Get E-Mail Updates

'You Shall Not Oppress an Immigrant'

These remarks were presented on October 13, 2009 at a press conference in Aurora, CO urging Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) to take a public stand in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. The event was one of hundreds of actions across the country taking place that day as part of the Reform Immigration For America campaign and in support of Rep. Luis Gutierrez's (D-IL) presentation of principles for immigration reform. Aurora recently won an award for being an "All-America City," and has an ICE detention facility.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Good afternoon.

I'm Rev. Anne Dunlap. I'm honored to be here in support of comprehensive immigration reform on this day of national action. I am the pastor of Comunidad Liberación/Liberation Community UCC here in Aurora, a faith community made up of immigrants whose points of entry range from Plymouth Rock in the east to the Sonoran Desert in the west. Each week when we gather together for worship we pray for a change in the heart of this country, that there would be immigration reform that assures that all people are treated with respect and dignity.

In the Christian faith tradition we turn to our sacred text to help us understand what kind of community our Creator calls us to be. We read, for example, that the people of Israel were immigrants in the land of Egypt. Generations earlier, they had left their homeland because of famine. They left their homeland and immigrated to Egypt in order to be able to feed their families, in order to be sure their children had a better future. But you may know the story: In Egypt they became slaves -- as the text says, "The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter with hard service ... [they] were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them" (Exodus 1:13-14). The Israelites lived an oppressed and exploited life; even their children lived under the threat of death. Even the liberator, Moses, knew the pain of being a child separated from his mother when the Egyptian equivalent of ICE swept in to threaten the Israelite community.

When the Israelites were liberated from slavery, God gave them instruction in how not to become like Egypt, and one of the constant themes of that instruction is summed up in this verse from Exodus: "You shall not oppress an immigrant; you know the heart of an immigrant, for you were immigrants in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 23:9). To not become like Egypt, they are to remember the immigrant's heart: a heart full of strength, wanting only to work hard to assure that their families and their communities will survive hard times.

We, here and now, in a nation of immigrants, in this "All-America City," have forgotten the heart of an immigrant. We have become Egypt in the "ruthless tasks we impose," through policies of death, fear, and exploitation:

  • policies that tear families apart, parent from hungry child, partner from frightened partner,
  • policies that disappear parents, partners, and children into a detention system in which violates their rights at every turn,
  • policies that depend on employers stealing wages from mothers and fathers who need that wage to feed their children,
  • policies that force desperate mothers into the Arizona desert to die with their babies still suckling at their breast.

As we as a nation consider the need for comprehensive immigration reform, the faith community urges all of us today, across the country, to turn back from the ways of Egypt and remember the heart of the immigrant. It is our own heart, a heart of strength wanting only to work hard to assure our families, all our families, and our communities, all our communities, will survive hard times, with dignity honored and justice protected.

Remember the heart of the immigrant.

Thank you.

portrait-rev-anne-dunlapRev. Anne Dunlap is the pastor of Comunidad Liberación/Liberation Community in Aurora, CO, a bilingual, multi-cultural base community in the Christian tradition, striving to live faithfully, to embody God's vision of the beloved community, and to resist joyfully oppression and injustice. Comunidad is a ministry of Mayflower UCC in Englewood, CO.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Faydine

10-16-2009 @ 5:24pm

So, why would this persuade people who are not of the faith community?

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

10-23-2009 @ 1:22am

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: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:30pm

Halleluiah!! Amen!!!

by: Cav1

10-16-2009 @ 6:47pm

Who is it that is Egypt? America has no covenant with God.

By desiring federal policy comply with Exodus 1:13-14 is simply seeking to imposing one's religious view on others.

As a follower of Christ one can act in accordance with Exodus 1:13-14 irrespective of federal immigration policy.

by: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:18pm

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: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 5:45pm

Some of those in the faith community need to be persuaded to listen to their better angels.

by: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:26pm

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: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:08pm

We have to be careful in how we proof-text Scriptures, especially those in the Hebrew section to support a "Christian" agenda.

The ancestors of the Children of Israel (Jacob and his extended family) were treated with respect when they arrived in Egypt; but, they did not go back to the country of Canaan after the famine there was over.

