Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Violent Crime Up In Arkansas, Down Elsewhere

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below for article).

19 Comments:

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: I just heard the on the radio that the FBI has some new statistics on violent crime in America.

It seems that violent crime in America as a whole has declined just under 2%, while violent crime in Arkansas has INCREASED a little over 2%.

Arkansas is the state that has the 1st or 2nd highest percentage growth of illegal alien population in America, according to many estimates.

Any attempt in your mind to connect those two sets of facts makes you a racist. If you don't believe me, ask Paul Greenburg.; 9:08 AM, October 19, 2005
AR1836 said...: I live in NW AR like you do, Mark, and lately, the violent crimes, particularly in Fayetteville, have not been committed by immigrants(illegal or otherwise) from across the border. It seems that many of the violent crimes in Benton Cty are perpetrated by immigrants, but certainly not all of them. The general population increase in NW AR is mostly from the U.S. Certainly, immigrants from across the border have been arrested and convicted of violent crimes in our region. You wouldn't be considered racist if you have a statistics sheet(from a reputable source) showing immigrants(illegal or otherwise) committed a significantly higher % more violent crimes than the non-immigrant population and helped drive us up 2% more statewide.

Who listens to Greenberg? Some of the dullest columns are written by Paul. David Sanders offers few noteworthy arguments for his positions, but I read his column because he is occasionally interesting, particularly when he keeps his nose in AR affairs and doesn't regurgitate the Newscorp Imperial opinion on national and international matters. Can't snore thru Greenberg most times. Plus, Greenberg had a pic of he in a Red Sox cap last year---not a REAL Arkansan! He can take his opinions back to Massachusetts. They'd love him for sure. I commend you for laboring thru his opinions.; 12:24 PM, October 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Fayetteville has the University, and it is well known that young men- of whatever ethnic grouping, commit more crimes than mature people or females.

If illegals constitute 2% of your population, but commit 6% of your crimes, then a 4% swing in crime rates from America to the nation could be explained by illegals being more prone to commit violent criminal acts (by a factor of 3).

That is my best guess of what is going on. Yes I live in Benton County, and the majority of Hispanics up here are very nice, law abiding, legal citizens. Even some of the ones that are NOT legal are nice. And some of the ones that are NOT legal and NOT law abiding (forgetting for the moment the entire group of illegal immigrants are also felons by definition, I speak of additional criminal acts) are STILL nice and have good points.

Despite all that, when I hear the crime reports in the morning I am astounded at the number of people with Hispanic surnames arrested for serious crimes.

No I don't have the stat sheet, and with PC the way it is, I doubt any public officials will present us with one.

We need to control our borders and deport persons who are here illegally. Even the ones that are superfically polite can have a side you don't know about, or carry a disease that used to be uncommon here.

As for Greenburg, I often like his writing style. When he is on he is on. Unfortunately he is of an age where he is not forming new contexts for events. He simply drops new events into some file in his brain- a category he has experienced in the past. Sometimes the categories are correct, but this is not the 1964 Civil Rights struggle, and border control advocates are not the clan. He can't seem to distinguish that. This is 2004, and the issue is not race, the issue is should the American People be allowed to control who is allowed to enter The US of America.; 1:13 PM, October 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark,

Your little side note about illegal aliens not having been properly vaccinated is one of the best arguments yet that I have seen that may somewhat justify limiting immigration. In my opinion, most of the others are quite weak. However, as a counter argument I would like you to consider this:

Some members of my church are opposed to vaccination. They were quite angry that the schools said their children could not attend without proper vaccination.

While I personally don't believe that we should force people to be vaccinated, I agreed with the schools. If you don't want your kids to be vaccinated, then homeschool them or send them to a private school that does not require it.

As far as the debate about immigrants and crime, the issue is more complex than political debate tolerates. Here is why:

I do NOT believe a group of people are more prone to crime because their race or ethnicity. I figure you don't believe that either.

The liberal left would say that it is poverty that makes a group of people more prone to commit crime. While this may superficially seem empirically consistent, this concept also misses the mark because it fails to recognize that poverty may be (although certainly not always) just another symptom rather the cause itself. Let me explain.

A group of people may be culturally predisposed to crime because the CULTURE (NOT the race or ethnicity) itself is inferior. The same mores and values that predispose a group of people to crime certainly would also be a causative factor in multi-generational poverty.

[I imagine liberals are losing their minds over that last statement! They believe that there is no inferior cultures except those that do not accept all cultures as equal. Latent in that belief is not really the kind of tolerance they claim because in reality what they are claiming is that ALL cultures are inferior to the culture of pluralism. But, I digress.]

Usually the major inherent flaw in the culture that perpetuates multi-generational poverty is often not even necessarily a moral one, but rather it is a culture of dependency rather than individual self sufficiency.

I very much disagree with you about immigration. However, even I have to admit that limitations upon immigration is unfortunately necessary.

