« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Evangelicals and Immigration Reform

As The New York Times and Big Government reported earlier, the leaders of several evangelical groups have recently called for bipartisan immigration reform.  The call for reform is part of a larger effort known as the Evangelical Immigration Table, which has issued the “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform.”

 

The heart of the statement reads as follows:

Our national immigration laws have created a moral, economic and political crisis in America. Initiatives to remedy this crisis have led to polarization and name calling in which opponents have misrepresented each other’s positions as open borders and amnesty versus deportations of millions. This false choice has led to an unacceptable political stalemate at the federal level at a tragic human cost.

As evangelical Christian leaders, we call for a bipartisan solution on immigration that:

  • Respects the God-given dignity of every person
  • Protects the unity of the immediate family
  • Respects the rule of law
  • Guarantees secure national borders
  • Ensures fairness to taxpayers
  • Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents

We urge our nation’s leaders to work together with the American people to pass immigration reform that embodies these key principles and that will make our nation proud.

 

The statement is an attempt by some evangelical leaders to find a practical solution to a broken* immigration system that causes problems for members of their congregation and the communities they serve.  While the intent may be admirable, I believe the effort is misguided and wrong.  I also believe it is a leftist trap designed to advance the re-election of President Obama.

First, the Evangelical Immigration Table is a coalition of groups from both the left and the right.  To bring the two sides together, the “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform” had to be kept intentionally vague to the point of becoming almost meaningless.  Many of the points are contradictory and the interpretation of those points will almost certainly cause future division.

Second, the coalition of “evangelicals” is not really a coalition of  ”evangelicals” in the traditional sense of the word.  The term “evangelical” first appeared during the Protestant Reformation and referred to those individuals who held Scripture to be the final authority on truth.  The evangelical coalition behind the Evangelical Immigration Table contains groups like Sojourners led by Jim Wallis.  Wallis, for those unfamiliar with his record, is a leftist who subordinates Scripture to his own leftist ideology.

Third, the presence of Wallis and other leftist groups in the coalition leads me to suspect that the group will be used as a stalking horse for President Obama in an effort to undermine the Romney campaign.  Wallis has served as an Obama stooge for years and provides him with religious cover when needed.  It is not a coincidence that he serves in a leadership position in the Evangelical Immigration Table.  Furthermore, the fact that the Evangelical Immigration Table plans to run ads calling for immigration reform in key political swing states like Florida is a huge indicator as to its real intent.

Many solid conservatives have signed on to the “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform.”  I do not believe that these conservatives – many of them with years of experience battling for conservative causes – have suddenly become big government statists.  Many continue to be critics of the Obama administration.  Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission, recently lost his national radio program for condemning Obama as a race hustler for his actions in the Trayvon Martin case.  Others have sacrificed just as much.

Many of these signatories have simply been duped into a political issue that the Obama administration will use to further his re-election.  These evangelical leaders do not speak for all social conservatives.  They certainly do not speak for me.  I urge everyone involved in or connected to these evangelical organization to contact their leadership and express their displeasure with their decision to sign onto such an obvious political ploy.

Hat Tip to mbecker908 for raising the issue on Wednesday.

*I use the term broken in a general sense.  The system may very well be broken because the President refuses to do his duty and uphold current law.

COMMENTS

  • acat

    The first two agenda items – respecting dignity and preserving families – are contradicted by what follows.

    My expectation is that those first two are the real goal, everything else is tacked on to obtain support.

    Mew

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      I think the table is indicative of what a litter box full of steaming poo, immigration reform is for the Republican Party in general and conservatives in particular. I don’t think anyone would say Erick Erickson is a RINO but he has said before that he is pretty close to Jeb Bush on immigration. Dr. Land was in my mind courageous in calling the left out for the baiting that went on in the Trayvon Martin case at some personal cost. I am rambling so I’ll come to the point. You ask a member of Barack Obama’s base over at DKos on immigration 99.9% would say “amnesty for all”. You ask the Republican base some would say “amnesty but strong borders”, others would say “deport as we find them”, others would say “search them out and deport”, others “we have to protect the sanctity of the family”. It will be difficult to find a bridge between all of the different factions. It is more nuanced for Republicans than Democrats (and note I am not in the “amnesty for all, all the time camp”). My take on immigration reform this cycle, is let’s run the Dems out of office so that the Canadians won’t have immigration issues with Americans rushing the border to get jobs in Canadian oil fields.

    • kipling

      It would be interesting to see how the whole document evolved. Who started it? Who added what and why? What was a condition of some group coming on board?

      • acat
        • kipling

          An important question is: who/how are they funding the ad buys?