We are NOT like Egypt in the fact that the USA didn't invite the illegal/undocumented aliens to come here while they still lived in their home countries.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:10pm

While I believe in treating people with respect, no matter what their country of origin, almost all of the undocumented aliens knew in advance that they would be breaking the law when the entered the USA.

by: Cav1

10-16-2009 @ 6:47pm

Who is it that is Egypt? America has no covenant with God.

By desiring federal policy comply with Exodus 1:13-14 is simply seeking to imposing one's religious view on others.

As a follower of Christ one can act in accordance with Exodus 1:13-14 irrespective of federal immigration policy.

by: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:18pm

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: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:26pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:39pm

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: Glenn Gillane-Duggin

10-16-2009 @ 11:21pm

Great Job Anne!

I wonder how the discussion could be turned when we remember that most of us are immigrants to this land (Which Anne points out) who are in some way or another here illegally. Not to mention, for those of us who live in places like southern Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Texas, and Arizona, we are most likely on land that was/is land that a lot of the folks that immigration policy targets the most (i.e. Latina/o folks) would be calling home legally if it were not for our rapacious lust for land that does not belong to us.

So, who is actually illegal in these cases?

And, did we not "invite" "illegals" in some way when we force them to comply with OUR economic policies that affect THEIR lives on a daily bases?

Again, great job Anne!

by: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:41pm

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: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:08pm

We have to be careful in how we proof-text Scriptures, especially those in the Hebrew section to support a "Christian" agenda.

The ancestors of the Children of Israel (Jacob and his extended family) were treated with respect when they arrived in Egypt; but, they did not go back to the country of Canaan after the famine there was over.

We are NOT like Egypt in the fact that the USA didn't invite the illegal/undocumented aliens to come here while they still lived in their home countries.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:10pm

While I believe in treating people with respect, no matter what their country of origin, almost all of the undocumented aliens knew in advance that they would be breaking the law when the entered the USA.

by: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:39pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:41pm

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: Glenn Gillane-Duggin

10-16-2009 @ 11:21pm

Great Job Anne!

I wonder how the discussion could be turned when we remember that most of us are immigrants to this land (Which Anne points out) who are in some way or another here illegally. Not to mention, for those of us who live in places like southern Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Texas, and Arizona, we are most likely on land that was/is land that a lot of the folks that immigration policy targets the most (i.e. Latina/o folks) would be calling home legally if it were not for our rapacious lust for land that does not belong to us.

So, who is actually illegal in these cases?

And, did we not "invite" "illegals" in some way when we force them to comply with OUR economic policies that affect THEIR lives on a daily bases?

Again, great job Anne!

by: Chris "Jesdisciple"

10-22-2009 @ 11:22pm

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

10-22-2009 @ 5:41pm

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"

10-21-2009 @ 5:39pm

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"

10-21-2009 @ 5:29pm

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: kansasmennonite

10-17-2009 @ 7:45pm

continued: to work for people who would pay them the minimum without any health care.

Somehow I knew you would be "arguing" with this article. And you call me an idealogue:)

by: Mennoman

10-18-2009 @ 9:30am

I do not agree with the premise that the United States did not "invite" the undocumented immigrants into the country. Granted, we have laws on the books that prohibit the unlawful entry to this country and visa overstays. However the government has turned a blind eye to employers that hire undocumented workers. On top of that, we have pursued aggressive trade policies, particularly with respect to agriculture, that have cause massive displacement of people from the rural areas in Mexico. The displaced people could not find work in their home country and they came north, where they were faced with very weak enforcement actions.

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

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2009 @ 8:42pm

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?

LV

by: schroeder37

10-18-2009 @ 9:19pm

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: kansasmennonite

10-17-2009 @ 7:45pm

continued: to work for people who would pay them the minimum without any health care.

Somehow I knew you would be "arguing" with this article. And you call me an idealogue:)

by: BelovedFollower

10-21-2009 @ 5:01pm

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: Mennoman

10-18-2009 @ 9:30am

I do not agree with the premise that the United States did not "invite" the undocumented immigrants into the country. Granted, we have laws on the books that prohibit the unlawful entry to this country and visa overstays. However the government has turned a blind eye to employers that hire undocumented workers. On top of that, we have pursued aggressive trade policies, particularly with respect to agriculture, that have cause massive displacement of people from the rural areas in Mexico. The displaced people could not find work in their home country and they came north, where they were faced with very weak enforcement actions.