Where we disagree is that I find immigration something that we regretfully have to do, you on the other hand seem almost gleeful about it. Furthermore, we disagree about who and why we limit some from coming here.

Does it make you happy that we must limit some of God's children from enjoying the freedom and prosperity that we do? I suspect you feel the same pains of regret and sympathy that I do. If so, I suggest that you begin to express it in your speech and manner, even as you remain firmly grounded in your current position. To do otherwise is political rhetoric that does not reflect a Christian heart.

Mark, there is one -and only one- constitutional reason for limiting immigration, and even that one should be done with extreme regret and a heavy heart. Do you know what that reason is? Do you have a theory as to why it should be done with extreme regret and a heavy heart?; 9:10 PM, October 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Vaccinations is only a part of it. They will have a whole different set of diseases that we may not even have a vaccine for because the disease was not common in the US until it was brought in.

My heavy heart is for the American worker who has his wages depressed by foreign invaders with the complicity of his own government.

My heavy heart is for the crime victims- and people who sneak into another country represent a subset of ANY race that is more likely to commit other crimes.

My heavy heart is for the death of the melting pot that was the United States, where people from all origins could become one people. We now have the Balkanization of America. The invaders that come here often have no interest in becoming a citizen of this country- or if they do it is for the benefits, not the ideals that used to unite us. That is one reason you see so many Mexican Flags flying in Benton County Arkansas.

My heart is heavy for the LEGAL immigrants who have long waited in line and followed our rules to get a piece of the American dream. I know some who are still waiting.

We HAVE to limit citizenship, including our freedom and prosperity, to those of good character and virtue. To those who share our best ideals. If we let in enough people who DON'T have those things, we won't bring them freedom and prosperity, we will lose ours. America will become like the places they came from.

As for your veiled contention that it is somehow unChristian of me to feel this way- I will accept God's judgement of my heart but not yours. PC garbage like that will not move me a bit so don't waste the electrons.

As for your last paragraph, why don't you just tell us.......; 9:54 PM, October 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark,

I am sorry about the length of this post. I feel that is important for us as Christians to come to an honest, holy, and complete understanding of each other about this subject. This is a good topic. I am glad we get a chance to debate it.

I will start by saying that your over-sensitivity to the statement, “To do otherwise is political rhetoric that does not reflect a Christian heart, “ demonstrates either evidence of conviction from the Holy Spirit (in which you may be in rebellion) or it is a prideful reaction to the rather harsh comments made by the Governor toward Jim Holt. Either of which is unbecoming and beneath your typical uprightness and intellect.

The hatred and venom (for these people) dripping from your words demonstrate that your *attitude* IS unChristian and furthermore, unconstitutional. That is not to say that I believe you are not a Christian. I myself, (sadly) am apt to engage in other types of unChristian behavior, my depravity is a source of much personal grief. I will even concede that _overall_ you exhibit a more Christian attitude than I am even capable. On that point, your prayers are sincerely appreciated. Nonetheless, let me demonstrate my point:

Why do you call these poor people "invaders?" The term typically means those who enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. These people have no intent in conquering or pillaging. They are simply trying to find a better life for themselves and their children. The overwhelming majority have no desire to injure or hurt anyone, quite the contrary. To call them "invaders" is simply a rhetorical device to dehumanize them and to quench the Spirit's testimony to one's conscience.

You said:
We HAVE to limit citizenship, including our freedom and prosperity, to those of good character and virtue. To those who share our best ideals. If we let in enough people who DON'T have those things, we won't bring them freedom and prosperity, we will lose ours. America will become like the places they came from.

On this point I agree with every word. It is interesting that you used the word "citizenship," which makes it overwhelmingly easy to agree. I would, but with trepidation, even agree with every word if you substituted the word "immigration" at that point.

You said:
My heavy heart is for the death of the melting pot that was the United States, where people from all origins could become one people. We now have the Balkanization of America.

Again, I agree. This is a good sentiment and well stated.

You said:
The invaders that come here often have no interest in becoming a citizen of this country- or if they do it is for the benefits, not the ideals that used to unite us. That is one reason you see so many Mexican Flags flying in Benton County Arkansas.
I have several disagreements here. First is the use of the term "invaders" as previously noted. Second, what basis do you have for making the statement that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) often have no interest in becoming U.S. citizens? I have not done or seen any polling, but I cannot accept that as a fact. It might be a true statement if you had said, “Some of the illegal immigrants that come here are not interested in becoming citizens. However, that is a topical non-sequitur. The same statement could be made for LEGAL immigrant. Your statement about Mexican flags flying in Benton County proves this point. Do you think that most of these Mexican flags are being flown by illegals? Third, the assertion that of the minority (the logical opposite of your use of the term “often”) that does want to become citizen, only want to do so for the benefits (presumably you meant “welfare benefits) is completely absurd. What empirical basis would you have to make the statement that of the minority that does want to become citizens; they only want it for welfare benefits? If you did not intend “welfare benefits”, then I apologize, but what immigrant doesn’t come here and apply for citizenship if they don’t want to enjoy the benefits of freedom and prosperity inherent with this country? [rhetorical]

On the other hand, I agree that flying a Mexican flag does demonstrate lack of respect and pride in America and indicates that the person flying that flag may not have forsaken the foreign alliances that qualify one for citizenship. I believe that to become a citizen of the U.S. rightfully requires alliance to, and only to, the United States.