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          that on the religious freedom issue which I wrote about, those boots on the ground groups I mentioned are solidly united with the local church leadership. Our tea party and the women’s group both advertised and supported the rally.

          Honestly, I’m not sure how much overlap there was in the church leadership leading the charge against the immigration bill and those leading the charge against the mandate. I really suspect that at least some of the group against immigration was manufactured from outside the state sources which may have contributed to the legislators listening to the locals.

          Bottom line is you should know who’s who – friends and enemies.

        • westcoastpatriette

          but think of it like the most phony, incredulous person who labels himself “libertarian”…the same thing happens in the church. Anyone can call themselves anything and it is one of the oldest ways to discredit the real…infiltrate and undermine from within.

          That is why I wish mbecker and others would be more careful about using such a broad brush when trying to assess the role some of these false “Christians” are playing. becker accuses the real of being responsible for the infiltrators but by doing that, he is feeding right into the enemies’ hands. Know what I mean?

          • acat

            where I agreed with Bill S. that Becker’s word choice was .. at best hyperbolic.

            That said, the word choice should not have resulted, in my opinion, in a blanket dismissal of the issue. Clearly, what I cited from RWM52 above indicates that there *is* a problem here.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            although the comment you referenced was on yesterday’s diary, not this one. But I did read what you wrote and I get what you are saying.

            Becker has some good points, but he comes to wrong conclusions and makes broadbrush accusations from those conclusions and that is what I object to. I am looking for ways to keep the faithful united and don’t like making hasty judgments based upon questionable information…not to mention nefarious motives of some of those involved in this so-called evangelical group.

          • acat

            evangelicals have to to close ranks around “evangelicals” *before* checking whether y’all are actually in agreement with them.

            Yes, Becker uses an overly broad brush, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an issue here…. one that’s come up repeatedly.

            Look, I’m not bashing evangelicals. I’m just saying that the reflex action, to automatically assume “evangelical == good” is .. wrong-headed. Heck, it’s even specifically mentioned in your holy book – “by their fruits shall ye know them”!

            All I want is to see, as RWM52 did, some “fruit-checking” (or “fact-checking”) before the defense jumps in.

            Mew

          • kipling

            mbecker took the wrong direction with his diary. Instead of seeking to inform, he condemned all social conservatives. It is hard to ally with someone who continually denounces you as not conservative and then whines about a lack of unity.

            I understand why Bill dismissed it.

          • acat

            Sen. Santorum’s anti-libertarian screed during his recent run.

            Mew

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            is people equate evangelical = values voter (in the same way they equate libertarian = Paulbot). I am an evangelical. I do believe that my life’s purpose is to spread the gospel. I am not however a values voter because I don’t want the government in churches, morality, etc because I am still spooked by those 9 terrifying words. I didn’t support Senator Santorum because he advocated too much interference by the government in the lives of the citizens, just as you didn’t support Representative Paul because well he is not a libertarian.

          • kipling

            in which I took some social conservatives to task for not also bring fiscal, limited government conservatives.

          • acat

            I don’t read your every comment, so apparently missed your calling out of some non-fiscal-conservative so-called-social-conservatives…..

            Mew

          • kipling

            You may also note that in this diary I called out several “evangelicals” for having sold out to the left.

          • acat

            “fiscal-conservatives-social-conservatives-and-the-contraception-issue-a-call-to-unity then … it seems to be – by volume – much more about calling out fiscal conservatives for incorrectly characterizing the right of religious objection as a “distraction”.

            You did use economic arguments, but .. the point of the diary seems to be to bring the fiscal conservatives around to your point of view.

            I also did not see any social conservatives called out by name, although I did like this quote:

            Most Christian organization

          • westcoastpatriette

            My first post on becker’s diary I even called out by name a couple of the people involved that I have heard speak and was not impressed with at all.

            So, becker undermines his own progress by lumping the innocent in with the guilty — almost blaming us for the bad conduct.

            Not a good way to rally the troops.

          • acat

            I’ve pointed out that Becker’s word choice was .. hyperbolic.

            That choice, however, does not invalidate the argument. You did name names, and I give you credit for that.

            Mew

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            The people who are supporting this steaming pile of crap are NOT conservatives by any measure. And THAT is my point. These people are NOT our friends.

            You and any number of other people keep getting all wound up in your underwear about “condemning social conservatives” – Bill S for instance – without bothering to look at the crap these people are fomenting. Please feel free to throw Rick Santorum into that group.

            The people who make the most noise about so-called social conservatism and claim the mantle and who are perceived to be “leaders” in the movement because nobody calls them on their crap are nothing but, as Erick pointed out in reference to Santorum, big government pro-lifers.

