Arizona's Immigration Bill is a Social and Racial Sin

"I wonder whether the tea party movement that rails against government intrusion will rail against this law, or whether those who resist the forced government registration of their guns will resist the forced government requirement that immigrants must always carry their documentation. Will the true conservatives please stand up here?"

Am I to understand that you oppose gun registration? If not, then you must acknowledge the logical fallacy of this argument as it must apply in apply in reverse as well.

You assume the law is "racial" based, not on the law itself, as it says nothing about race, but on the assumption that those enforcing the law (the government) will do the wrong thing by going too far. Proponents of the law claim its purpose is to counteract any current policy that might exist of disregarding immigration status when the individual in question is already under arrest, presumably for other unrelated "reasonably suspicious" reasons.

Does your lack of faith in law enforcement's ability to exercise compassion and do the right thing when it comes to enforcing this law extend to other pieces of legislation, such as the recent healthcare overhaul, the proposed wall street regulations currently in the works, climate change legislation, or other far-reaching laws with obvious good intended purposes but also clear potential for abuse by those now, or who may in the future be, in the position of enforcing them?

I am from AZ, from the legislative district of the state Senate and House majority leaders. I share the same LDS religious background of the author of this bill, Russell Pearce. What I don't share is the approval of this bill, or the larger problem-the morality of this bill. In fact, most of those in my self-described conservative community (including religious community) would agree with this law, which makes me very sad because I realize that in daily lives, politics and economics trumps religion. On Sunday, we preach and listen to the Spirit, but on Monday, we are back in front of the Fox News Scribes & Pharisees, filling our spiritual airwaves with static and white noise. I am beginning to realize that yes, our society is getting more conservative, but to me, that's a symptom of a self-centered society taking the easier route. Christ asked us to make hard choices, to take the unpopular path. There are aspects of my beliefs that are conservative (not simply "progressive for progressive's sake"), but when it comes to our neighbor, the Scripture is clear. As I get older, I am beginning to realize the paradigms of liberal/conservative and democrat/republican are "false" choices, and idols of sort--that following Christ means to eschew these labels and move forward following the more difficult Christian path through the needle's eye of the trials and temptation of selfishness and pride. And I have hope that there will be a epiphany in everyone's life, where it suddenly becomes clear what we should truly be doing if we say we are Christian. I appreciate Rev. Wallis' call to remember the difference between "legal" and "moral". In fact, what I hear being expressed by certain folks in my religious community saddens me even more, because one of those peculiar Mormon beliefs is how we view all of humanity as literal spiritual brothers and sisters--we all happen to be different shades of brown. God chose where we were born, and each of us have been given a life of challenges to overcome, and we should find brotherly/sisterly empathy for others, no matter our national or ethnic origin. Those anti-immigrant folks should do well to remember this.

I also like to bring immigration perspective to others by telling this story of my Grandma, who was a non-Mexican born in Mexico, who ironically had to fabricate a birth certificate to prove her "american-ness":

In the late 1800s, the polygamous Mormons were being hounded and jailed by the Federal govt for their religious/polygamy beliefs. Many decided to go to the northern states of Mexico to avoid persecution, forming what were known as the Mormon Colonies. My grandmother was born in Colonia Morelos in Sonora, her parents being American citizens from Utah, so she was a US citizen. Born at home in 1902, in what could be best described as rural poverty, she never had official paperwork or a birth certificate.

Moving north in her later childhood, she settled in Mesa, AZ [no LDS polygamy anymore, that's those others in UT/Northern AZ who call themselves mormon fundamentalists], and became a long-time school teacher. In the 50's, in a political fear-baited environment with similarities to today, an AZ law was passed requiring all who taught school in AZ to prove their citizenship by providing their birth certificates. My grandma was stuck in an absurd Catch-22 immigration racial-profiling reversal of sorts. A white, religiously conservative, educated and upstanding woman in her community, who was forced to prove she was a US citizen, just because she didn't have the proper documentation. I always point out that essentially, my grandma was an illegal alien of sorts. In the end, she had to go to a family friend in the border town of Douglas, AZ, who signed a (fabricated) affidavit stating that he witnessed her birth north of the border. Silly, and to me, shows how these Cartesian lines-on-a-map borders complicate our understanding of our human interconnectedness. Immigration controls are needed, but we need laws that don't punish immigrants and people, instead they should do the more difficult job of truly fixing the system in a human-centered way.