You said:
Vaccinations is only a part of it. They will have a whole different set of diseases that we may not even have a vaccine for because the disease was not common in the US until it was brought in.

I agree. Again, you have made a good point and extended it artfully. This also fits within the only Constitutional reason for limiting immigration

You said:
My heavy heart is for the American worker who has his wages depressed by foreign invaders with the complicity of his own government.

Excepting the “foreign invaders” comment, I am very much in sympathy with the above statement. However, is there any Biblical or Constitutional justification for violating marketplace competition for labor and the protection of wages?

You said:
My heavy heart is for the crime victims- and people who sneak into another country represent a subset of ANY race that is more likely to commit other crimes.

I agree that the pinnacle of our concern and sympathy be extended to any victims of any crime. Furthermore I agree that people who break the law to enter another country are more likely to commit other crimes. However, this does not always hold true. Not all who break the law do so because of a lack of character. Here is why:

Francis Schaeffer said:
http://www.peopleforlife.org/francis.html
It should be noticed that this new dominant world view [Humanism] is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.
We must understand something very thoroughly. If society -- if the state gives the rights, it can take them away -- they're not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights -- this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have -- even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.
Francis Schaeffer said in the Christian Manifesto that if there is never a case in which a Christian would practice civil disobedience, then the state has become Lord. He said, One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord. The Bible clearly teaches that there are times when a believer must disobey civil law so that he or she can obey God's higher law.

The right to pursue happiness [prosperity] is unalienable and is granted by God. It is not a privilege granted by the state nor is it a right that is denied to immigrants by the U.S. Constitution. Neither is it a right that should be denied by the process of Constitutional amendment, unconstitutional legislation, or judicial activism. The original intent of the founding fathers was that “the pursuit of happiness” included the right to as open of an immigration policy as was prudently possible.

The logical question that must be asked is this, “How can immigration in the pursuit of happiness be “illegal” if it is a God given and inalienable right?”

I am reminded of Blackstone's famous statement, "If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter."

In light of this limits upon immigration should be done with extreme regret and a heavy heart. In much the same way that divorce is Biblically permissible in certain situations because of the fallen and sinful world in which we live, it is NEVER something that is pleasing and good before our Sovereign and Holy God.

You said:
My heart is heavy for the LEGAL immigrants who have long waited in line and followed our rules to get a piece of the American dream.

Again, I agree completely and without reservation, and I will go further to state that some of the rules they have endured are unjust. Furthermore, even those rules which are Biblically and constitutionally allowable are executed out of wrong motives and have become perversions. That doesn’t mean that we should eliminate those rules and laws, but we certainly should restore our hearts and minds with Godly motives when executing them. That is, perhaps, my primary motive and the thesis of what I am arguing.

For the purposes of this edifying debate, let's please not rehash what we have agreed upon. Let's rejoice upon our agreement and work upon resolving our disagreement. In order to resolve our disagreement we must be willing to answer each others questions or state that we are unable or unwilling to do so. I will grant you the same.

Please keep in mind that I said, “I have to admit that limitations upon immigration are unfortunately necessary. I will go further and say that I believe there is Constitutional basis for some limits to be reluctantly be placed upon immigration. I also believe that there is a Biblical basis, albeit weak, for the same. However, neither can stand in isolation from some of the arguments I have presented here. Please humor me and let me share my opinion about this after we have a better understanding where each other are coming from.

Questions previously unanswered:

Does it make you happy that we must limit some of God's children from enjoying the freedom and prosperity that we do?

Do you know what the one -and only one- constitutional reason for limiting immigration is? As the chair of the Constitutional Party, I would expect that you should know the answer for this given your hard line support of limiting immigration. I have already shared why I believe it should be done with extreme regret and a heavy heart.

Questions contained in this post:

What basis do you have for making the statement that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) often have no interest in becoming U.S. citizens?

Do you think that most of these Mexican flags are being flown by illegals?

What empirical basis would you have to make the statement that of the minority that does want to become citizens; they only want it for welfare benefits?

Is there any Biblical or Constitutional justification for violating marketplace competition for labor and the protection of wages?

How can immigration in the pursuit of happiness be “illegal” if it is a God given and inalienable right?

God bless you, Mark. And let us pray that we might conduct this debate in a Christ-like manner and reach unity as Christian brothers.; 2:21 AM, October 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: You hypocrite! You play actor and pretender! You assume a position of judgement and spiritual superiorty over me and then say "God Bless You". If you were really a Christian, you would call me up (I do not hide my identity) and rebuke me privately first, as is commanded in the tenth Chapter of Matthew. Not about being wrong on an issue, but about having a spritual problem that YOU insist I have when you say...

