The evolution of Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore

12383 reads

There are 49 Comments

G. N. Barkman's picture

 

You should hear this guy preach!  You'd swear he's a southern fundamentalist baptist evangelist but with impeccable scholarship and solid Bible content.

G. N. Barkman

JobK's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

You should hear this guy preach!  You'd swear he's a southern fundamentalist baptist evangelist but with impeccable scholarship and solid Bible content.

I prefer lesser scholars and homileticians who don't join hands with false preachers that promote and bless the abomination of sodomy. 

2 John 1:9-11 reads "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

That must necessarily be applied to Moore's affiliation with "Joe Phelps, pastor of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville. Highland Baptist left the Southern Baptist Convention about 10 years ago and is known as a liberal congregation with openly gay members."

See this quote. “We are not going to reunite, but we don’t need to be adversaries,” Phelps said. I am not sorry to say that the Bible explicitly says that we DO need to be adversaries. Moore's being elevated to this position is evidence of our modern down-grade controversy.

 

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Larry's picture

Moderator

JobK, those were Phelps' words, not Moore's. To my knowledge, Moore has said nothing of the kind, and hasn't budged on iota on homosexuality. The fact that Phelps doesn't think they need to be adversaries does not mean that Moore agrees with him, or that Moore is soft on homosexuality.

christian cerna's picture

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it's part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can't find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality... spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

 

Greg Long's picture

Yeah, Russell Moore, that stinkin' liberal...

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

jcoleman's picture

christian cerna wrote:

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it's part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can't find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality... spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

I'm sorry, but anyone that things that immigration is the source of unemployment/economic woes just doesn't understand economics. Immigration is a good thing, and it has traditionally been a huge boon for the economy.

The problem is 1.) the welfare state and 2.) minimum wage laws (and more broadly government control of the economy.) Until you fix those, you aren't going be able to make any real headway. And when you do fix those, you'll find that immigration will fuel, not harm, the economy.

christian cerna's picture

jcoleman wrote:

christian cerna wrote:

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it's part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can't find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality... spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

I'm sorry, but anyone that things that immigration is the source of unemployment/economic woes just doesn't understand economics. Immigration is a good thing, and it has traditionally been a huge boon for the economy.

The problem is 1.) the welfare state and 2.) minimum wage laws (and more broadly government control of the economy.) Until you fix those, you aren't going be able to make any real headway. And when you do fix those, you'll find that immigration will fuel, not harm, the economy.

 

How is immigration a boon for the economy? 

We have a finite amount of jobs in this country, and a growing US population. 

You say that minimum wage laws are a problem. I suppose you want people to work for a couple dollars an hour instead?

While I do see welfare as a double edged sword, making people dependent on the State, I also know that it was originally implemented as a result of poverty and lack of jobs for many Americans. I agree that welfare should be limited, but before you wean someone off of it, you need to have something else available for them to do so that they can fend for themselves. Once again, where are the jobs?

Government having some control over the economy is not the problem. The government must serve as the regulating body, ensuring the welfare of the nation and its people. However, during the past few decades, the government has handed over its power to banks and corporations which have greedily sent most well paying jobs overseas, in order to enrich a few shareholders. 

Immigration has always benefited business owners, and especially corporations, allowing them to use it as a way to flood the market with cheap labor and also to suppress wages.

 

 

christian cerna's picture

If immigration is a boon for the economy, then all we have to do is allow another 100 million immigrants from all over the world to enter our country, and then we will have another golden era in American history. 

JobK's picture

Larry wrote:

JobK, those were Phelps' words, not Moore's. To my knowledge, Moore has said nothing of the kind, and hasn't budged on iota on homosexuality. The fact that Phelps doesn't think they need to be adversaries does not mean that Moore agrees with him, or that Moore is soft on homosexuality.

The issue isn't Moore's words but his actions. Moore is working with a wolf scattering the sheep who promotes homosexuality. Whether Moore agrees with Phelps is not the issue. The issue is that he has aligned himself with Phelps when the Bible says that we are not supposed to. 2 John 1:10-11 doesn't warn against endorsing the doctrines of false teachers. It says that if you receive the false teachers or wish them well then you share in their evil deeds. Now one can argue that discussing books with the fellow over coffee is one thing, fine, but working with Phelps and his ilk "on issues such as religious liberty" is another. That is precisely what '“We are not going to reunite, but we don’t need to be adversaries,” Phelps said" means.

