Update: Malkin’s latest: “Bipartisan Betrayal At The Borders.”
Warning: Long-Winded, Rambling, Somewhat Verbose Illegal Immigration Rant Ahead.
I am not a racist. I’m a realist. I’d rather be living under government-sanctioned racial segregation than in this pitiful, politically correct, culturally decaying place.
(Do I really want to live under Jim Crow? Of course not, but I wanted to get the point across that our culture continues to decay at a rapid pace. If I could experience in my lifetime just a sense of national pride and unity in this country, I’d be willing to forgo a few privileges.)
This world is upside down. Right is now wrong and the perverse is the norm. Sound reasoning…no, forget that…The instinct to survive has been suppressed by an irrational, hare-brained desire to be “tolerant” and open even if it means the end of our way of life and our very lives.
You see, liberals believe that Bush should have done more to stop the terrorist attacks, but criticize law enforcement officials for racial profiling and inquiring about citizenship status of suspects. While liberals contend that Bush could’ve stopped the attacks, they don’t believe targeting young Arab men is the way to do it.
My indignation was prompted after spotting a copy of the 9/11 Commission’s report, a thick 500+ page book. I’d read the Executive Summary, or some such nonsense, last month. What the book doesn’t contain is not surprising, given the suicidal tendencies of our cultural elite.
For our tax dollars, a group of “bipartisan” policy wonks had no deport-them-back-where-they-came-from kind of suggestions. Instead they spouted the same weak-kneed mumbo jumbo that made us vulnerable in the first place and offered similar inane reasoning that will lead to another attack. (Did you know that Middle Eastern men are sneaking across the southern border along with Mexicans?)
My prediction: If George Bush and his cronies don’t seal up the southern border or at least allow border agents to threaten to shoot border jumpers, the next commission — 4/13, 11/21, 12/25, whatever — will conclude what the 9/11 Commission concluded: immigration enforcement in the United States is slack, but we still don’t want you to do anything about it.
The 9/11 Commission’s report contains such gibberish as this:
“It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. [You think?] Today more than 9 million people are in the United States outside the legal immigration system. [PC for “lawbreakers”] We must also be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our ports of entry, working with Canada and Mexico as much as possible.”[sarcastic remarks added]
Responding and monitoring. How about just enforcing the darn law? Nowhere in the report does the commission suggest we shut down or heavily guard the southern border. Instead, we get this junk:
“Our borders and immigration system, including law enforcement, ought to send a message of welcome, tolerance, and justice to members of immigrant communities in the United States and in their countries of origin.” [By providing water, food and rest to aid illegals crossing the border?]
And here is their uninspiring, taxpayer-funded advice:
“Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.
Have you learned anything new? They’ve just stated the reasonable and the obvious, but this is what we paid for, people. This is their grand recommendation.
In the midst of a war for survival and preservation of Western culture, our PC president proposes reprieve for outlaws. Back in December 2003, I e-mailed the White House and told Bush I wouldn’t vote for him in 2004 or his brother in 2008 if he went ahead with this. I don’t think he read it.
Bush’s amnesty plan is sick, and here’s why. The rate of crime in America is high; the crime rate in certain cities is off the charts. Our supposedly conservative president talks tough on crime but wants to reward lawbreakers! Instead of rounding up illegal aliens and shipping them back to their countries of origin (or anywhere but here), he proposes to grant amnesty. For their crimes, they get to stay and enjoy America’s amenities.
His plan is purportedly for “willing foreign workers” and “undocumented men and women” (gag me!) to come out into the open and stop hiding (removal of stigma and shame) and work freely. We know that not all illegal aliens come here to work. How do we know? Keep reading,
Bush’s plan contains some high-sounding principles, including:
— “Protecting the Homeland by Controlling Our Borders: The program should link to efforts to control our border through agreements with countries whose nationals participate in the program. It must support ongoing efforts to enhance homeland security.”
— “Promoting Compassion: The program should grant currently working undocumented aliens a temporary worker status to prevent exploitation. Participants would be issued a temporary worker card that will allow them to travel back and forth between their home and the U.S. without fear of being denied re-entry into America.”
More conservatism, less compassion, Mr. Bush. Your brand of compassion is going to get us all killed. But his boys say: “President Bush does not support amnesty because individuals who violate America’s laws should not be rewarded for illegal behavior and because amnesty perpetuates illegal immigration.”
OK. Great. What does President Bush support?
“The President proposes that the Federal Government offer temporary worker status to undocumented men and women now employed in the United States and to those in foreign countries who have been offered employment here.”
What, please tell me, is a reward of “temporary worker status” if not amnesty? Does he think we’re stupid, that English is not our first language?
I had the good fortune of being born in America, and it pains me to see its ideals crumbling before me. I don’t jealously guard our country’s benefits; I want others to share them, but only if they go through the proper channels. Being a U.S. citizen is a privilege. That means no one who is not a citizen has a right to be here, and we are not required to keep them here.
Perhaps if I framed my concern about illegal immigration in a way liberals could understand — how it harms black people — they’d agree that we need to close our borders not only for our protection in the age of terrorism, but for the well-being of low-income American citizens.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (“Hurricane Sheila”), a favorite socialist target of mine, believes that the government is not only responsible for job creation, but it must also guarantee jobs while at the same time shirking its real responsibility: reporting and deporting illegal aliens.
Los Angeles Times (registration req.)
Now, two political initiatives are attempting to bring immigrants and native-born workers together. One is a union proposal in the current contract negotiations at Los Angeles hotels. The second is a new look at immigration reform contained in a bill introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas).
Both the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees union and Jackson-Lee see the key to better wages and conditions as prohibiting discrimination — against both immigrants and against displaced workers — by enforcing job creation and affirmative action as national policy. Both proposals share an assumption that unions and high wages offer protection against job competition….
That’s also the thinking behind Jackson-Lee’s bill, HR 4885, which would extend permanent legal status to immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and would prohibit employers from threatening or intimidating workers based on their immigration status. The money collected in application fees from those immigrants would fund job training and other programs for unemployed American workers. “The rights of minorities in this country are still a work in progress,” Jackson-Lee said. “Nevertheless, someone recognized that we had to fix laws in America as they related to African Americans. Now we have to fix other laws to end discrimination against immigrants.”
