Mennonite Weekly Review

Comments

• Certainly the civic leaders who understand the financial stakes want the Assembly to come as scheduled, and will put their best foot forward. But decisions must have consequences. The people of Arizona as a whole do not welcome Hispanics; they draw from the basest instincts to demonize and scapegoat them. Part of our body is unwelcome in Arizona, and since that is the case, it would be to deny our own unity as a church to meet there. If a Mennonite convention cannot say "no" to xenophobia and bigotry, who can?

  - Dave (aug 21 at 6:14 p.m.)

• The US Government has an immigration policy that applies to all approved countries for their people to legally immigrate to the US. But like all laws, problems result if the Government does not enforce the law that was designed to protect it’s citizens.

  If the US Government would secure the border according to the law, this would not be a problem to the border states and many other non border states. The taxpayers in all states are having to pay for the lack of border security of the US Government. Even many US Hispanic citizens disapprove of this invasion of illegal immigrants.

  How many of the MC delegates, members of the Leaders Forum and MC members lock their doors and windows at night and when they vacate the house during the day? How many Mennonite churches lock their church doors when the church is not in use? The obvious answer is security to keep unwanted individuals from entering. If it ok for homeowners and churches to lock their doors to keep out unwanted individuals, why should we not expect the US Government to enforce the law that would secure the border to keep out unwanted individuals for the security of the citizens?

  For those who would have the US/Mexico border open, why not also welcome all individuals in third world countries to come here to live to better their lives and obtain government paid healthcare that would ‘save thousands of lives’ annually as some would have us believe?

  - Dale Welty (aug 26 at 12:24 p.m.)

• Dale, please tell the government where the locks are on our borders.

  - Les (aug 26 at 6:25 p.m.)

• Dale, please tell the USA government where the locks are on our borders so they can lock them.

  - Les (aug 26 at 6:26 p.m.)

• Dale, the answer is not in numbers. Jesus answers human need with compassion and if we want to be followers of Jesus, we must do the same.

  In John 5, Jesus asked the invalid if he wanted to be insured. He had been trying to get insurance for many years. Jesus gave him insurance with compassion.

  In John 4, the Samaritan woman needed insurance. Jesus gave her insurance in her soul. She went into town to share her insurance with others. They accepted gladly.

  Jesus was concerned about the one sheep that did not have insurance more than the 99 who were insured. Matthew 18.

  Jesus had compassion for the son who was uninsured. He insured the young man and the older brother complained. Matthew 21.

  The actions of the Trinity cannot be explained by human reasoning. Praise God for that!

  - Les (aug 27 at 6:40 a.m.)

• Les, the facts are this administration has no interest in securing the border to protect the citizens of border states and non-border states. If a federal law is enacted, it should include a plan to enforce it. Where there is a will, there is a way.

  BTW, do you lock your doors and windows at night and other times when you leave the house? Does your church lock its doors when the church is not open to the public?

  On another subject you commented on, you presented the following comment in the article ‘Retreat supports people with disabilities’. I quote you,'A Harvard Medical School Study showed that nearly 45,000 people in the United States die each year due to lack of health insurance'. I am still waiting for a response from you to my question as to how many people with health insurance die each year in the US according to the Harvard Medical School Study.

  - Dale Welty (aug 27 at 8:22 p.m.)

• Dale,"the facts are . . ." No, those are not the facts. Google on "Deportation of illegal immigrants" and you will find that the Obama administration has been deporting immigrants faster than any time in history. Some of the facts; 400,000 deportations expected in 2010. That is quadruple the pace of the last year of the Bush administration. It is 25% higher than 2007, 10% higher than 2008. I do not favor this upheaval of families, but these are some of the facts. As Christians we should be concerned about the facts. I'm glad for the moderator of this site removing some items for "factual issues". It is so easy to get facts on the internet. It is easier for some to believe the malicious slander of our President by the strong majority of political talk show hosts. God have mercy on them. We need the compassion of Christ in these times of uncivil political actions.

  - Les (aug 28 at 9:55 a.m.)

• Les, my comments addressed securing the border, not deportation. Sorry you missed that. If the border was secured as it should be by law, then deportation would not be the problem you address.

  - Dale Welty (aug 28 at 8:34 p.m.)

• Dale, it depends upon what you mean by "securing the border" and "law". If you mean keeping out all undocumented immigrants, it can't be done. The Native Americans found that out. Israel found that out, etc. If you mean federal law, then why the Arizaona law unless to secure political points, which seem to help in the result of the recent primary in Arizona?

  And you will have to tear down the Statue of Liberty, or cover up its motto. Have you read that motto recently? Or is it meaningless?