"I will start by saying that your over-sensitivity to the statement, “To do otherwise is political rhetoric that does not reflect a Christian heart, “ demonstrates either evidence of conviction from the Holy Spirit (in which you may be in rebellion) or it is a prideful reaction ......
The hatred and venom (for these people) dripping from your words demonstrate that your *attitude* IS unChristian and furthermore, unconstitutional.

I suppose Jesus Christ Himself was not "Christian" enough for a spiritual giant such as yourself when He railed against the Pharisees and Sauducees. Maybe when He drove the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip and overturned their tables He was being "over-sensitive" and "dripping with hatred and venom".

Perhaps when David cried out under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "break their teeth O God" he was not being spiritual enough for you either.

You are "spiritual" all right. The question is which spirit? You must see God for who the Bible says He is, not some PC Grandfather in a smock who would never punish anyone because that would just be so mean!

I worship the one true God revealed in scriptures, and while anger is USUALLY wrong, there are times when it is right in proper doses so long as it does not lead us to sin.

No, it does not make me happy that we must limit access to this country any more than it makes God happy that He must limit access to Heaven. But it would not be Heaven if He let us come in with our sins, and it won't be America if we don't distinguish who we let in here. You contention that the Founders meant for us to ensure the God Given rights of whoever in the world wanted to claim our protection rather than the actual citizens of our country is absurd.

The Government of the United States was instituted to protect the God-given rights of its own citizens, not ensure the whole earth had those liberties. We cannot protect the God-given rights of the whole Earth, as a modicum of virtue is required in the populace before self-government will be a blessing rather than a curse.; 8:25 AM, October 21, 2005
AR1836 said...: I think the American worker has more to fear from American corporations than Hispanic 'invaders', Mark. The borders of Mexico and Canada are obviously a bit too porous. Al-Qaeda sympathizers crossing the border in NY state was a bit troublesome, particularly since the Millennium plot was foiled at a legitimate crossing. Wonder how many Pakistani-Afghani-Wahhabi trained killers have crossed awaiting orders. The bomber at Norman should be another reason to fear immigrants who aren't Hispanic. I can sympathize with the European view that Turkish membership in the EU will be a free pass for the population of millions of Muslims to swell to incredulous levels. Not since Ottoman attacks on Vienna has Europe seemed as threatened by Islam. 732 C.E. was a big year for the real 'Hammer' (not some pincushion of manhood like DeLay) stopping the Islamic advance from Iberia.

Europeans, particularly Dutch, long considered quite liberal about international and social issues are edgy after Van Gogh's relative was stabbed to death. A gay politican, whom one would wrongly assume to be liberal--see all the gay Republicans(rumors) in power in their party-- who was harsh on immigration to the Netherlands was murdered also. In other words, there is broad opposition to continuing to allow Muslim immigrants into Europe because they know the percentages are high that terrorists are among their lot. Fear can be beneficial as it can be wantonly malevolent. Walking the thin line between political correctness and rational preventive measures can seem foolish, but it's necessary nonetheless. Some speech and rhetoric can be harmful, so some sort of standard of decorum is essential to keep the debate focused on the issues, not the hyperbole.

I would fear a wholesale change in Western culture which a growing Muslim population in Europe could cause. The assumptions of Europeans are still grounded in our Christian heritage. Despite the murderous deeds committed in the name of Christ in Europe( and today's apathy about religious belief), Christian culture allowed the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to happen because one does have a right to sin and determine one's own hereafter according to their own conscience. Much religious warfare had to occur to allow Christian culture to progress to that point.

Sorry to bring Europe into this, but the point I'm making is that everyone is right on immigration to a degree and a real debate needs to occur which will show us a middle path to mollify the hateful faction of the border issue and to accommodate the more rational argument for curbing illegal immigration. It seems, Mark, that anonymous might be more concerned about the loose tone that insinuates a 'wink-wink' approach to the issue you are taking that might suggest your empathy with the hateful faction regarding all immigration of Hispanics, including LEGAL immigrants. Maybe it's not fair to attack you for this, but many of your likeminded Americans want all immigration curbed. We've seen that crummy policy before against Chinese, Japanese, and SE Europeans(among others for many of the wrong reasons). For the sake of our future, we do need to feed the machine with more taxpayers. Europe is about to suffer a severe blow, particularly for pensioners, who lack new payers in their nation's systems and years of negative growth. 70-80 year old people who worked 30+ years who likely can't work as hard(if at all) as they did in youth should be cared for by the state if their savings dwindle to poverty level; many Arkansans still refuse to vote for GOP candidates because they suspect their attitude is to cut off elderly dependents. Allowing them to die is no option.

