Bizarre comparison here, I think. After all, if the Church is doing it, and no one is preventing them from doing it, then they de facto have the power to do it.
Alternately phrased, the Church has the power but not the authority to offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and the government has both the power and the authority to search the churches and deport any illegals.
I just hate to see perfectly good debates hang up on terminology nitpickery.
Yes, and that’s why I explained further how the situations are not the same, despite the fact that non-citizens are involved in both cases.
I agree. That’s why I didn’t make that argument.
I do not, however, believe that the rights of illegal aliens include (or should include) the right to vote, or the right to sneak across the border without any registration process or record of identification, to set up residence, and to expect to be granted legal resident status by default, simply because they manage to elude capture for an extended period of time or because they bear children here.
Weren’t slaves citizens?
So you’re saying that none of the “illegal immigrants” currently troubling the US come from war-torn places where innocents are slaughtered?
None? Are you sure?
If someone could demonstrate that there are some people fleeing conditions that are precisely analogous to war-torn El Salvador, who often end up as “illegal immigrants” in the US, would you change your position? (I just want to know if it’s worth digging up cites …)
If not, why not?
Not according to Dred Scott. The 14th Amendment fixed that.
So what? The US also has more legal protections for women and minorities than other countries. This does not mean that there’s no reason not to strengthen or extend those protections further. Our immigration policies, likewise, are much looser than many other nations. This does not mean that they do not need to be loosened further.
Which is disproportionate to the exceedingly minor crime of violating our byzantine and illogical immigration laws. Someone who comes here wanting to work, contribute to society, and make a better life for their family doesn’t deserve to be deported, no matter what means they used to get here. Yes, we do need immigration laws to keep out legitimate criminals, smugglers, terrorists, and so forth. Those people deserve to be deported, at the very least. People coming here with no intention to harm, deserve better. Until the law can be changed to differentiate between these two groups of people, the law does not deserve recognition.
This is obviously untrue, but I think we can agree that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants to the U.S. do not fall into this category— and while it is likely flawed and also in need of some reform, there is a system in place for immigrants from war-torn countries to apply for political asylum legally, based on refugee status.
I was responding specifically to the post where you said:
It certainly sounds to me that you were arguing that the struggles for black civil rights and women’s suffrage were different because they involved the civil rights of citizens. My point is that civil rights are not just for citizens, they are for all people under U.S. jurisdiction. So saying “well this is different because they’re not citizens” really doesn’t fly.
This description is frequently applied to our tax code as well. Do you support “tax protestors” who refuse to file or pay anything, simply because of the complexity of the law?
Yes, and if you would like me to continue agreeing with you on that point, you may continue to repeat it. The real issue seems to be that we have different notions of what “civil rights” mean for illegal immigrants. I do not believe that every anonymous Joe (or Jose) who strolls across the border into this country should automatically be handed a souvenir American flag and U.S. passport and granted all full legal rights that are afforded to citizens, as a reward for entering illegally. If you think they should, we have a fundamental disagreement.
If human beings are above the law, then why do we even bother with them? Of course law is made for man - that’s how these immigration laws came into place. If there are problems, then “man should fix the law.”
Absolutely. Man doesn’t have to conform to unethical laws. But as long as they are laws, non-conformance will have legal ramifications.
This last statement seems to suggest that you don’t agree with immigration laws at all. Is that true? 
As VT has already pointed out: no one is saying that there aren’t some illegal immigrants who fall into that category. The majority, though, do not.
And again, as VT has already mentioned, there are already provisions in place to accommodate scenarios like this.
We’re not saying that we don’t want immigrants over here - we just want them to do so legally. If there are problems with the process (and I acknowledge that there are many), then we need to fix them. We can’t let it be a free-for-all until then, though.
LilShieste
I would just like to throw out that its really really easy for someone born in a free, prosperous country, just out of dumb luck, to sit and tell someone born in a third world shithole to sit and wait and try and enter the country legally.
