The evolution of Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore

[Chip Van Emmerik] Refusing any but emergency services without proof of citizenship/legal residency would be a great place to start. AZ discussed requiring legal status in order to turn on utilities.

I’d like to see some sort of mark, without which no illegal could buy or sell.

:devilhorns:

Like Chip said, take away their ability to find jobs and to receive government assistance, and they will self-deport. Make it a criminal offense for anyone to hire an illegal alien or to aid them in defrauding the government. Change the laws so that only babies born to citizens or residents of this country can receive automatic citizenship.

Provide temporary work visas only for agriculture related work. Follow up on them to make sure they have left the country once the visa expires.

[christian cerna]

Change the laws so that only babies born to citizens or residents of this country can receive automatic citizenship.

And do you honestly believe that any law like that would be passed? Oh, and it wouldn’t just have to be a law: it’d have to be a Constitutional amendment.

Sorry, that’s never happening.

Actually, it’s already an amendment - the 14th to be specific. Go back in the records and read the speeches made in Congress during debate on the bill and you will clearly see it was never intended to apply to everyone born here. It was written specifically to apply to the recently freed slaves and to automatically pass citizenship to the offspring of those who were already citizens. That is why the very first thing it says in section 1 is, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” Citizenship is only designated for those meeting two criteria: those born here and those under the jurisdiction of the United States.

The 14th amendment was written to provide legal cover for the previously passed Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had been ramrodded through Congress during the war by radical Republicans but was technically unconstitutional because of the Dredd Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment was necessary to make citizenship constitutional for blacks. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to those born in the U. S. and “not subject to a foreign power.” That was the spirit and intent of the 14th amendment according to those who passed the law even though the language was not quite as clear in the amendment as it had been in the original Civil Rights Act.

Let me clarify: I’m not saying that an amendment is necessary based on an originalist understanding of the Constitution and its amendments. (After all, under an originalist understanding—to which I adhere strongly—99% of all current Federal law would be unconstitutional.) My point is that based on the current legal/court precedent interpretation you would need a new amendment to make that kind of restriction. To enact it merely through a law passed by Congress (like that would happen anyway) would be struck down almost immediately.

Arizona (again) discussed legislating the restriction on births within our state borders which would have eventually brought the discussion before the Supreme Court to review the original intent of the law. There are already restrictions recognized by everyone, such as the children of diplomats serving officially in the U. S. not being granted citizenship. At the very least, it would reduce illegal immigration in AZ while it was being litigated since it’s far easier to gain the desired citizenship in CA. It’s hard to predict the mood of the SCOTA, but I think it would have an excellent chance of gaining traction in the current political environment if it is packaged with a comprehensive approach to immigration.

Well, Chip, as noble as I think that is, and I agree with it, it’s not reasonable practically, and not feasible politically.

[Larry]

Well, Chip, as noble as I think that is, and I agree with it, it’s not reasonable practically, and not feasible politically.

The “Show Me” state has again shown us how it should be done. There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri has done. Please pass this around.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri . In November, 2008, nearly 90% voted in favor! Thus, English became the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri. No individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008, a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement officers receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal immigration laws.

In Missouri , illegal immigrants DO NOT have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps or health care through Missouri Health NET. In 2009, a measure was passed that ensures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education DO NOT award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the United States.

In Missouri, all post-secondary institutions of higher education are required to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. Of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.

So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember, Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem. Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in the state. They are criminals and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.

~~

Dr Bob Griffin

Some of this has been done in my state of AZ as well, but not all of it. Our high profile Sheriff Joe (Arpio) has been handing illegals over to ICE for years, though recently they have been refusing to accept many of the illegal immigrants caught by local law enforcement, choosing rather to simply turn them loose and ignore them.

amen, chip

Apparently, some of it’s already being done.

And yet we still have 12 million illegals, with no impetus to do anything substantive about it, and AZ has been shot down by the federal court system, right?

Again, I agree with the sentiment, but it’s not practical, and it’s not politically feasible right now.

In my view, we need comprehensive immigration reform, starting with sealing the borders, requiring employment verification and tenant verification, and denying any public assistance. But there have to be about 320 or so people in Congress that agree with me to make it happen. And there aren’t. And it will take way more than that to do it at the state level.