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

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2009 @ 8:42pm

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?

LV

by: BelovedFollower

10-21-2009 @ 5:01pm

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: schroeder37

10-18-2009 @ 9:19pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-19-2009 @ 7:31am

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 12:48pm

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: Faydine

10-19-2009 @ 1:20pm

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: Chris "Jesdisciple"

10-23-2009 @ 1:22am

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: Jesdisciple

10-19-2009 @ 7:31am

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 12:48pm

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: Ngchen

10-19-2009 @ 4:43pm

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

10-19-2009 @ 1:20pm

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: Ngchen

10-19-2009 @ 4:49pm

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 5:26pm

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

10-19-2009 @ 4:43pm

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: Ngchen

10-19-2009 @ 4:49pm

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 5:26pm

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: ando

10-19-2009 @ 11:32pm

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: Chris "Jesdisciple"

10-22-2009 @ 11:22pm

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

10-22-2009 @ 5:41pm

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

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 4:27pm

Instead of being like Israel as we like to think, we are really more like Egypt. This is a powerful analogy, troubling for its accuracy.

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 4:27pm

Instead of being like Israel as we like to think, we are really more like Egypt. This is a powerful analogy, troubling for its accuracy.

by: abledsoe

10-16-2009 @ 4:49pm

You rock, Anne! I LOVE this.

And for those of you who'd like more info on Comunidad Liberación/Liberation Community, visit us at www.liberationcommunity.org

by: abledsoe

10-16-2009 @ 4:49pm

You rock, Anne! I LOVE this.

And for those of you who'd like more info on Comunidad Liberación/Liberation Community, visit us at www.liberationcommunity.org

by: Faydine

10-16-2009 @ 5:24pm

So, why would this persuade people who are not of the faith community?

by: Faydine

10-16-2009 @ 5:24pm

So, why would this persuade people who are not of the faith community?

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:30pm

Halleluiah!! Amen!!!

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:30pm

Halleluiah!! Amen!!!

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 5:45pm

Some of those in the faith community need to be persuaded to listen to their better angels.

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 5:45pm

Some of those in the faith community need to be persuaded to listen to their better angels.

by: Cav1

10-16-2009 @ 6:47pm

Who is it that is Egypt? America has no covenant with God.

By desiring federal policy comply with Exodus 1:13-14 is simply seeking to imposing one's religious view on others.

As a follower of Christ one can act in accordance with Exodus 1:13-14 irrespective of federal immigration policy.

by: Cav1

10-16-2009 @ 6:47pm

Who is it that is Egypt? America has no covenant with God.

By desiring federal policy comply with Exodus 1:13-14 is simply seeking to imposing one's religious view on others.

As a follower of Christ one can act in accordance with Exodus 1:13-14 irrespective of federal immigration policy.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:08pm

We have to be careful in how we proof-text Scriptures, especially those in the Hebrew section to support a "Christian" agenda.

The ancestors of the Children of Israel (Jacob and his extended family) were treated with respect when they arrived in Egypt; but, they did not go back to the country of Canaan after the famine there was over.

We are NOT like Egypt in the fact that the USA didn't invite the illegal/undocumented aliens to come here while they still lived in their home countries.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:08pm

We have to be careful in how we proof-text Scriptures, especially those in the Hebrew section to support a "Christian" agenda.

The ancestors of the Children of Israel (Jacob and his extended family) were treated with respect when they arrived in Egypt; but, they did not go back to the country of Canaan after the famine there was over.

We are NOT like Egypt in the fact that the USA didn't invite the illegal/undocumented aliens to come here while they still lived in their home countries.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:10pm

While I believe in treating people with respect, no matter what their country of origin, almost all of the undocumented aliens knew in advance that they would be breaking the law when the entered the USA.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-16-2009 @ 8:10pm

While I believe in treating people with respect, no matter what their country of origin, almost all of the undocumented aliens knew in advance that they would be breaking the law when the entered the USA.

by: Glenn Gillane-Duggin

10-16-2009 @ 11:21pm

Great Job Anne!