The debate needs to happen, but the fiery demagogic rhetoric needs to take an exit. How 'bout the 130,000 non-Mexican illegals who weren't deported after capture? Wow! Were any of these non-Mexican illegals from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Pakistan? Homeland InSecurity is doing a HECKUVA job.; 11:31 AM, October 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: Your right, it is not fair to lump me in with racists, as I have always advocated the exact opposite of racism- the brotherhood of man.

Fiery rhetoric is fine, if it is the truth. Playing the race card in an effort to cut off all debate is NOT fine.

As for the older folks losing out on retirement benefits, it sounds like we need to outlaw abortion so there will be adequate workers to pay in- without letting in illegals.; 1:35 PM, October 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mr. Moore,

You wrote:
You hypocrite! You play actor and pretender! You assume a position of judgement and spiritual superiorty over me and then say "God Bless You".

It is rather painful isn’t it? It is quite alright for you to sit in spiritual superiority and righteous judgment over everyone else, but you howl to high heaven when it happens to you. You are right about the most of the moral judgments you make about people and culture, as were the Pharisees. But to be correct to the letter of the law, without being correct in motivation or without holy love and compassion is exactly the sort of thing that Jesus railed against.

To make matters worse, I have done nothing but be polite, logical, and precise with you. In fact, I did not accuse you of having a spiritual problem. In fact, on each occasion that I questioned your uprightness, I have humbly conceded that I am by far the worse sinner. I may be guilty of pointing out the splinters in your eye, true enough. But I have also acknowledged the logs in my own. I have in no way every claimed or even alluded to being a “spiritual giant” as you claim in your straw-man attack upon me. Furthermore, I have not had the arrogance to question your “Christian-ness” or assert that you worship a false god… as you have done to me.

I pointed out that you were practicing rhetoric without logical or empirical justification either constitutionally or Biblically for the assertions you were making. You have yet to answer most of my questions, yet I have responded to each of yours. You have yet to give scriptural justification for your positions. Am I to accept your positions on your righteous authority or will you grant me the Christian dignity to search the scriptures and like the Bereans, verify what you say is true in His Word?

You said:
If you were really a Christian, you would call me up (I do not hide my identity) and rebuke me privately first, as is commanded in the tenth Chapter of Matthew.

Perhaps what you say here is true. I am not sure. However, do you call up privately every Christian politician that you or others berate here? I don’t believe that you do. I am not sure that you are required to by scripture either. Here is why:

First, the instructions to approach a Christian brother in private are not in the tenth chapter of Matthew. I presume you intended to point out Matthew 18:15-17 which reads:

15"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

These versus a clearly directed to the appropriate action to be take against a fellow member of one’s church before church discipline occurs. I have no knowledge of anything you have done that merits discipline, and certainly nothing you have done to me. Furthermore, you are not a member of my church and likely are not even a member of my denomination.

You said:
I suppose Jesus Christ Himself was not "Christian" enough for a spiritual giant such as yourself when He railed against the Pharisees and Sauducees. Maybe when He drove the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip and overturned their tables He was being "over-sensitive" and "dripping with hatred and venom".

You are correct, there is biblical precedence for anger against sinful behavior. However, we rarely can justify our own anger against that demonstrated by Christ. I should know, it is the sin for which I am personally most guilty. Christ, being God himself, is perfect and holy in everyway. He can, where we can’t, be righteous while angry. I have found myself all to often hide a sinful heart behind this reasoning.

You said:
You are "spiritual" all right. The question is which spirit? You must see God for who the Bible says He is, not some PC Grandfather in a smock who would never punish anyone because that would just be so mean! I worship the one true God revealed in scriptures….

I also worship the one true God revealed in scriptures. I worship ALL of his attributes. I agree that society and culture today usually pick and choose from God’s attributes to create for themselves a god to their own liking. Usually these attributes are love, grace, and mercy. Unfortunately we all too often, in our battle against this error, are guilty of the opposite error.

One of my favorite studies on the attributes of God:
http://www.mountzion.org/MZBI/text/ATR_1-6.rtf
http://www.mountzion.org/MZBI/text/ATR_7-12.rtf

You said
No, it does not make me happy that we must limit access to this country any more than it makes God happy that He must limit access to Heaven. But it would not be Heaven if He let us come in with our sins, and it won't be America if we don't distinguish who we let in here. You contention that the Founders meant for us to ensure the God Given rights of whoever in the world wanted to claim our protection rather than the actual citizens of our country is absurd.

The Government of the United States was instituted to protect the God-given rights of its own citizens, not ensure the whole earth had those liberties. We cannot protect the God-given rights of the whole Earth, as a modicum of virtue is required in the populace before self-government will be a blessing rather than a curse.

These last two paragraphs were the only ones that actually had content about this debate; I will address them in the next post.; 11:43 AM, October 24, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mr. Moore,

You wrote:
You contention that the Founders meant for us to ensure the God Given rights of whoever in the world wanted to claim our protection rather than the actual citizens of our country is absurd.

