarity: You agree not to display words, information, or images that are vulgar, obscene, graphically violent, graphically sexual, harm minors in any way, exploit images of children, or are otherwise objectionable.
Copying Content: Beliefnet discussions are intended for interactive conversation; members are encouraged to express their own ideas in their own words, not to parrot the words of others. You agree not to create posts that consist substantially of material copied from another source.
Spam: Obviously non sequitur material, links, etc.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 20, 2007 at 2:43 pm


In the interest of “the rule of law” we have just separated American citizen children from their mother. She was not a radical Imam nor did she desire anything but the best for this country. Did the framers of the constitution actually need to includ a right to family also? May all the pro family folks see the hypocrisy of this move and the support of it by anyone who claims to be a conservative.
Moderate lad
your plan of slowly removing the undocumented is underway. I hope you can live with it. A “dangerous law breaker” has been removed so you can sleep a little better. If your answer is that you will, I truly pity you.
If this is an example of our being law abiding I for one hope the law is broken, beat down, and disguarded. Anyone who is this concerned about the law has forgotten its God intented purpose and the reason for laws to exist. Justice is the only rightful goal of the law.
I can think of no clearer an argument for the reform of our laws than this one, but unfortunately there are many more. This deportation is wrong, regardless of any “law” we have created.



report abuse
 

jurisnatuarlist

posted August 20, 2007 at 2:59 pm


wayne,
Right on.
Rule of law ought to mean “Rule of Natural Law” which Donny has confused with evolution. Natural law inspects the true nature of humanity in its fallen state and establishes the conditions necessary for peaceful co-existence. The primary principle is one of non-aggression. Do not encroach on others or their property.
Now, some have accepted a communal concept of collectivized property being held in common by the state. In this case, I suppose that the state has a right to let in whom it wants to let in and keep out whom it wants to keep out. But I must insist that my property is mine and not the state’s It has no sovereignty over my property. Therefore, I am allowed to permit whomever I want to live on my property. And I am allowed to offer sanctuary to whomever I please.
But I question the whole paradigm which sets up the problem



report abuse
 

aaron

posted August 20, 2007 at 3:10 pm


The law currently protects citizens disproportionately to immigrants. This is clearly unbiblical, and detrimental to progress.
God forbid that citizens who live under the Constitution gain the priveleges of it and that non-citizens of the constitution derive no such benefits…oh wait, you don’t accept Constutional law like the rest of America.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 3:34 pm


“In the United States of America “we Americans” wiped out this deadly “comminicable” disease from our land. But guess who brought it back? YOUR dishonest, illegal immigrants to the United States of America.” Donny
In the first place, TB was never “wiped out” from “our land.” Tuberculosis is not an eradicable disease, controllable, but certainly not eradicable (worldwide reduction of incidence to zero), nor even a candidate for elimination (reduction of incidence to zero within a geographic region).
There were tuberculosis control programs in the U.S. in the 1950s & 60s. What “brought it back” was hubris – the politically motivated false sense of security that led to the end of funding for the tuberculosis control programs.
The reemergence of tuberculosis in the U.S. had nothing to do with illegal immigration. Besides, tuberculosis does not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants.
“From 1953 through 1985, TB case numbers decreased by 74%, from 84,304 to 22,201 cases, and the case rate decreased by 82%, from 53.0 to 9.3 cases per 100,000 population. As a result, many no longer considered TB to be a major problem. In the early 1970s, federal funding allocated for TB control began to decrease, and, as a result, many TB control services were dismantled. Although TB funds were decreasing, the cost of treating TB was increasing. In 1981, only $3.7 million was appropriated to the CDC to fight TB nationally.”
Scheider, E., Moore, M., Castro, K. G. (2005). Epidemiology of tuberculosis in the United States. Clinics in Chest Medicine, 26(2), 183-195.
Seek peace and pursue it.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 3:37 pm


erratum: There were *successful* tuberculosis control programs in the U.S. in the 1950s & 60s.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 20, 2007 at 3:46 pm


“She was not a radical Imam nor did she desire anything but the best for this country.”
Is that why she used a fake social security number to get a job?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm


Posted by: wayne | August 20, 2007 2:43 PM
Moderate lad
your plan of slowly removing the undocumented is underway. I hope you can live with it. A “dangerous law breaker” has been removed so you can sleep a little better. If your answer is that you will, I truly pity you.

I will have no problem sleeping as she is safe at home in her country and her children can be returned to her by tomorrow is she wants them. (I believe we returned a little boy at gun point during the Clinton Adm – thanks Janet)
If this is an example of our being law abiding I for one hope the law is broken, beat down, and disguarded. Anyone who is this concerned about the law has forgotten its God intented purpose and the reason for laws to exist. Justice is the only rightful goal of the law.
BULL! – just because someone can enter this country by walking accross a river and then produce offspring in an atempt to be allowed to stay here is immoral. It is an inslut to many who waited years for the proper documentation and a plane ticket to get here. They had to have a sponcer to gain enterance to the US. I have assisted two families personally and help several that friends brought to this country. Personally paid for their medical and dental along with others. So – grow up – immigration is allowed and supported – needs to be done lawfully and not because you can produce an infant.
I can think of no clearer an arguent for the reform of our laws than this one, but unfortunately there are many more. This deportation is wrong, regardless of any “law” we have created.
The only way a law can be enforced is starting with someone that has broken it – willfully. It needs to apply to those accross the ocean as well as those who can walk into this country so that it is fair for all. Reform – yes! Make the law apply to the person from Africa equally to the one from central America.
You need to think this one through a little more.
Blessings…
.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm


And now it is confirmed that “Sanctuary” was a publicity stunt all along.
As a legal matter, it was doubtful that this was ever going to work. But in the end the whole “sanctuary” thing was more about getting attention than sheltering a victim of injustice — otherwise Ms. Arellano would have been in the church building in Chicago instead of attending a rally in Los Angeles.
Obviously I am not a huge fan of the “New Sanctuary Movement”, but I would have more respect for it if you actually tried to work within the historical rules of church “sanctuary” — in which the fugitive is supposed to remain on church property.
When you’re done excoriating my heartlessness, I hope someone in the Christian left will reconsider the morality of using a young mother as a prop.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm


P.S., that’s Marisa Moore, MD, MPH, not Michael Moore, and I seriously doubt that Kenneth G. Castro is related to Fidel.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:23 pm


Aaron posts: “God forbid that citizens who live under the Constitution gain the priveleges of it and that non-citizens of the constitution derive no such benefits…oh wait, you don’t accept Constutional law like the rest of America.”
Can you show me where the rights outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution are limited to citizens of this nation? For that matter, can you show me in the Consitution where the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to citizens of this country?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm


Posted by: wayne | August 20, 2007 4:14 PM
‘…minor legal infraction not be used as a…’
Now let’s look at what illegals are costing CA in medical fee and education alone. MINOR???
What about illegals that will work for less money because they can and take jobs away from union workers and their families that pay taxes and FICA. MINOR????
She can apply to come to the US and be on the road to citizenship just like people from Asia – Africa and other countries that do not border the US.
Think a little longer – no blessings needed.
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:37 pm


What about the illegal immigrant who executed four college students in Newark?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:56 pm


“Now let’s look at what illegals are costing CA in medical fee and education alone. MINOR???” Moderatelad
I saved the following from a previous thread many months ago because I knew this sacred cow would come up again. neuro-nurse
“Foreign-born adults in Los Angeles County, California, constituted 45 percent of the county’s population ages 18-64 but accounted for 33 percent of health spending in 2000. Similarly, the undocumented constituted 12 percent of the nonelderly adult population but accounted for only 6 percent of spending. Extrapolating to the nation, total spending by the undocumented is 6.4 billion dollars , of which only 17 percent (1.1 billion dollars) is paid for by public sources. The foreign-born (especially the undocumented) use disproportionately fewer medical services and contribute less to health care costs in relation to their population share[.]”
Goldman, D. P., Smith, J. P., Sood, N. (2006). Immigrants and the cost of medical care. Health Affairs, 25(6), 1700-1711.
“Undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants who have been in the United States less than 5 years are excluded from Medicaid eligibility, with the exception of limited coverage for emergency conditions (Emergency Medicaid). New immigrant population growth has been rapid in recent years, but little is known about use of health services by this group or the conditions for which Emergency Medicaid coverage has been applied.”
“Childbirth and complications of pregnancy account for the majority of Emergency Medicaid spending for undocumented immigrants in North Carolina. Spending for elderly and disabled patients, however, is increasing at a faster rate. Among nonpregnant immigrants, injuries, other acute emergencies, and severe complications of chronic disease are major contributors to Emergency Medicaid use.
DuBard, C. A., Massing, M. W. (2007). Trends in emergency Medicaid expenditures for recent and undocumented immigrants. JAMA, 297(10), 1085-1092.
Immigrants accounted for $39.5 billion (SE=$4 billion) in health care expenditures. After multivariate adjustment, per capita total health care expenditures of immigrants were 55% lower than those of US-born persons ($1139 vs $2546). Similarly, expenditures for uninsured and publicly insured immigrants were approximately half those of their US-born counterparts. Immigrant children had 74% lower per capita health care expenditures than US-born children. However, ED expenditures were more than 3 times higher for immigrant children than for US-born children. Conclusions: Health care expenditures are substantially lower for immigrants than for US-born persons. Our study refutes the assumption that immigrants represent a disproportionate financial burden on the US health care system.
Mohanty, S. A., Woolhandler, S., Himmelstein, D. U., Pati, S., Carrasquillo, O., Bor, D. H. (2005). Health expenditures of immigrants in the United States: a nationally representative analysis. Journal of Public Health, 95, 1431-1438.