Black liberals’ precious skin color preferences will be in jeopardy as illegal aliens begin to take precedence over them in employment and college admissions, and they will in turn demand even more stuff.
Some interesting (and disturbing) facts from the Federation of American Immigration Reform:
— Immigrant welfare use is 43 percent higher than non-immigrants.
— Illegal immigration is causing a fiscal drain on our economy. Its apparent benefits (immigrants come here to work?) are outweighed by the cost.
— What should be most important to Jackson Lee: According to the site’s Immigration and Job Displacement report, immigrant workers have displaced blacks in several industries, including hotel and certain agricultural industries.
— “Many politicians and some citizens do not concern themselves with such displacement since it affects primarily low-skilled Americans, who tend to lack political clout. As a result, immigration has been responsible for 40 to 50 percent of the wage depression for workers without a high school degree in recent decades.Some estimates indicate that nearly two million Americans a year are displaced by immigration.”
Some people might call me an extremist. I don’t pretend to be otherwise. I’m just a patriotic American who is saddened to see the triumph of vulgarity, crime and suicidal tendencies. For more information, see Michelle Malkin.
I’m finished ranting now. Talk among yourselves.
Addendum: For information on Arab border jumpers, see this Michelle Malkin post.)
I agree we need to vastly improve our immigration policies. I am not against immigration since that is how my great grandparents came to America. We need to establish a predetermined number of immigrants allowed in each year. We need to have these immigrants be able to pursue citizenship within a specified number of years or be deported. Those proved to be criminals will be deported.As our predecessors did, immigrants need to learn to speak and write English. They may speak their native tongue, teach it to their children, keep their cultural identity but not impose those identifying things on the American public. If they wish to be Americans they need to accept us and blend in this marvelous melting pot. Perhaps we can then move on and be one nation regardless of race, creed or country of origin.
We must seal our borders.
Comment by Pat in NC — 08.25.04 @ 8:41 am
‘(Did you know that Middle Eastern men are sneaking across the southern border along with Mexicans?)’
I wasnt aware of this. Have any been found guilty of attempted sabotage or terrorism?
I personally think racial profiling is nothing short of facist. Racially, im an Armenian. Im a British citizen, not a Muslim and have never even been to the Middle East. Under racial profiling, i would be targeted. What about ‘Middle Eastern’ men born in the US, or Middle Eastern Christians, or….as suprising as it may sound…Middle Eastern men who DONT want to commit acts of terror, only start a new life? Indiscriminate targetting of massively generalised group of people is not the answer.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 8:44 am
Of course, racial profiling would be unnecessary if borders were sealed, which is exactly what should happen.
I agree with Pat. My father came to this country from Scotland at the end of WWII, but only with a “sponsor” waiting for him in Kansas City–an uncle who had sponsored my father’s siblings also, who guaranteed that if the immigrants failed to find work, he himself would provide them with shelter and food. And my uncle fulfilled his commitment. My father and all his siblings lived with my aunt and uncle while they got established. They were not a drain on the “system”–their own relatives were the system!
It makes me wish for the good old days…
Comment by Katy — 08.25.04 @ 9:00 am
Omar - See addendum.
Comment by Anon — 08.25.04 @ 9:02 am
Thanks for the info. Al Qaeda is actually a global terrorist network, with cells all over the world. I dont think this quite proves many are coming over via the Mexican border.
Note that i see where you are coming from on the Immigration matter. Here in the UK i back illegal immigration being clamped down on too. I just strongly disagree with the idea of racial profiling.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 9:20 am
TIME WILL TELL: Oh, don’t worry people, should - God Forbid - Senator Kerry get elected, and the dirty and/or homicide bombs strapped to people start killing some American DEMOCRATS………they’ll wake up. Not to mentioned a remaining few maimed people to remind us every day? Arm missing. No legs at the kneecaps? They’ll wake up.
I have always maintained that if I were a terrorist I’d send 10 bomb belts across the Mexican and Canadian borders, each, simultaneously.
Are you telling me that I could not, all told, get at LEAST a couple/few across? And what if there are some nuclear, chemical, biological, though it’s not quite that simple to get a viable nuclear bomb set up in that fashion.
So, I take my chances. Even with that 10-15% success rate at both borders, I’m still wacking me & maiming me some decent sums of Americans. Sums of some will be liberal democrats that love open borders. Poetanddidn’tevenknowit.
And don’t forget the terrorist gunmen, a la Palestinian gunmen, just jumping out of vehicles with assault rifles & spraying people. Don’t think it can happen? Yes it can. Most likely, for my money, it’ll happen in a state where liberal gun control rules. Laws are always for the law-breakin crooks, right?
(Could happen in Florida, but too many of us law-abiding Floridians are packin substantial self-defense “heat”; the perps never what potential victim’s got a gun. Terrorists are aware, as they generally do their due diligence since killing, violence & intimidation, sad to say, is how Muslims keep order in the real world.)
Speaking of making money………if Kerry wins? I change my bet. Go with the terrorists. The United States of Israel, baby. No turning back once that happens.
Time will tell. Can’t wait for the “sensitive” war on terror.
Comment by Beau — 08.25.04 @ 10:04 am
Omar,
One of the detainees from our initial incursion into Afganistan was a “Middle Eastern man born in the US” (of Saudi parents). He was fighting for Al Quaida.
I have a friend who is a native born citizen, of Arabic descent (his parents immigrated here legally, before he was born, in the 1940’s). He is all for racial profiling when it comes to terrorist suspects, even though he know that it will cause him some problems from time to time due to his Arabic name and looks. He is a police officer though and perhaps that affects his perspective on the matter.
La Shawn,
The problems with illegal immigrants are far worse than the general public is aware of. It is becoming such a problem in this area (Tulsa, OK) that some local police are now going to undergo training to allow us to enforce Federal Immigration Laws. While many illegal immigrants try to maintain a low profile and avoid contact with the police, there are a large number who are criminals or troublemakers.
There are also a large number who are utilizing a welfare system that they have never paid a penny in tax to support.
Since they often do not have the type of employment for which benefits are available, many illegal immigrants do not have health insurance or any type of primary family physician. As a result they utilize emergency room services for any and all medical necessities. These bills frequently go unpaid which means that you and I foot their bill in the form of higher charges for those of us who do pay.