Is it really so absurd? What did the founding fathers think about this? You make a statement about the constitution and the founding fathers, but you provide no evidence of what their opinion was. I keep asking this question but getting no response. What Biblical or constitutional basis do you have for limiting immigration? Keep in mind, I do believe there are both. But the ramifications and methodology for doing so is totally different from the attitude and methodology with which you are proceeding. I will happily provide you with my opinion as to how we may both Biblically and constitutionally limit immigration, but first consider this:

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is unalienable and is granted by God. It is not a privilege granted by the state nor is it a right that is denied to immigrants by the U.S. Constitution. Neither is it a right that should be denied by the process of Constitutional amendment, unconstitutional legislation, or judicial activism.

The Declaration of Independence went further to charge that the limitation of immigration was one of the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that give the colonists the right, even duty, to “throw off” such a government that violates those unalienable rights:

--He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Thomas Jefferson made it crystal clear that the original intent of the founding fathers that “the pursuit of happiness” included the right to as open of an immigration policy as was prudently possible:

"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806. FE 8:458

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

"Expatriation [is] a natural right [inalienable/God given], and acted on as such by all nations in all ages." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:12

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793. FE 6:289

"[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

The logical question that must be asked is this, “How can immigration in the pursuit of happiness be “illegal” if it is a God given and inalienable right?”

You said:
The Government of the United States was instituted to protect the God-given rights of its own citizens, not ensure the whole earth had those liberties. We cannot protect the God-given rights of the whole Earth, as a modicum of virtue is required in the populace before self-government will be a blessing rather than a curse.

While the constitution was not instituted to protect the God-given rights of the whole earth, it was instituted to prevent THIS government from violating ANYONES God-given rights.

Questions previously unanswered:

Do you know what the one -and only one- constitutional reason for limiting immigration is? As the chair of the Constitutional Party, I would expect that you should know the answer for this given your hard line support of limiting immigration. I have already shared why I believe it should be done with extreme regret and a heavy heart.

What basis do you have for making the statement that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) often have no interest in becoming U.S. citizens?

Do you think that most of these Mexican flags are being flown by illegals?

What empirical basis would you have to make the statement that of the minority that does want to become citizens; they only want it for welfare benefits?

Is there any Biblical or Constitutional justification for violating marketplace competition for labor and the protection of wages?

How can immigration in the pursuit of happiness be “illegal” if it is a God given and inalienable right?

Again, I reiterate this point:
God bless you, Mark. And let us pray that we might conduct this debate in a Christ-like manner and reach unity as Christian brothers.; 12:12 PM, October 24, 2005
Anonymous said...: To ar1836 and others:

Mark M. has offered the hypothesis that illegal aliens add to the total of crimes committed. This hypothesis is either a matter of fact or it is not a matter of fact.
The "racism" or "Christianity" of the person who advances the hypothesis has nothing to be with whether or not it has a basis in fact.
Jesus taught us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Socrates taught us to attack the man's argument, not the man himself. Attacking the person who advances an argument proves nothing regarding the truth or falsity of the argument.
Regarding "racism," I think it is more helpful to use the terms "racial prejudice" or "racial discrimination." The hard left uses the term "racism" in a much wider sense. According to the left, it is racism if group X constitutes, say, 30 percent of the population but does not own 30 percent of the wealth. And vice versa. Using the leftists' term, you just accept their implicit agenda in using that term.
Meanwhile, Mark M.'s hypothesis is either a matter of fact or it is not. Who or what Mark M. is has nothing to do with the truth value of his statements.

nlbacitizen (expelled from FreeRepublic); 8:42 AM, October 25, 2005
Anonymous said...: "How can immigration in the pursuit of happiness be “illegal” if it is a God given and inalienable right?"

How can it be illegal for me to wander through your house and yard if it is a part of my pursuit of happiness?

It is not the pursuit of happiness that is illegal, it is the violation of the laws and of the property rights of our citizens that is illegal. If I pursue my happiness by moving into your house without your permission, then my "pursuit of happiness" is illegal.

You continue to act as if I want to ban all immigration. You continue to lump illegal and legal immigration together.

We have the right of self-defense, which is what I suspect you are getting at when you say there is one moral and constitutional reason to limit immigration.

The right of self-defense certainly implies we can limit who we let into this country to people of good character, as all of the founders knew that without virtue the people cannot continue self-rule. We therefore have a self-defense right to exclude possible immigrants who do not exhibit the traits necessary for self-government.

Your Jefferson quotes mostly don't apply, since I am not arguing for a moritorium. Expatraition means that WE ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE THIS COUNTRY. The other quotes don't assume unlimited, unregulated immigration, except to empty lands. He argues it should be allowed, not that it should be unregulated. He basically makes my point that it should be available for those who have the character to successfully join with us.