  I did mean to write that the present administration has done more to secure the border between Mexico and the USA than any previous President in the first 1 1/2 years in office. Obama did not let in the 12 million undocumented workers. He has decreased that number.
  

  The Pacific Ocean is the recent entrance points--proving that you cannot cut off immigration any more than drug traffic unless you build a 24 foot wall with no passages all the way around our country.

  My first point was that you did not have your facts correct. You seem to give previous administrations a pass and want to blame Obama. That is not honest. My main point really was that human law does not trump God's laws of compassion. What did Jesus do and say? That is my standard because it is Jesus' standard. Jesus said, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened." He did not keep anyone away from him or exclude anyone.

  We no longer need go to foreign lands to evangelize. They have come here. I'm glad that in our community with many native languages--over 40--the churches are working intensely in many ways to welcome the stranger.

  Instead of lambasting someone politically, let us call it a God event and pursue where God is working.

  - Les (aug 29 at 1:57 p.m.)

• Les, thank you for your comments. Don't forget to lock your doors and windows when you go to bed tonight to keep out all the unwanteds. I am reminded that those who understand what I write, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, no explanation is possible. The other thing that troubles me is when people take what I say, distort it and then respond to the distortion they have created.

  - Dale Welty (aug 29 at 2:36 p.m.)

• And here we see why these discussions are of so little use. Dale offers Limbaugh talking points, combined with a system of metaphor that does not quite fit. Les refutes with facts. Dale retreats behind accusations of misrepresentation and distortion, combined with a parting shot to repeat the metaphor that did not work in the first place. And the pattern repeats. One might as well automate the discussion.

  Gentlemen, Obama's capturing record numbers of migrants does not solve the problem any more than Bush's showboating crackdowns on migration or "the wall." Neither of these have quite the humanitarian problematics of the current Arizona legislation, however. What we have here is a challenge that cannot be addressed with soundbites or raw numbers.
  

  On the one hand, we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of migrants who cross the border seeking work. No, their presence here is not, strictly speaking, legal, but once these people are here, they are not doing our society harm. In fact, they form a vital part of the economy, working in a manner that would be legal but for their migrant status. In most cases, they are not competing with citizens for these jobs. Concern for the well being of these people is legitimate and real.

  On the other hand, we have hundreds, perhaps a few thousand, people involved in the drug trade. They are violent because they are protecting an enterprise that is, from start to finish, illegal, yet highly lucrative. They are a very small minority in a much larger pool, yet for their violent acts, and the propaganda these acts facilitate, they seem larger in number. Nevertheless, some of the fear is legitimate.
  

  The challenge is to reform immigration toward two primary ends.
  

  First, we must gain some sort of security against bandits that cross the border, sell drugs, and engage in violent crime here. (Let alone the corruption, violence, and crime that their drug trade facilitates in their own countries.)

  Second, we must reform in such a way that maintain some sort of humanity, some sense of dignity for the many more people who cross illegally to find work. (Perhaps most pressing, something needs to be done so that their children, who may or may not have been born in the United States, do not fall through the cracks.)

  The problem is, we are often too wrapped up in fear to allow for effective address to this problem. Politicians love to play the fear card. It gets votes. So much of our immigration law was written in hasty political decisions built on appeals to fear. To say the least, fear mongering does not make for consistent policies. More importantly, as was the case in Arizona, decisions made in fear tend to squeeze out the humanity.

  Politicians love to play the numbers game, because that denotes artificial progress. So what if more people have been captured under Obama than Bush? Are these truly dangerous people that have been captured? Even if all of these people were dangerous, and no analogy is intended here, but it seems that the insurgency in Iraq continued to thrive regardless of how many insurgents we captured. In neither case has raw numbers solved the problem.

  The system is seriously broken, and people are suffering daily for it. Can we not put aside these crazy analogies and all the bickering to try to reach a solution instead?
  

  - JPR (aug 30 at 4:23 a.m.)

• Thanks, JPR, you make good sense. What are your suggestions to reach a solution? You analyze well, but what are your solutions? As I wrote, we are working locally in discussion, relationships, welcoming, and standing with them in the midst of community fear. I write to Congress persons suggesting my ideas. What else?

  - Les (aug 30 at 9:00 a.m.)

• I did not write any suggestions previously because my posting was already lengthy. Dialogue is important, of course, as is building solidarity. Being in Poland at present doing research, solidarity comes especially to mind. These are all important, but at some point, real immigration policy reform is going to be necessary. I would suggest the following should be in the policy. These are bullet pointed, but I could expand on any or all should the need arise.