Of course, there is still the problem of terrorists coming across the border in the same manner that Mexican, and other South and Central Americans do. A border which is so poorly defended, is an open door for those who wish to do us harm.
Comment by Montie — 08.25.04 @ 10:05 am
Sorry La Shawn, but whenever I hear or read the phrase “I’m not a racist…” I always assume that it is going to be followed by something that says the opposite.
Deleted by the admin. Sorry. Can’t insult me on my own blog. On someone else’s, that’s a different story.
Racial profiling of the sort you propose is racist because it makes a prejudiced assumption about an individual on the basis of their race. It would probably “work”, but to be really through you should probably lock up everyone of Middle Eastern appearance (and any non-Middle eastern muslims while you’re about it). Round ‘em all and you’ll fettle Islamic terrorism at a stroke — but at the cost of the thing you’re claiming to defend. (I know I’ve overstated what you meant, and then some — a rhetorical device and no more)
Following the logic of racial profiling, since young black men are apparently over-represented as customers of the US judicial system, wouldn’t it make sense to keep black men under greater scrutiny?
Your opening statement that “I’d rather be living under government-sanctioned racial segregation than in this pitiful, politically correct, culturally decaying place” seemed just a little bit insulting to those who struggled to end segregation. Can I invite you to reconside it?
Comment by Richard Hall — 08.25.04 @ 10:15 am
“Warning: Long-Winded, Rambling, Somewhat Verbose Illegal Immigration Rant Ahead.”
May I borrow this for all my future replies?
Comment by Jerry — 08.25.04 @ 10:20 am
‘Racial profiling of the sort you propose is racist because it makes a prejudiced assumption about an individual on the basis of their race.’
Precisely. Racial profiling on any level leads to disaster…..look what happened after in the aftermath of 9/11. You had lunatics going out with firearms trying to kill people that looked Arabic or Muslim or whatever. An example was a Sikh man from INDIA, killed in a petrol station by a guy blinded by hatred.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179606.stm
This is just one example.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 10:24 am
I understand that they have the same argument going on in Europe. I remember this from the last French presidential election. They were saying that Le Pen was a racist because he wanted to close the borders. Sound familiar?
BTW, I went to that article Omar presented. I guess you chose to ignore the parts that said “A US jury has sentenced a man to death for murdering a Sikh…”
What part of justice do you not understand? That man was not targeted because of racial profiling by police. He was targeted because of 9-11 and because he looked Arab in someone’s mind. And yes, I do know that Sikhs are Indian.
Like Ann Coulter points out, nineteen Muslim Arabians killed 3,000 by crashing 3 planes, not nineteen white grannies.
One more thought, I heard the EU is planning to put up a fence, like Israel’s, between it and the non-EU countries. Think they’re getting the message?
Comment by RepJ — 08.25.04 @ 10:44 am
Immigration is not the easy target so many conservatives who are Christians make it out to be. As both an ardent Christian and a staunch conservative, I wrestle with the issue greatly.
When we talk about blanket numbers, the problem of illegal immigration is readily apparent. When you have entire hospital systems closing down in the wake of unpaid medical bills left behind by illegal immigrants, you have a big problem. It becomes bigger when school systems in parts of the country with large immigrant populations are starting to buckle under that same strain. Crime, gangs, and the ease at which Al Qaeda operatives can enter our country through our southern borders should trouble everyone, too. And the fact that despite all the claims that illegal immigrant labor is a boon to the American economy, there still is a negative cost of illegal immigration to the tune of $250 for every American-citizen household (even when the supposed benefits of illegal labor are factored in.) Some people treat these issues like they will go away on their own, but thinking people know they will not.
But for us who are Christians, how do we live out a Christ-like response to illegal immigration? The Lord Jesus was an immigrant Himself in the land of Egypt. He was poor and an alien in that land, just like many of the illegal immigrants here in America. His family fled harsh conditions just as many immigrants here have. God raises up and takes down governments at His sovereign will, so who are we to say that our secure borders trump the compassion we should have for the immigrant family who is just trying to live life to its fullest here in America?
When we Christians move beyond numbers and start viewing each immigrant or immigrant family as people to whom we should be ministering the love of Christ in our own land, a love that transcends earthly laws and aspires to the greatest commandments Jesus cited (love God, love people), then the issue becomes less clear. Does not the love of God for these people render our desire for legal retribution against them null and void? When you actually talk to illegals here and listen to their plight, our commonality as men for whom Jesus died makes that phone call to INS impossible to make.
I do not have an answer for the problem. Every time I think I do (on one side or another), some encounter with illegals forces me to consider the opposite view. All I can say is that we should be praying for our leaders, for theirs is not an easy decision to have.
Comment by DLE — 08.25.04 @ 11:06 am
Mr. Hall, you are correct in that racial profiling is racist. It is based on judging people soley on the color of their skin or their ethnicity. Racial profiling is also based on other factors including age, type of clothing worn, and probable locales frequented.
I am all for it!
Racial profiling as used by proper law enforcement is not wrong but makes perfect, logical sense. It would be foolish not to in such a situation as we have. Racial profiling of black men is not wrong when it is the majority of black men who are commiting gang violence, murder, and other drug related crimes, ironically against other blacks for the most part. So, racial profiling actually protects other law abiding black people! Amazing!
By the same logic, given that the majority of terrorist atacks are committed by Middle Eastern/Arab men, and much of this violence has harmed other Mid-Easterners/Arabs, profiling Arab men would potentially protect other Mid-East/Arab Americans as well as all Americans in general!
Omar, the examples you cited of violence against Arabic or Muslims as racial profiling is not racial profiling at all, they would actually be considered “hate crimes” under the law.
Racial profiling is a method or tool of law enforcement only.
There is a logical disconnect when you compare genuine, ignorant racism towards another people that is solely based on stereotypes and emotional rhetoric, with a logical, systematic process for evaluating crime its suspects that is based solely on statistics, demographics, and other measurable, tangible information. To do so is to either be dishonest or to be ignorant of the truth.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.25.04 @ 11:11 am
Thanks for the comments, everyone, whether you agree or disagree with me. I appreciate you all.
DLE - What does the Bible say about what Christians should do about lawbreakers? For instance, do you believe we should hide illegals or refrain from turning them in? If so, where in the Bible do you find such an idea or concept? What could be more compassionate that helping aliens go through the proper channels?