And yes, the scriptures say the exact same thing. I don't have time to look them up, but all those places which say "you shall have one law for you and the alien with you" mean, if one looks at the surrounding passages, that they are obliged to follow all the laws, customs, and religion of Israel. In other words, the Bible also insists that immigrants be limited to those whose character made them suitable for entry into God's country.

"While the constitution was not instituted to protect the God-given rights of the whole earth, it was instituted to prevent THIS government from violating ANYONES God-given rights.
"

We have killed citizens in other nations in wars throughout our being. We took away their right to life. Too bad. The US Government is not here to protect the rights of other countries citizens, but our own. We are not the world police. Until the gospel takes hold, much of the globe will be incapable of self-government.

As for your hitting me then assuming a postion of prayer and asking sweetly what I am so upset about- you are a phony.

I seem to think you were attacking me personally, nblacitizen seems to think you were attacking me personally, but you continue to insist you have been nothing but "polite, logical, and precise" with me. Funny how you see yourself verses how others see you.; 11:56 AM, October 25, 2005
Anonymous said...: You said:
Your Jefferson quotes mostly don't apply, since I am not arguing for a moritorium.

Jefferson said:
"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

How does that not apply? You are more guilty of being unconstitutional than the liberals. At least they usually don't lie and say that they honor the document then advocate against it.

You said:
How can it be illegal for me to wander through your house and yard if it is a part of my pursuit of happiness?

You are confusing individual rights with statism. According to the founding fathers, God granted individuals rights that were not given to nation-states. Your position is the statist position and uses the same weak line of reasoning as those who take land from private property owners for the benefit of the state or “community.”

The critic will invariably ask, “What about national sovereignty?” Immigration is indeed a question of sovereignty! The question is, “Did the Sovereign God of Universe delegate His earthly sovereignty to the individual or to the nation-state?”

If you believe that God established the individual as sovereign in this matter then you have a problem with any government that doesn't recognize that individual sovereignty, and you see the borders established by it (a government that does not recognize individual sovereignty) for what they are -- imaginary lines created by politicians to determine which group of thugs has jurisdiction over your life and property. You understand that human rights are universal and that a free market in human migration is a natural right. This does not mean that a government which derives its rights from the people and recognizes the individual as sovereign cannot establish borders for purposes that does not interfere with the unalienable, God given, rights of an individual. This belief holds that the order of sovereignty is God  Individual  State, where the individual derives his rights from God and the state derives its rights from the people, but cannot infringe upon the inalienable rights of the individual.

If you believe that God established the nation-state as sovereign, you are a statist. You have accepted in principle of the "divine right of kings" to rule, borders are important to you, and any subsequent discussion of the form of government is reduced to mere mechanics. The supporter of this twisted view holds that the order of sovereignty is, God  State  Individual, or in the case of the modern socialist liberals, State  Individual. In either case, the individual derives his rights from the state and therefore the state can declare whomever and whatever they wish to be “illegal.”

National sovereignty, while valid as a power delegated by free and individually sovereign people, cannot (and was not intended by the founding fathers to) encroach upon the inherent God given rights of mankind. The same goes for private property rights.

You said:
The right of self-defense certainly implies we can limit who we let into this country to people of good character, as all of the founders knew that without virtue the people cannot continue self-rule. We therefore have a self-defense right to exclude possible immigrants who do not exhibit the traits necessary for self-government.

I agree. But you do not advocate limiting immigration based upon these things. My perception is that you advocate limiting immigration based upon their geographical origin. Furthermore, I in no way believe that the MAJORITY of immigrants that come here do so for any other purpose than for their and their family’s well being. While there are unfortunate exceptions that you point out with much grandeur and circumstance, those who come here have not malice or intent toward anyone. This ballyhoo about “self-defense” is ridiculous. It is not the constitutional reason for limiting immigration.

If your ideas are superior, present the evidence. Enter into the logical debate. Present scriptures, present quotes and writings of the founding fathers, as I have done. On the other hand, since your scholarship of the constitution and the Bible are obviously incomplete and inept, I will make your case for limiting immigration for you. Somebody has to, if it were left up to you, then the case for limiting immigration will be demagogued so much that a Christian solution to the problem will never be achieved.

The Christian and constitutional case for limiting immigration will follow in the next post.; 1:59 PM, October 25, 2005
Anonymous said...: The Christian and Constitutional Case for Limiting Immigration

In order to achieve Christian completeness we should concur with Blackstone's famous statement, "If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter." So what do we know about God’s laws? The terms immigrant and immigration do not appear in the Bible, but terms that clearly apply to our question about immigrants does. Here are some scriptures that tell us about the treatment of

Exodus 12:49, Exodus 22:21, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:10, Leviticus 19:33, Leviticus 19:34, Leviticus 23:22, Leviticus 24:22, Leviticus 25:35, Numbers 15:15, Numbers 15:16, Deuteronomy 10:18, Deuteronomy 10:19, Deuteronomy 14:29, Deuteronomy 16:14, Deuteronomy 23:7, Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:19, Deuteronomy 24:20, Deuteronomy 24:21, Deuteronomy 26:11, Deuteronomy 26:12-13, Deuteronomy 27:19, 1 Chronicles 29:15, Psalm 146:9, Isaiah 61:5, Jeremiah 7:6-7, Ezekiel 22:29, Ezekiel 47:22, Ezekiel 47:23, Zechariah 7:10, Malachi 3:5, Matthew 25:42-45, Hebrews 13:2, 3 John 1:5

From scripture I think it is clear that there are some guiding principles that can be found in these verses and the context of the surround verses.