report abuse
 

tnmartin

posted August 20, 2007 at 4:56 pm


It is disingenuous to say the least for persons of once-Christian organizations to be engaged in deceptive language and other practices in order to fabricate excuses for unlawful and deceitful behavior.
Let us be very clear: No One from another country has any lawful claim, nor any right whatever, to enter this country without permission to do so. No more than I am entitled to take up residence in your house without that same permission. Claiming otherwise is untrue, known to be untrue, known by the speakers to be untrue. Where I come from, that is called ”lying”. I don’t respect liars and few people do.
Human beings have,granted by the Lord, human rights. But human rights are not the same thing as civil rights, which vary from nation to nation. I am, for example, not permitted to vote in Slovakia or Honduras, though a citizen presumably is. Likewise, the moral obligations that I, personally, have to feed the hungry, visit the prisons, and proclaim the Gospel do NOT translate at all into some obligation of the State nor the citizens thereof. Intelligent people recognize that the State and the Society co-exist, but they are not identical. Your are entitled to invite someone into YOUR home, you are not entitled to invite that same person to take up residence in mine. And you are nowhere granted the authority to aid and abet in the violation of the national borders. Claiming otherwise is not only a violation of law, it is morally wrong.
I see once again that the denominations represented in the Sanctuary movement are those that are generally in steep decline, including two where I once held membership. Your lampstands have been removed – it happens when you bow to deceit.



report abuse
 

robert

posted August 20, 2007 at 5:00 pm


For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:13
peace
PS: for what it’s worth, “left” or “right” in politics imho only refers to differences in ideology, not practical results or motivations. Leftists are just as greedy as rightists, and conservatives are just as dishonest as liberals. This is because we’re all _human_, and are all dead in sin apart from Christ acting upon us. Even then, just because someone in politics says “i’m a christian”, for example our president, doesn’t necessarily mean anything. You’ll know the tree by its fruit.



report abuse
 

aaron

posted August 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm


Can you show me where the rights outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution are limited to citizens of this nation?
The Preamble doesn’t outline any rights.
For that matter, can you show me in the Consitution where the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to citizens of this country?
Perhaps you missed the key to my point being privileges and not rights, in that case the 14th amendment will do just fine.



report abuse
 

Sojourner Truth

posted August 20, 2007 at 5:30 pm


Sheesh.
The level of disrespect and text-shouting is increasing.
Why are people accusing each other of being no-good-rotten leftists or no-good-rotten right wingers?
I can’t understand why non-Christians are bothering to post so voluminously to a Christian website!
At least, I can’t tell they’re Christians, since what they have to say bears so little resemblance to Jesus!



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 20, 2007 at 5:41 pm


TN
YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO DO THIS TRICK OF TELLING OTHERS WHAT I WANT TO DO AND THEN ARGUING AGAINST IT. I HAVE NEVER SAID IT WAS LEGAL OR SHOULD BE LEGAL TO COME HERE WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION.
I HAVE SAID WE SHOULD REFORM THE CURRENT LAW TO FIT THE CURRENT REALITY. FURTHER I HAVE SAID WE SHOULD MAKE A WAY FOR THOSE ALREADY HERE TO EARN A FORM OF LEGAL STATUS.
I HAVE SAID THAT ONCE WE LET PEOPLE STAY HERE FOR YEARS AND EVEN DECADES AS IN THE CASE OF ELVIRA, WE SHOULD NOT DEPORT THEM. FINE THEM? OKAY. I WOULD EVEN GO WITH SOME HUMANE VERSION OF A “TOUCHBACK” PROVISION.
SAYING THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO ELVIRA IS WRONG IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING SHE IS RIGHT.
AARON COME ON, YOU KNOW THE INTENT OF DS ARGUMENT. THE RIGHTS SPELLED OUT IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS AND IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE HUMAN RIGHTS NOT JUST THE RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS. NO US CITIZEN RIGHTS ARE ABROGATED BY OUR ADMITTING OTHERS HAVE THOSE BASIC RIGHTS. ELVIRA’S BEING HERE DID NOT HURT YOU IN ANY WAY. HER PUNISHMENT DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME. UNLESS YOU ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN LAW BUT ARE JUST SATISFIED WITH GETTING ALL THOSE LITTLE BROWN PEOPLE OUT OF HERE… AND THEIR LITTLE DOG TOO!!
NEURO NURSE
ONCE AGAIN YOU BRING FACT TO THE FRAY. THANK YOU BUT I DOUBT IT WILL STOP THE ACCUSATION OF OUR MEDICAL FACILITIES BEING RUINED BY THE UNDOCUMENTED. MOD DID YOU NOTICE THOSE FACTS HE GAVE DO NOT DELINEATE WHICH OF THE FORIEGN BORN WERE ILLEGAL? OR DO THE FACTS MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 20, 2007 at 6:23 pm


I think the left is particularly outraged right now, and they’re taking it out on conservatives (in all caps no less — CLEVER!) because in their hearts they know that this incident has revealed the whole “New Sanctuary” movement to be a cheesy P.R. ploy.
Look, there is a serious case to be made for amnesty. I oppose it but I recognize the genuine concern for people that motivates much of the support for legalization.
The notion of religious “sanctuary” was premised on the Church herself providing protection against the state, either as an act of mercy or to prevent injustice.
Okay, you think deporting migrants from Mexico is unjust, I get that.
But let me ask: if the injustice that she faced is so great, and the protection of the church so necessary, why did Ms. Arellano feel free to leave that protection for a political rally?
To get the message out? Hello — you guys run a magazine. You have other ways to get your message out.
To speak to the rally? Even if this rally is so important, she could have easily done that over a phone hookup.
As one of the defenders of law and order here, lemme tell you all a little something about civil disobedience: it takes patience — you can’t just set strike a pose and issue a press release and go on with business as usual.
Rosa Parks didn’t issue a press release and go to rallies talking about not leaving her seat. She actually did what she though needed to be done and accepted the consequences.
If “New Sanctuary” had anything to it other than a clever way to set up a photo op, Ms. Arellano would have stayed in that church until either the government relented or ICE broke in.
But Ms. Arellano, either on her own or at the suggestion of those around her, walked away from the supposed protection of the church — the protection that was supposedly all that stood between her and a grave injustice.
You know what that tells me? That tells me that someone doesn’t really think that Ms. Arellano needed sanctuary. Someone doesn’t see the risk of deportation as the life-or-death matter that we were all told it was.
Bottom line, you guys weren’t really all that serious about this.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 6:29 pm


“DID YOU NOTICE THOSE FACTS HE GAVE DO NOT DELINEATE WHICH OF THE FORIEGN BORN WERE ILLEGAL?”
Good observation, but kill the caps lock please.
Peace!



report abuse
 

bren

posted August 20, 2007 at 7:03 pm


I hate to break it to you guys, but Ms. Arellano has a mind of her own and made her own decisions! She was manipulated by no one. She it was who decided to leave sanctuary and to make the the larger issue (i.e., larger than her own personal situation) public.
The need that some posters feel to name someone a leftie or a rightie is really getting to me. Instead of considering a different argument to see if there is even a tiny bit that you can learn from, you get yourself off the hook by naming that argument’s poster a liberal, a neocon, or whatever, and therefore not worthy of consideration. Do you really believe that you already know it all, that there is nothing for you to learn? On any subject? Are you using this website solely as a means of publishing your point of view?
Please note that I used the word ‘different’ rather than ‘opposing’ because I believe that there are more than two sides to every disagreement. What I find particularly troubling about the name calling is not so much that you have lost the opportunity to learn something–that’s personally unfortunate for you but not a national tragedy–but rather because this insistence on making someone an Other–a non-person–is what leads us into evil acts. “It doesn’t matter if I arbitrarily jail you; you’re a leftie or a rightie” OR “it doesn’t matter if I kill you, you’re Mexican and the U.S. has a greater need for the land called California than your right to your own country!”
And speaking of evil acts: who was it that brought tuberculosis to North America, resulting in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of indigenous people? Us white guys! But of course the natives were weird, pagans, not like us, so it didn’t matter. It’s precisely that kind of irresponsibility, that lack of acceptance that Christians are called to accept all men and women (legal/illegal, white/brown/black, Christians/non-Christians) as our brothers and sisters that makes it so important for us to stop typecasting people as Other–non-human and not deserving of respect or Christian compassion!



report abuse
 

WAYNE

posted August 20, 2007 at 7:28 pm


BELIEVE IT OR NOT I AM NOT DOING THIS TO REPRESENT YELLING
I AM JUST AN OLD ILLITERATE SON OF A BISHOP.
there is that better?
Wolverine
I don’t think Sojourners was in charge of Elvira, but perhaps I am wrong. She left the church and she got caught. How does that mean she or “they” weren’t serious?
Rosa did what she did and it turned out to be a lot bigger than she probably ever thought. Were “they” looking for a photo op? Possibly how is that not serious. She has been deported. That surely sounds serious to me.
Taking a stand for comprehensive reform may not accomplish a thing. We could quite easily continue our mistreatment of the undocumented. I think that is in fact the most likely scenario for the next five years anyway. Why?
Is it because I am not serious or because everyone who is against is neither serious or sincere. All they really want is for it to stay this way? I certainly don’t hear anyone from your side and farther out on the issue “seriously” asking for anything to be done to change the status quo. If you guys who are opposed to illegal immigration were serious about the security of the nation, I think you would be pressing Congress to do something about it instead of dressing up in camos and playing rambo on the border.
By the way just got back from a visit to sunny the California coast.
I think we had better construct a fence from San Diego to Canada.
I will actually volunteer to guard the area around Ocean Beach from June to say September. I am sure I can find some camo swim wear somewhere. Wolverine you can take Mission Beach. I think you will fit right in with the younger crowd there and Moderate lad… well I think you will have to take Venice and the kooks. Sorry Mod
Let’s Keep being warm out there
YOUR FOREVER FAT FRIEND
oops!