Is there a chance mister Wallace that you might for once tell us what YOU think should be done. What REFORM would you like to see done. Do you think we should just let them all become citizens. Or just those who have been here for a certain amount of years. WHAT reform do you want to see. You are a Gods politics site, but all I seem to read is speaking againt those whho are against what you believe is right. I never seem to read about HOW it should be done. What reform should be done. DETAILS. tell us a good detailed reform bill. something beside the same old same old degradeing the opposition. LOr is that you role in all this, just to degrade the opposition.

I wonder if it would help if Mr. Wallis would physically move himself and his family to about 5 miles north of the Arizona - Mexico border, sit there for 6 months or so, and then express his opinions on reforms and "the least of these." Unfortunately, many of the "least of these" are gun-packing drug dealers and transporters who are violating our border to bring illegal materials into the USA, and who are quite willing to kill or injure anyone who gets in the way. Perhaps Mr. Wallis's perspective would be more real if he were one who "got in the way" down there.

Check out this site for some common-sense free-trade views.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8255

Like Jim Wallis, I also am wondering: does the Tea Party movment truly stand for less government? Because it seems that most of them are embracing the idea of more government, more government force, more government intrusion into our lives -- when it comes to some of their own "pet" issues. Issues such as advocating that the free trade of labor and their employers should be blocked by fences, INS backlogs, police surveillance, mass deportations, etc.

How will deporting middle age adults who were brought to the US as children, who are now productive members of their communities--how does that have anything to do with the drug war, drug cartels, etc.?
Incidentally, the best action the US could take regarding the drug cartels would be to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis. But that just makes too much sense.

I think there are both "liberals" and "conservatives" that support immigration reform and are concerned about immigrants health and wellbeing.

respectfully, laws like the one above divert attention and resources from these very dangerous activities, and in fact the more the government takes a harsh stance on immigrants teh harder it is to get in, and the better the business is for the coyotes smuggling in immigrants. there are no simple solutions since no matter what these "crimes" will still be commited, but it should be noted that the dangerous situations in border communities is fed heavily by the draconian drug laws and intensified enforcement of immigration laws

as id said before the dangerous situation in the border towns is not caused by the immigrant but by the drug runners and coyotes responding to the draconian drug and immigration laws, the more the US cracks down the deadlier thesefolks will get

I suspect that the ancestors of many of the same people who favor this bill supported the illegal rounding up and mass deportation of more than a million Mexican Americans (many of whom were American citizens who didn't happen to be carrying "proof") during the Great Depression. We do have a great legacy of taking out our frustrations on people of color, and politicians of all stripes find the idea of "protecting America" from its farm, factory and construction workers to be a handy diversion.

Something that fiscal conservatives also might consider: I predict that a few years from now Arizona's law will be overturned by the Supreme Court

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by muybna: "to obey Jesus and his gospel will mean to disobey SB 1070 in Arizona" http://go.muybna.com/2L...

This law is unconstitutional and draconian just like "enhanced interrogation". The end does not justify the means. Also I have watched the immigrant become the scapegoat as our country decided to wage two wars without figuring out how to pay for them. That money for war drained every other pot. Instead of being truthful with tax payers and connecting the real dots it was the determination of the administration at the time to create a distraction and target illegal aliens for causing the money sqeeze. Also corporations and policies that encouraged shipped jobs outside our country caused the job shortage, not the immigrant. Immigrants contribute so much to our country in talent and hard work. Many of the most talented and industrious people choose to come to our country to study and work and some to stay. Bilingualism is an asset to everyone, not a liability. As our population ages and our birth rates decline, immigration also helps us keep a good mix of ages and a stable population. I am middle aged and I remember amnesty programs for illegal immigrants in the past. They were not catastrophic for our country and were better than separating even one child from its parents. Reform should embrace and respect the worth our country places in its immigrants by not creating a separate status for them, like Europe, where they do not have a path to citizenship. If there is a temporary work visa it should come with enforcement for employers that abuse wage and labor laws that protect us all from exploitation. There should be clear, reasonable and understandable ways for people to apply for immigration. Immigration is a federally controlled area and should not be legislated at the local or state level. Arizona is a case in point on that.