Comment by LB — 08.25.04 @ 11:13 am
Jerry M. - I said you were my kindred spirit months ago. Nothing has changed!
Welcome back.
Comment by LB — 08.25.04 @ 11:16 am
‘They were saying that Le Pen was a racist because he wanted to close the borders.’
This is beside the point, but Le Pen IS a racist. He fronts France’s extreme right wing national party.
‘BTW, I went to that article Omar presented. I guess you chose to ignore the parts that said “A US jury has sentenced a man to death for murdering a Sikh…”’
So? This was a result of racial profiling, in an individual specific form. The ignorant guy associated 9/11 with him, despite him havin no Arab, or indeed Muslim connections. This is the ignorance created by racial profiling.
‘What part of justice do you not understand? That man was not targeted because of racial profiling by police.’
He was targetted because he was PROFILED by an individual. Imagine the police questioning or arresting every man who ‘looks arab.’
‘Like Ann Coulter points out…..’
This frothing at the mouth bigot? Ann Coulter is nothing short of a lunatic. The people killed in revenge attacks after 9/11 were still innocent, as she seems to ignore.
‘One more thought, I heard the EU is planning to put up a fence, like Israel’s, between it and the non-EU countries.’
An important point you are forgetting is that all the EU countries are still sovreign. Its a domestic issue, if the newly added countries in the EU wish to put a fence up, the rest of the EU can advise against it but can do little to stop the nation carrying out. The EU isnt one super state, it is merely an economic grouping of nations. Centralised European political control is still in its infancy. Note Britain’s contribution to the Iraq war, while its fellow EU states condemned it.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 11:17 am
”There is a logical disconnect when you compare genuine, ignorant racism towards another people that is solely based on stereotypes and emotional rhetoric, with a logical, systematic process for evaluating crime its suspects that is based solely on statistics, demographics, and other measurable, tangible information.”
A logical and systematic process that is nothing short of racist, and a restriction of freedoms to innocent people. Glad we cleared that up.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 11:25 am
Terminal porosity
La Shawn Barber lays it on the line: The instinct to survive has been suppressed by an irrational, hare-brained desire to be “tolerant” and open even if it means the…
Trackback by dustbury.com — 08.25.04 @ 11:26 am
I agree that illegal immigration needs to be stopped (though legal immigration should probably be easier), and that amnesty for illegals is a bad idea. But the notion of not voting for GW simply because he has mishandled that is also a bad idea. There is no evidence that Kerry (the only other real possibility for President) would be better in that area, and he will definitely be far worse in many others.
As to profiling, the term ‘racial’ is incorrect. (There are no such thing as races; for one thing, skin color and the like are insignificant physical differences as far as the genetic code is concerned.) Rather, it should be called cultural profiling. And it is indisputable that most terrorists are going to be Middle-Eastern; therefore focusing on ensuring that Middle Eastern individuals are not terrorists is purely logical.
One note- the minimum wage should be removed. That will remove the benefit businesses get of hiring illegal immigrants, and lower the incentive to hide them. When something is priced artificially high- including levels of labor- market forces will tend to make it available at market prices, even if it is through illegal conduits.
Comment by Philip Nelson — 08.25.04 @ 12:25 pm
‘As to profiling, the term ‘racial’ is incorrect. (There are no such thing as races; for one thing, skin color and the like are insignificant physical differences as far as the genetic code is concerned.) Rather, it should be called cultural profiling.’
Ok sure, put some spin on it. Either way, its still a sacrifice of innocent peoples freedom. Racial profiling is far too clumsy for effective use.
‘One note- the minimum wage should be removed.’
So the big companies should be free to rape their workers, just for the sake of knocking illegal immigration down? I disagree.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 12:40 pm
Profiling individuals is not clumsy whatsoever. I would be more suspicious of Middle Eastern immigrants than I would be of European immigrants, which is absolutely logical. Therefore I would spend more resources on checking out their backgrounds than I would on checking out the Europeans. How is that clumsy?
Of course, age and gender are also factors as well- elderly or female Middle Easterners are not nearly so likely to be terrorists.
As to corporations, they are people- not monolithic entities. Market forces should determine the value of labor- not the government. Government should seek to prevent artificial prices- not contribute to them.
Comment by Philip Nelson — 08.25.04 @ 1:00 pm
[…]
August 25, 2004
Enforcement
LaShawn isn’t pleased with the latest news on immigration.
Posted by Ian S. in […]
Pingback by Inoperable Terran » Enforcement — 08.25.04 @ 1:24 pm
‘ would be more suspicious of Middle Eastern immigrants than I would be of European immigrants, which is absolutely logical.’
This is a prime example of bigotry. It is actually totally illogical. For one, you cant just tell whos a Middle Eastern immigrant by looks, as shown by idiots killing Indians. You also cant tell their religion, or their nationality. Maybe they were born here? Your idea is extremely illogical.
‘Market forces should determine the value of labor- not the government.’
We obviously have a fundamental difference in opinion here.
‘How is that clumsy?’
See above. Also there is the fact that Islamic Fundamentalism isnt just restricted to ‘Middle Easterns.’ Note the bombings in Bali, and terrorists suspects that have been caught. Here in the UK black Islamic terrorists have been convicted.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 1:26 pm
Omar - Islamofacist terrorist foot soldiers are young Middle Eastern men! What do you propose we do? Let’s hear it.
Comment by LB — 08.25.04 @ 1:33 pm
‘ would be more suspicious of Middle Eastern immigrants than I would be of European immigrants, which is absolutely logical.’
You will notice I did not say how location of origin was to be determined. I was referring to Middle Easterners in the absolute sense- what I said is logically unarguable. Therefore the question should simply be, what is the best way to find out whether or not a potential immigrant or visitor is Middle Eastern? It must be done before granting access- of that there is no reasonable question. And appearance is a valid source for deductive reasoning. It is quite reasonable to make a cursory background check based on appearance to verify region of origin, and then make a more in-depth security check if deemed necessary.
Middle Easterners, by the way, are the high-risk category. Other categories, as you mentioned, are risks; but they are not as high-risk. It is emminently logical to focus the most resources on the greatest risk.
