A Republican Pastor for Immigration Reform

bayoufretless wrote:
I don't know about y'all, but last time I encountered law enforcement, I was required to present my driver's license. In most states, this alone is proof of legal residency, both in the country and in the state of issue.

Profiling exists, period. Think of a crack dealer, a meth cook, etc. My point is not that ethnic, and dozens of other forms of profiling don't exist. My point is that SB1070 contains the same safeguards that curtail other laws in that regard.

To Ngchen's point #2, many, if not most or even all states have statutes that make "resisting arrest by failing to provide id" an arrestable offense. To point #3, some have an issue with this, some don't. The more observant reader will surmise that I don't.

To Ngchen's last paragraph. I agree. It's a HUGE step backward civil liberties wise. Unfortunately, it's one that has long been taken.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that citizens are not required to carry ID. However, citizens ARE required to truthfully state who they are if asked; lying is illegal and would result in arrest. Having ID is helpful, but it's not required.

Now, in terms of profiling, yes it happens. And it often happens legitimately - for instance someone peeking into different homes at night that have their lights out, with a crowbar in hand has a decent chance of being a burglar. The tricky thing is how to get race out of it (racial profiling). Subconsciously, it may well be impossible. Are you suggesting that my #2 scenario is OK, even if it happens a lot?

In terms of practicalities, do we really want to focus law enforcement resources on illegal immigration and investigating large numbers of people without good reasons for suspicion? People often forget that law enforcement resources are finite, just as with everything else.

Finally, I agree that our current herd mentality is bad. People are often thinking what people are telling them to think, without pondering the other side or sides.

Having formerly lived in Arizona for many years...I don't understand what the problem with having your ID is. Many or all states require you to carry your legal ID or face arrest for not doing so. Even though my ancestors came to South Carolina in 1629 to establish churches in the English colonies...I don't have my ID...I stand the same chance as anyone else who does not have their ID. Follow the law and you have no problem. Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The government (state and federal) say have your ID...you have your ID on your person.

Patricia said:

"The law may explicitly prohibit racial profiling, but racial profiling is exactly what's going to happen"

It seems to me you are saying that the police are, a)racists and b)law-breakers....but by all means, please clarify.

You assume that Arizona's police force is racist, and therefore will break the law (SB1070) by profiling Hispanic-looking Americans. You may be ready to impugn the whole police force as racists, but this is a huge assumption and not based in reality.

What stops these racist police from profiling now? If your assumption that they are all racists is true, then they are out there right now pulling people over for speeding based on race, trespassing based on race, loitering based on race, etc.

A racist police force would be out there right now rounding up Hispanic Americans using any law they wanted to choose from. But mass racism isn't happening is it?

Let's just take a moment and ask yourself if maybe your assumption is wrong and not all the cops in Arizona are racists. Could it be that the hysteria around SB1070 is being whipped up based on a political agenda rather than based on fact.

Read the bill (and the constitution) and try not to profile the hard working law-enforcement officers of Arizona. You'll find that this law is actually a step away from profiling.

I'm not sure that saving your family from poverty should be regarded as any more selfish than saving your family from death squads.

God didn't call us to help those whom we understand and agree with, but everyone, every person. Putting up barriers against that help based on what is subjective at best will not lead us to caring for the alien among us.

I'm not sure that saving your family from poverty should be regarded as any more selfish than saving your family from death squads.

God didn't call us to help those whom we understand and agree with, but everyone, every person. Putting up barriers against that help based on what is subjective at best will not lead us to caring for the alien among us.

Rev Wiley, Have you read the law?

The federal immigration statue omits any language against profiling and SB1070 explicitly prohibits the use of racial profiling. It seems to me that the Arizona law is a step in the right direction if you're concerned about "looking like an illegal immigrant" (if you're not sure what that means, ask Patricia, apparently she has a clear mental image that comes to mind).

Having formerly lived in Arizona for many years...I don't understand what the problem with having your ID is. Many or all states require you to carry your legal ID or face arrest for not doing so. Even though my ancestors came to South Carolina in 1629 to establish churches in the English colonies...I don't have my ID...I stand the same chance as anyone else who does not have their ID. Follow the law and you have no problem. Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The government (state and federal) say have your ID...you have your ID on your person.

Bayoufretless wrote: "To Ngchen's last paragraph. I agree. It's a HUGE step backward civil liberties wise. Unfortunately, it's one that has long been taken."

Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Something to consider.

PhoobarID,

The problem is that it's immoral to imprison someone for forgetting their wallet at home.

Patricia said:

"The law may explicitly prohibit racial profiling, but racial profiling is exactly what's going to happen"

It seems to me you are saying that the police are, a)racists and b)law-breakers....but by all means, please clarify.

Some people wonder -- why do we have millions of residents in the US who have come with without the "proper" documentation? How did millions get in? Why do they come in when they know that it's illegal and against the law? Why can't they wait and apply and come here legally? Or better yet, stay in their own countries and improve their own economies?