I wonder how the discussion could be turned when we remember that most of us are immigrants to this land (Which Anne points out) who are in some way or another here illegally. Not to mention, for those of us who live in places like southern Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Texas, and Arizona, we are most likely on land that was/is land that a lot of the folks that immigration policy targets the most (i.e. Latina/o folks) would be calling home legally if it were not for our rapacious lust for land that does not belong to us.

So, who is actually illegal in these cases?

And, did we not "invite" "illegals" in some way when we force them to comply with OUR economic policies that affect THEIR lives on a daily bases?

Again, great job Anne!

by: Glenn Gillane-Duggin

10-16-2009 @ 11:21pm

Great Job Anne!

I wonder how the discussion could be turned when we remember that most of us are immigrants to this land (Which Anne points out) who are in some way or another here illegally. Not to mention, for those of us who live in places like southern Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Texas, and Arizona, we are most likely on land that was/is land that a lot of the folks that immigration policy targets the most (i.e. Latina/o folks) would be calling home legally if it were not for our rapacious lust for land that does not belong to us.

So, who is actually illegal in these cases?

And, did we not "invite" "illegals" in some way when we force them to comply with OUR economic policies that affect THEIR lives on a daily bases?

Again, great job Anne!

by: kansasmennonite

10-17-2009 @ 7:45pm

continued: to work for people who would pay them the minimum without any health care.

Somehow I knew you would be "arguing" with this article. And you call me an idealogue:)

by: kansasmennonite

10-17-2009 @ 7:45pm

continued: to work for people who would pay them the minimum without any health care.

Somehow I knew you would be "arguing" with this article. And you call me an idealogue:)

by: Mennoman

10-18-2009 @ 9:30am

I do not agree with the premise that the United States did not "invite" the undocumented immigrants into the country. Granted, we have laws on the books that prohibit the unlawful entry to this country and visa overstays. However the government has turned a blind eye to employers that hire undocumented workers. On top of that, we have pursued aggressive trade policies, particularly with respect to agriculture, that have cause massive displacement of people from the rural areas in Mexico. The displaced people could not find work in their home country and they came north, where they were faced with very weak enforcement actions.

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

by: Mennoman

10-18-2009 @ 9:30am

I do not agree with the premise that the United States did not "invite" the undocumented immigrants into the country. Granted, we have laws on the books that prohibit the unlawful entry to this country and visa overstays. However the government has turned a blind eye to employers that hire undocumented workers. On top of that, we have pursued aggressive trade policies, particularly with respect to agriculture, that have cause massive displacement of people from the rural areas in Mexico. The displaced people could not find work in their home country and they came north, where they were faced with very weak enforcement actions.

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

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2009 @ 8:42pm

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?

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-18-2009 @ 8:42pm

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?

LV

by: schroeder37

10-18-2009 @ 9:19pm

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: schroeder37

10-18-2009 @ 9:19pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-19-2009 @ 7:31am

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: Jesdisciple

10-19-2009 @ 7:31am

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 12:48pm

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 12:48pm

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: Faydine

10-19-2009 @ 1:20pm

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: Faydine

10-19-2009 @ 1:20pm

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: Ngchen

10-19-2009 @ 4:43pm

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: Ngchen

10-19-2009 @ 4:43pm

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: Ngchen

10-19-2009 @ 4:49pm

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

10-19-2009 @ 4:49pm

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 5:26pm

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: Eric77

10-19-2009 @ 5:26pm

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: ando

10-19-2009 @ 11:32pm

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: ando

10-19-2009 @ 11:32pm

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

10-20-2009 @ 12:31pm

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: Eric77

10-20-2009 @ 12:31pm

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: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:18pm

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: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:18pm

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: BelovedFollower

10-20-2009 @ 5:26pm

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

10-20-2009 @ 5:26pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:39pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:39pm

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: Jesdisciple

10-20-2009 @ 7:41pm

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

10-20-2009 @ 7:41pm

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.