Comment by Philip Nelson — 08.25.04 @ 1:38 pm
‘You will notice I did not say how location of origin was to be determined. I was referring to Middle Easterners in the absolute sense- what I said is logically unarguable.’
Its very arguable. I am of Armenian decent, and this would come under ‘Middle Eastern.’ Armenia’s official religion is Christianity. What about states like Turkey, or staunch US allies like Saudi Arabia?
‘It is quite reasonable to make a cursory background check…..’
Im not saying a background check shouldnt be carried out before granting ANYONE access. What im saying is, its unfair to penalize everyone of Middle Eastern origin. I suggest EVERYONE should be at least skimmed over.
‘It is emminently logical to focus the most resources on the greatest risk.’
Thats quite superficial. Being an Arab doesnt automatically make you a terrorist, just like not being an Arab doesnt exclude you from being one, as i pointed out. Another good example is Richard Reid, the infamous ’shoe bomber.’ Racial profiling is totally inadequate and frankly its sheer racism.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 2:04 pm
Omar- I’m waiting for an answer to my question on what your foreign policy would be: Omar - Islamofacist terrorist foot soldiers are young Middle Eastern men! What do you propose we do? Let’s hear it.
Comment by LB — 08.25.04 @ 2:06 pm
‘ would be more suspicious of Middle Eastern immigrants than I would be of European immigrants, which is absolutely logical.’
As I said, Middle Easterners are more likely to be terrorists than Europeans, even if a few Middle Eastern nations are not high-risk. That is not arguable. Therefore focusing resources on checking individuals of Middle Eastern origin is absolutely logical. Of course there will be other threats, and everyone should be checked. But Middle Easterners pose the greatest threat, and as such they should in general be checked out the most carefully.
Remember also that they do not have the rights of citizens of the US. No one has the right to come into the US- we have the right to make whatever restrictions we want.
Comment by Philip Nelson — 08.25.04 @ 2:20 pm
What? Whats that got to do with anything? What i ‘propose’ is that racial profing is racist, inaequate and a contradiction of freedom. If you think every ‘young middle eastern man’ is a terrorist, theres little i can do to change that.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 2:22 pm
Calm down. Don’t get defensive. I just want to know what racial profiling proponents would do to stem the tide of terrorist infiltration. If you have no ideas to share, fine.
Comment by LB — 08.25.04 @ 2:26 pm
‘and everyone should be checked. ‘
End of. This is what im saying. I dont think men and women should be treated any harsher just for being ‘Arab.’ (Which by the way, is an extremely wide generalisation)I have no problems with background checks, what i have a problem with is undisguised discrimination. This is unarguable.
‘Remember also that they do not have the rights of citizens of the US. No one has the right to come into the US…’
The supposedly conservative President Bush himself has different ideas to this. He encourages immigration to the US. You make it look like immigration to the US is unrestricted. This is actually not the case, there are various quotas, and checks already in place.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 2:26 pm
‘I just want to know what racial profiling proponents would do to stem the tide of terrorist infiltration.’
There have been no terrorist attacks within the US since 9/11, despite Bush increasing the risk considerably. I think the ‘tide’ of terrorist infiltration is being contained quite well considering.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 2:29 pm
By what method do you think it’s being contained if not by considering the “race”, for lack of a better word, of the men “contained?”
Comment by LB — 08.25.04 @ 2:31 pm
Checking into Middle Easterners more thoroughly is not treating them more harshly simply because they are Arab. Arabs are more likely than anyone else to be terrorists bent on attacking the US. What about that statement do you not understand?
Comment by Philip Nelson — 08.25.04 @ 2:36 pm
Again, I am nearly speechless at the racist vitriol contained in this blog. It is stunning, and so, so sad. What the ongoing civil rights movement stresses is that our country absolutely cannot sanction selective deprivations of civil liberties to certain groups while espousing “American values.”
Deleted by the admin. Sorry. Can’t insult me on my own blog. On someone else’s, that’s a different story.
If that makes me a “cultural elitist,” I guess I’ll join the ranks of other, similar cultural elites such as MLK and Gandhi.
Comment by Aisha G. — 08.25.04 @ 2:43 pm
Foreigners do not have- and should not have- the rights of citizenship.
Comment by Philip Nelson — 08.25.04 @ 2:49 pm
LOL
Omar said ‘What about states like Turkey, or staunch US allies like Saudi Arabia?’
I’ll grant you Turkey and Armenia, but Saudi Arabia, a staunch US ally? LOL
Where were most of the 9/11 terrorist from? Which country has sponsored telethons to support terrorism?
Where does much, if not most, of the money that supports wahabism (or as kerry once said, wasabism) come from?
Now, I will agree that looking at a man’s (or woman’s) skin color and nation of origin are inadequate. But it doesn’t follow that it is automatically racist, either. Same thing goes for religion. You need to look deeper than that. But in order to look deeper, you need to LOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Do I think someone of Arab descent (or similar in look) should be pulled out of every line and searched? Hell no. But the more check boxes that get filled, the more they need to be looked at.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 08.25.04 @ 2:57 pm
OK, we are all really getting wound up about this! Let me just say from a law enforcement perspective, that one of the things that trying to conduct any kind of screening for border crossing, flying, etc. in a politically correct fashion is dilution of resources. If one is going to conduct random screening on a purely random basis, you will only intercept a small percentage of potential threats.
If you are screening everybody well…you probably don’t have the manpower resources to screen EVERYBODY. What you have to do is figure out the most effective use of your time and manpower resources. If that means more intensive screening of individuals from known terrorist countries, versus everbody else then that is what you have to do. It isn’t “racial profiling” per se, it is just intelligent use of resources. Time wasted with a “native born American Grandma” is time lost for screening a “Middle-eastern male, 18 to 40 years of age” from a “known terrorist country”.
It’s not PC, and it may seem wrong to the average modern American, but it is logical. As to the borders, we have known they are a problem for many years. We have every right to seal them completely. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to let anyone in who wants to break the law to get in. It is a very dangerous situation in the present state of world affairs.
Comment by Montie — 08.25.04 @ 4:21 pm
‘but Saudi Arabia, a staunch US ally?’