I agree there must be immigration reform. And yes, we are a nation of laws. Two things come to my mind when hearing about the controversy behind this law.
1. I'm under the impression that it was truly in response to the frustration of the daily fear for their lives that those on the border have to live with. What else are they to do? Nothing? Where is the compassion for those communities who have seen family members kidnapped and / or murdered?
2. There are notices at grocery stores in my state that says that anyone under 35 wishing to buy cigarettes / alcohol must show the cashier their identification to prove they are of LEGAL age to have the right to do so. Is this prejudicial too because both age and race are protected by law? Should we have compassion on children and cashiers who know the law and choose to break it?
I speak without knowing the intricacies of the immigration law, nor do I live in a border state. But by what I observe, this latest law illustrates the need for common sense balance because there are those who are sensitive to racial issues, having been subjected to unwarranted prejudice. That said, isn't there something in the Bible that says something about sowing and reaping? Unfortunately those immigrants that chose to do things right are reaping the consequences of those who are here illegally and are choosing to break the laws. The question is: Are they willing to suffer the inconvenience of having to carry a legal ID to protect their loved ones from the violence? If they aren't, election season is just around the corner. Laws can change.
We need to be wary of overriding the larger lessons of sowing, reaping and safety with the smaller issues of hurt feelings and inconvenience.

When did it become a sin to enforce existing laws?

If my tail-light is out or I accelerate a little too fast after the light turns green, I get pulled over, I show my I.D., and I get a ticket -- just as it should be.

If someone is here illegally they have already broken our nation's laws. Apprehending them and punishing them for a law they have already broken must never become a sin; otherwise we wind up providing more protections against "illegal search and apprehensions" than against legal "law abiding citizens" like me and the many others who abide by our nation's laws.

When I was a volunteer guest in Bangladesh serving the poorest of the poor I fully expected to have to comply with that great nation's laws. I didn't say, "Hey, I'm an American. You need my intelligence, education, smarts, and money. Excuse me from your immigration laws." NO. I applied for and obtained a Visa. When it expired I left. Then I applied for another one and when I received it, I returned for another couple years. And then I returned home.

God gave us governments and their laws for our good. I welcome and befriend the many who come here legally from Bangladesh -- I've made friends with Bangla speaking Bangladeshis now legally in my country -- every other country, and I support legitimate applications for asylum. But I also insist that my government be "blind" when it comes to justice and enforce all the laws on our books. The only way to enforce immigration laws and justly punish those who are already here illegally is to establish their immigration status and proceed according to the laws of our land.

No more. And no less.

I'll share the letter I wrote to my two Senators at Sojourners' request. I generally try to write my own letters rather than send the form letter provided.

Dear Senator,

"My senator"--how rich these two words, how filled with history and tradition and ideals and responsibility--on my part and on your part.

In my writing to you, I am fulfilling a tiny bit of my responsibility as a citizen, telling you how I feel about this issue of immigration.

I'm sure you know all the arguments. I'm sure, as well, that you gage the political climate in the country and think of your own future and how you might best serve. I know you make compromises and live in the real world.

I do, too.

In my writing, I am calling on all that is best in you, as I always do, expecting nothing less than I expect of myself.

I want my country to strive toward openness and inclusion and to shy away from fear and exclusion, holding our collective failures, not as a condemnation of ourselves but as a reminder for us to stretch toward becoming those "better angels" our soulful President spoke of at another time of rampant fear and division.

Emotions run high. Fear galvanizes opposition. None the less, I ask you humbly to represent our better angels and craft a humane and realistic immigration law, holding in mind always, we are a nation of immigrants, save for the few native Americans who are still among us. But even they, too, came, originally, from elsewhere.

We inhabit an increasingly shrinking world. We must work to keep ourselves open.

Work is an honorable thing, whether work of the hand, as many immigrants do, or work of the heart, which I call upon myself and upon you to do. Let us be welcoming as we have always aspired to be . . . "give us your tired, your poor, your hungry" . . . without being unrealistic.