  1) Expedited and expanded documentation for migrant workers. This should: a) increase stability of residence for migrant workers, which will allow legal, social, and taxation services to better adapt. b) remove the legal wall between migrant workers and law enforcement agencies. though technically other arms of the law are presently separated from migration, many migrants do not know this.

  2) Document and keep track of known drug traffickers and other trouble makers. Re-concentrate resources no longer expended on migrant workers on drug enforcement and criminals instead.

  3) Also important, not my area of expertise at all, and not directly related, but also important to the question of migration, is comprehensive drug law reform. The war on drugs does not seem to be working, and never has, really. American usage has not gone down. Meanwhile, the drug trafficking becomes all the more lucrative and deadly. Money Americans spend for their fixes fund much of the Latin American drug cartel. This, in turn, helps to increase corruption, economic depression, and misery in Latin American countries, which leads to more migration. Here I am not sure what the answer should be. To be sure, I do not favor legalizing, but the present situation seems to create more harm than it solves.
  

  - JPR (aug 30 at 12:28 p.m.)

• JPR, thanks for the start. I basically agree with 2 and 3, although you are not sure of the answer to 3. We could not force prohibition. Many seem unwilling to be controlled, especially when it comes to items that give a false sense of joy and well-being as alcohol and other drugs. Where there is profit to be made, we will make profit. How can we take excessive profit out of drug dealing?

  No. 1. It is bigger than migrant workers. The immigrants in our area are not migrant workers.

  The whole process of dealing with migrants needs to be revised: 1. Use computer data base. 2. Eliminate duplication and red tape. 3. Have one agency, not many agencies, deal with each immigrant. 4. Consider the record of each immigrant--how long married, how long fully employed, crime record?. 5. Use applications for entrance into the USA. Now I will let the wiser persons attack these ideas.

  I admit that some of these ideas come from the experience of our son-in-law emigrating from Canada where he had lived married to one woman for over 18 years, fully employed for 18 years, and no crime record. His wife and 3 children were USA citizens. She had a job and brought their children with her. Yet it took nearly a year for him, a Canadian citizen, to get a green card. He had a job waiting him long before he got his green card. While he was waiting, another person got a green card at the border because he had not applied ahead of time. Why these two contrasting procedures to get a green card?? Our son-in-law was not allowed to visit his family who were in the USA during that time. His files were reviewed in 4 cities, criminal check at least 3 times, etc. There can be a simpler way. I know this is not an immigrant from the South, so that indicates that it is almost impossible to get permits to enter the USA from the south. That is why most of them do not try. They do not have the money or the privilege.
  Some lawful citizens of other countries cannot get visas into the USA to attend a conference or college. It helps to know people who have tried to follow the system, but the system is so confusing and unfair that one wonders if the system is even legal. It certainly is not democracy at its best.

  - Les (aug 30 at 7:03 p.m.)

• Les, thanks for your additions. I definitely agree. The migrant worker situation merely seemed to be at the forefront of this debate, but of course our migration system can really rake families and individuals over the coals with its inconsistencies.
  

  That said, we have to be mindful of the Canadian threat! All those red maple leaves of autumn are heralding invasion! Canadians might try to force a livable health care system on us, after all. Or worse, the gasp metric system!

  The answer to the drug problem is a genuine difficulty, but one that has to be addressed if we are going to effectively make our borders secure. There is very little that can get in the way of large profits.

  - JPR (aug 30 at 8:45 p.m.)

• JPR states, ‘The system is seriously broken, and people are suffering daily for it. Can we not put aside these crazy analogies and all the bickering to try to reach a solution instead’?
  

  In JPR’s last comment, we see evidence that those of us who try to deal with this issue in the context of the law and common sense are accused of bickering. The religious left, on the other hand, injects their social justice theology in with emotion and expect a workable solution. It is interesting that my common sense comments eventually get linked to Rush Limbaugh. Apparently JPR listens to Limbaugh more than I, because I don’t know what Limbaugh’s talking points are on this issue. I am confident that whatever Limbaugh’s talking points are, they are more reliable than any other comments I have read.

  When it comes to facts, I first consider the source. Secondly, it must pass the common sense sniff test. Common sense as I have presented it on this issue may violate far left social justice theology but it does not violate scripture. The ‘facts’ that have been presented so far are interesting at best but not deserving serious consideration on my part.

  I know I am repeating myself, but repetition is the Mother of Learning. I believe both JPR & Les employ common sense to secure their houses at night and when they leave during the day to keep out the unwanted. I also believe social justice churches employ common sense to secure their buildings when not open to the public to keep out the unwanted, Now if JPR, Les and churches employ common sense, why should we also not employ common sense to secure all borders

  - Dale Welty (sep 3 at 11:06 p.m.)