They are indeed a staunch US ally. There were not named on the so called ‘axis of evil’ (Instead Cuba was put on. Give me a break) and the US has continued to have a very friendly relationship with their government. Gulf War 1 was partly about protecting Saudi Arabia. I am no fan of the Saudi government at all, but aside from Israel they are probably the number 1 US ally in the Middle East. You’d be surpised at the number of bases located there.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 6:17 pm
Omar,
I am not surprised by the number of bases we have in SA. But politics make strange bedfellows. They are still everything I said they are, despite our airfields and other facilities.
Technicly, the French are an ally as well, but one would hardly call them staunch.
Saying aside from Isreal… is rather like saying aside from my right hand, my left hand is the best hand I have.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 08.25.04 @ 6:35 pm
LB,
With regards to God’s higher purpose vs. the laws of the United States, I would think that as a Christian you would certainly have to side with the former rather than the latter if the choice had to be made.
It is the law of the land to allow abortions, yet most Christians oppose that law, sometimes vehemently.
With regard to illegal immigration, which law trumps the other when a destitute person crosses our border looking to escape raging poverty? Do we as Christians reach out to that person, or do we call the INS first thing? Do we follow the law of God or the law of the land? I hate to pull out the old WWJD, thing, but honestly, would Jesus turn in a person who crossed our borders looking to escape grinding poverty? As Christians, what are our obligations then?
If Canada continues to go the way it seems to be going and Christians find persecution increasing up there, if a Christian Canadian family knocks on your door for help, having fled across the border illegally, is your first call to the INS? Do you tell them to their faces, “Sorry, but you violated our laws by being here. You’re going to have to be deported,” and then hold them till INS agents arrive?
Like I said, I don’t have good answers, but it seems to me that you aren’t thinking through the ramifications of what you are discussing from a Christian perspective.
Comment by DLE — 08.25.04 @ 6:43 pm
‘Saying aside from Isreal… is rather like saying aside from my right hand, my left hand is the best hand I have’
Touche, but my point is they are still EXTREMELY close with the US government.
‘They are still everything I said they are’
I disagree. The US backed Saudi government has taken big steps to quell terrorism in their country. I am a steadfast opponent of Islamic fundamentalism, but i appreciate the steps taken by the Saudi government to try and stop extremists operating from their country. No doubt this effort is largely US inspired.
Comment by Omar — 08.25.04 @ 6:45 pm
I hear you DLE, but I asked for a biblical response and you gave me philosophical points, which I admit is much easier to do. I may blog about how Christians should respond sometime this week.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.25.04 @ 7:13 pm
In general I agree about controlling the borders. The fact that terrorists have been coming in this way is nothing new.
I feel very uneasy about the racial profiling because Blacks are next in line. The fact is, even ignoring the race of the 9/11 hijackers, they could have been stopped if people followed the profile.
One way tickets paid in cash. Other tickets paid by the same personal credit for unrelated persons on multiple flights.
Comment by DarkStar — 08.25.04 @ 7:42 pm
LB, I purposefully did not go into specific Bible verses because I believe that what we are talking about here are overarching ideas that take into account the whole of the Bible.
I am sure that we could get into a “well, this verse says here…but then this verse says there” kind of battle and I felt that a tough issue like this one can easily descend into a “verse war,” the pro-government folks lined up on one side and the pro-grace people lined up on the other.
If you want chapter and verse, though, I definitely can give that, but I am not sure what it will accomplish when taken against the entire counsel of God.
Comment by DLE — 08.25.04 @ 8:07 pm
DLE - If your re-read my post, you’ll notice that I referred to “ideas or concepts”, but not necessarily this verse for that one. But in discussing these things from a biblical perspective, I would expect to look at certain verses. As I said, I’ll probably delve into this topic because it’s very important. Christians must have a Christian worldview, and the best way to understand it ourselves is to show non-Christians what it looks like.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.25.04 @ 8:12 pm
Racial profiling is irrelevant. They should be checking every bag and every individual who goes on a plane. The problem is that there are white Muslims and African Muslims and Asian Muslims.
If you want to see lots of information about Arab Muslims being caught crossing the border, look at Michelle Malkin’s website. It’s very disturbing. I would also recommend checking the http://www.parapundit.com sites archives. They have lots and lots and lots of information.
Comment by lindenen — 08.25.04 @ 8:20 pm
Oh, wow. I missed all the fun for a while there. LOL
Comment by RepJ — 08.26.04 @ 12:21 am
‘The problem is that there are white Muslims and African Muslims and Asian Muslims. ‘
Exactly my point.
Comment by Omar — 08.26.04 @ 10:30 am
“I’d rather be living under government-sanctioned racial segregation than in this pitiful, politically correct, culturally decaying place.”
Go watch mississipi burning and tell me you think that letting those local terrorists be in charge is a good thing.
Comment by actus — 08.26.04 @ 10:37 am
DLE,
You completely miss the point in your observaton. An illegal immigrant is not running from their country to escape religious persecution, they are coming to this country to get a job and potentially enjoy the many benefits of being American. A Christian family running from religious persecution is a completely different dynamic. As a Christian man, I would take in an illegal who was running from Christian persecution, even if it meant breaking the law, yet I would be willing to suffer the consequences as well (jail or fine?) for the sake of Christ, but I would not aid an illegal immigrant who was running from their country on the basis of trying to secure employment. Me breaking the law to help another who is breaking the law for any reason other than the advancement of God’s Kingdom is wrong.
By the way, what is “raging poverty”?
Omar you said,
“What? Whats that got to do with anything? What i “propose” is that racial profing is racist, inaequate and a contradiction of freedom. If you think every “young middle eastern man” is a terrorist, theres little i can do to change that.”
As I stated before, racial profiling is racist, you are correct in that. How is racial profiling a contradiction of freedom? By that statement then any enforcement of the law is a contradiction of freedom if it is based on something you consider arbitrary, such as age, type of car driven, clothes worn, or language used.
What about law officials who use discriptions of the proposed assailant when solving a crime? Can or should skin color be included in that profile? What about accect? Height? Weight?
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.26.04 @ 3:01 pm
“Does not the love of God for these people render our desire for legal retribution against them null and void?”