report abuse
 

aaron

posted August 20, 2007 at 7:30 pm


AARON COME ON, YOU KNOW THE INTENT OF DS ARGUMENT.
But he didn’t know mine, and you’re exacerbating his misunderstanding.



report abuse
 

tnmartin

posted August 20, 2007 at 7:53 pm


A couple of things
1_ so far as I am aware, the concept of ‘sanctuary’ in a church has no basis in US law. Claims are one thing, truth is another.
2_ therefore, ICE could have – and should have – been hauled off long ago.
3_ she knows very well that her very presence in this country is, AT BEST, a crime. She’s been deported before. She has shown explicitly that she does not respect the laws of the nation. We have quite enough criminals, we need not import more.
4_ she was at best a criminal. In point of fact, she is an invader. Try invading most countries – you will be met with lethal force. She is entitled to expect nothing other; deportation is doing her a favor she does not merit.
5_ aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime. EVERYONE, beginning with the church’s pastor ought to be up on felony charges.
6_ the citizens of these United States have had to fork out to arrest and deport this scofflaw. The government of Mexico ought to be expected to pony up, with interest and penalties.
7_ Encouraging the people of one nation to invade the sovereign territory of another nation is an Act Of War. Friends don’t do that. Mexico is not our friend and their action is consistent with a nation at war with another. For the citizens of this country to be supporting such acts are, by simple definition, treason, and subject to capital penalties.
8_ Finally, I recommend to those who are determined to pick and choose from the Bible that they normally ignore the rest of the time, 1 Peter 2:17 ”17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” Translated – obey the law, so long as they do not violate Scripture.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 7:56 pm


Posted by: WAYNE | August 20, 2007 4:48 PM
Your screaming in CAPS makes it difficult to read – have a great day.
.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 20, 2007 at 8:00 pm


Wayne,
Here’s the thing about sanctuary and deportation: Ms. Arellano had her deportation orders. She called on the church to provide her with sanctuary and the church (well, one congregation in Chicago) granter her that request.
Now the church really stuck out its neck for her: just law or not they were directly defying the federal government. Which is perfectly understandable and admirable if deportation is this grievous injustice and injury that it is often portrayed as here at Sojo. But it’s a huge risk; if the government had chosen to enforce the deportation order, the church could have been the scene of a federal ICE raid, which is not something I’d be eager to have at my place even if I’m not the one the feds are after.
But after putting the church through all this risk, Ms. Arellano walks away from the church’s protection, and not surreptitiously to attend to some vital business, but openly — to attend a rally in Los Angeles — almost as if she wanted to get caught. And deported.
Look, neither of us is going to renounce our US citizenship any time soon, but if Mexico were really this awful place where she had no realistic chance of being able to care for her children, Ms. Arellano would have probably been able to tough it out in that church. But it would seem to me that in the end she decided that the risk of being deported wasn’t all that terrible.
Now maybe she just needed some time to think before she went back. I won’t pretend that being deported wouldn’t be a major source of stress and if the church could buy her some time so she could prepare herself emotionally to return then this wasn’t all bad. But if that’s all she needed, maybe the church should focus more of its energy on helping immigrants land on their feet when they go back to Mexico?
One last observation: in all the months that this has been going on, not one person at Sojo has even touched on the issue of what this is doing to Mexico — still home to nine out of ten Mexicans. Now a case could be made that this really is a good thing for the people down there, but if you really cared as much as you say about the “other”, I would think that the welfare of 90 million or so people in Mexico would show up on your radar screen somewhere.
Me? I’m a conservative. I’m not supposed to care. What’s Sojo’s excuse?
Wolverine



report abuse
 

LE

posted August 20, 2007 at 8:06 pm


Why do, or should, Christians support immigrants, legal or otherwise?
“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the
least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.”
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“If a man slaps you, turn the other cheek”
“If a man ask you for your cloak, give him your coat also.”
“If you cast your bread upon the waters, it will come back to you.”
“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Any of these sayings familiar to any of you?
Would it help to tell you that Jesus said all of them? Yes, the same Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ you profess to worship and glorify. (He also said “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter into the Kingdom.)
Years ago, a reporter interviewed one of the rebels in the war in El Salvador, and asked him why he had joined such a violent group. His reply?
“When I worked on my boss’s ranch, one of my duties every day was to take a big bowl of warm milk to each of the master’s guard dogs. And whenever one of the dogs got sick, I had to take him to the best veterinarian in the city, while I had to watch three of my five children die because I could not afford milk or medical care for them.
If that is not violence, I do not know what is.”
During that war, the U.S. government supported the status quo, i.e., the government owned and controlled by the same Fourteen Families who owned and controlled El Salvador, and who employed their private death squads to silence anyone who dared to disagree with them. Our government “in our name” refused to grant asylum to the many Salvadorans who fled to our shores during that time, and 38% of the Salvadorans we deported were assassinated within three weeks of being sent back to the war in their countries.
We live in a democracy, or at least a more or less representative republic. If our government is complicit in these kinds of atrocities in our name, and we aspire to be Christians, we must in conscience at least protest such government action.
We must also note that this anti-immigrant outcry in our own beloved “Melting Pot” is being raised during an electoral campaign by the very cynical Republicans, who need a scapegoat for their failed policies which have brought our economy to its knees.
They say that unemployment is down, but refuse to count the many unemployed who have been removed from the rolls after two years, or who have simply given up looking.
They say that the economy is improving because the stock market seems to be improving, without mentioning the CEO’s and CFO’s who are paid a king’s ransom to EXPORT jobs to countries where they can pay their employees slave wages, and live American families homeless and hopeless, just because these policies pay a higher return to stockholders. Jesus said, :” Let not the hope of the poor be taken away.”
Our forefathers suffered and died so that we could live free, and we repay their heroism by allowing an “Imperial President” to trample on our Constitution and our Bill of Rights!
This hysteria over immigrants is nothing more or less than scapegoating by Republican candidates and their less enlightened supporters, a blatant attempt to focus hatred on an easily identifiable minority group, to deflect negative attention from
their policies in Mr. Bush’s “rubber-stamp” Congress, no matter what they do to our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
I happen to have a Spanish surname. My ancestors, except for the Native American branch) arrived on these shores from Scotland (to Virginia) and France (to New Orleans) in the first quarter of the 18th Century, and from Spain
(also to New Orleans) before the Civil War, ergo
we did not cross the border, the border crossed us.
This Republican rabble-rousing does not, and will not, make any distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants, between people whose families have been here for eight, or nine, or ten generations, and those who swam the river last night.
My children and I, along with other members of our family, have often been “profiled”
and “scapegoated” already, and all of us with Spanish or other “foreign-sounding” names are in grave danger from all those who believe that a hillbilly moniker gives them the keys to the kingdom, and the right to exclude anyone they choose.
Confucius said, “Choose your enemy carefully for you will become like him.” Our founding fathers said, “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it”.
(Compare the Bush Administration’s un-Constitutional efforts to monitor and punish speech they dislike.)
And Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye also be judged, for with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,” and “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
When asked which was the most important Commandment, Jesus replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. This is the first and great Commandment, and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus approve the
vicious meanness of spirit expressed by many towards immigrants in this space. Jesus and his followers were often rebuked publically, flogged and thrown into prison. Many of his saints were martyred for no greater crime than giving bread to the poor.
It is not easy to be a Christian when secular law ceases to defend the poor and downtrodden, but that does not give us the right to join the abusers. We must remember that with our sacred rights come equally sacred responsibilities, and that we dare not allow our laws to be perverted to serve the interests of the rich, and the ignorant. And we must also remember that, when the law ceases to protect, it loses its legitimacy.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 8:18 pm


“And speaking of evil acts: who was it that brought tuberculosis to North America, resulting in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of indigenous people? Us white guys!” bren
Don’t forget smallpox – or syphilis! We also brought alcohol, tobacco and, along with the slaves we brought from Africa, hookworm, malaria, yellow fever, et cetera.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted August 20, 2007 at 8:43 pm


Correction, tobacco originated in the Americas. As for malaria, Plasmodium falciparum (responsible for the majority of malaria deaths) was brought from Africa.



report abuse
 

Luis Padilla

posted August 20, 2007 at 8:50 pm


I have been reading all your comments and I really appreciate the way you guys participated.
As an immigrant with a legal status I have to give my opinion on the matter.
I am not an American citizen yet but I appreciate this country and I take this country as my own country. I want some change with our immigration policies but I have to be concern that some of those policies could affect my wife who is an American citizen. I married an American citizen no because I need papers but because I love my wife and I wanted to do my life with her. We have two children.
There was a time that I was an illegal immigrant but I never went to the streets to push for rights, I never drove without license and been drunk.
I want to support all those who are working hard and been honest people but those who do crime need no mercy because they do not deserve a change.
For the last ten years I have worked hard, got a family, got an education and I am helping this great country.
I want to see those who complain about the U. S. to go and live in places such as: Cuba, North Korea, China and see if thy like it there or here. We have a great country and this is where I want to live and die.
Luis Padilla



report abuse
 

Gary M Doxtater

posted August 20, 2007 at 11:45 pm


I am truly disgusted by the hate and venom directed toward immigrants on this and other websites. I suppose that many of these posters consider themselves Christians. I ask you to ponder the following points: If we are made in the image of THE CREATOR, and all children of GOD, then all men are brothers….thus we would exclude our brothers from sharing in our bounty(that was actually a gift from God),because they didn`t win the lottery of life?(being born in the U S A). Further we would ignore the many mentions in the Old Testament of hospitality for the alien among us? What about in the New Testament: “whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do unto me” I think this is more about greed,and maybe racism or xenophobia.Most of these people are willing to work hard in order to get a better life for their families. The fact is that it is so difficult to legally immigrate to the U S due to the beauracracy.



