The evolution of Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore

Actually, Christian, the minimum wage is a separate issue from immigration. Unfortunately, the minimum wage only serves to hurt those at the lowest earning levels. Basic economics indicates that increased demand produces an increase in prices. Artificially raising wages pours more money into the economy, temporarily improving buying power. But, companies have to cover the cost of increased wages somehow, so prices go up, and as more money circulates increasing demand, prices also go up. In a short time after every artificial minimum wage increase, cost of living adjusts and every time this happens, the consumer ends up with less buying power. You actually end up working longer to acquire the same amount of goods. Ronald Reagan is famously quoted as saying, “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” He also said, “The 8 most frightening words in the English language are, ‘I’m with the government; I’m here to help.’” Truer words may never have been said.

I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

So you don’t actually disagree with Russell Moore then, since he says,

This isn’t to say that there aren’t real political challenges here. I agree that the border should be secured. I support holding businesses accountable for hiring, especially since some of them use the threat of deportation as a way of exploiting these vulnerable workers. I support a realistic means of providing a way to legal status for the millions of immigrants already here. But there are many who disagree with me, and for valid reasons.

He, like you, wants it to be legal for immigrants to be here, and for there not to be illegal immigration.

Which then raises the question, Why did you bring this up? Regardless of your proposed solution, don’t we all support immigration reform? And isn’t this, at at least some level, a matter of the image of God in man?

Larry,

How we treat anyone is partly a matter of the image of God in man, but whether we should grant immunity to people who broke the law to get here as opposed to deporting them to their home countries is not a matter of the image of God in man.

[Larry]

I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

So you don’t actually disagree with Russell Moore then, since he says,

This isn’t to say that there aren’t real political challenges here. I agree that the border should be secured. I support holding businesses accountable for hiring, especially since some of them use the threat of deportation as a way of exploiting these vulnerable workers. I support a realistic means of providing a way to legal status for the millions of immigrants already here. But there are many who disagree with me, and for valid reasons.

He, like you, wants it to be legal for immigrants to be here, and for there not to be illegal immigration.

Which then raises the question, Why did you bring this up? Regardless of your proposed solution, don’t we all support immigration reform? And isn’t this, at at least some level, a matter of the image of God in man?

No, most Americans don’t want immigration reform. They merely wish for the government to enforce existing immigration laws. Probably the only things that should be added to the existing immigration laws is that companies be required to use E-verify, and to make it a criminal offense for illegals to get government assistance(welfare/food stamps/driver’s license).

What does the image of God have to do with immigration? Are you saying people should not be required to obey the laws of a country, because they are made in the image of God? On the contrary, a man made in the image of God should be obedient to Kings and governors, and to all those whom God has placed in positions of authority. In saying you support illegal immigration, you are saying that it is OK for people to choose which laws they wish to obey. I could say that I no longer wish to pay taxes, because by not paying taxes I have a little bit more money in my pocket that I can use to provide for my loved ones.

How we treat anyone is partly a matter of the image of God in man, but whether we should grant immunity to people who broke the law to get here as opposed to deporting them to their home countries is not a matter of the image of God in man.

So you agree with Moore too, then. As he says there, they are illegal, and he wants to make them legal. But the bigger issue is how we talk about it. It’s worth reading his article to see what he says, even if you disagree.

The problem, since this is about ethics, is the ethical and reasonable way to deal with this problem. And there is significant debate (and with good reason, as Moore says) about that. So if you are opposed to amnesty (as I am), what do we do about it? I don’t know.

But the way that we treat them is a matter of the image of God in man. You cannot treat the image of God in man with disdain or disrespect, even if they are lawbreakers. And remember, that many of them are not here of their own fault. Again, read his article.

What does the image of God have to do with immigration?

Did you even read Moore’s article? What matters is the way that we treat them and how we talk about them.

In saying you support illegal immigration, you are saying that it is OK for people to choose which laws they wish to obey.

Who said they support illegal immigration? I don’t. I don’t support amnesty. I don’t support illegal immigrants (or most other people) getting huge government benefits.

The point of Moore’s article is that there is significant and legitimate debate about how to handle it, and no matter what you think, it matters how we treat them, talk to them and about them because they are in the image of God.

[christian cerna]

You say that due to the minimum wage there are not enough entry level jobs. That is totally wrong. The reason that there are not that many entry level jobs left, is because they are being taken by illegals. Those jobs that high school and college kids used to do.(e.g. newspaper delivery guys, cashiers, cooks, waiters, busboys, mowing lawns, washing cars, construction, etc.)

And if we got rid of minimum wage jobs, do you think anyone would be able to afford to keep their cars fueled(with gas at $4 a gallon), or to have some type of shelter(with house prices artificially inflated and banks unwilling to lend money)?