Also, Moore preaches against homosexuality. Good. But how about putting some action behind it? You preach against homosexuality but you associate with pastors who promote it. This is OK why? This is another example of letting the world set our standards. With homosexuality, our position is "Well, the Bible calls it a sin but the world says it is OK, so we are going to compartmentalize and call it sin in the spiritual sphere but not really do anything in the secular sphere beyond our words." All right, suppose it was something that the world hates, like pedophilia. (Well, I should say that the world hates it for now in our current culture. In other cultural times and places, the practice was and is considered to be just fine. And even with our own present culture, let us just say that a number of leading homosexual scholars are now finding our age of consent laws to be inconvenient. I have seen various mainstream media outlets pretty much accommodate and endorse this stance, so it will only be a matter of time before it begins to pick up steam ... it might be the next battle after gay marriage.)  If this "pastor" Phelps was promoting pedophilia in his "church" and allowing pedophiles to be members of his congregation would Russell Moore be talking literature over coffee with him, let alone working with him on religious freedom issues? Of course not. Why not? Certainly not the Bible, which has the same position against pedophilia as it does against homosexuality. The only difference would be the world and the law loving one and (for now) hating the other.

And speaking of false preachers named Phelps, why is engagement with a promoter of homosexuality in this case OK but Moore wouldn't touch Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church with a 10 foot pole? What is the difference between one and the other? Simple. The media - and the world - loves Joe Phelps but hates Fred Phelps. That is the only difference. 

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Joel Shaffer's picture

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it's part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can't find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality... spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

 

Here is another article that explains Moore's view of immigration.   Some of it does not reflect a "typical liberal mentality," especially since he also supports securing the border and holding businesses accountable for hiring undocumented workers.  I do believe that you assumed a fighting position against Moore without knowing where he fully stands on the issue.  

And it definitely is a human dignity issue because as you know, illegal immigrants are created in God's image which demands human dignity......

http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/06/17/immigration-and-the-gospel/

Larry's picture

Moderator

Job, You don't have to disagree with me. But perhaps you could demonstrate how Moore is working with Phelps in any ecclesiastical partnership.

The article seems clear that Phelps is part of the CBF, having left the SBC ten years ago, while Moore is a part of the SBC. As you might know, the CBF was formed by some who left the SBC because the SBC was too conservative. They had coffee a few times to discuss something they both liked. That's no violation of any biblical standard that I know of. As the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, it would be expected that he would work with other groups on religious liberty. Religious liberty has always been an issue bigger than Baptists, and working for it is not necessarily ecclesiastical partnership.

So it seems that,  unless you have some evidence you have not posted, that your statements and your perspective do not line up with what the article says.

Todd Bowditch's picture

christian cerna wrote:

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it's part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can't find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality... spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

 

The great part, Christian, is that Jesus' definition of "neighbor" included immigrants....look no further than the parable of the Good Samaritan to see that. As far as I know, James 1:27 is still in the Bible. I love America and i want to see her prosper. I also want others to be introduced to America. I want to see immigration reform...does that make me a "liberal"?
 

You seem to find one issue that you disagree with someone on and then brand them a liberal or an idiot. Are you familiar with the phrase "good men differ"? There is a lot of latitude for disagreement within Christianity. Until you recognize that and show charity toward others, you will find yourself on an ever-shrinking deserted island with the only person that agrees with you on everything (yourself).

May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch

DavidO's picture

We have a finite amount of jobs in this country, and a growing US population.

I haven't checked lately, but last numbers I heard demonstrated negative US population growth if immigrant numbers weren't included.

Also, a finite number of jobs?  And what is that finite number exactly?  Doesn't matter as the population will never reach an infinite number.  Smile

jcoleman's picture

christian cerna wrote:

How is immigration a boon for the economy? 

We have a finite amount of jobs in this country, and a growing US population.