report abuse
 

PSF

posted August 21, 2007 at 12:29 am


Please, please, one and all: try to not blithely discount roughly half of humanity (and, sadly/ironically, the person whose situation is the focus for this post’s discussion)with male-exclusive language.
Gary M Doxtater, you make many important, valid points – thank you. Please be aware that some of the language you chose (and that wa-a-y too many people continue to choose), however, simply disregards (at best) half of humanity: all women. [Quote: "If we are made in the image of THE CREATOR, and all children of GOD, then all men are brothers....thus we would exclude our brothers from sharing in our bounty(that was actually a gift from God)"...]
Beautiful, important truth; let’s not exclude sisters from it.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 12:44 am


Tsk, tsk, tsk. A bunch of largely White Americans arguing about who should be on the land we stole from the Native Tribes again. I bet Jesus would approve, eh? :)



report abuse
 

Cads

posted August 21, 2007 at 4:36 am


Anarchy is a fine word to describe what’s going on with the current immigration problem. Either we’ve got laws in the USA or we don’t; it’s that simple. I can’t believe the number of people on this site who encourage breaking the rule of law. Change the laws if you disagree with them, but please don’t encourage anarchy. The woman HAD to be deported!



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 8:07 am


Some on this thread are claiming that because she has a child we should be understanding and allow her to remain in the US.
After doing some more research about this woman I found that she was deported and entered this country illegally again – i believe that is a fellony. Now she has a child – doesn’t he have a father that can care for the little one? (or are we looking at just adding another one to the welfare roles)
If I am to take the logic here – because she has a child not only should she be allowed to stay in the US – she should not go to jail for her fellony. If that is the cast – we have no right jailing female US citizens after they are convicted of robbing a bank or corner store.
I still maintain that allow people like her and others to enter illegally because the can walk accorss the borber is insulting to those that live in other countries that do not border the US and have to go through the process and come here legally.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 21, 2007 at 10:10 am


Cads,
It would be better to have no laws than to have a set of laws which is contradictory to itself. If laws are designed to protect our rights of life, liberty, and property, then they cannot simultaneously work to establish special privileges for some over others.
We are not aiming to design the best set of laws for people who live in the US now, we are aiming to design the best set of laws for everyone, everywhere.
The woman did not have to be deported. Justice always allows for mercy, and exception, at the discretion of the judge. The judge has the responsibility to test not the individual, but the law, to see if it fits with natural law and the tests of time.
Moderatelad is quite right that the presence of children in this situation should not influence justice. It is unjust to have a law that limits entry regardless of the presence of children.
We should allow entry to anyone who can get here by paying their own way. Where they originate is no concern of ours.
The concerns about manipulation of social programs are well founded, but we ought to be equally concerned about _citizens_ abusing these programs, which are not based on merit but on privilege. The problem here is not the immigrant but the unjust program for redistribution of wealth which was unearned and confiscated under duress.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 10:27 am


there can be many reason for an undocumentd person to reenter and commit a felony which have nothing to do with being criminal by intention. Mod, you asked about the father. Well what about him? Is he a US citizen? Is he a good guy? When she is not here who do the children live with? You stated earlier that her kids can be taken to Mexico with ease but that is hardly the only scenario.
Children may have been a great part of Elvira’s reason for doing what she did. People here seem to regard children as tools, used only to “anchor” them here. Anchor babies is just another demeaning and dehumanizing term like illegal. They are just babies and usually people have them because of love but also by mistake. Once they are born though there is this “thing” that happens, even to latina mothers. They fall in love with their children. They want the best for them.
How long was Elvira here before the first deportation? Years and years as I remember. When we refused to enforce the law for generations we create these problems and many more.
You guys who are all about the Rule of Law always seem to jump to the most negative of conclusions and then go straight to the most negative of answers. I certainly hope that if any of you come before a judge and jury, the panel of your peers does not make as many negative assumptions about you. That is not justice your thoughts about Elvira are not justice. They are though great examples of the unjust ways in which you approach this problem.
Someone asked me to “think some more” can you try to think and feel at the same time? Its not that hard really



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 21, 2007 at 11:24 am


Posted by: wayne | August 21, 2007 10:27 AM
‘Mod, you asked about the father. Well what about him? Is he a US citizen? Is he a good guy?’
Yes I did – no answer on that one. What do we do with children of female US citizens when they are convicted of a crime and sent to prison? Like I said before, (it was a little snarky) we can send the child back to her in Mexico. We sent a little boy back to Cuba at gun point didn’t we?
‘…regard children as tools, used only to “anchor”…’
I and many of my friends just see them as babies. The person being deported sees them as anchors. If in fact that wanted to be with them and keeping the family together was important – they would demand that their children be with them when they were sent back to their country of origion. They use them as an excuse to remain here in this country.
‘…to think and feel at the same time?’
Not a problem. I am thinking of the two families that I and others assisted in coming to this country that waited years, filled out all the proper forms, paid a lot of money to get here. They did it correct – just like everyone should be required to do also. I am just looking for level ground for all on the immigration issue.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 21, 2007 at 11:35 am


Gary Doxtater wrote:
I am truly disgusted by the hate and venom directed toward immigrants on this and other websites. I suppose that many of these posters consider themselves Christians.
Not to single you out Gary, but there’s one thing that bothers me about a lot of these threads. There are lots of accusations of hatred, but so few specifics. Who is spreading hate, and when? Do you think I’m a hater? If you do, why? Is it something specific I said, or is it my general attitude, or do you really think that any immigration policy other than open borders constitutes hatred?
Look, hatred is a sin, but so is spreading rumors or making false accusations. If you’re going to make charges like this, you should be ready to back them up with specifics.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 11:59 am


Mod
I appreciate your trying to seek level ground. Yes, women go to prison who have children. Children are even born in prison.
Yes you sponsored two families and they did it right. I applaud both them and you.
How about a woman who came here ten years ago? We didn’t care much back then. Sure we have laws but her family has been coming over the border for ages and have always found work here with no problems really. So she doesn’t even think about all the legalities, this is what her people have done as far back as anyone can remember.She is fairly illiterate but not stupid, she just lacks a formal education. Her people used to come just to pick crops but times have changed in the USA and even better jobs are available. While here she meets a man and falls in love. She has a baby.
Attitudes in the USA are changing, people are getting angry, but she is used to being an “outsider” she is used to being called names. She has a better life than she could ever have hoped for in many ways back in Mexico. One thing that is not going well for her is her relationship with her lover. He is not doing so well. He is an American citizen and a drug user/alcoholic. She leaves him and raises her son alone.
She is picked up and deportation proceedings begin. Her ex-lovers parents say they will take care of the boy. They do so by giving him to their son once she is gone. This is not good at all. The boy is in danger. To make matters worse in the time she has live din the USA things back home have changed. NAFTA has made it impossible for her father and brothers to farm anymore. They have moved to a border town to find work. Drug cartels have pretty much taken over. She finds out about her son and recrosses the border.
Her son is by now about eight years old. The USA is all he knows. he has friends here. He goes to school here. He does not want to go to a strange place and becomes adamant. Her ex-lover and inlaws tell her that if she decides to leave they will fight her for the boy. Her citizen son has rights. She feels as if there is an anchor holding her here. Others tell her they will help her if she stays. She gets a job using a fake Social Security number. Ten years have gone by since she first arrived here. She gets caught in an ICE raid.
Now tell me how level the ground is? If you were in her shoes would you have done anything different? Possibly but if this is the person you think of as a felon, I don’t understand you.
This is by the way not a hypothetical situation. It is also not the worst situation of this kind that I am aware of.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 21, 2007 at 12:29 pm


“I am truly disgusted by the hate and venom directed toward immigrants on this and other websites.”
Translation: I hate it when people disagree with me on issues about which I am very passionate.
“I suppose that many of these posters consider themselves Christians.”
Translation: People who don’t agree with me on these issues probably aren’t Christians.
“I ask you to ponder the following points: ”
YOu haven’t given me much reason to ponder anything you say, but…
“If we are made in the image of THE CREATOR, and all children of GOD, then all men are brothers….”
That isn’t what the Bible teaches, per se, but okay…
“thus we would exclude our brothers from sharing in our bounty(that was actually a gift from God),because they didn`t win the lottery of life?”
No, that is not why we exclude our “brothers”. We do so because an open-borders policy is untenable. Juris is the only one who has advanced a theory as to how it might work and why it might be effective. However, I would think some of his other views would give you fits.
“(being born in the U S A).”
Thanks for clearing that up.
“Further we would ignore the many mentions in the Old Testament of hospitality for the alien among us?”
No. We ignore the reconstruction of a biblical verse as a talking point that has no context.
“What about in the New Testament: “whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do unto me””
I disagree that a lax attitude toward immigration is positive for immigrants, or for the least of these in general. We are already facing something bordering on a crisis w/r/t what to do with the illegals who are already here. Eventually, we have to put the foot down.
“I think this is more about greed”
If this is about greed, then why are our Chambers of Commerce actively supporting amnesty?
“and maybe racism or xenophobia.”
Then why are we not opposed to legal immigration? Can you please explain how the racism charge still stands for one supports an increase in legal immigration? It’s a heavy charge. You should have something to back it up.
“The fact is that it is so difficult to legally immigrate to the U S due to the beauracracy.”
But people still manage to do it. So why is this relevant?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 1:18 pm


