-
Shah Na Na
June 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Religious Upset Over Drones
June 3, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Boy Scouts Embrace Dull Conformity
May 28, 2013 | 149 comments
-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
Special Report
Will the Immigration Circle Be Unbroken?
A bipartisan, evangelical solution is unlikely, despite the fanfare surrounding the “Evangelical Immigration Table.”
Some prominent conservative evangelicals have joined with liberal groups to resuscitate Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
A June 12 press conference in Washington, D.C. announced an “Evangelical Immigration Table” backing these principles for desired U.S. immigration policy:
- Respects the God-given dignity of every person.
- Protects the unity of the immediate family.
- Respects the rule of law.
- Guarantees secure national borders.
- Ensures fairness to taxpayers.
- Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.
The first five principles are laudable but likely will be overshadowed by the final point for legalization of illegal immigrants. Endorsers include officials from the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and Focus on the Family, as well as liberal groups such as Jim Wallis’s Sojourners and Evangelicals for Social Action, plus Bread for the World.
“There are many ordinary days in Washington,” declared Wallis, the Religious Left’s most prominent voice. “I think this is an extraordinary day.” An official from NAE’s relief arm agreed: “To rise above the fray, the Left and the Right, the polarization that simply does not need to be there, and create a better life for immigrants.” The official “Table” statement lamented “political stalemate” over immigration and urged a “bipartisan solution.”
Speakers at the press conference cited polls claiming overwhelming public support for their version of immigration reform. But they did not explain why proposals for legalization keep failing in Congress or why some states, like Arizona and Alabama, have enacted their own controversial laws against illegal immigration. Some polls in fact show evangelicals are the most resistant among American demographic groups to proposals for legalization. Clearly the coalition aims to revive Comprehensive Immigration Reform as a viable issue by trying to energize evangelicals, which are a key constituency among Republicans.
“Together we will create a national groundswell for comprehensive immigration reform,” Wallis promised. But Wallis, whose public persona tends to dominate whatever coalition he joins, is unlikely to persuade the more conservative evangelicals who are the primary target. The Evangelical Immigration Table maybe would have been shrewder to exclude Wallis and highlight its conservative supporters.
Undoubtedly the participating conservative evangelicals in the “Table” are sincere in affirming “fairness to taxpayers” and “secure national borders.” But Wallis and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action are pacifists opposed to all force. In what sense do they support “secure borders” beyond maybe the moral suasion of unarmed Christian Peacemaking Teams encamped at the border? As to protecting taxpayers, the liberal members of the “Table” likely have a different understanding than the others, having typically emphasized the right of illegals to government benefits and services.
The Table was also vague about the desired sequences of events. Would borders, and presumably visa enforcement, be secured well before any mass legalization, as the conservative participants presumably prefer? Or would legalization get priority, as Wallis et al. almost surely prefer?
There was also some doubt at the press conference as to the political priority evangelicals should attach to Comprehensive Immigration Reform versus other issues of concern to evangelicals and other traditional religionists, such as marriage, abortion, and religious freedom issues especially relating to the Obamacare contraceptive/abortifacient mandate. Historic Christian teaching is pretty unequivocal about marriage and sanctity of life, and since religious freedom is central to the church’s ability to function, presumably the answer would be obvious. Neither the Bible nor Christian tradition offers clear policy guidance about immigration policies for modern civil states.
In this election year, should evangelicals prioritize or not marriage, abortion, and religious liberty over a more prudential issue like immigration law? The Evangelical Immigration Table left the waters muddied. No doubt Jim Wallis and the Evangelical Left are pleased, since their exertions have long tried to steer evangelicals away from traditional social conservatism in favor of issues like immigration liberalization.
There is also likely the belief among some evangelicals supporting the “Table” that they are representing and appealing to the growing number of evangelical Hispanics. And perhaps they are. But polls don’t show automatic mass support by Hispanic citizens for legalization. And evangelical Hispanic churches, which are mostly charismatic and Pentecostal, overwhelmingly are non-political. Possibly some Anglo evangelicals, influenced by a few Hispanic activists, are superimposing their own expectations onto Hispanic evangelicals. Like other Americans, Hispanic voters this year are most concerned about the economy. And like Anglo evangelicals, evangelical Hispanics tend to care deeply about marriage and abortion as public issues to which their faith speaks directly.
