Discussing
Why Christians should speak with one voice on immigration

Julia K. Stronks

Bob S.
June 18, 2012

I support the spirit of what President Obama is pushing for here. I'm not sure I agree with how it's being done, but I agree with the policy in general.

However, should the Christian church unite on politics when we so often struggle with unifying on doctrine? Which is more important - doctrine or politics for the church? I'd say we need to work on the things that the church is absolutely responsible for and then move on from there.

Adam Langley
June 19, 2012

You are right to suggest Christians should love, care for, look after the welfare of the immigrant. All Christians should agree to that, and live lives of self-sacrificial love that demonstrate that.

However, I think perhaps the only place there really is "such a thing as secular" is the locus of government. Any attempt to suggest there is a "Christian" way to legislate is missing the point of cross-born King who explicitly defined his Kingdom was "not of this world."

As such, I appreciate what these folks are doing:

http://www.dontletthemhijackjesus.com/2012/06/13/a-word-from-greg-boyd/

If you're interested in where I'm getting this perspective, below are links to Greg Boyd's sermon series called "The Cross and the Sword." It completely changed my perspective on the relationship between Christianity and government. The series, in order, is as follows:

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/taking-america-back-for-god
http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/the-difference-between-the-two-kingdoms
http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/abortion-a-kingdom-of-god-approach
http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/is-the-church-the-guardian-of-social-morality
http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/in-but-not-of-the-world

Coachbeckner
June 19, 2012

I agree with both Bob and Adam on this, but I believe that you left out one of the reasons for critical abrasive reaction to his gesture... Guaranteed votes for the upcoming election. All of those "citizens" would immediately return the favor for the stay of grace once in the voting booth. The timing is far too sinister for this to have just been pertinent now.

Also, the Mexican yield in American entrance is because they can find just as much work there as here, on top of the fact that they can stay with their families. You're correct when you say that their continued immigration won't be an issue... After Jesse Jackson, Jr. lobbies hard enough to raise the minimum wage, even our lowest income revenue sources will be overburdened. They will lack the resources themselves to provide the number of jobs that they once did, since they will have to pay more to man their businesses.
There has always been a correct way to enter the country. This way just creates more voters with incentive to show the current executive their appreciation.

Coryzipperle
June 19, 2012

Immigration is a tough issue. On one hand you have the parents who are living their lives with little integrity. On the other hand you have the children who don't have a say in what their parents do - for the most part.

But the truth is, once you become 18, you're no longer a child. You need to take responsibility for yourself and bring some integrity to your life. This is Christianity. So if you're not living here legally - you need to fix that by taking the steps to legalize your residency or go back where you came from.

In the end Obama's thinking here only promotes more crime.

James Gilmore
June 19, 2012

"All of those 'citizens' would immediately return the favor for the stay of grace once in the voting booth. The timing is far too sinister for this to have just been pertinent now."

That's just plain false. The people affected by this order are *not* citizens; if they were, then this order wouldn't be necessary, since American citizens weren't subject to deportation before this executive order was given. Furthermore, the executive order is explicit in *not* giving a path to citizenship to those it affects—so they *can't* vote in the upcoming election.

"They will lack the resources themselves to provide the number of jobs that they once did, since they will have to pay more to man their businesses."

Only if you believe business's lies. American business last year, in the midst of some of the worst times in recent memory for real working Americans, made record profits for its shareholders.

Our system is set up in such a way that shareholders are considered the only people with a stake in a business; decisions are made based on shareholder value alone. The ways in which a business's decisions will impact the workers, community, or nation, or the planet we all share, aren't considered.

What would it look like if public corporations, in order to get charters, had to have significant representation from the business's workforce, from local communities, and from the American people on their Boards of Directors? What would it look like if *everyone* who was affected by a business's decisions had a say in those decisions, rather than just those representing one interest group?

Why is it that the decisions made by the most powerful interests in this country of, for, and by the people, are the decisions the people have the least say in?

Bob S.
June 20, 2012

"But the truth is, once you become 18, you're no longer a child. You need to take responsibility for yourself and bring some integrity to your life. This is Christianity."

That's Christianity? I must have missed that in my Bible. Was that in between Christ crucified for our sins and raised on the third day according to the scriptures?

Makemenfree
June 23, 2012

If you are truly interested in decreasing unemployment, you would be advocating doing anything that would make it cheaper to hire workers. Like eliminating the minimum wage. Like eliminating any law that makes it riskier or more expensive to hire workers. That would solve unemployment.

James Gilmore
June 25, 2012

"Make it cheaper to hire workers" means "give employers license to pay their workers less, give them fewer benefits, or make them less safe in the workplace"—putting workers in a race to the bottom and increasing the already-record profits of the "owners" even more.

How about instead, we make it more expensive *not* to hire American workers, by implementing tariffs for any country with minimum wage and workplace safety standards that are lower than US standards, and eliminating any tax breaks for offshoring?

Further, if *you* are truly interested in decreasing unemployment, you'll support shoring up the single largest contributor to the current unemployment rate—the massive loss of public-sector jobs like teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Not only will that help our economy, it'll help our society.

Add your comment to join the discussion!