A finite number of jobs? Seriously? Pretty sure that can scale. If you really believed that, then we'd still have the same number of jobs as, say, 50 years ago...which would be a big problem.

christian cerna wrote:

You say that minimum wage laws are a problem. I suppose you want people to work for a couple dollars an hour instead?

Again, you don't understand basic economics. There are both seen and unseen effects of regulations like the minimum wage. The see effect is that some people have higher paying jobs. The unseen effects are that there are much fewer entry-level jobs, and, directly tied to that, it's very difficult for an unskilled worker to gain the skills necessary to move up the ladder.

Illegal immigrants are actually fulfilling an incredibly important role in our economy right now, particularly, for example, on farms--where they're willing to do work that no American would do at a given rate of pay. If those were all minimum wage jobs, then your food prices would skyrocket.

So get rid of the minimum wage, and you actually 1.) will have a lot more entry-level jobs and 2.) because people can take those entry-level jobs, they'll be able to gain the experience necessary to do more skilled jobs. Oh, and the unemployment rate would be significantly lower.

christian cerna wrote:

While I do see welfare as a double edged sword, making people dependent on the State, I also know that it was originally implemented as a result of poverty and lack of jobs for many Americans. I agree that welfare should be limited, but before you wean someone off of it, you need to have something else available for them to do so that they can fend for themselves. Once again, where are the jobs?

The jobs would be there if the government weren't regulating with things like the minimum wage and prohibitions on competition, excessive taxes, etc.

christian cerna wrote:

Government having some control over the economy is not the problem. The government must serve as the regulating body, ensuring the welfare of the nation and its people. However, during the past few decades, the government has handed over its power to banks and corporations which have greedily sent most well paying jobs overseas, in order to enrich a few shareholders. 

Actually, it is the problem. And no, the government does not exist to ensure the welfare of anyone. It exists to protect the people and keep law and order. That's it. And capitalism/free market (which we don't have in the US--we have corporatism, it's a common mistake to confuse the two) will always result in better economic gains across the board. 

christian cerna wrote:

Immigration has always benefited business owners, and especially corporations, allowing them to use it as a way to flood the market with cheap labor and also to suppress wages.

Again, this assumes you can change one variable without it affecting others. For example, you're assuming that adding new, cheaper labor to the pool decreases labor costs only. But it also changes the demand side of the equation. Oh, and goods prices go down due to lower employment costs. So it's a win/win. The real problem is the excessive cost of labor due to government intervention and an entitlement mentality that many Americans have with respect to what work they're willing to do for a certain amount of pay.

christian cerna's picture

First let me clarify, I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

Why must people always use the "they do jobs Americans won't" argument? The only jobs that I agree most Americans wouldn't want to do is farming, at least not on a full time basis. But, out of the 12 million+ illegals living in this country, how many do you actually think work on farms? Maybe 150,000? I can almost guarantee that the rest live in the cities working all kinds of jobs they can find.

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)?

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."

 

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

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. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Larry's picture

Moderator

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?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

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.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

christian cerna's picture

Larry wrote:

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. 

 

 

Larry's picture

Moderator

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.

 

Larry's picture

Moderator

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.

jcoleman's picture

christian cerna wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

christian cerna's picture

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.

 

 

Shaynus's picture

(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.

christian cerna's picture

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.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

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).

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

jcoleman's picture

christian cerna wrote:

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.

jcoleman's picture

christian cerna wrote:

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.

Larry's picture

Moderator

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?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Larry wrote:

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?

The same way we enforce all our laws - send them home whenever we find them. 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 teach in the public school where we require birth certificates to enroll kids in school, so why are we offering that service to illegal immigrants - that goes for everything from kindergarten through college. These people have no right to be here and do not deserve a single benefit afforded to those who are here legally. Once we are actually protecting the borders and enforcing the immigration and citizenship laws, then we can talk about creating a guest worker program, if we find it's actually necessary; I just don't think it will be. When the illegal immigration problem is under control, we can even talk about expanding legal immigration if it is warranted. But there should not be a single concession made to anyone who comes here illegally. Breaking the law should never be a valid bargaining chip.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Pages