Many fine Christian leaders, including several friends whom I greatly admire, have endorsed the “Table.” But likely they will be disappointed by the Table’s ultimate inability to motivate many traditional evangelicals. Meanwhile, liberal participants, chiefly Jim Wallis, who represents no church but is mainly a media presence, will adroitly exploit the “Table” to amplify their own influence and preferred policies.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/15/will-the-immigration-circle-be
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Weiner and Women
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Nessus| 6.15.12 @ 7:08AM
Deportation is the correct, appropriate punishment for the crime of illegal entry into the country. Far too many foreigners, especially Latinos believe they have some God-given right to come and go as they please, while usually violating numerious other laws - identity theft, income tax evasion, driving without a license, voter fraud, etc.
Enforce existing law. Deportation. Period.
Aristocat| 6.15.12 @ 7:53AM
Immigration Reform is a toxic political issue.
If people enter the US illegally, that's their problem. It's not up to politicians to somehow make it right by complicated forms of amnesty.
Republicans should avoid this issue like the plague. It's a no-win subject.
GW| 6.15.12 @ 1:49PM
Polling data begs to differ. If Romney wants to win handily, he will make the issue about Obama's non-enforcement--pointing to the fact that immigrants DO take jobs Americans will do--particularly blue collar and part-time jobs for teenagers. Want to employ Martin and Joe? Deport Manuel and Jose.
Warrior| 6.16.12 @ 1:48PM
Obama can't run on his record and everyone in DC knows it. Issues must be manufactured in order to open a window for the media attack dogs to show the Republican party negatively. This move stinks of desperation and is just another missile that is launched without a guidance system hoping it hits a target. Gays in the military, gay marriage, free contraceptives, the war on women and now illegals. All of these issues are leftist dreams. They are desperate to blind the moderates who are finally seeing that the emperor has no clothes.
Brooksifier | 6.16.12 @ 2:31PM
"Protects the unity of the immediate family."
What about extended families? should they be DISunified?
Skippy| 6.17.12 @ 2:33PM
Absolutely.
If their extended families are unified due to illegal practices, then yes.
Lawbreaking should have consequences, all of them unpleasant.
Appleby| 6.15.12 @ 7:34AM
What Nessus said. Let those people continue to sneak into Canada, which has no identifiable laws on immigration and which not only welcomes illegals but provides them with all socialist goodies including health care, food, clothing, shelter and education the minute they make a refugee claim...
However, I believe that the current lack of employment in the USA will do more to get rid of illegals than any particular law.
Aristocat| 6.15.12 @ 7:55AM
Kind of hard to sneak into Canada from Mexico.
Appleby| 6.15.12 @ 9:43AM
You'd think so, but you'd be surprised. Like everybody else, they sneak in on airplanes.
jaytrain| 6.15.12 @ 8:20AM
The 'family unity ' issue is a deal breaker as it permits even encourages the anchor baby scam . To wit , mamasita sneaks into the country , 8 m0nths pregnant , delivers the child , now a US citizen , and budda bing , the whole family unit is in ., a dozen or more EBT / Medicaid /bilingual ed deadbeats . I will give you a path to citizenship though 5 years of 1040's . 3 years probation and a citizenship/us history / english language requirement . The US history / civics curriculum to be designed and taught by Hillsdale College .
JD| 6.15.12 @ 11:38AM
Anchor babies are not citizens. Anyone who knows the history of the passage of the 14th Amendment knows that. Besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of a deported parent taking their children with them, even if the children did have a right to be in the place the parent was deported from.
jaytrain| 6.15.12 @ 8:22AM
Oh and BTW , I thought Obama had a good idea on border security : a moat with gators might work pretty well .
Ryan| 6.15.12 @ 8:41AM
I always felt that this was an issue that we could come to some sort of agreement with the left on - even a reasonable compromise - but both sides have so much to gain from victory that they refuse to have the party in power "win" - so everyone loses.
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 10:43AM
The Republicans in Congress led the way in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That did not win them many votes with blacks. Most blacks do nto even know about it.
Hispanics will vote for the "free" handouts more than they will vote with a sense of appreciation for Republicans if partial or full amnesty legislation is ever approved and passed by Republicans. It will sway some to for R in the beginning but in the end most will vote for Democrats as they already are.
Human nature being what it is, "free" handouts will trump longlasting appreciation for a one-time event such as te amnesty would be. Democrats will win this battle. Republicans are too weak and afraid to enforce the current laws.
It's why the borders need to be secured. I've always been in favor of a wall. I've said it once before on this site; at 10 billion dollars a day in Federal spending, we could build a wall the entire length of the border for probably 8 days of current spending levels. That would come to 40 million dollars / mile. The point is, the cost is small compared to what we already spend on eveything else. There just has to be the will to do it and so far there is not and never will be barring a civil war and at that point it will probably be too late.
