Undocumented immigrants

I am all for sharing the gospel with them, but breaking the law is breaking the law. Just because a death row inmate accepts Christ does not change the fact of what he did and what his punishment will be here on earth. The magistrate has the sword for a reason and all.

Any that accept the Lord should do just as cohabiting couples that accept the Lord which is to turn from their sin (illegal entry into this country) until the time they can make it right (returning to their homeland until they can come legally). If they have accepted the Lord then they should have the church and its members who were reaching out as sponsors.

Christians have to obey the laws of the land unless they are against the word of the Lord. Enforcing the borders and laws of immigration do not fit into that category.

 

The details of the statistical analysis in such an experiment would be cost prohibitive to define; and almost not possible to implement. That these people are in the camp is a fact. Would this experiment include the folks from the Middle East who are also in the camp--remember 9-11?

Stop the drug traffic. The peripheral problems will diminish.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Oh please.

 

Hate to say it, J - but you did twist Free's words. He/she didn't say anything about not sharing the gospel; in fact, I'm pretty sure just the opposite. He/she also didn't say anything about not having compassion on them.

But I have to ask: If you came across a starving man, who turned out to be guilty of not paying child support (comparing civil offense with civil offense; in this case, a man who was so far behind in payments that the courts had ordered his incarceration), what kind of compassion would you have?

 

I agree he clearly twisted their words.

 

I am all for border enforcement as well. But I am also for quick, easy and lightly restrictive (ie. no quotas) immigration.

As to "pushover" position, history and logic show that as long as there are strong incentives to gain something of high value, then increased regulation and enforcement does little over the long run to mitigate the problem with those who take the illegal route. But make the route to gaining the thing people desire easily attainable by legal means and people will invariably choose the legal means. So, as long as coming to the US is seen as highly desirable, and as long as it is highly restricted by law, then attempts at stronger enforcement will quickly become cost prohibitive and ultimately doomed to failure. So, the "pushover" position is simply the realistic solution - a solution that actually has a chance of doing away with the illegal immigration problem.

Now, on the other hand, if one simply doesn't want easy and classless immigration, then certainly my proposal isn't going to fly. But for those who "have no problem with immigration" its by far the practicable solution. If you don't want a flood of illegal immigrants, then simply make the laws so that they can easily immigrate legally. But if you don't want a flood of immigrants, then good luck with the strong enforcement thing. At best it will mitigate the problem but it can't solve it, not without the cost FAR outweighing the possible benefits.

 

Enforce the laws on the boos then their is no doom or failure. the failure is to follow the laws on the books. Let's not pretend that they are being enforced. Our chief law enforcement officer picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce.

 

And one question I am very interested in hearing those who are vehemently against illegal immigration:
What about illegal emigration? What of those who leave their countries illegally (ie. Cuba, those who escaped the Iron Curtain, etc.) but were able to enter the US legally? Would you react to them in the same way you would illegal immigrants? Why or why not?

 

Tango Mike Mike

You know.... Im getting tired of hearing some disparaging things.

Link: http://biggeekdad.com/2010/01/tango-mike-mike/ (sent via Shareaholic-Publishers) ---- Tango Mike Mike is the story of Green Beret Roy P. Benavidez and his heroic action in Vietnam that earned him the Medal of Honor. Roy suffered numerous injuries in saving the lives of eight fellow soldiers.

 

Are we talking?

 

He's right, what does your video have to do with this thread?

 

I'm really not understanding your question.

Most people are against those who enter this country illegally; by your own statement, you're talking about people who enter this country legally. What does illegal entry into this country have to do with illegally leaving another country?

 

But as someone else pointed out "breaking the law is breaking the law". It may not have been our law they broke but they still broke a law and therefore are just as much "criminals" as those who illegally immigrated.
Why vehemently condemn lawbreaking in one case but excuse it in another?

 

They are still criminals though...which is the main point raised by several here - the fact of their criminality. Why would it matter what jurisdiction they are criminals in? For instance, if they were rapists/thieves/murderers/etc. in Mexico, wouldn't you still consider them rapists even though they have broken no US law? After all, breaking the law is breaking the law and criminals are criminals.

I am not talking about how the US should deal with them, but how is many people's reaction here consistent or reasonable given that most would probably excuse illegal emigration (if not find it outright commendable). Why condemn one type of criminal but not another simply due to the question of jurisdiction?