And that's where we get to the crux of the immigration issue. Underneath it all, citizens wonder why can't these people who want to come to the US stay in their own countries, improve their own economies rather than coming here?

So many US citizens demand that their government throw up protectionist barriers to keep these interlopers out, make them stay in their own country -- so we, here legally in the US can keep for ourselves what we already have. Mythologies spring up. They (whoever "they" are) are coming here to get welfare, medicaid, and a free public education. Or else set up drug dealing cartels to make lots of illegal money. They don't want to learn English or become "American," they want to keep speaking Spanish and force everyone else to speak Spanish and eventually over-run and destroy "American" culture. They don't really want to do legitimate work, they just want to steal what isn't theirs. That's what the protectionists tell themselves -- after a while they actually start to believe the myths.

The truth is pretty clear and clearly contradicts the myths. People want to come here from other countries because we are a land of opportunity. We have jobs. Our government is more organized, more lawful, less corrupt than their own. And also there are employers here who aren't in their own country who wish to legally hire them for work that needs to be done. But when they try to come here legally, they run into barriers and a huge bureaucratic logjam that forces them to wait for months, years, or even decades.

Streamline and reform our stopped-up immigration system. Hire more INS agents if needed (believe me, there are plenty of people who need the work). Let people come in legally so they can be hired by the employers who wish to legally hire them.

But then we run into the protectionists who ultimately fear that they will "take over." The protectionists want our government to build fences and walls and start profiling people for possible deportation; they want to force them back into their own countries. So our employers don't get the workers that they need and these workers don't get the opportunities they want so badly.

It's a matter of free trade of labor versus the protectionist Nanny State.

Some people wonder -- why do we have millions of residents in the US who have come with without the "proper" documentation? How did millions get in? Why do they come in when they know that it's illegal and against the law? Why can't they wait and apply and come here legally? Or better yet, stay in their own countries and improve their own economies?

And that's where we get to the crux of the immigration issue. Underneath it all, citizens wonder why can't these people who want to come to the US stay in their own countries, improve their own economies rather than coming here?

So many US citizens demand that their government throw up protectionist barriers to keep these interlopers out, make them stay in their own country -- so we, here legally in the US can keep for ourselves what we already have. Mythologies spring up. They (whoever "they" are) are coming here to get welfare, medicaid, and a free public education. Or else set up drug dealing cartels to make lots of illegal money. They don't want to learn English or become "American," they want to keep speaking Spanish and force everyone else to speak Spanish and eventually over-run and destroy "American" culture. They don't really want to do legitimate work, they just want to steal what isn't theirs. That's what the protectionists tell themselves -- after a while they actually start to believe the myths.

The truth is pretty clear and clearly contradicts the myths. People want to come here from other countries because we are a land of opportunity. We have jobs. Our government is more organized, more lawful, less corrupt than their own. And also there are employers here who aren't in their own country who wish to legally hire them for work that needs to be done. But when they try to come here legally, they run into barriers and a huge bureaucratic logjam that forces them to wait for months, years, or even decades.

Streamline and reform our stopped-up immigration system. Hire more INS agents if needed (believe me, there are plenty of people who need the work). Let people come in legally so they can be hired by the employers who wish to legally hire them.

But then we run into the protectionists who ultimately fear that they will "take over." The protectionists want our government to build fences and walls and start profiling people for possible deportation; they want to force them back into their own countries. So our employers don't get the workers that they need and these workers don't get the opportunities they want so badly.

It's a matter of free trade of labor versus the protectionist Nanny State.

I define immigration reform as giving some illegal aliens a means to obtain citizenship and as providing a viable system for aliens to obtain temporary visitor/worker status without years of red tape.

I am for immigration reform for two main reasons: Christian compassion and practicality. We are just NOT going to deport 12-15 million immigrants. These are consumers who patronize local business, they pay similar taxes to citizens (sales, property, auto license, gas, payroll, federal and state withholding, etc.), they are interwoven through family ties to US citizens, many have aged and young relatives who depend on them as breadwinners and for care, and many are employees, homeowners and business owners. Deporting these residents would cost billions to identify, arrest, incarcerate, provide hearings, and transport them. In many cases we would be deporting beloved relatives of citizens and/or children. This would cost billions and would compromise our civil liberties as an intrusive police-state would have to be developed to investigate and enforce immigration laws. Even completely 100% securing the border would cost billions that we do not want to spend. Immigrants and their children once they grow up are part of the young demograpic helping keep Social Security going.

We are a humanitarian nation, so I don't see us tolerating the broken families that would result from deportation of 12 million. We value our civil liberties and do not want to pay for the expansion of government that would be needed for such a massive and disruptive effort. Business interests want the undocumented because they are consumers and cheap, complaint employees.

In addition to all these practical considerations there is the Christian (and other religions), and moral argument of mercy and compassion for neighbors who have proven that they want to join the American dream in a positive way.