Nessus| 6.15.12 @ 10:44AM
What do both sides stand to "win"? What exactly? Tens of millions of poor, grade school educated Mestizos who pine for Mexico and vote for more liberal Democrat big government programs?
Latinos vote roughly 70% Democrat. Please do the math.
Ryan| 6.15.12 @ 10:56AM
I'm not necessarily talking about an amnesty solution. There may actually be a reasonable compromise to work out (preferably a step-by-step rather than comprehensive approach). Fixing the problem gets votes for the party in power, period (and not necessarily from the Hispanic side, though I'd think we'd be surprised) - whether pandering by the left or holding firm on the rule of law by the right.
GW| 6.15.12 @ 1:51PM
If you can "reason" in Spanish, they may accept your proposal. But, 10 years down the road, the next batch of 3rd worlders will see that America is weak and demand amnesty from us racist Americans.
There is truly only one option. Eisenhower did it back in 1954. Deport, deport, deport.
Derek Leaberry| 6.15.12 @ 11:45AM
"Fixing" the problem is what the Left wants- a permanent flood of Third World population to overwhelm the American core population. That would lead to a permanent socialist regime with the Democratic Party and its clients holding the whip hand over the old stock Americans.
The conservative way to fix the problem is to severely penalize employers of illegals, round up of illegals, and a reform of the 1965 Ted Kennedy immigration law. Continued recession is a great help as well.
Warrior| 6.16.12 @ 1:52PM
The left desperately wants the media to focus on issues other than an economy that is tanking, true unemployment of about 12%, out of control debt, foreign policy that has destabilized the middle east and our allies, the open assault on our liberties and the final death blows to the Constitution. The Republicans have no desire to fix this problem either as proven over the last 24 years.
Harry the Horrible| 6.15.12 @ 9:01AM
How about securing the borders first, an important Constitutional duty of the Federal Government, then we can discuss the rest.
Nessus| 6.15.12 @ 10:50AM
The brutal truth that all libs and some "conservatives" will get upset with me over is this: Most non-White Americans vote liberal/Democrat; most native born White Americans vote GOP.
Since immigration for the past 30 yrs or so has been favoring non-White (non-European) immigrants, the percentage of "minorities" in the US is rising rapidly and thus, we are faced with a huge population of lowly educated people, who feel quite comfortable with Big Brother Government making most of the decisions for their lives. That's how it's done in Mexico, Venezuela, Guatemala, Yemen, etc.
Latinos have notorioulsy bad academic performance, high out of wedlock baby births, high gang membership, etc.
The USA is pretty much dead .....if mass immigration isn't halted soon.
GW| 6.15.12 @ 1:53PM
Yeah, the obvious truth is that if the GOP wants to have success in future elections, it should do the prudent thing and make sure the majority of the country remains conservative, i.e. ethnically white.
This may be uncomfortable for some to stomach, but Mexicans and other recent illegals can enjoy their own culture, language, and people back home where they belong.
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 10:53AM
from the article - "Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents."
Who is it that qualifies? Those who have broken the law by entering illegally?
As an evengelical myself, why don't evangelicals stop thinking with their bleeding hearts all the time? Why do they not have a point in this Table to secure the border first? Evangelical leaders are slowly becoming more like Democrats as the years go by.
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 10:58AM
Note - Better said - secure the border FIRST. Otherwise the word guarantee above means nothing just as in 1986 when that year's amnesty pledge to secure the borders was almost totally ignored..
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 11:17AM
It's not just the top evangelical laeders who think with their hearts instead of regarding the many injunctions in the Bible to be careful with the foreigners in your midst. Pastors and congregants are also being to easily swayed to ignore the Bible and common sense.
My wife and I were vacationing a a few summers back. We looked for a church to attend on A Sunday morning. We went to a Community Bible church. It was summer and the pastor there had a slide show about helping the poor and in it he made mention of how the Wise Men who visited Jesus as a boy were IMMIGRANTS with the implication that illegal immigration was okay. They were not immigrants, they were travellers on a quest to find the Messiah. We left the church early. I didn't want to wait for other false words from him. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" 1 Cor 5:6
GW| 6.15.12 @ 1:54PM
Yeah, some are, some aren't. What people, particularly the obtuse ones, fail to realize is that one can be humane while deporting criminals who have no right to be in the United States.