I say no. If anything, the love of God ought to compel us to carry out justice by following the law rather than ignoring it. If there is true and real compassion for illegals then there should be a willingness to assist these people in becoming legal citizens to this country through the proper channels. By breaking the law to “help” them you compromise your own integrity and scripture. While it sounds nice that we as Christians ought to have compassion on others and demonstrate God’s love, it is disengenuous to say that by not helping or allowing illegals to stay in this country illegally we are not showing compassion. DLE, what you described sounds more like pandering to illegals due to a false guilt rather than true compassion for others. Similar to what many liberals do with the Black community.
Personally, I don’t see the struggle in obeying the law of the land vs. obeying God’s laws. It seems more or less a pusillanimous argument to imply that there is a contradiction between showing Christian compassion and obeying the laws of immigration. As I stated before, there is a huge difference in aiding a Christian family who are under persecution for being Christians and aiding an illegal alien or family who are trying to get work in this country. While the illegals seeking work is honorable their methods are dishonorable in that it breaks the law of the land. As Christians we are admonished to obey those who have authority over us and to obey the laws of the land. I would go further and state that we are to obey the laws of the land as long as they do not contradict with God’s laws.
Another key point is that there exists a LEGAL way for illegals to get into this country. It may be cumbersome, yet it is there for anyone to use. If there wasn’t an existing system in place then there would be real cause for debate.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.26.04 @ 4:50 pm
La Shawn - i’ve just had my attention drawn to the deletion you made from my comment above.
I’d like to apologise if you found it insulting and assure you that no insult was intended. I wish I could remember exactly what I’d written so I could clarify what I wrote. Friends?
Comment by Richard Hall — 08.27.04 @ 5:06 am
And I apologise even more profusely for the ugliness of that sentence.
Comment by Richard Hall — 08.27.04 @ 5:08 am
Richard - You wrote this: Sorry La Shawn, but whenever I hear or read the phrase “I’m not a racist…” I always assume that it is going to be followed by something that says the opposite.
In your next sentence, you said something about how I didn’t disappoint you, implying that I was a racist. I couldn’t allow that to remain. I definitely understand that we sometimes say things in anger, but I don’t want to give readers or other commenters the impression it’s OK to call the blog hostess a racist whether or not you believe I am. That’s a buzz word that tends to stifle the discussion, and I won’t fall for it.
I hold very few grudges, so we’re still friends.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.27.04 @ 5:28 am
Just to clarify La Shawn - I wasn’t implying that you were racist. And I wasn’t writing in anger, but coolly and (I hope) good-naturedly.
What I was saying was that this policy of racial profiling is racist. It pre-judges people on the basis of their race. That’s practically the dictionary defintion, isn’t it?
Comment by Richard Hall — 08.27.04 @ 10:45 am
Quote:
“By the way, what is ‘raging poverty’?”
Living in a massive garbage dump in Mexico City would qualify.
Jerry,
I find your argument to be nitpicking. You’ll shelter illegals for religious reasons, but you won’t shelter illegals who came here to work to keep from starving to death or to escape oppressive poverty (such as living in a garbage dump.) Didn’t the ministry of Jesus include helping to meet the material needs of people, regardless of their race or national origin or their citizen or non-citizen status within the Holy Land?
Yours seems to be a rather arbitrary application of the Gospel. If you believe such destitute people are ever going to get visas into this country, you and all the rest who support this idea are simply deluding yourselves. Honestly, what chance does a family of five who live in a garbage dump or a drug-filled ghetto have of ever getting a visa into the US? Trade places with them and ask what you yourself would do.
Again, it is a very simple issue when its just numbers, but when it becomes real people Christ died for, it is not so easy.
Comment by DLE — 08.27.04 @ 5:01 pm
“Didn’t the ministry of Jesus include helping to meet the material needs of people, regardless of their race or national origin or their citizen or non-citizen status within the Holy Land?”
Yes, and yet He never broke the laws of the land either in doing so. If you want to argue that Jesus did break the law you would be hard pressed to prove it.
Apparently you missed a point I made in my last statement in that if we are to have truthful and real compassion that stems from having the love of God in us then we ought to be able and willing to utilize the existing processes to help those people who are living in “raging poverty” to get out of it. As I stated, there exists a legal way to get foriegners into this country, whether you think it is cumbersome or unfair is beside the point. It is there and accessible to anyone. The simple fact of that truth makes any argument for breaking the law unarguable. If there were no laws in place then it wouldn’t be against the law to harbor illegals, and therefore we would not be breaking the law of the land or the laws of scripture.
DLE, if you continue on this path of reasoning it will lead you to a dangerous place spiritually. For to maintain such an argument causes one to have to compromise God’s word. Such reasoning is purely from emotions rather than from logic or scripture.
Why isn’t there an argument to compel Christians to use the existing processes to help those in other countries to come over into this country legally? Why is there only an argument to break the immigration law rather than use the law to help these people?
And lastly, what am I nitpicking about? I merely challenged your reasoning when you compared sheltering illegal Christians who are persecuted for Christ’ sake with sheltering illegal non-christians.
I contend that you cannot equate such a thing. Christian persecution is a serious matter that doesn’t compare to any other. To suffer for Christ is an honor among the Saints. You cannot possibly tell me that you equate suffering for Christ with suffering in poverty or joblessness? To do so demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the cause of our suffering to begin with, the curse of sin in this world.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.29.04 @ 12:34 pm
It appears that some of the comments from yesterday are missing, including the ones I am commenting on here, but here goes:
When I argued “philosophically” I was accused of not providing biblical evidence. I provide biblical evidence and now I’m accused of forsaking context.
The context is this: God cares for outsiders as much as He cares for you and me. He equates caring for foreigners in our land with caring for orphans and widows (note James 1:27, too.) God is telling His people to never ignore the foreigner in our land, to love them even as we love ourselves (and all that this entails.) Frankly, we Christians who are conservative don’t do a very good job of this.
Umm, do Shadrach, Meshach, Abednigo, and Daniel mean anything? They were told to obey laws that opposed the will of God, yet they refused to. God honored them for that because His laws trump manmade laws.
Or what about Moses? His case illustrates two sides of this issue. The Egyptians imposed laws that resulted in the baby Moses being set adrift in the river. As an adult, Moses ran away when faced with a murder charge and certain death. Consider the ramifications of both incidents here….
I did not say that we should ignore immigration laws, only that we Christians should consider whether they reflect the heart of God, are just, and are applied uniformly. If they are not, then we should work to change them, even as John Wesley worked to change the way the mentally ill were treated legally in England, or how the Stowe family forced the government to consider a different path concerning slavery laws, or how Martin Luther King worked to enact true Civil Rights laws.
