Comments on: ‘You Shall Not Oppress an Immigrant’

By: Chris "Jesdisciple"

Chris "Jesdisciple" — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:22:02 +0000

I wonder if I should click the link at all since you just accused Cesar of seeking publicity for his propaganda. A little consistency would be nice, especially on my side of the debate.

By: Chris "Jesdisciple"

Chris "Jesdisciple" — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:22:02 +0000

I wonder if I should click the link at all since you just accused Cesar of seeking publicity for his propaganda. A little consistency would be nice, especially on my side of the debate.

By: tlwinslow

tlwinslow — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:41:11 +0000

When it comes to Mexico, it's so easy to become an "immigrant" that it's sad to see the U.S. still treating Mexico as a separate country when incorporating it into the U.S. would allow it to finally be developed, alleviating the root causes of poverty. Check out the nonpartisan Megamerge Dissolution Solution at http://go.to/megamerge

By: Chris "Jesdisciple"

Chris "Jesdisciple" — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:39:34 +0000

I always find the grunt argument perplexing… Someone necessarily ends up on the bottom of the totem pole, i.e. is under-qualified for everything else. Either they'll take the job or the salary will rise until someone does. Immigrants tend to be under-qualified because of having to start over, and Mexicans even more because they usually don't have treasures or education to bring over from the Old Country.

I don't fully understand why we don't have open borders, so I don't speak to reforming the laws. But I think I understand, in my head, what happens after people get through all that.

By: Chris "Jesdisciple"

Chris "Jesdisciple" — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:29:44 +0000

Like calling someone a conservative, liberal, or American? Sorry, but adjectives regularly morph to nouns… The only difference here is that the adjective isn't something anyone really wants to be. And I'm not sure whether that's relevant to this issue… How is “illegal immigrant” less dehumanizing than “illegal”?

By: BelovedFollower

BelovedFollower — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:01:53 +0000

This is not a grammatical argument as much as a value argument. People are NOT their individual attributes and or shortcomings or for that matter their legal status. To define them by one aspect of who they are seems to me severely shortsighted, one dimensional and dehumanizing. These are people created in Gods image and are as multifaceted as any of us! I just think it shows a lack of compassion and respect to reduce them to one condition they are currently in.

By: Jesdisciple

Jesdisciple — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:41:28 +0000

Well, yes… That's why I said “aid.” We could start outsourcing jobs to Mexico or just buying their stuff for market price instead of only selling a bunch of trinkets.

By: Jesdisciple

Jesdisciple — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:39:32 +0000

Lol. I would never have expected a grammatical argument on that issue. I know my grammar, but I consider that a very effective piece of shorthand; it only takes 8 characters instead of 18. (I know you were addressing Schroeder, but I did it too.)

By: BelovedFollower

BelovedFollower — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:26:12 +0000

We need to stop subsidizing American farmers and companies allowing them to flood Mexicos markets with products cheaper than they can produce there! No wonder theyre looking for work. We're doing to Mexico what Walmart did to us!

By: BelovedFollower

BelovedFollower — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:18:34 +0000

I'd like to request that we NOT use the word ILLEGALS….if you'd check your dictionary I'm sure you'd find in its proper usage illegal is an adjective, not a noun. Using the word in the manner you suggest would be like me calling someone an IGNORANT or a BEAUTIFUL!

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:31:41 +0000

While I'm a little foggy on what Bush/McCain proposed, I believe it allowed for people who were here today illegally to receive amnesty and eventual citizenship. I don't think there was a requirement to go home and get in line with everyone else to become a citizen.

By: ando

ando — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:32:02 +0000

I don't have any particular response to Eric's proposal, although it sounds similar to the one that both Bush and McCain proposed in 2008, and perhaps not too different than what OBama and a Democratic Congress might propose. I heard a UW History professor a few years back on our local public radio talking about the connection between free trade and open borders; you can't have one without the other. The professor is a libertarian; I'm not, but often find his perspective thought-producing.

