I have no objections to the NEA's statement. It was relatively safe and did not really take strong positions, which is why it passed unanimously. The key passage is here:

"That the government establish a sound, equitable process toward earned legal status for currently undocumented immigrants, who desire to embrace the responsibilities and privileges that accompany citizenship."

--Of course, "equitable" could mean that it's unfair to people waiting in line to get into this country to give preferences to people who broke the law by jumping ahead of them.

"--Of course, 'equitable' could mean that it's unfair to people waiting in line to get into this country to give preferences to people who broke the law by jumping ahead of them."

Or "equitable" can mean removing the outrageous backlog for legal immigration processing. So that no one ever has to "jump ahead."

And actually, I don't know of any immigration reform act that favors people "jumping ahead." The reform acts provide equity for legal entrance.

"Jumping ahead" means they are currently here illegally and the "earned path to citizenship" Wallis mentions means they would be given citizenship before those who are on the waiting list. This is the heart of the controversy, no?

"'Jumping ahead' means they are currently here illegally and the "earned path to citizenship" Wallis mentions means they would be given citizenship before those who are on the waiting list. This is the heart of the controversy, no?"

Actually not really. I have never heard any of the people who complain about "illegal immigration" talk about making it a lot easier for immigrants to come here legally.

There is a huge backlog at the INS which means that people have to wait for months and years to get green cards. If there were more staff, more efforts, then people wishing to enter the U.S. legally could get background checks (to weed out terrorists or criminals) and could come here to work legally. However, behind much of the "anti-illegal immigrant" movement is a desire to limit legal immigration.

I'll believe that people who are mightily concerned about illegal immigration care only about lawbreaking when they use their efforts to push for efficient processing of legal immigrants. That way, no one will be "jumping ahead" at all.

Here is the Cato Institute's take on the immigration issue. This is a sane approach:

http://www.freetrade.org/issues/immigration.html

Thanks for the Cato Institute link.
Everyone, especially me, pales at the thought of WalMart wanting to lower the minimum wage so it can charge lower prices. But I'm bringing up the minimum wage not on behalf of WalMart, but because of small businesses and yes, immigration. Why is underpaying undocumented workers so attractive? Partly because of outrageously complicated and onerous Federal mandates and regulations. So one part of the immigration compromise—unlikely to happen but desirable in my opinion—is to relax or eliminate min. wage requirements for companies below a certain size. Yes, it's impossible to raise a family on the min. wage, which is why we have the Earned Income Credit. Its preservation would suddenly become popular with certain conservatives [such as libertarians who otherwise reject government subsidies] if it was combined with a streamlining of govt in other areas.

Most, if not all, economists agree that raising the minimum wage results in less employment of low wage workers. It's a basic part of supply and demand.

"I have never heard any of the people who complain about "illegal immigration" talk about making it a lot easier for immigrants to come here legally."

Mike Huckabee did. That was the centerpiece of his immigration platform while running. Something to the affect that if AmEx can determine everything it needs to know about a consumer in a matter of seconds, there's no reason efficiency in the INS can't be vastly improved. [rough paraphrase since it's been over a year since I was reading up on Huckabee]

can we please use the correct terms when discussing this issue. the unwillingness to use term illegal immigrants is being dishonest. that is what we are discussing. there is not many if any who appose immigrants. the constant wording used here on this subject is rather decietful which is unchristian is it not.

you speak of moral issues. do they speak of spending ourselves in debt. do they ignore the issue of funds to pay for such government ambitions. is it unmoral to not have punishment for acting illegal. these topics go a whole lot deeper then I think they are willing to consider. It seems they just stick with the it feels good ideology

"do they ignore the issue of funds to pay for such government ambitions."

What does immigration reform have to do with government ambitions? Immigration reform will allow priivate companies to hire people that they need to work for their businesses.

"is it unmoral to not have punishment for acting illegal."

Now you are the one who seems to want government interference.

A couple of years ago, a local TV news anchor interviewed a man who owns a housing construction business in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area.

He paid wages according to the skill needed for each particular job. He paid his American employees the very same hourly wage that he paid the undocumented immigrants. But, the latter had no deductions from their pay and they were paid cash. The others were officially on his payroll and standard deductions were taken from their wages . . . and they were paid by check.

He did admit all of that. While he paid a fair wage as far as equal pay for equal work was concerned, he short-changed his workers who were legally in the USA as far as their take home pay was concerned.

"He paid wages according to the skill needed for each particular job. He paid his American employees the very same hourly wage that he paid the undocumented immigrants."

This employer is quite unusual. The usual employer modus operendi is to pay undocumented immigrants wages well below our minimum. Deliberately hiring undocumented immigrants are usually forms of human trafficking and exploitation.

"But, the latter had no deductions from their pay and they were paid cash. The others were officially on his payroll and standard deductions were taken from their wages . . . and they were paid by check.

"He did admit all of that. While he paid a fair wage as far as equal pay for equal work was concerned, he short-changed his workers who were legally in the USA as far as their take home pay was concerned."

The people here legally had Social Security taken out and thus they will benefit during their retirement or if they become disabled. The undocumented immigrants have no right to Social Security.