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 7:38PM
True not all leaders in the church are fooled but none at all should be if they read the Bible more carefully and listened to the natural common sense the Lord gives them. But the ones getting the national-level attention like Huckabee, Rick Warren, Dobson, the panel that comes up with this "Table," etc. are increasingly liberal in their political thinking. As the first sentence of the article says, "Some prominent conservative evangelicals have joined with liberal groups to resuscitate Comprehensive Immigration Reform."
fmm| 6.15.12 @ 12:45PM
Thiisis why I believe in the existence of God but have no formal connection to any religious sect. They know not what they do.
fmm| 6.15.12 @ 12:45PM
OOps sorry for the typo of This is
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 7:27PM
I understand the sentiment. Hebrews 10:24-25 tells us we should not neglect fellowship with other Christians. As a practical way to accomplish this if I find it hard to find a good curch is that I find a good prayer group and look for a good home Bible study and I also have been involved with tract ministries, public testimony and witnessing in groups of two and door-to-door visitations although I am not a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon where this is compelled.
Just thought I'd pass along something that I have increasingly come to rely on for fellowship and to be obedient to the Lord in this regard.
Marie| 6.15.12 @ 1:27PM
I say we take land from Mexico sufficient enough that would house the amount of mexican trespassers in the US, about 30 million people acres. When you alot 800 square feet per illegal, that's a lot of acres.
GW| 6.15.12 @ 1:56PM
Michael Savage has a solution, oil for illegals. For every Mexican illegal found in the United States, the Mexican government has to give the US 100 barrels of oil. I'm guessing we'd see a different tone out of Mexico City once we began negotiating our country's future like men.
RCV| 6.15.12 @ 10:33PM
The immigrants are largely in the land we did take from Mexico, as a matter of fact.
Skippy| 6.17.12 @ 2:57PM
That's incorrect. We bought it or won it in wars.
Welcome to the entire history on Man on Earth.
Moron.
wolf| 6.15.12 @ 1:42PM
the term "illegal immigrant" should be "illegal alien"..immigrants come here to be citiziens..illegal aliens come here for jobs..if this were the term used..the arguement that "..the country was founded by immigrants" would be false..(it is anyway)
this solution to this issue is akin to the national debt...now we have 11.5 million illegal aliens here..and its a very large problem-to some of us-lets fast foward..the national debt in now 21 trillion and the illegal population is now 20 million..politics and special intrest groups are now more divided and the same arguments continue...
the illegals laugh at any and all attempts to curb further increase in their population..they know they are being exploited (legal slavery) and don't care because its better than the sewer they ran from..and always will be..
as long as charges of "racism" and "white guilt" dictate how people of all political parties respond to this issue..it will only grow..much like the "temporary income tax of 1%"
cicero| 6.15.12 @ 2:17PM
As long as the solution is left to the Federal Government, nothing good will happen. If Medicaide and all Welfare were returned to the states, we could make progress. Let the states determine who they wish to support. If Michigan, Ohio, or Kentucky decided that only citizens of the US/State were eligible for any type of support benefits, you can bet that those states would not have a problem with illegals. Federalism works. As soon as there was a realization that you could only survive here by work and self-sufficiency, the numbers of illegals would become negligible.
This would also solve the problem of legal citizens who have decided to live off of the fat of the land (the rest of us). The states could set their own rules. The taxpayers of those states might just get the idea that they were living in a democracy, where they had some say about how their money was to be spent.
BackToBasics| 6.15.12 @ 10:52PM
Two questions for evangelicals and evegelical leaders:
First, who was the most comapssionate man to ever live on earth?
Second, did he win over "everybody" he came in contact with because he was so compassionate?
Answers, Jesus and No.
What makes you think you can win the political and cultural battles against Democrats regarding illegal immigrants by ignoring our laws and using a super-soft compassion with them if Jesus couldn't do it with the majority using a compassion as God's Son and a compassion born of the Holy Spirit without measure?
The answer is you cannot. It's better live by our tradition of rule of law. Not doing so will lead to ruin.
Bulgaricus| 6.17.12 @ 12:04PM
Nessus is right. The right solution to illegal aliens are to simply deport them all. It is a federal offense & we are supposed to be a nation of laws.
And this is coming from an evangelical missionary to an Eastern European nation. Only the politicians in the US could be so foolish as to pick & choose which federal laws to support. Citizenship should be earned NOT rewarded for illegals. No other nation in the world would ruin our culture & states as the US has. Just look at CA! Enough already! End illegal immigration & enforce the law. After all, Jesus did say to "give to Caesar what belongs to him. And St. Paul talks about obeying our government. Nuff said!
Seek| 6.18.12 @ 4:25PM
We need a president like Ike. Back in 1954, he instituted Operation Wetback. The problem of illegal immigration Mexico was solved -- at least for several years. Lesson: Deportation works.