I have a class full of Latino students,products of both legal and illegal immigration. Some of their parents work two jobs, often the grunt jobs no one else will take. Not sure who'd sweep and scrub the floors and clean the bathroom if not for the immigrants.I don't take a political position personally on the issue because I sort of owe my living to the fact that we have so many Latino immigrants in the country.

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:26:12 +0000

Thanks. I personally wouldn't have a problem with that but I can envision many on the right not being happy with it in that it allows for eventual citizenship by people who came into the country illegally, essentially rewarding them with citizenship ahead of those who've waited in line and done things legally. Perhaps the hypothetical congressmen who are enacting our plans could attach a waiting period before anyone who used this avenue can become a citizen – 10 years or so.

By: Ngchen

Ngchen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:49:58 +0000

Interesting ideas. Maybe another alternative would be to allow people to “regularize” their status if they are willing to turn themselves in, and pay say a fine of $3000 or so for illegally entering in the first place and working w/o permission. With said payment, all past immigration violations are forgiven and forgotten, and the person gets permanent resident status. (Note that the dollar amount I selected is intentionally greater than the amount legal immigrants pay for processing their applications, mainly b/c a penalty has to exist for the line cutting.)

By: Ngchen

Ngchen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:43:23 +0000

Actions speak louder than words. Our inaction in terms of enforcement at the very least constituted a tacit invitation to come to this country.

So what would you prefer, more enforcement (deportations) or less enforcement (letting illegal immigrants stay?) I am all for seriously penalizing employers who hire illegals, but what about the illegals themselves?

Now, I have no doubt that we DO have a duty to treat legally admitted immigrants fairly, and giving them a fair shake at everything from housing to schooling to jobs. Perhaps it should be easier to come legally. That being said, illegals still have rights to be treated humanely, but don't really have a right to stay. In terms of deportation, isn't voluntary departure an option for almost all such people? If not, then it should be.

By: Faydine

Faydine — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:20:01 +0000

No, she gave this to her congressman. The Hybels used the same arguement to congress, I believe.

Many in the faith community don't believe the Old Testament stuff is still applicable since the New Testament took over. If you can't persuade them with this arguement, and we don't wish to mix church and state, I just don't get why proponents of immigration reform think this will work.

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:48:07 +0000

I essentially agree with Anne that current U.S. immigration policy is poorly constructed and poorly implemented. It must change. I wish commentators here would lay out what they think a just immigration policy would like, not just what they oppose about the current regime. We can all find things that are unjust about the current policy, but what would an ideal policy look like? I have yet to read what Sojourners or someone who writes for this blog believes.

"policies that disappear parents, partners, and children"

bad, bad, bad grammar... You don't "disappear" something; something "disappears".

By: Jesdisciple

Jesdisciple — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:31:58 +0000

Good points, Schroeder. Anne, the premise of your article is absolutely right. However, where you take that premise is questionable.

Here's what I think we should do about immigration: Revise and enforce the laws. Offer support to illegals who wish to go back home. Aid the Mexican economy by trading with them more. And of course, keep attacking racism (without going into the proper means of doing so).

By: schroeder37

schroeder37 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:19:10 +0000

Why do we not use the words that are abviously what you are talking about. ILLEGALS. Ask any law abiding immigrant and I dont very much you get the same problems. Is this not desception in speech, which is not christian at all. Could we at least be HONEST in the discussions. Does she actual prove he points and explain with facts. Maybe I missed that in her speech. LAWS are LAWS are they not. There is a need of reform, but it is not to avoid LAWS it to better inforce them, and or inforce them properly and fairly. the whole comparison to eygpt is just the usual play on emotions and making it sound as bad as possible to influence a favorable responce without actually providing clear facts. which happens all to often as well.

By: Lord_Voldemort

Lord_Voldemort — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:42:32 +0000

Oppression does not mean “enforcing the law”. Now we can argue all day about what the law ought to be, but we should be able to agree on that much, right?