Also the legal workers were most likely eligible for health insurance. The undocumented people will not. Assuming some sort of health care reform gets passed, the legal people will be entitled and the undocumented people specifically will not.

Instead of continuing this "caste system" of legal/not-legal people, it's better to have true immigration reform so that people who come here to work (and that's what most immigrants want, in spite of the stereotypes of "how they really want welfare/medicaid, etc.) can all work in the U.S. legally.

Bravo, Jim. I'm with you on this one, and you're in good company: the National Association of Evangelicals. "Evangelicals" are simply those who practice the historic Christian faith, as described in Scripture. It is gratifying to you and to me that the NAE has embraced the Bible's call to welcome “the widow, the orphan, and the alien.” Interestingly, the NAE position is quite similar to that advocated by The Wall Street Journal.
Blessings,
Witness4Peace

not to rain on your parade, witness, but isn't this the same outfit that punted Richard Cizik for daring to suggest that evangelicals are to be good stewards of the environment? which Bible were they reading that time?

My parade is doing fine, I won't report you ;-)
I think the climate thing was Cizik's slippery slope, and a comment during an interview about compromising on gay "marriage" was what put him over the edge, according to the NAE of that day. Perhaps they've learned a thing or two since then? Moderation is good after all?

You have to be careful when proof-texting scriptures and events from Bible history and applying those to immigration issues in the United States of America.

During the New Testament Period, a person could go from one country to another in the Roman Empire without being required to have official government documentation.

Most of the immigrants who are here without documentation knew that they would be breaking the law of the USA BEFORE even entering the country.

Thanks Joe_Allen_Doty,
I wasn't trying to say, nor was anyone accusing me of saying, that “the Bible has one position on immigration and those that disagree are goin' to HELL!” (Nor is it particularly helpful to say that sort of thing at all, about anything.) Immigration is balancing a violation of laws by those that have come already with a need to treat them as human beings and avoid the stunning social disruption of millions leaving suddenly. Especially since the majority are otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying folk (even if indirectly through sales and real estate taxes on their rent, etc.). The conservatives who support some sort of compassionate reform—and there are many (Google Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe on this, for example) would impose strict standards on who could stay and who would be deported. This would be controversial, of course, but small-d democratic politics, when functioning Constitutionally, is actually an effective system for making these kinds of judgments. What doesn't work so well are diktats by unaccountable judges, or, getting back to the NEA, the whole proof-texting thing. Every verse, Old Testament and New, needs to be evaluated in context. Often it's straightforward, other times it's a royal pain in the neck. What distinguishes evangelicals—the original definition, not the catch all term for “Right-Wing Christians who make us squirm”—is their commitment to use reason and even experience to discern what God is trying to tell us, authoritatively, through Scripture alone (sola scriptura). NOT to abuse reason as a way to judge God and his pathetic, homophobic, sexist, right wing ways, which is the trend among liberal Protestants.
Again, no one has said that just now in this discussion, but judging God by current secular standards is an undercurrent in liberal Protestant thought starting with the 19th Century higher critics like “the First Adolph” Adolf von Harnack, and continuing through Rudolf Bultmann. This in spite of the fact that both of these gentlemen might have been fine human beings and erudite scholars—but their thoughts are part of a dreadful trajectory, both in the 1930's and 40's and continuing today.
Given that a large part of recent evangelical growth is among ethnic communities, it's not really surprising to find the NEA moderate on this issue. (BTW growth among evangelical congregations who are part of liberal mainline denominations like the PC(USA) has actually masked the steep decline in attendance and giving among these vestiges of our Reformed and Scripturally informed past.)

"Immigration is balancing a violation of laws by those that have come already with a need to treat them as human beings and avoid the stunning social disruption of millions leaving suddenly. Especially since the majority are otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying folk (even if indirectly through sales and real estate taxes on their rent, etc.). The conservatives who support some sort of compassionate reform—and there are many (Google Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe on this, for example) would impose strict standards on who could stay and who would be deported."

I absolutely agree with you here.

Bless you, sister! Rumor has it that we are in reasonably close proximity on the question of abortion as well. Shhhhh ;-)
Jim's site might actually be functioning as a forum for bringing different Christians together, at least on certain issues! Praise God!

We studied about so-called "Christian" theologians like Rudolf Bultmann when I was a graduate Theological and Historical Studies student.

Bultmann and the others spent so much time searching for the "Historical Jesus" that they neglected even know Jesus spiritually.

Without having the Holy Spirit as one's actual teacher, "sola scriptura" is merely reading words in a book.

Jesus did not say that a committee would get together in the future and put a collection of writings together to be his teacher; he promised that the Holy Spirit would be his teacher.

That's why atheists and agnostics can quote the Bible and if you claim to belong to a particular church denomination, they can tell you what you are supposed to believe.

But, they don't have the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to them.

Oh, I have known about atheists and agnostics who studied the Bible in attempt to convince Believers that God nor Jesus existed; but, the Holy Spirit took advantage of that and spoke to their hearts and changed their minds.