Posted by: wayne | August 21, 2007 11:59 AM
‘We didn’t care much back then.’
Many of us did care about border security 10 even 20+ years ago. When we tried to make a point about it – we were labeled as racists and alarmists. So ‘we’ did not include many of us.
While here she meets a man and falls in love. She has a baby.
‘meets’ – that is true
‘love’ – facts not in story
‘baby’ – true
‘…her relationship with her lover. He is not doing so well. He is an American citizen and a drug user/alcoholic. She leaves him and raises her son alone.’
So – no marriage so I would say that he is not supporting the child. Had she married that person – she would have been able to get legal status – but wait – she came back after being deported once so she can’t. One wrong decision causes another one and…
Had we enforced the laws from the get-go, we would not have this situation. Why didn’t she go to a sanctuary city and stay there – they seem to have the resources to take care of people like her. (or they will have to in the future)
My dad taught me that rarely did anything that started off wrong become right. She was wrong coming here in the first place without following proper procedures.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted August 21, 2007 at 3:39 pm


“My dad taught me that rarely did anything that started off wrong become right.”
Hmmmm, this makes me think of the Iraq invasion.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
D



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 4:04 pm


Once again Mod you make the assumption there are some procedures to follow.
The person described is, like Elvira, considered a felon. You think that is an appropriate term.
I do not.
That is one of the main differences between us.
I just cannot imagine any reason that is just, for you to go there.
Kevin You say you are pro legal immigration yet against comprehensive immigration reform. I think you stance is tantamount to being simply pro status quo. It is an unfortunate choice and lacks any real ability to change this problem in any positive way. The outcome of your stance will just be more of the same and the needless criminalization of natural and healthy human relationships and their pursuit of a better life through their own endeavors and hard work.
The immigrant will continue to be abused and you can feel right about it. After all you did nothing wrong, you just did nothing.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 4:14 pm


Posted by: wayne | August 21, 2007 4:04 PM
The person described is, like Elvira, considered a felon. You think that is an appropriate term.
I do not.
I am not against making changes to the law – but those changes are from here and forward. The ‘Elviras’ of the world – now in the new law – we could make allowances for them – but they would have to meet certain criteria to be allow re-enterance to the US and that might mean some sorta of compensation. You may not like the letter of the law – but without it – where would we end up in any number of situations.
I believe she knew what the law was before she came here. She knew what it was when she made the decision to re-enter illegally.
Immigration reform – fine, let talk. But it only is applicable to those who want to enter our country in the future and those who would like to re-enter legally.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm


Posted by: Don | August 21, 2007 3:39 PM
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Glad you didn’t!
.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 4:59 pm


And as long as our immigration laws are not changed, we just get more of the same. so let’s not just talk. Let’s get those guys we elected to fix things like this to do their job. Let’s demand comprehensive immigration reform, now. Tell your Senators and Representatives to stop playing games, stop arguing and trying to make political hay and do something. Write to Jeff Sessions and demand he do something and stop standing in the way. Demand he be part of the solution instead of acting like a politcal sniper. Get Cronym and the rest to actually go to work devising a plan with their counter parts in D.C. that we can live with, that works. tell them the nation demands it. Or you can just go to sleep, or play poker with your minute men action cards from Hoyle and act like your being patriotic.
I am still amazed though that your seem to be saying that if your son were in danger and you had to cross the border illegally in order to do something to win him back, you would not do so, because of your respect for the rule of law.
Do I have that right Mod? You would not commit a felony to save your son? Even one in which no one got hurt but you, if you were caught?
And that after being caught you would pronounce yourself guilty and agree with the courts that you are indeed a felonious lad?



report abuse
 

bren

posted August 21, 2007 at 5:26 pm


Many years ago, I gave serious thought to the idea of moving to the U.S. to work. So long ago, it was in the days before websites, so I had to do a lot of work by mail. After a number of exchanges, it came to my attention that I wasn’t applying for a work permit, or some such positive description, I would be applying to become an Alien. Obviously, the government was using the word in the sense of ‘foreign’. However, most times, the word ‘alien’ means ‘unfriendly, hostile, unacceptable or repugnant’. Not only did these meanings make me decide not to move to the U.S., but it feels to me that they have permeated much American discussion about people wanting to come to America. There is a disconnect between the values of the words on the Statue of Liberty and much present-day discussion about many immigrants or immigrant wannabes.
I don’t know what country Donny’s great grandparents came from; I do know that my grandfather, coming from an area that was sometimes part of Poland, Ukraine, Germany or Russia-depending on who had just won which war-didn’t have the luxury of being able to wait the lengthy periods immigrants have to wait for their papers. I don’t know how he entered the U.S., but I know he did–in order to earn the money to bring his family over. Then he went back to get them–and they emigrated to Canada. Because he thought it would be better than the U.S.? Probably not. Probably because at that moment, it was the safest place they could get to in the shortest possible time. All of which is to say that a lot depends on the circumstances and the times. While it is always desirable to do this legally, it’s not always possible. It might be possible when fleeing Mexico; it’s unlikely to be possible when fleeing Iraq, for example.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm


this act of law enforcement makes me very happy. maybe it is a beginning.
juris; “the best man will always be hired for the job.” joke, right?
elvira knows she can get back across the border any time she wants. maybe she left because of the children and father??????
this endless circular discussion certainly points out the interest, no, obsession in this country over illegal immigration. don’t here the politicians talking about it much tho. to busy raising money. lying for dollars. but the citizens are very restless. beware the 08 elections progressives.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 21, 2007 at 6:34 pm


Its a compliment to this country that we have so much opportunity that so many people want to come here . It is I believe all our responsibility that America remains a land of freedom and opportunity . It seems like we get much criticim , sometimes quite needed criticism , sometimes not , form many citizens about this country ,
People who come here need to be held accountable to the same laws we all are , and need to be part of this country as to participate legally to accept the advanatages and the dis advantages . , Their children need schools to learn Math and English , they need to pay taxes to help support social security .
It seems to me the greatest law breakers are the industries that hire illegals . They are the ones who should be getting the greatest Federal attention . They don’t need a church to hide in , they do it in the wide open .



report abuse
 

Tinker

posted August 21, 2007 at 7:17 pm


Bren, you made more sense than many of the others. Our complicated processes of legal immigration in recent times makes it nearly impossible for people to hang onto the expectation that they will ever get “permission” to live in the US legally – far different from the time when my grandparents came here in response to “Send me your tired and your poor….” If the immigration process could be streamlined for the many who are willing and able to enter our workforce at the most basic levels, rather than needing documentation of high-earning skills, the values of the Statue of Liberty would once again be upheld by the legal system of the country and many of our immigration “problems” would automatically be solved.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 21, 2007 at 8:25 pm


jerry,
I do believe that the best person usually gets the job. This happens less often when office politics get in the way, but overall, I still believe it to be true.
Of course, when 70+% of Americans rate themselves “above average” in many categories, these distinctions may be mostly a matter of perception.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 8:53 pm


Posted by: wayne | August 21, 2007 4:59 PM
Giving it further thought – I guess that I would not have crossed the border in the first place. That is what my parents would and have taught me. If for some reason I had a son and he needed my assistance – I would do everything in my power to get him to come to me or I would have taken him in the first place. I believe that she could have taken her son with her when she was deported the first time. Had she taken him – she would have lost her ‘anchor’ (for lack of a better term) and I believe she left him here for that reason. She would not have left him with his father because she left him for good reasons.
Have a great evening -
.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 9:20 pm


I am not talking about Elvira Mod. The woman I described is not the woman in this blog. Just put yourself in the shoes of this woman. I would do as she did. If I went to jail for doing so it wouldn’t matter. I think you would do the same. (you see i do not think you all that bad.)
The point is not all felons are equal. Not all law breakers are criminals. When it comes to family, blood should be thicker than patriotism.
I do not know all the details of Elvira’s situation. I do know that the people I have known over the years have compelling reasons for their acts. It is cheap logic to stand on high and cast names on them, like the throwing of stones and should only be done by those who are guiltless. We Americans are far from guiltless Mod. Compassionate responses that admit our own culpability in the immigration issue are the proper course.
To whom much is given, after all.



report abuse
 

Gary

posted August 21, 2007 at 11:35 pm


Kevin wrote translations
I think that your comments were your interpretations rather than translations…there is a big difference. You have made some assumptions about my statements and we all know about assumptions First of all I don`t don`t hate those who disagree with me, and I welcome the chance for a spirited debate ;however it would be difficult to deny that there is lots of hateful statements directed at Immigrants on the web. Secondly I feel that these Immigrants deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Thirdly I am not at all in favor of open borders (as you assume),rather I was referring to those millions of aliens already here like the woman who was deported(the obvious original topic), WE need to address these people with a reasonable comprehensive compromise ….I don`t consider deportation reasonable or viable. Furthermore I`m curious as to which Native American tribe you descend from, or are you actually an alien? Finally if this is truly a border security issue (really a political smokescreen) and not a racial issue, why aren`t we building walls on our Canadian border? One final question to ponder : “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” And who is my neighbor? Remember the good Samaritan?