For a moment, put yourself in the illegal aliens shoes, and think of how you would feel. All most of these people want is to be able to have some semblance of the normal free life that most people here have. They are willing to toil 15 hours a day, seven days a week at manual labor and live 10 men in a house with few women to do so. Are some of them going to break the law- of course.
Like Elvis said “before you accuse, criticize and abuse, walk a mile in my shoes”.
So for once, I say a church is doing something right.
As absolute as any other law at the time that the law is valid. If the law is unjust, then there are remedies for it, but the church, at least to my thinking, ought not be involved in the commission of a crime in a society such as ours when they are provided such protection.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but Thomas Jefferson captured my feelings on this matter perfectly: “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
(Emphasis mine.)
Someone who comes here wanting to work, contribute to society, and make a better life for their family also doesn’t deserve to be exploited by American employers, who figure they can just pay these immigrants cents on the dollar for their labor. Immigrants who come the U.S. legally are granted protections against things like this.
I don’t think immigration laws should just be in place as a method of screening immigrants. I think they carry additional responsibilities as well, like controlling the amount of immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship each year.
They absolutely deserve better. Coming here legally helps them with that.
So instead of letting in some of the drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., let’s go ahead and open up our borders completely, until we figure this out. This sounds like a grave mistake, to me.
LilShieste
No, that’s not what I’m saying. We offer political asylum in those cases, and there are agencies who work to make that immigration legal. Someone running from massacre in Darfur, where we know “death squads” still exist should be fast-tracked, should they wish to become an american citizen.
Someone slipping over the border from Michoacan to work with his friends or family isn’t being persecuted. He has a life, he wants a better one, which no one in their right mind can blame him for, and I have no problem with, as long as it is done legally
Yes, it IS easy, you’re right, but history provides us with the best lessons, lessons that some would ignore to the complete detriment of our society.
We could bring 300 million people here from all over the third world, and the quality of life would go from a free prosperous country, to the NEXT third world shithole. Like it or not, we cannot continue to absorb the overflow of the world’s population explosion. There MUST be checks in place, and until we get the whole thing sorted out, the church, IMO, has come down on the wrong side of the line.
Yes, they are protected. So should illegals. But because of our stupid immigration laws, they are not. I thought you were on the OP’s side in this debate? This seems to be a better argument for the opposition.
If they could come here legally, don’t you think they would do that?
And it really pisses me off to hear an asshole sellout like Governor Ah-nold talk about how aliens should enter the country legally, like he did. Asshole, you were allowed in beacause of your status as a bodybuilder, IIRC. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be an athlete or entertainer. Why is it that the country allows famous people here so easily, but if you’re a regular Joe, wait a decade, we’re working on it.
LilShieste, so you’re saying an illegal who makes ten cents an hour back home, but two dollars an hour here or whatever, should wait back home earning the ten cents until they can come legally and make the legal minimum wage?
I have imagined myself in their shoes. I can’t imagine trying to come to a country, though, and not respecting it’s immigration laws.
Your post reminds me of a TV show I saw somewhat recently (it might have even been something like Trading Spouses :eek: ). Basically, a U.S. citizen switched spots with an illegal immigrant for about a week. The U.S. citizen was a staunch supporter of immigration laws.
By the end of the episode, I had a lot of sympathy for the illegal immigrants. It’s indisputable that a lot of them have an extreme passion to become citizens of this country. This did not change my views on their being here illegally, though. I couldn’t help thinking, “Man, if they were legal immigrants they would be getting paid a lot more, and working a lot less. They would be able to afford better things for their family, and spend more time with their family. I really wish they were here legally.”
How is this a commission of aggression on the equal rights of the illegal immigrants? Our laws allow immigrants to come to our country legally. We’re giving them the opportunity to do so. They choose not to, for whatever reason.
Would it be an act of aggression on the equal rights of an illegal immigrant, if they were arrested and deported for murdering someone? We’re talking about punishment for a crime, not the oppression of a race or something.
LilShieste