            You – as a group – don’t want to face the reality that these idiots are in fact considered the face of “social conservatism” by the unwashed masses and again, the reason they’re considered that is because nobody call them out.

            Bill, etal dismiss that because you’re in total denial.

          • acat

            to ignore by using a sledgehammer where a framing hammer would have been more appropriate.

            We are in agreement that there are charlatans. We are in agreement that the charlatans are not denounced in ways that make the distinctions clear to the unwashed. (I cite myself as evidence)

            That said, a tad more precision would have greatly strengthened your argument .. and made it one that Bill S. et al could not have simply dismissed.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            but you do not speak for me, either — nor have you earned the right in my eyes to criticize and condemn other Christians in the manner that you do.

            You act more like the accuser of the brethren — (whom, in case you didn’t know, is Satan himself) and you are just as destructive with your words and attitudes as any of those whom you are accusing.

            And you claim to be a Christian. You should be ashamed.

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            More denial.

            You just want to ignore the issue because you don’t like the message or the messenger. About the latter, I could care less. About the former, well, as I noted feel free to enjoy floating down denial.

            There will be no day I’m ashamed of calling out people who are pretending to be what they’re clearly not, and this group – while I would make no claim of their Christianity one way or another – are not the “conservatives” they’re claiming to be.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I suggest you resign from your self-appointment to Mr. Know-It-All about conservatives in politics. You give us all a bad name.

          • acat

            Becker’s right.

            Not everyone who claims to be an “evangelical conservative” is.

            kipling made the point above that it’s important to call out the fakirs and charlatans.

            You may not like Becker’s word choice, but .. you do appear to agree with him in principle.

            Mew

  • likeaglove

    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-great-immigration-reform-mirage/

    I can’t believe that it made it to the NYT. They are ridiculously pro-amnesty.

    People like Jeb Bush argue that changing demographics are hurting the GOP. No. Lack of enforcement is hurting the GOP — and amnesty will spell the death of the GOP. You can’t out-amnesty the Dems. We have a VERY generous LEGAL immigration system. We need the 26 years of enforcement that has been missing since the promises of the 1986 amnesty.

  • mikeymike143

    naturally you can find a few evangelicals who will sign off on anything. but most tea partiers are social conservatives. and the tea party is more anti illegal immigation/anti amnesty that any other voting group.

    • gekster

      They feel they had to jump through hoops,
      why the free path for others.

      • lineholder

        The legal immigrants I’ve talked about this topic also see it as a commitment issue…they had to make a commitment to this country when they became legal citizens…illegal immigrants who come in through the back door aren’t being expected to do the same.

  • lastgopinillinois

    might want to join NumbersUSA.
    Thats how I found out about the evangelical immigration table.
    They currently have petitions up for members to sign which are sent to their congressmen. And for those who believe petitions are worthless, send a donation.
    NumbersUSA is a lobby involved in immigration law (and the indifference to it), but they are on OUR side. Its about time we had a voice (since our elected representatives really DON’T represent us).

    When you live in illinois, the only way to fight back is with MONEY to a lobby to represent our interests.
    Please check out NumbersUSA on the web.

  • Pingback: continue

  • Pingback: Brady Twyman

  • Pingback: Brady Twyman

  • Pingback: Nilda Zeman

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: home distillers for sale

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: προσφορές εργασιών για το σπίτι

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: distilling recipes

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: Virus

  • Pingback: Sneak A Peek At These Guys

  • Pingback: Try This Out

  • Pingback: Try These Guys Out

  • Pingback: Navigate To These Guys

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactives

  • Pingback: good investment opportunities

  • Pingback: madam lux

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: work from home uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Randolph Lechman

  • Pingback: Wilmer Ammirati

  • Pingback: Beverlee Anidi

  • Pingback: Flooring Installers

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org/

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Elvis Robbin

  • Pingback: Heide Lenoue

  • Pingback: Barrie Gilford

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: Shellie Spitler

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Mack Paugh

  • Pingback: Mack Paugh

  • Pingback: coffee green extract

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: distilling brandy

  • Pingback: call center in CA

  • Pingback: cell number reverse lookup

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: uniform supplier in penang

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: top payday loans lenders

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: natural spray tan

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    That’s just a serving of KoolAid.

    They might have once held some conservative principles, but they’ve “grown” or “matured” since they’ve been in the national spotlight. Anybody who’s signed that [insert non-family friendly word here] document has sold their soul to the “no-borders” or “open-borders” crowd because that’s exactly where it leads.

    Land and the signatories are pathetic sell outs, all talk, no convictions.