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 22, 2007 at 7:42 am


Finally if this is truly a border security issue (really a political smokescreen) and not a racial issue, why aren`t we building walls on our Canadian border?
–Because umpteen million Canadians are not crossing over to live in the US illegally.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 22, 2007 at 9:10 am


Posted by: wayne | August 21, 2007 9:20 PM
Just put yourself in the shoes of this woman. I would do as she did.
OK – I could see myself crossing the border ‘illegally’ to come to the assistance of my child. But if my goal is to take care of my child and raising them myself. I guess I would then take them back to my country of origion. Not purchasing forged documents so that I can get a job or attempt to receive state benefits.
It would have everything to do with getting my child and not using that child to get me enterance to this country.
I can see that not all fellons are equal – this is why judges have the flexability to temper the sentence to fit the crime.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 22, 2007 at 9:10 am


“Because umpteen million Canadians are not crossing over to live in the US illegally.”
And why is that? Maybe if we dealt with the root cause of why people are doing this we could more effectively stem the tide of illegal immigration. Until that is accomplished, immigration reform is no more effective than putting a bandaid on a severed jugular vein (eww–sorry about the icky imagery).



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 22, 2007 at 9:14 am


“I guess that I would not have crossed the border in the first place. ”
You have no way of knowing this because you have never lived under the conditions that most illegal immigrants have lived under. Most of them are coming here to lift their families out of extreme poverty. I know you love your family, and I suspect you would do anything in your power to ensure their survival, and that includes breaking the law if that was absolutely necessary–if it was the difference between starvation and survival.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 22, 2007 at 9:24 am


Gary wrote:
“Love your neighbor as you love yourself” And who is my neighbor? Remember the good Samaritan?
Yes, I remember the good Samaritan. Here’s a question for you: Does loving you neighbor mean being willing to help him or her commit a crime?
Another question: Are you the Gary Doxtater who wrote that you were “disgusted by the hate and venom directed toward immigrants”? Do you have anything specific in mind? Say what you will about Kevin S, at least we all knew what he was talking about. You threw out a nesty accusations. I hope you don’t mind giving some specifics?
Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Leviticus 19:16
If you can’t back this accusation up, you ought to withdraw it.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 22, 2007 at 11:21 am


“Kevin You say you are pro legal immigration yet against comprehensive immigration reform. I think you stance is tantamount to being simply pro status quo.”
I am not opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. You are conflating the political and the real definition of the term here, presenting a false choice in which I must support either the status quo or the disastrous legislative solution on the table.
“I think that your comments were your interpretations rather than translations..”
Or just being coy. Nonetheless, your problem is not venom, as you spewed plenty of it in your post. Your problem is that people disagree with your position.
” First of all I don’t hate those who disagree with me,”
Didn’t say you did.
“however it would be difficult to deny that there is lots of hateful statements directed at Immigrants on the web.”
On the web? Sure. There are a lot of statements that robots should have individual rights on the web, too. Here, such comments are few and far beteween, with respect to the number of posts.
“Secondly I feel that these Immigrants deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. ”
I agree.
“Thirdly I am not at all in favor of open borders (as you assume)”
I didn’t say you did, per se, but it is the logical consequence of your “lottery” statement.
“WE need to address these people with a reasonable comprehensive compromise”
Sure. Let’s compromise in a manner that first ensures that we don’t have this problem again. Then let us find a fair solution for the people who are here. Until then, it is no tragedy when we enforce the law.
“I don`t consider deportation reasonable or viable.”
I do, but it is not a complete solution.
“Furthermore I`m curious as to which Native American tribe you descend from, or are you actually an alien? ”
I have Indian blood, but I can’t recall which tribe, and I really don’t care since it isn’t enough to get any money (spoken like a true Republican, eh?). To your point, however, nobody calls a latino family that has been here for generations an alien. This is not a race issue.
Further, since you apparently do not support an open border, the question should be turned back on you. Unless you are an Indian yourself, in which case I’m not sure what you are arguing.
“Finally if this is truly a border security issue (really a political smokescreen) and not a racial issue,”
Wow, you poisoned the well and presented a false choice in the same sentence. It is a border security issue, but also an economic and logistical issue. It is not a racial issue.
“why aren`t we building walls on our Canadian border?”
Because the problem of illegal Canadian aliens is not sizable enough to merit the action. Do you really consider this question to be a trump card?
“And who is my neighbor? Remember the good Samaritan?”
Look, phrases like this are used by Jim Wallis and others to put a religious spin on their liberal stuff for CNN et al… For people who are already Christians, we understand the implications of this story, and that this issue does not square so neatly with these questions.
Yes, we are to help our neighbor. Yes, if my neighbor is wounded in the street, I am not going to ask for documentation before I offer help.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 12:28 pm


Kevin
I hear your logic on this not being a racial issue for you.
I do think that though you may not have racial motivations, racism is still very much at the foundation of this problem.
It seems more than a little naive to think it isn’t. Any person who grew up in either Texas or California as I did in the fifties, lived with and knows of the racial discrimination towards Mexican nationals and Hispanic Americans that was inherent in the white societies of those two states. Arizona’s history, my current home, is full of the same. Why would things have changed? Why would racism not be part of this situation?
Why would you take a stance that allows for these racist tendencies to manipulate and make worse the immigration issue? When you call for deportations do you not know that white extremists are your biggest supporters? Do you not know that there is currently a resurgence of organizations like the KKK because of immigration? These organizations are using your support for “the rule of law” for their own agenda. For you to think otherwise is just naive.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 22, 2007 at 12:46 pm


Lot of talk about the ‘Good Samaritan’ here. Let’s remember that he came upon the man ‘after’ the dasterly deed was done. He took the man and care for him and then paid for someone else to nurse him back to health. What if the Samaritan man had come down the road first? If he was beaten to a bloody pulp – would there have been someone else to do the same for him? What if he had the latest ‘Stick-Walker 2000′ and defended himself and laid waste to his attackers – what would Sojo and Co. say about that? Better yet – what if he were just a few steps behind the other man and when he saw that he had been attacked and then used his ‘SW-2000′ and laid waste to the attackers – what would Sojo say?
Blessings on all!
.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 22, 2007 at 1:01 pm


wayne; stop reaching for an argument about illegal immigration being okay. it isn’t and you know it. your slithering around with KKK and white supremists remarks is bogus. until you and your reformers/progressive friends accept the faact that illegals are a problem our politicians will not resolve the problem. they need your whining about families, bad laws, bush administration, poor mexicans so they can study and procrastinate.
i be sacramento area california for 30 years and now arizona/wisconsin (18 yrs). i don’t see the race issues you do. why? maybe cuz i don’t have any. any problems i see/saw were earned. i help illegals a lot but i always advise them to go home to mexico and start over. many want to but don’t have the $. many do then return to the u s when the $ runs out. the 2 year green card offer would work. it did in the past but the demos stopped it because the unions were crying.
step back and accept the facts regarding illegals, please.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 1:02 pm


Mod
We could also remember the reason for the story. It was to demonstrate that the Pharisee assumption that Samaritans were bad people, cursed by God and doomed to fuel the fires of hell because of their racial makeup, (being half-breeds, heretics, and past enemies of Judah etal) and who shared a border with them which they deeply resented, were not the bad people. The righteous Jews who obeyed the rule of law and used it as an excuse to not help their neighbor, were the bad people.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 22, 2007 at 1:07 pm


squeaky; i guess you just justified bank robbery.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 2:20 pm


Jerry
I have never said illegal immigration was okay. I have said our laws are part of the cause of it. I have said and hold to the statement that racists are using this issue to reinvigorate their ranks. I have said the answer will not lie in enforcement only, or even first, approaches, but that enforcement and management of our border are crucial.
It is human nature to seek the welfare of ones self and family. We have jobs that need to be filled. AZ estimates up to eighteen percent of our state work force may be undocumented. We still have plenty of job openings. California’s crops went largely unpicked.
I have stated and will continue to state that the mistreatment of undocumented persons is a civil rights issue which those who are opposed confuse as a legal one. No other misdeameanor carries the heat behind it that you seem to give this.
WHY? You leave yourself open to the accusation of racism by your unwarranted anger against hardworking people. I am always amazed that you guys don’t see that. Stop blaming the messenger and open your eyes Jerry.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm


As I see this it boils down to one main question. Why is America what it is today? Is it because we are a nation of laws and our systems of government and economics are essentially better than any other nations or peoples? There certainly is a lot of evidence to support this answer.
But I believe the answer is simply this; God has blessed us! I do not think he blessed us because we were better than others. I just think He has blessed us. That means we are under obligation to do more and to help more. We should not ever cry about that or complain.
We are the richest place on earth, the richest and most powerful country the world has ever seen.
If we take a stance that says we are only interested in the protection of our special status and refuse the greater obligations that are inherent with that status. We will fail!
If we look on poorer people and use the excuse of protecting what is ours to deny them help, we will fail. If we use the accusation that they break our laws when those laws unfairly and unreasonably condemn people who are only looking for a piece of what we have been blessed with, we will fail.
The law they stand convicted of violating is a civil misdemeanor! Why all the outrage! Penalties? Sure. All actions should have equal and opposite reactions. Social castigation, exile, prison terms? None of this makes sense.
Forced attrition in defense of minor laws? The demeaning of people because they want a job so they can work hard to improve themselves? It doesn’t make sense.
The comprehensive reform package was voted down in the Senate this year. It had problems. I did not like all of it. I am sure no one did, but that is not the reason it failed. It failed because people were afraid and were protecting their own rights over others. They were told that they could lose their job. They were afraid that our culture was going to be destroyed. These fears are unfounded.
All throughout our history these accusations have been made about immigration. They were only partially based on fact and never came true. To compare our current immigration system to what we had then is unfair and untrue. At no other time in our history did we have such restrictive laws regarding immigration, except for those aimed at the Chinese, and those were proven to be morally wrong. These will also.
Many people may lose their jobs in the near future but it won’t be immigration, legal or illegal, that cause it. It will most probably be our own greed, and something like the credit debacle we are only now seeing unfold.
If our culture is destroyed it will be because we lose sight of the fact that every man woman and child is created in the image of God and that, despite whatever wrong they may do, nothing removes our obligation to treat them as we would want to be treated.
Reform our laws. Manage the border and secure it. Stop the status quo. Quit living in fear.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 22, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Wayne wrote:
I have said and hold to the statement that racists are using this issue to reinvigorate their ranks.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: do you have any proof that racist groups are using this issue to “reinvigorate their ranks”, or are you just speculating?
I see lots of accusations, and precious little proof.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 22, 2007 at 4:19 pm