• Perhaps because borders are not houses.

  - JPR (sep 4 at 3:20 a.m.)

• Who am I to bicker whether the border is a house or not. I'll leave that for JPR to ponder. At least he does not appear to bicker with himself on whether he should or should not secure his house at night or when he leaves during the day. That give me comfort.

  - Dale Welty (sep 4 at 4:59 p.m.)

• Common sense tells us we cannot "secure all borders". No one ever has or ever will. The closest is the iron curtain.

  Thanks for the compliment that I use theology.

  Common sense? Secure borders, but not lock houses. Hmnn. Why the obsession on locking houses? Hardly common sense.

  Back to the original article: I'm glad our church leaders are not arguing about the issues on this site. They are focusing on how to include all people, not exclude people. BYW isn't that a Jesus thing? Maybe Jesus believed in social justice also. Praise the Lord! Now that is common sense! It is divine sense! That is how we got in, is it not? I am thankful for God's grace--social justice or not. In fact, those two words have a nice sound. Thanks!

  - Les (sep 4 at 7:15 p.m.)

• I think the major objection to the house analogy is not whether it makes sense to lock our houses when we are away, out back, asleep, or whatever. Rather it is that borders are really a much larger, more complex issue than the house analogy would suggest or allow. The analogy oversimplifies the issue to the point of misrepresentation. As such, when the "common sense" solution is applied, it fails before it starts because it is not addressing the right set of questions.
  

  - JPR (sep 5 at 4:04 a.m.)

• JPR, as with the solution with any problem, where there is a will there is a way. Where there is no will, there won't be a way. For you, there is no will, therefore no way. For me there is a will, therefore a way. It requires a can do attitude and a plan of action. It seems strange that this country can send people into space and bring them back and is unable to secure its southern border. It comes back to the will or lack thereof.

  - Dale Welty (sep 5 at 2:29 p.m.)

• Dale, if, by lack of will, you mean that Les and I have no intention of locking down our borders tighter than Iran, North Korea, or the former East Germany, along with all the changes to economy and way of life that that would imply, then you are correct. We have no will to do so.
  

  But to say that we have no will or ideas to solve the problem is laughable at best if you are actually reading most of our comments. Les and I merely seek a solution that provides security, yet at the same time does not sell short the values of freedom, justice, and compassion on which this country of ours was built. I am thankful that there seem to be quite a few people in MCUSA leadership and in the convention committee to take such a view.

  - JPR (sep 6 at 1:50 a.m.)

• Dale, How many people have you talked to who have close relatives who married an undocumented immigrant? (The old saying is that the one who has the best advice for raising children is the person who never had any!) I know you don't answer questions, so by your writing I think it is 0. I have a niece who married a man who earlier had a false Social Security card and therefore a false driver's license, but went through the legal channels. He got his green card after some weeks or months back in Mexico after they were married. He did not get it by common sense, but by God's miracle--instead of spending a possible 10 years in prison. Yes, that was a will and a way. I talked to a man whose wife's relative had a similar situation. He was helped to get a green card.

  We need to show the compassion of Christ and helped individuals find a way.

  I talked yesterday with a resident of Phoenix. I could add more cases. We are active in this area believing Jesus had a purpose in saying what Jesus said, "I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matt. 25:35. As JPR said, it is complicated. This Denver resident had more scenarios than I had heard of before.
  

  Yes, I know that is not about the government securing the southern border (I noticed you changed your term. No longer "all borders".) But the issue involves individuals. It is interesting that many people want smaller government, but they want the government to secure the borders, create more jobs, clean up the oil spill immediately, rebuild New Orleans, deliver mail, build better roads, prevent Social Security fraud ("60 Minutes" last night), etc.

  Brother, it ain't going to happen without big government and big government spending and higher taxes. Most of those things in the paragraph above, did not happen in the last 10 years even while we went from a government annual surplus to over $1 trillion dollar annual deficit.

  We can't tell the government to do our job. The job for each of us is to be a good Samaritan. Oh, there are no Samaritans here. Let us each be the Good "Mexican" and help those who are suffering, fearful, and in need. Jesus said after the parable of the Good "Mexican", "Go thou and do likewise." Luke 10:37. I believe in taking Christ seriously more than telling our government what to do. The vice mayor of Phoenix said there are 337,000 Hispanics living in Denver, eligible to vote, but they don't vote because of fear. I have a bumper sticker that reads, "Driven by faith, not fear." A pretty good Christian and political motto.

  - Les (sep 6 at 1:37 p.m.)

Comment on the article Arizona visitors look beyond law, convention

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.