Yet again you’ve ignored 1.) unseen effects and 2.) the fact that you can’t adjust only one variable. Sure, if we could increase wages without changing anything else, then that’d be great. But as has already been addressed here, it doesn’t work that way. In fact, the numerical data demonstrates that every time the minimum wage goes up the number of entry-level jobs goes down and the number of unemployed (particularly among the low-skilled and minorities) goes up significantly.

[christian cerna]

And yes, the federal government is supposed to provide for the welfare of this country. And I don’t mean welfare as in welfare checks. I mean welfare, as in the well being of its citizens. (This doesn’t apply to non-citizens)

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That’s the preamble to the Constitution, it’s not a function of the Federal government. It’s an explanation of the way in which they should exercise their assigned duties. For example, they should provide for the common defense in a way that promotes the general welfare. But promoting the general welfare is not itself something the government does by itself. Though that’s a common misunderstanding as it’s been bandied about for so long as a means of increasing the size and scope of government.

As someone who can read English, I do not see any other reading of that sentence, other than that promoting the general welfare is one of the duties of our government.

-to form a more perfect union

-establish justice

-insure domestic tranquility

-provide for the common defense

-promote the general welfare

-secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Each one of those is a reason for which the founding fathers penned the Constitution, which is(should be) the laws of the land.

(In the style of Ron Bean)

Step 1: Secure the porous border, and give measurable evidence of doing so.

Step 2: Rigorously enforce e-verify.

Step 3: Path to citizenship with fines, tests, and tight criteria for remaining illegal immigrants.

Step 4: Repeat steps 1 and 2.

No bill out there that has any chance of passing has 1 and 2 as a precondition for step 3. If step 3 is immigration reform, then I’m against it. If steps 1-4 are immigration reform, then I’m for it.

I’m only for it, if they enforce steps 1 and 2 for at least 10 years, providing evidence that they have done so. Once they have shown that the laws are being enforced, and that the infrastructure is in place to prevent future abuse, then and only then should they consider providing a path to people who meet the criteria. Anyone found to have committed any crimes while here illegally, should be immediately deported. Also, if at anytime during those 10 years, the economy should get worse and unemployment begin to rise, the process should be halted until things improve.

I’m for steps 1, 2 and 4, but I remain adamantly opposed to offering citizenship to people who are here illegally unless they first return to their own country. Furthermore, I believe a long-term solution must include returning the 14th amendment to its original intent and removing some of the incentive for illegal entry by refusing to grant citizenship to someone simply because they were born on U. S. soil. (The 14th amendment was originally intended to apply only to those born on U. S. soil under the authority of the U. S. government - i.e. children of current citizens, which is the way birth citizenship works in almost every other country in the world).

[christian cerna]

As someone who can read English, I do not see any other reading of that sentence, other than that promoting the general welfare is one of the duties of our government.

-to form a more perfect union

-establish justice

-insure domestic tranquility

-provide for the common defense

-promote the general welfare

-secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Each one of those is a reason for which the founding fathers penned the Constitution, which is(should be) the laws of the land.

You’re right that it’s a reason why they penned it, but you’ve missed the importance of that wording. It’s a reason, not a duty. The Constitution spells out explicitly enumerated powers of the Federal government, and makes explicitly clear in more than one place that any power not so enumerated is reserved to the states and the people.

You’re quoting from the preamble—a purpose statement essentially. The preamble grants absolutely no authority to government, it merely states the way in which the enumerated powers should be carried out and why those enumerated powers were granted in the first place.

So if you want “promotion of the general welfare” to be a duty of the Federal government, you need to find it as one of the enumerated powers in one of the actual articles of the document. Not the purpose statement.

[christian cerna]

As someone who can read English, I do not see any other reading of that sentence, other than that promoting the general welfare is one of the duties of our government.

Ironically, this is one area where Constitutional attorneys and law professors from both sides agree with me. That’s why court cases on issues of constitutionality don’t rely on “general welfare”. For an easy example, if “promoting the general welfare” was a duty of the Federal government, then that would have been reason enough to uphold ObamaCare on the grounds that the legislators believed it to be promoting the general welfare. But that’s not how the administration argued for it: they argued that it was valid under 1.) taxing authority or 2.) regulation of commerce.

The easiest way to demonstrate logically that “promoting the general welfare” can’t possibly be an intended duty of the Federal government is that 1.) it is clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the Federal government to be limited in its powers and 2.) to grant them the power to “promote the general welfare” would be to essentially make their power unlimited as a plausible argument of general welfare can be made for practically anything the government wants to do.

I remain adamantly opposed to offering citizenship to people who are here illegally unless they first return to their own country.

So how will you accomplish this with 12 million people liable for it, some of whom have citizenship (even if we don’t like the way they got it)? By what mechanism will you deport 12 million people?

[Larry]

I remain adamantly opposed to offering citizenship to people who are here illegally unless they first return to their own country.

So how will you accomplish this with 12 million people liable for it, some of whom have citizenship (even if we don’t like the way they got it)? By what mechanism will you deport 12 million people?