Deportation of all is just not going to happen, so we should get on with solving the problem in a practical way. We are going to address it eventually, but it is too tempting now for some demagogues and groups to use undocumented immigrants as scapegoats for emotional, fear-based, and anger-based political purposes.

I define immigration reform as giving some illegal aliens a means to obtain citizenship and as providing a viable system for aliens to obtain temporary visitor/worker status without years of red tape.

I am for immigration reform for two main reasons: Christian compassion and practicality. We are just NOT going to deport 12-15 million immigrants. These are consumers who patronize local business, they pay similar taxes to citizens (sales, property, auto license, gas, payroll, federal and state withholding, etc.), they are interwoven through family ties to US citizens, many have aged and young relatives who depend on them as breadwinners and for care, and many are employees, homeowners and business owners. Deporting these residents would cost billions to identify, arrest, incarcerate, provide hearings, and transport them. In many cases we would be deporting beloved relatives of citizens and/or children. This would cost billions and would compromise our civil liberties as an intrusive police-state would have to be developed to investigate and enforce immigration laws. Even completely 100% securing the border would cost billions that we do not want to spend. Immigrants and their children once they grow up are part of the young demograpic helping keep Social Security going.

We are a humanitarian nation, so I don't see us tolerating the broken families that would result from deportation of 12 million. We value our civil liberties and do not want to pay for the expansion of government that would be needed for such a massive and disruptive effort. Business interests want the undocumented because they are consumers and cheap, complaint employees.

In addition to all these practical considerations there is the Christian (and other religions), and moral argument of mercy and compassion for neighbors who have proven that they want to join the American dream in a positive way.

Deportation of all is just not going to happen, so we should get on with solving the problem in a practical way. We are going to address it eventually, but it is too tempting now for some demagogues and groups to use undocumented immigrants as scapegoats for emotional, fear-based, and anger-based political purposes.

Reverend, Maybe it's time to burn that card!

True, and I carry my driver's license with me pretty much everywhere. However, in some states a driver's license doesn't establish citizenship, only identity. Some states (mine included) issue DL's to illegals. Though having a legitimate AZ driver's license didn't help this gentleman http://gocl.me/aGuonl
I'm sure there will be others.
I'm not advocating an open border or blanket amnesty. But there are more humane ways to deal with illegal immigration other than racially profiling those with skin tones darker than a latte or trying to deny U.S. citizenship to immigrants' children born in the U.S. (14th Ammendment, anyone?). I am fully in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and helping those that are here already, working hard to provide a better future for themselves and their families, to be able to get their U.S. citizenship. I have met many hardworking, decent human beings that are considered criminals only because they were born on the wrong side of a man made border and are missing that piece of paper.

If a Causasian American citizen is caught without ID, what do you believe will happen as a result?

If a Hispanic American citizen is caught without ID, do you think the consequences will be different?

The law may explicitly prohibit racial profiling, but racial profiling is exactly what's going to happen, whether it's racially profiling who is suspicious in the first place, or racially profiling only certain people who do not happen to be carrying ID once they are determined to be suspect.

It is unconstitutional to place a burden of proof on one segment of American citizens that is different from that of any other American citizen.

Hispanic American citizens are, by this law, subject to a different burden of level of proof, at the whim of any law enforcement officer.

Therefore, this law is unconstitutional.

It's that simple.

Rev Wiley, Have you read the law?

The federal immigration statue omits any language against profiling and SB1070 explicitly prohibits the use of racial profiling. It seems to me that the Arizona law is a step in the right direction if you're concerned about "looking like an illegal immigrant" (if you're not sure what that means, ask Patricia, apparently she has a clear mental image that comes to mind).

Moral/ethical treatment is not something I would attribute to this government or world for that manner. This world is lost and going to hell and only by the blood of Christ can we change it...one person at a time.

Oh my gosh, wavetossed, I agree with you :)!

Such ugly and un-Christlike descriptions you use! "Selfish economic refugees"??? Generational poverty and oppression are nothing to sneeze at, as you seem to be doing, Phoobar. You are assigning limitations to God's commands on how we treat the stranger in our midst. God doesn't command us to love our neighbor (AND our enemy, BTW) only if they have been tortured or come from a police state. Love your neighbor. Period. No easy outs. And if you want to know what love is, take a closer look at I Corinthians 13 and Luke 10:25-37, just for a start. I pray you will examine Scripture and allow it to be the only guide for your ideas and actions.

rustys1:

No. Nobody is saying that all police are. The problem is that even if 90% of the law enforcement officers plan to do right and to not use racial profiling, the damage done by the other 10% is extremely harmful. I don't want to give those 10% an excuse to abuse their power.

rustys1:

No. Nobody is saying that all police are. The problem is that even if 90% of the law enforcement officers plan to do right and to not use racial profiling, the damage done by the other 10% is extremely harmful. I don't want to give those 10% an excuse to abuse their power.