You have my vote. I ask you to cast your vote for a humane immigration law, not built on a foundation of fear.

There's your part of the responsibility.

Thank you.

Before you disparage people and apply a verse from the Bible to a situation where it does NOT apply, perhaps you should investigate how long it takes and how much money it takes to enter the country. When one is faced with starvation, a person will resort to anything for survival. Perhaps if you understood the issues better, you would realize that your comment about "hurt feelings and inconvenience" is somewhat arrogant.

If you read Rev Wallis's extensive writings on the subject you would know he has alraedy done what you are asking for.

This is an issue that transcends ideological boundaries. Many prominent conservatives, such as the Wall St. Journal and Jeff Jacoby, the token conservative at the Boston Globe, support immigration reform. I'm sure there would be plenty of disagreement as to who goes and who stays, but "conserving" folks that work hard and obey all the laws but one just makes sense. And it's the right thing to do

Believe me, the immigration issue is quite bi-partisan. Classical libertarian thought believes in the free open trade of workers who wish to find work with employers, and employers who wish to find workers for their enterprises.

Armed police, profiling, barb-wire, fences, surveillance, mass deportations are certainly NOT signs of the sort of small government that many people claim that they advocate. The immigration laws need to be changed NOW.

Excellent point: Jim is great at criticism and generalities, but how would employers pay all the government mandated benefits if they were to hire newly legal employees? Jim pals in Washington would immediately send many jobs now performed by illegals overseas. Is Jim for a sub-minimum transition wage? Any economist, liberal or otherwise, will tell you that raising the minimal wage destroyes jobs. Mandating abortion insurance is prohibitively expensive as well. It's easy to call something sinful; it's difficult to answer questions like those I just raised (I don't necessarily support a sub-minimum wage, but it ought to be freely discussed.)
Also, see WaveTossed and her Cato Institute link below

Thanks, WT, for the only decent criticism I've heard of the TEA party movement. Their anger at government has mistakenly spilled over into anger at illegals. It's government regulation and the demonization of those that create jobs that has shipped so many jobs overseas. Even beyond obviousmoral considerations, the mass deportions would require a huge increase in government's size and power, kind of like the effort it would take to eliminate drgs by brute force (instead of the sensible method of treatment taxation and a graduation decriminalization supported by The National Review and many other conservatives.)

What I would really like to know from those who support this bill: How many people of Mexican/Latino backgrounds do you know - legal or illegal? How intimately involved are you in their lives AND their families lives? How often do you break bread with these people? What are the names of their children, their parents, their relatives? Where does their family come from in Mexico/Latin America? Why did they come to America?

If you don't have an answer to any of these questions - SUSPEND your opinion of immigration reform. Go out - get to know your neighbors, mentor their kids, go out to dinner with them - get creative. When you've done this, come back and share your opinion on immigration reform with me THEN. Until you know how this law will affect real people - people with names and stories - your opinion, your vote means nothing and is useless.

thank you

Free open trade of workers who seek work and fill jobs employers have available is an ideal situation. This was done successfully for years on a migrant/worker visa situation in the mid and northern California agricultural regions.
However, you cannot compare that mutually beneficial situation with the current conditions of millions of illegally immigrated persons who are not present temporarily or by method of visa, remain in lower income positions due to lack of education, skillsets, language barriers, etc., and yet use most of the same social service and public programs that a US citizen does but without the same contribution or responsibilities.
A nation's society cannot sustainably grow the size and scope of government with all of the social programs and public services AND have unmeasured, rampant immigration for all that desire it and require they all receive those entitlements.
The only feasible method I can see here would be a simultaneous tax reform - one possibility being to exchange the federal income tax for a use tax, where all must pay according to the services they use. It's fair, reasonable, and progressive in the sense that those with more means will use more and pay more.

Let's be clear about one thing - profiling has been and will always be used by law enforcement at any level. It's part of discerning and making decisions and rational judgments. To claim otherwise is naive and foolish, for without it there is no criteria upon which to reason. The unethical problem occurs when only one criterion is used to make a rash or snap judgment - such as race or gender. But profiling - when used effectively and as it is taught to be done - combines several meaningful criteria in order to arrive at a reasonable and rational conclusion.