And Russell Moore’s point is that good people disagree about the best way to address it, and with good reason. And that no matter what one’s view is on this, the people we are talking about are made in the image of God and we should guard how we talk about them.

Do you disagree with that?

Actually, only a portion of SB 1070 was ruled unconstitutional, and I have not heard of any challenges to the Missouri laws mentioned above, or to the other similar laws passed shortly after SB 1070 across the South. Remarkably, the number of illegals in AZ has receded over the last few years as well, though there is debate about how much of that is as a result of the new laws and increased enforcement and how much is simply because of the downturn in the economy. The bottom line remains nothing ventured, nothing gained. I still adamantly refuse to accept illegal activity as a bargaining chip under any circumstances.

Perhaps you can explain why you think it is better to compromise with illegals and their supporters and keep changing the laws to accommodate those who have disregarded it previously? While you are at it, could you also tell me exactly where you think it is worth it to finally draw the line in the sand and say, “No More!” It seems to be a constant give without any take. We were told this problem was fixed under Reagan in the 80’s, but that compromise has only made it worse. Now we have people marching in the streets of Phoenix who are here illegally and waving foreign flags protesting our right to enforce our laws and secure our borders. We have certainly passed into the ludicrous. And yet we are now told that this compromise will work.

I fear over the last 100 years that the combination of 1) failing to teach our children what it means to be an American and 2) the significant shift in immigration from coming to America to become an American over to coming to America to reap the benefits of America have been our undoing as a nation.

Perhaps you can explain why you think it is better to compromise with illegals and their supporters and keep changing the laws to accommodate those who have disregarded it previously?

I can’t do this because I don’t believe it. As I said, I agree with you. Perhaps you missed those parts, but here it is:

On Wednesday 7/24 at 6:45 p.m., I said, “So if you are opposed to amnesty (as I am), …”

On Wednesday 7/24 at 6:49 p.m. I said, “I don’t support amnesty. I don’t support illegal immigrants (or most other people) getting huge government benefits.”

On Friday 7/26 at 10:10 a.m, in response to your post, I said, “I agree with it” meaning I agree with your post against amnesty.

On Saturday 7/27 at 11:49 p.m., again in response to your post, I said, “I agree with the sentiment” meaning your sentiment in your post against amnesty.

In the same post, 7/27 at 11:49 p.m., I said, “In my view, we need comprehensive immigration reform, starting with sealing the borders, requiring employment verification and tenant verification, and denying any public assistance.”

So that leaves me with two questions:

1. Why do you ask to defend something I have clearly stated I don’t believe? Why do you think I support compromise with illegals when here are five instances of clear statements to the contrary, two of which are in explicit agreement with you?
2. Do you believe that Moore is wrong to say that illegals are made in God’s image and therefore we must take care in how we talk about them?

Larry, why do you keep bringing up that illegals are made in the image of God? No one here is bad mouthing them.

The only solution I see, is that the States change their laws to make it more undesirable for illegals to want to live in them. Make it almost impossible for them to find work, do not allow children who are illegal to enroll in public schools, deny illegals any type of government assistance, keep them from getting driver’s licenses, etc. Make it a felony for anyone to use a stolen social security number to either apply for a job, or to hire someone. Make English the official language of the States.

I live in Los Angeles, and know that the reason why illegals have taken over the city, is because it is so easy for them to live there. Every one accommodates them by talking Spanish to them. Most government signs and literature are in Spanish. They aren’t even afraid to say they are illegal. They walk around as if they have every right to be there. They know that unless they commit a serious crime, they will not be deported or stopped.

Those who continue to support illegals, are usually people who don’t know what its like to lose a job, or to be unemployed for several years, or to feel the desperation or lack of hope because you don’t know if you’ll ever be able to recover financially. I am guessing that most of you don’t live in cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, Miami, or other border towns- places that are filled with poverty and crime and overcrowded schools. Unless you know what it’s like to live in these places, then you have no right to talk about the matter.

Larry,

I guess I was confused because it seemed like you were poo-pooing every suggestion being made to curb illegal immigration (without offering any alternative solutions). You said you didn’t want amnesty, but you also said,

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.

I am sorry I have been confused, but maybe you can understand how I ended up there. You have said you believe:

1) no amnesty,

2) good people disagree with that,

3) you disagree with every alternative that is offered,

4) you can’t think of anything to do other than apparently the status quo, which you have yet to say anything negative about.