Jerry
“squeaky; i guess you just justified bank robbery.”
Did I say that?
So are you saying given the choice between breaking the law and watching your family starve to death you would watch your family starve?



report abuse
 

Chuck Geshekter

posted August 22, 2007 at 4:31 pm


Jerry,
you’re in over your head, bub. Grab yer afternoon milk, pull up a chair in the corner, and listen to the grownups. Ya might learn sumfin.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 4:34 pm


Wolverine
For your precious little proof reading pleasure, but don’t just go to these, go to the source and just bring up KKK websites.
As a new CNN report shows, the Klan (and I assume other white power groups and nationalist groups) has grown these past 6 years, fed by the illegal immigration hysteria.
“If any one single issue or trend can be credited with reenergizing the Klan, it is the debate over immigration in America,” says Deborah Lauter, the ADL’s civil rights director. “New groups [are] sprouting in parts of the country that have not seen much activity.”
MyWestTexas.com – Ku Klux Klan group plans Midland rally
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, long associated with lynchings and burning crosses, is staging a comeback in the US by exploiting the volatile issue of immigration, experts and rights groups say.
From: Tancreadowatch.blogspot.com/2006/2008
Other white supremacists also champion Mr. Tancredo. In fact, Googling “Tancredo” with “white race” turns up all kinds of interesting sympathizers. Klan Politician Watch prints the following from a Klan missive:
These are politicians we support around the nation that we know will save us from the jew, black and brown plague infestation and their lawlessness; Senator George Allen VA, Senator Pete Sessions AL, State Senator Dina Titus NV, Congressman Tom Tancredo CO, Governor Hally Barbour MS, Congresswoman Kathrine Harris FL, James Inhofe OK.
From; Stratfor inteligence report U.S.: The Ku Klux Klan’s Tactical Shift
October 26, 2005
Once the Klan and other such groups establish rapport with a person on the controversial issue, their thinking goes, they can gradually open that person’s eyes to the reality of the ZOG, the “evil” Jews and its other core beliefs. These groups claim that Jews are fostering illegal immigration and homosexuality as part of their secret conspiracy to weaken and control the “Aryan race,” and figure that a person concerned about these issues will, with guidance, come to recognize “the hidden Jewish hand.”



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 22, 2007 at 4:45 pm


no squeaky; im’ saying that you said…..” and that would include breaking the law, if that was absolutely necessary, the difference between survival and starvation.” i guess that would include bank robbery, mugging, stealing, whatever. my answer is that i would go to my christian neighbor, or the welfare dept. or other agency that helps folks, the church,or an employer, or whatever/whoever and find survival. i do not read, see or hear of any starvation going on in mexico. my friends in nogales, son. do not talk of starvation in mexico. i’m sure there are hungry people in mexico just like there are hungry people all over the world. most of us are trying to help them. breaking laws and putting ones family in even more jeopardy is not the answer. except for liberal/progressives who think it is the answer. i don’t hear sojo talking of starvation in mexico.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 22, 2007 at 4:59 pm


wayne; i agree God has blessed this country.
the richest country might be (per capita) kuwait, arab emirites, saudi arabia. i don’t know.
i think the immigration reform bill failed because the democrats did not want it to pass. why? so they could keep it on the table and use it in the election. they don’t care about illegal immigration. it does not affect their status, income or life.
wayne says ..these laws will prove to be morally wrong. …..many people will loose their jobs in the future……greed….credit debacle…destroy our culture….wow!!!!! this is typical progressive fear mongering. what do you propose as an answer to all this wayne? a democratic landslide in 08, like the 04 landslide? or will ignoring the illegal immigrants solve the problem?



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 22, 2007 at 5:03 pm


I wouldn’t doubt that the KKK are using this issue to reinforce their ranks.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 22, 2007 at 5:05 pm


cute chuck; wish i had your insight. learn sumfin? from you? squeaky? wayne? okay. let’s hear your christian take on the illegal immigration. oh, first take the popsicle out of your mouth i can’t understand you.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 22, 2007 at 5:12 pm


No jerry–I did not say that. And I only gave you two choices in my hypothetical situation. Just two. Choose one.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 22, 2007 at 5:35 pm


you didn’t say that it was okay to break the law? read what you wrote.
and why limit the choices? can’t you see more options? starve or break the law. i choose neither.



report abuse
 

Will

posted August 22, 2007 at 6:43 pm


I am so disapppointed to see the sentiments in some of the previous comments. If anything, Elvira was pointing out that our immigration laws are out of date and don’t reflect 21st century realities of multi-status families in this country. Diminishing her son as “an anchor baby” is dehumanizing and does not recognize that they are members of our society affected by antiquated laws. On the 40th anniversary of the overturning of interracial marriage laws (Loving vs. VA), it seems like our nation should be able to grasp that laws themselves can be wrong.
What I find most disturbing is the coordinated targeted (and presumably expensive) enforcement action that ICE mounted to apprehend only Elvira. It is clear that they wanted to silence her and her supporters by deporting her as we debate our the state of our immigration laws in this country.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 7:38 pm


Jerry writes for the second time i believe
“i do not read, see or hear of any starvation going on in mexico. my friends in nogales, son. do not talk of starvation in mexico.”
Wolverine had never heard anything about the KKK using immigration to revive its membership either. I find it a wonder that you seem to not be able to type Mexico and starvation into a search engine.
I know you can type Jerry and I think you can read also. That leaves willful ignorance on your part I guess.
Mexico is a third world country Jerry and yes there is starvation in Mexico. Did you think people would brave our desert just to get a tan? sheesh!



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm


heh Jerry
Know what? I’ve never heard you say anything that would lead me to believe you would care if there was starvation in Mexico.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 22, 2007 at 11:23 pm


Wayne wrote:
For your precious little proof reading pleasure
So my interest in having accusations connected with real-world events is “precious”, eh?
but don’t just go to these, go to the source and just bring up KKK websites
Great, now we’re getting somewhere. Any chance you could recommend a couple? I don’t hang out with KKK/Neonazi/Skinhead types much, believe it or not. We neocons don’t get along with them very well — too close to Israel for one thing.
As a new CNN report shows, the Klan (and I assume other white power groups and nationalist groups) has grown these past 6 years, fed by the illegal immigration hysteria.
That’s interesting. You wouldn’t happen to know by how much they’ve grown, would you? I managed to dig up the CNN report and while the Klan Wizard of Indiana claims they’ve grown using the immigration issue, the CNN reporter herself said there’s no way to verify Klan membership numbers. And Klan Wizards have been known to exaggerate their influence. (As a side note, the Wizard in question says he passed out a hundred membership application forms at a recent rally. How many he got back he doesn’t say.)
CNN quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center’s claim that the KKK gained a large number of chapters from 2000 to 2005, but SPLC doesn’t say that the KKK gained members, and elsewhere it notes increasing division among racist groups and the collapse of some neonazi organizations.
This isn’t all that shocking to me: fringe/kook groups burn out members, break up and reform all the time. One group seems to be ascending while another declines, but it’s really just the same crazies trying out different costumes. Same thing happened with a lot of US Marxist/Leninist groups. It’s the natural cycle of impotent groups with a mediocre leadership cadre and a lunatic rank-and-file.
In short, you have yet to find evidence that hate groups are effectively using illegal immigration to draw in significant numbers of new members. But don’t let that stop you from tarring us all as bigots. Maybe someday you’ll find some proof that will stand up under more than a minute of scrutiny. Be sure and let the rest of us know if you ever do.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

c kitty

posted August 23, 2007 at 12:06 am


Anyone sho doubts the racist basis for all the concern over immigration should just spend a llittle time in the one of the first or second ring suburbs which are becoming a little less blonde as successful Latinos and Asians start moving in. Keep your earsopen and you will hear how fearful folks are that their community is becoming more ethnic.
I owned a business in the ‘burbs for many years and was amazed at how willing people were to express their bigotry. They seem to assume everyone feels as they do.
The stories I could tell, but one stands out. A wealthy customer told me that the reason “they” get jobs as bus drivers was so that “they” could then get out into the suburbs and see what houses were for sale. Apparently it never occurred to this person that “they” might drive a car or read the classifieds. It had to be something sneaky. Another couple moved to a town about 30 miles farther out because it was well past the point where the metropolitan transit system ended. They said they just weren’t “into diversity”.
Using illegality as the purported reason for wanting to deport Mexicans is just a handy excuse. Particularly when most Americans willingly forgive or excuse their sports heroes, political favorites or their good buddies for far worse crimes.I easily forgave good friends for felony DWI and drug possession convictions, which to my mind are far more dangerous activities than someone crossing a border to find work.
I agree that we have to improve our border control system to keep out terrorists and drug traffikers. But sending people back to Mexico who have lived good lives here for many years, who have born children here, held jobs and paid taxes does nothing to further that primary goal. It just wastes our enforcement energy and panders to the bigoted and foolish among us. There is nothing Christian about that approach.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 23, 2007 at 3:26 am


