Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Immigration Reform’

DACA_Demo_Pelosi

Dreamers interrupt Nancy Pelosi’s press conference, September 19, 2017.

It was my intention to continue a post I began last week outlining various reasons why Americans ought to reject DACA. But due to developments since my last post, I decided to take this week’s article in a similar, but slightly different, direction.

As of last week’s posting, the US federal government was still in shut down mode due to demands by certain members of Congress, who, oddly enough. insisted that funding the government should be made contingent on allowing foreign citizens to remain in the country in violation of US immigration law. The shut down ended when these same certain Congressmen realized that they were getting nowhere and folded.

But their decision to fold did not mark the end of the debate over DACA or over the DREAM Act. It just kicked the can down the road a little bit.

You see, last September President Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program…sort of. According to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration would stop considering new applications for legal status dated after 9/5/17 and would allow any DACA recipients with a permit set to expire before March 5, 2018 the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if they apply before October 5, 2017. This deadline was recently extended by court order to allow individuals currently in the DACA program to apply for renewal up until March 5, 2018.

At the same time, Trump gave Congress a six-month window to come up with an acceptable version of DACA which he promised to sign.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

blob:E6DA3888-B84E-4EA7-8E3A-0979B507DB56blob:E6DA3888-B84E-4EA7-8E3A-0979B507DB56blob:E6DA3888-B84E-4EA7-8E3A-0979B507DB56

Please click the following link for the original blog post on which this podcast is based:

https://luxlucet.me/2017/01/29/immigration-citizenship-and-the-bible-part-9-immigration-reform-and-the-conservatives-a-review-of-peter-brimelows-alien-nation/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

Read Full Post »

 

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Although the mainstream media (MSM) is firmly committed to the proposition that that the entire world has the right to immigrate to the US at taxpayer expense, conservatives have increasingly raised their voices in opposition to this practice.

 

This installment of Immigration, Citizenship, and the Bible (ICB) is an attempt to examine various conservative arguments for immigration reform in light Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism, the system of thought that asserts the Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God and is the textbook to prepare the man of God for every good work, including the good work of immigration reform.

My critique of conservatives is presented here in the form of a review of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster by Peter Brimelow.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

 

trump_build-that-wall

President Trump sigs the executive order for the border wall, 1/25/17.

Well, one full week into the new Trump administration, and, despite all the hyperventilating from the snowflakes, it appears that the world indeed has not come to an end.  Who knew?  So what shall we say about this surprising state of affairs?  Let’s find out. 

Build That Wall

Ask any Trump supporter, or for that matter any Never-Trumper, what he thinks the candidate’s most important campaign promise was, and I suspect many, if not most, respondents would say “Build that wall!” This, of course, refers to Trump’s promise to build a roughly 1,900 mile long border wall between Mexico and the US to prevent illegal immigration across the nation’s southern border.

It’s an audacious plan. And one that has outraged the entire establishment, everyone from Pope Francis, to the progressive secular left, to the RINO Republican right, to the former president of Mexico. Some observers have tried to argue that Trump didn’t mean he intended to build a literal wall. All that was just talk, you see. It was promise to fire up the base, which would soon be dropped when the realities of governing set in.

Well, apparently Trump was entirely serious about what he said, as Wednesday “he signed executive orders instructing construction of a wall on the southwest border, a crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities and directives that would make effectively every undocumented immigrant a priority for deportation,” as the Huffington Post reports.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

 

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Among the more frustrating aspects of the immigration debate is that, at least as far as immigration and related issues are discussed in the mainstream press, it is not a debate at all.

 

In general, reporting on immigration issues takes the form of a lecture, in which proponents of keeping and/or expanding the current immigration/refugee/aslyee/migration system are posited as the defenders of all that is just, right and holy, heroically fighting against nativist, racist, xenophobic bigots who complain that current immigration laws do not serve the interests of the American people.

This sort of reporting often has a Kantian undertone to it, by which I mean that in many cases immigration to the US is explicitly or implicitly presented as, on the one hand, a right to which is due to the entire non-American population of the world, and, on the other hand, a duty owed by American people to them. The notion that US immigration policy should serve the interests of the American people – a point that Donald Trump explicitly made part of his immigration platform – is considered beyond the pale of polite discussion. Further, anyone so foolish as to attempt to argue that the interest of the American people should be considered when making immigration policy is immediately scorned and dropped into Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” from which there is no escape.

There is a second annoying aspect of the immigration debate, the tendency of immigration proponents to commit the informal logical fallacy known as appeal to pity. An appeal to pity is where one argues that you should accept his conclusion, not because of any sound logical reasoning requires that you accept it, but because you feel sorry for him. One example of this sort of argument runs, “If this man is given the death sentence, who will take care of his children?” (Norman Geisler, Come, Let Us Reason, 96). And how many times have we heard this sort of thing from immigration enthusiasts? “You can’t deport X, because you’re breaking up X’s family!” But feeling sorry for someone is not a sound basis for making immigration policy. For example, one can always reply, “Yes, but X should have considered the possibility of deportation before electing to enter the US contrary to American immigration law. No one made him violate the law. He chose to do so. Therefore, the breakup of his family is his own fault.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Last week in Part 3 of this series, we looked at Donald Trump’s immigration reform proposals. This week, the focus will be on Hillary Clinton’s immigration stance.

As you may recall, the verdict on Trump’s immigration reform proposals was mixed. Some of his ideas were quite good – 1) his statement that American immigration policy should be set up to benefit all Americans and 2) his call to end birthright citizenship – can readily be reconciled with Biblical political theory. On the other hand, some of his ideas fell short of the mark – 1) Trump’s signature issue, his call to build a wall all along the US-Mexico border, and 2) his eVerify program, a proposal that would, in effect, create a national biometric ID card, requiring anyone looking to get a job to show “his papers” to prove he was eligible to work in the US.

An analysis of Hillary’s immigration plan will require a different approach than the one I used for Trump’s. Because her immigration proposals are so uniformly bad, realistically there is no way to break her ideas down into the categories of “good” and “bad” ideas.

In short, her immigration program is an unrelieved disaster that, if enacted, will go a long way to transforming the US into a third world country, while forcing ordinary Americans to foot the bill for the privilege. Or to put it another way, her immigration policy could well have been crafted by prelates of the Roman Church-State, whose destructive immigration policies she has largely adopted as her own. In fact, the only real difference between Mrs. Clinton’s ideas on immigration and those of Rome is that she doesn’t bother with trying to justify them, as the Romanists do, by twisting the Scriptures.

The following critique will be based upon Mrs. Clinton’s immigration platform as stated on her campaign website here.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: