12:07AM
Evangelicals join Obama on immigration
Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 12:07AM 
NYT front-pager on Obama winning help from the evangelical community on the issue of immigration reform.
God bless ’em.
The founder of Liberty Counsel, Mathew D. Staver:
I am a Christian and I am a conservative and I am a Republican, in that order. There is very little I agree with regarding President Barack Obama. On the other hand, I’, not going to let politicized rhetoric or party affiliation trump my values, and if he’s right on this issue, I will support him on this issue.
Why the support?
As another evangelical pastor put it:
Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial. They are hard-wired social conservatives, unless they’re driven away.
Hispanics are estimated to be 70% Catholic and 15% evangelical.
Reader Comments (5)
One thing is for sure in the years ahead: labor and immigration cannot coexist under the same political banner. These are fundamentally opposed forces, and labor is only going to get louder as immigration eats into its job market. In other words, the Democrats can't maintain the support of both opposing divisions. How that plays how may very well change the face of US partisan politics as we know it.
Immigration is double edged. What to with the undocumented? What should the future immigration policy be?
Applying the rule of civilization, one has to look first at the Golden Rule. The undocumented are men women and children and should be respected as if they were one’s own. Applying the US Construction the children of the undocumented that are born here are full citizens and their rights must be respected the same as all citizens. The immediate and pragmatic approach was suggested by Bush 43 and echoed by Obama. Document the undocumented and give them a path to citizenship.
Future immigration has to rational and pragmatic. We need to follow Singapore and let people in who want to work. One has to realize that increases in immigration are directly correlated to economic progress. This is due somewhat from a mere increase in the country’s head account but also to the fact immigrants tend to have that burning ambition to better themselves and their families.
We need to follow Obama’s lead here and leave the silly nativism to various primitives who yell first and think next, maybe.
There is a strong correlation between nativism and the size of a nation's welfare system, or any system where some services are socialized (not paid directly, but from a large "pot"). If you can get these people to pay their way completely, a lot of the perceived nativism and racism will go away.
I would like a delayed system where illegals can get a temporary residence card with the opportunity to become citizens 10-15 years later. If they had to pay social security and medicare taxes, they should receive the proportional benefits. For expediency, the children should be able to go to school. I would even charge them extra fees. But these immigrants should get no voting rights for about 10-15 years. Mexican nationalism is strong enough to cause problems, even though they may not make a majority of latin people in the future.
And yet these religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial, hard-wired social conservatives consistently vote for liberal progressive politicians. And a disproportionate number are on welfare as compared to the total population. And don't pay taxes. And are members of violent criminal gangs.
Pray tell, where, exactly, in which Christian denomination's version of the Bible, are Christians told to break the law? Or to encourage others to break the law? Which part of the "illegal" in "illegal immigration" do these sanctimonious numbskull twits not understand? The thousands of immigrants who have or are waiting to become citizens LEGALLY seem to have no trouble understanding, but apparently the typical American progressive bleeding heart can't grasp the dandelion-fuzzing concept of the difference between "legal" and "illegal" and why THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
The only reason that Federal law specified that children born in the U.S. to non-citizens themselves are natural-born citizens was to ensure that the children of freed slaves would not be sent back to Africa by disgruntled former slave-owners. Golly, but do ya think that might not be an issue we need to be worried about anymore?
Since the facts don't bear out your stupid "Christian conservative" theory, are you going to face up to reality or keep feeding the lions like a good little sheep?
I have zero respect for so-called "Christian conservatives" who continue to support this administration in the insane belief that they are on your side or share your values. When you insist on going back to the rapist time and again, intelligent people have to conclude that you actually like it. Try not to run out of personal lubricant.
You have to get a handle on the concept of conflict of laws. The highest law in this country is the Constitution, which is clear and unambiguous as to children born here are equal rights citizens. If you wan to change this, there is a method which requires the approval of a 2/3 approval in Congress and eventually ¾ of all the States. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
Perhaps there is an even higher law is that stated in the New Testament. Apply the Golden Rule to immigrants and see where that brings you.
The existing law on immigration, which you see mistakenly as the highest law of the land, can be changed by a majority in Congress and the President. This law does need to be fixed and the prior post by Peterr might be a good start. The chances of changes made along the lines which you suggest are slim and none until 2012, at least.
I might add that irrational nativism usually results in the death of many innocents and as such is not a good idea.