Wolverine
Since 2000, the number of extremist groups has increased by 40%, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which closely tracks the groups’ activities. In the past two years, the growth has been largely driven by the emergence of about 144 “nativist” groups that oppose immigration. Now SPLC didn’t manage to get their membership list but that isn’t especially surprising.
The FBI seems to think this is a problem
Charles Frahm, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said there is increasing concern that the most radical elements of the anti-immigration wing may be “susceptible” to recruitment by white supremacists and other groups inclined toward violence.
Tancredo has been linked to these groups as well as State Representatives from Arizona and many many more. I didn’t make this up Wolverine and I do not say it lightly. I do not mean to broad brush you but you so easily brush this aspect of the arguement aside and that just isn’t the way it is. Racism is part of this discussion.
Any one who has gone to a rally and talked with minute man types will soon see there is a very disturbing resemblance if not outright linkage to white supremacist groups. The lingo is there and the hate. The Klan talks openly about their stance on immigration issues. You can do the research yourself. Look up klan rallies in your own state on the subject. Having the Klan on your side Wolverine is not something to be happy about or to care less about. It should concern you I would think.
And Wolverine don’t let that hair on your back stand up so straight and scary.You haven’t been hurt yet. I merely said you don’t have much reason to be surprised when people accuse you of at least looking like a person who might wear bedsheets.
Birds of a feather flocking the way they do and all.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 23, 2007 at 9:22 am


Jerry,
No, I didn’t say it was OK to break the law. I said
“I suspect you would do anything in your power to ensure (hour family’s) survival, and that includes breaking the law if that was absolutely necessary–if it was the difference between starvation and survival. ”
Note the extreme situation I am describing. I give you only two choices because I am giving you a very extreme hypothetical situation to illustrate above point. I doubt anyone would let their family starve if their only other option to ensure they didn’t was to break the law.
Or was it wrong for David’s men to eat the temple showbread or for Jesus’ disciples to eat the wheat in the field as they walked through it?



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm


Squeaky
Don’t play tis game with jerry. You gave him real world situation. Your scenario is not really hypothetical if you think about it, It is the choice many are actually faced with. He knows this and if he were to answer you truthfully it would prove your point.
Wolverine
SPLC is the watchdog on the KKK. Knowing what the Klan is up to is sort of “their thing”. They are very well respected and the FBI uses them as a link for their info on this subject. CNN used SPLC TO “confirm” their story. ADL confirms their story. NPR confirms their story. I think the story is confirmed, but lets dig for more.
In 1977 Grace Lichtenstein of The New York Times wrote a report on The Pioneer Fund, a private trust fund based in New York which has for more than 20 years supported highly controversial research by scientists who believe that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.
“The Pioneer Fund, a tax-exempt foundation incorporated in 1937 for the express purpose of research into “racial betterment,” was worth more than $2 million, according to its 1975 Internal Revenue Service return. Yet several officers of the leading geneticists professional organization say they never heard of it. A month-long study of the Pioneer Fund’s activities by The New York Times shows it has given at least $179,000 over the last 10 years to Dr. William B. Shockley, a leading proponent of the theory that whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks.”
The SPLC reports that the Pioneer fund is a principle financial backer of many of the “Hate groups” it keeps tabs on.
Oh and the pioneer fund was one of the principle backers for California’s anti immigration prop 187.
These are the guys you are aligned with by your arguments Wolverine.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 23, 2007 at 1:55 pm

kevin s.

posted August 23, 2007 at 4:08 pm


“It is clear that they wanted to silence her and her supporters by deporting her as we debate our the state of our immigration laws in this country.”
Well, she was a lawbreaker leading a group attempting to rally lawbreakers to her cause. From a law enforcement standpoint, this certainly makes sense.
“I owned a business in the ‘burbs for many years and was amazed at how willing people were to express their bigotry. They seem to assume everyone feels as they do. ”
That some people are bigots is not the question here.
” Particularly when most Americans willingly forgive or excuse their sports heroes, political favorites or their good buddies for far worse crimes”
Ted Kennedy for example.
“I easily forgave good friends for felony DWI and drug possession convictions, which to my mind are far more dangerous activities than someone crossing a border to find work.”
It is not a question of forgiveness. Did you think that your friends should not be subject to the law?
“Any one who has gone to a rally and talked with minute man types will soon see there is a very disturbing resemblance if not outright linkage to white supremacist groups.”
Please relay your experience at minute man rallies.
“I merely said you don’t have much reason to be surprised when people accuse you of at least looking like a person who might wear bedsheets.”
Why would he be surprised? Liberals play the racist card on almost every thread here.
“These are the guys you are aligned with by your arguments Wolverine.”
And you are aligned with the illegal immigrant who line up four people and shot them in the back of the head. Isn’t this fun? Let’s keep playing.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 23, 2007 at 5:36 pm


Kevin
Am I supposed to take your remarks to mean you admit to siding with known racists and are knowingly following a racist agenda? That you think you can justify doing so because I support immigrants, one of which did an evil act many American citizens have also done, and which has nothing to do with their immigration status?
Please elaborate.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm


“Am I supposed to take your remarks to mean you admit to siding with known racists and are knowingly following a racist agenda?”
If racists were to support strengthening our unions, would that make stronger unions part of a racist agenda? Your question is flawed.
“That you think you can justify doing so because I support immigrants, one of which did an evil act many American citizens have also done, and which has nothing to do with their immigration status?”
No, I’m pointing out the flaw of your logic, which is based on guilt by association.
That racists use illegal immigration to drive racism does not mean that we do not need strong enforcement of our borders.



report abuse
 

kevinisnotaracist!hejustwantstoenforceourborders...

posted August 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm


“That racists use illegal immigration to drive racism does not mean that we do not need strong enforcement of our borders.”
No, but it does mean there is a strong racist undercurrent inside the immigration debate – something you and many other ‘enforcement’ voices are reluctant to admit thusly limiting our ability to talk about what is truly motivating many.
If by ‘strong enforcement our borders’ you mean charging worthy honor students out-of-state tuition to go to college than, no, we do not need ‘strong enforcement of our borders.’
You seem to be ignorant of lots more than just whether or not racists are on your ‘enforcement only’ or ‘enforcement first’ team.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 23, 2007 at 7:14 pm


Kevin
You and I agree on the need for strong enforcement on the borders.
What you and I do not agree on is how to deal with those immigrants who are here without documents.
It is the stance on these issues that brings you into alignment with these people.
It is not guilt by association. If your words are their words, what’s the difference? They also claim to be patriotic and guys like J Tanton and T Tancredo or Richard Lamm vehemently deny that they are racist xenophobes. Tanton says he can’t help what the Pioneer fund stands for, and uses your very argument to explain why his org. is funded by pioneer. The truth is he has always known the racist goals of Pioneer. His close friendship with R Lamm is evidence of the fact that he actually agrees with them as Lamm was on the board of Pioneer when they funded Tanton’s orgs. Ergo Tanton is a liar! He is hiding his racist views and agenda. All of these guys seem to be following David Dukes advice when he told the Klan to get out of burning crosses in the fields and into Hotel conference rooms.
These organizations have funded the anti immigration movement. They have been more than just side line participants. They spread fear. They spread lies and misuse truth. In large part this has been a movement they created. That is not my opinion. They admit to doing it.
I am asking you to seriously consider your stand in light of who agrees with you. To see the danger of your stand on attrition and deportation. It does no good to stand with these types, unless you agree with their ultimate goals.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted August 23, 2007 at 7:27 pm


If a racist wanted to strengthen unions I would seriously look at what was underneath their support. If I found that there was a potential of increasing their political position by strengthening unions I would find a way to get most of what I wanted and compromise on the rest. In other words I would take weaker unions before I would aide and abet the likes of these guys.
Its a real world and men like these unfortunately require compromise. If they only wanted headlines and supported my goals verbally that would be one thing. I could probably just denounce them. These guys are the money and the muscle. They are the meat of the anti immigration movement. That is an entirely different thing.



report abuse
 

jb

posted August 24, 2007 at 9:28 am


She gave birth to a son. Moses named him Gershom Foreigner, because he said, “I was a foreigner living in another country.” Exodus 2:22



report abuse
 

c kitty

posted August 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm


Kevin S
Sorry I didn’t make my points clear enough for you to understand.
Bigotry IS the isses, like it or not. The point is that bigotry is prevalent ,especially in areas not previously integrated. It is not limited to groups like the KKK. It is not about protecting us from dangerous people when we deport hard-working, tax paying, long-lived residents and wreak havoc on families in the process.
Interesting that you had to reach back into the previous century to find an example of a wrong-doing Democrat, and then found one who has attempted to redeem himself in service to his country. You couldn’t find any miscreants in the current crop of Washingtonians? You must be very forgiving, at leasst of Republicans.
And forgiveness has nothing to do with punishment in Christianity, at least in the docrtines I am aware of.
But if you want to talk about punishment, shouldn’t the punishment reflect the severity of the crime? And shouldn’t it be blind, in the sense that all are treated equally without regard to social status, wealth or influence? Shipping productive workers out of the country seems both a little extreme and counter-productive. And wouldn’t we have to start deporting illegal Canadians?



report abuse
 

Mike

posted August 25, 2007 at 12:04 pm


Unless we are Native American, we are all the children of immigrants. Some of our ancestors came here because they chose to on their own. Some of our ancestors were brought to this country as propterty, as slaves. Once granted freedom, they continue to be treated as less than the children of God whom they are.
“Our country” exists because of immigration. Why do we “real Americans” want to change the rules now?



report abuse
 

Pingback: Why Did Elvira Risk Deportation by Leaving Sanctuary? /by Alexia Salvatierra/ - God's Politics

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.