When we simply mouth some party line without real discourse, we do a disservice to those affected by our limited thinking.
They shouldn’t. The analogy is perfectly apt. Historically, there were Christians who hid Jews from the Nazi government authorities and there were ones who turned Jews in. Same for Christians who helped slaves escape and those who turned them in. And certainly there are Christians in this country who shelter illegals and help them and there are those who seek to prosecute and deport them. In every case here, those who hid or sheltered people were breaking the civil laws.
Since those positions are totally at odds, their relative morality cannot be equal. We Christians have to consider which side we are going to take on issues like these or we work to find some middle ground that proves to be win-win. We are definitely not doing the latter. (Middle ground may not even exist in all cases, either. Unrestricted abortion comes to mind here.)
The definition of “criminal activity” is either based on the biblical moral law of God or it is not. If we vow to support the laws that are not and consider them as valid as God’s laws, we have to be very careful that it will not come back to bite us in the future.
Again, if you say that you support every law on the books in the United States, then you must assent to abortion and ensure that women are unfettered in their ability to get one. You must also support the gay marriage laws in states now enacting them.
Remember, the government attempted to prosecute abortion picketers under RICO statutes. Did you support the government’s right to do this? Now this has been overturned due to public outcry, but what other laws need this same manner of outcry? Let’s not assume that our immigration laws are carved in stone, either.
Lastly, moral absolutes are only moral and absolute if their origin is in God, the source of all absolute morality. I am not so sure that God is concerned whether it is wrong if you walk an alligator on a leash on a city street after dark, but there are laws (in Louisiana, I believe) that address such an issue. If I think it is okay for someone to walk their alligator on a leash on a city street after dark, is God displeased if I attempt to get that law changed? Probably not. But if I attempt to change laws in order to specifically violate God’s clear-cut morality, then that is another issue entirely.
We need to be very careful how we label people. Someone may call us relativists when we gore their ox, but that does not mean we truly are. I know that I am far from being a relativist, probably as far away from relativism as you consider yourself to be.
Comment by DLE — 08.29.04 @ 3:42 pm
DLE - All the comments from yesterday are still intact except for a paragraph in one of yours I considered inappropriately directed toward me. One of the reasons I want to end this topic for now is that it may end up getting personal. I’m a patient woman, but I have my limit.
I have an idea. Why don’t you resume the discussion on your own blog? You can even trackback to my post to let everyone know you’re discussing it.
Plus, all of these long comments are eating up my bandwidth! I had to upgrade yesterday.
When I said that you argued philosophically, it didn’t mean that selecting Bible verses to make your point meant that you were now arguing biblically. Context means determining who is saying what to whom, when and for what purpose, not merely plugging in an isolated verse. Here’s the difficulty when citing OT verses: Ancient Israel was a theocracy, and for his divine purposes, God laid down a certain set of laws for his people, many of them ceremonial. We have to look at the passage in light of this context.
For instance, regarding ceremonial laws, we know they were fulfilled in Christ. When unbelievers cite these in an attempt to mock us (”So I guess we should still slaughter lambs on the altar, right?) and disregard other OT laws (stoning adulterers and homosexuals, for example), we know that those laws, while still intact, were fulfilled through and in Jesus Christ and the grace he gives to sinners.
God’s laws for Israel did not pertain to surrounding foreigners or other countries. They were for his people who were set apart from the rest. This setting apart was a picture of how believers would be set apart from unbelievers when Christ came. Secular governments like ours are not prohibited from proscribing certain laws, and those laws may include provisions against or limitations on immigration, for example.
Being kind to foreigners, strangers, widows and orphans does not mean a nation cannot enforce its laws or that Christians should break those laws to “be kind” to foreigners, strangers, widows and orphans. All of these side issues are causing confusion and do not address the issue at hand!
What you provided is not evidence that Christians should ignore immigration laws or that opposing them is unbiblical. Treating people with compassion does not mean we disobey the law. Because I accused you of offering philosophical arguments, you selected Scripture. Great, but they still don’t address the issue: illegal immigration is wrong and Christians should not support it.
I am not changing my original point or argument by getting into discussions about hiding Jews from Nazis, slaves from masters or killing babies. Even Daniel in Babylon has nothing to do with Christians supporting or opposing illegal immigration in the United States.
Some care more about the downtrodden than others. Some not at all. Christians should always care, but that care doesn’t entail breaking the law. Citing OT verses concerning God’s explicit instructions to the nation of Israel have nothing to do, believe it or not, with the way the US should govern its people.
Whether or not our nation’s immigration laws “reflect the heart of God”, Christians should not disobey the laws and hide illegal aliens or fail to report them if need be. Again, this is why the discussion gets off-topic.
DLE, if you want to argue that supporting immigration laws is somehow unbiblical or should cause Christians to determine whether they “reflect the heart of God”, fine. I can deal with that. Personally, I see the damage the illegal influx has caused our country, and I consider it immoral to ignore or fail to consider that. Remember, we have Christians right here in America who are being financially affected by illegal immigration. How should we regard them? Where is compassion for those brothers and sisters in Christ?
I’ll let Sherry’s comment conclude my own:
I don’t believe La Shawn has ever stated we should not allow immigrants into our country. What I have taken from her post is that she is asking why should they not have to follow the same laws as we do - Enter the country legally, become a citizen and share in the privileges of American society - no problem.
I don’t remember ever being taught or studying anything from the Bible that exempts us as Christians from the laws of man. In fact when we are first introduced to Jesus it is after Mary and Joseph are traveling in order to obey the law and register for taxation.
I hardly see where La Shawn taking a firm stand on enforcing immigration laws shows a lack of compassion towards the poor or a misunderstanding of her Christian duties.
I’m tired of all the back and forth, and I want to end this discussion for now, at least on my blog.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.29.04 @ 4:50 pm
Bush Renews “Guest Worker” Plans
The man who could have had a landslide re-election victory if he had just paid a little attention to immigration is again pushing for a “guest worker” agreement. What photos of Bush in compromising situations does President Vicente Fox…
Trackback by Boot to the Skull — 11.22.04 @ 12:12 pm