[Critics will claim that these verses mean little more than the need to extend hospitality to travelers. I will leave it to the reader to verify that the terms “stranger”, “sojourner”, and “alien” used in the verses above very clearly identify a foreign born individual that comes to live permanently among the God’s people. Since I am not trained in Hebrew or Greek, I have found it extremely tedious to do a precise etymological study. Nonetheless, I have researched this enough to be quite convinced of the meanings. In some usages, it is clear that these words convey the meaning not just of an immigrant, but go further and imply a “converted immigrant”, which is part of my justification of the second guiding principle (see below) derived from the verses. You can start doing your own research here: http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/index2.htm ]

Here is what we can know from scripture:

First, and most importantly, is that laws and privileges be just and equal both for the home born and the immigrant.

The founding fathers agreed, notice Jefferson’s comment:

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Notwithstanding the un-Christian principle of socialism which will be addressed in the fourth principle below, it should be noted that SB 206 of the Arkansas 2005 legislative session sought to implement unjust and unequal laws and HB 1525 of the Arkansas 2005 legislative session sought to remove the injustice of unequal laws.

Second, God did not want the children of Israel to embrace customs and beliefs of strangers, but rather for strangers to embrace and convert to the ways of the Jews. Therefore, the open immigration policy required by God Himself does not mean that Americans need to surrender America's great ideals and customs to a tide of foreign peoples. But Americans must persevere in a very generous and open-hearted treatment of all foreigners, at all times. This nation's prosperity and survival depends upon faithfulness to this central command of God. It should also be noted that although immigration should be open, permanent residency does not automatically result in full citizenship. The right to an equal application of laws and public charity is extended to all immigrants, but the right to lead or participate in the governance of the nation (i.e. voting) is reserved for those immigrants converted to the founding principles of the nation.

Again the founding fathers agreed, notice the cautions issued by Jefferson:

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

"I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expense in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but in the meantime, they will teach us something we do not know." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:121

"A first question is, whether it is desirable for us to receive at present the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of the old cities of Europe? A second and more difficult one is, when even good handicraftsmen arrive here, is it better for them to set up their trade, or go to the culture of the earth? Whether their labor in their trade is worth more than their labor on the soil, increased by the creative energies of the earth?" --Thomas Jefferson to J. Lithgow, 1805. ME 11:56

"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles of government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here, are sufficiently disposed to adopt ours." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140

Considering these cautions, I agree wholeheartedly with this quote by Teddy Roosevelt:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907

The same cautions, which we should seriously heed, were expressed by the authors involved in codifying of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution by the ACT OF MARCH 26, 1790. Nonetheless, it is clear that there was no intent to limit immigration, but rather was to set the proper standards for citizenship.

Representative Madison said, “I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States. It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make our law to admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by step; but there is no doubt we may, and ought to require residence as an essential.

Representative Smith, of South Carolina, thought some restraints proper, and that they would tend to raise the Government in the opinion of good men, who are desirous of emigrating; as for the privilege of electing, or being elected, he conceived a man ought to be some time in the country before he could pretend to exercise it. What could he know of the Government the moment he landed? Little or nothing: how then could he ascertain who was a proper person to legislate or judge of the laws? Certainly gentlemen would not pretend to bestow a privilege upon a man which he is incapable of using?

House of Representatives, Rule of Naturalization, 3--4 Feb. 1790 - Annals 1:1109--25

It is obvious from scripture and the intent of the founding fathers that immigrants are rightfully expected to learn and honor the languages, habits, and principles of government and become an amalgamation, yes even assimilated, into the American culture as a whole without compromising the principles and values upon which this nation was founded.

Third, the scriptures tell us that the strangers and sojourners among the Israelites were expected to obey the laws of the land, at least those that do not violate those God given rights. The passage of HB 2539 of the Arkansas 2005 legislative session mandated and enforced the prevention of criminal fraud of official identification and was applied equally to all residents of the State of Arkansas.

Fourth, the scriptures tell us that all forms of charity and altruism are the voluntary responsibility of the individual ultimately and the church collectively. The involvement of the state, which bears the sword of force, in charitable actions, is always an act of violence upon those from which the charitable funds were appropriated, i.e. taxation. Money appropriated via taxation for purposes of disbursement to individuals is a form of theft cloaked in the romanticism of Robin Hood.

As you can see, there was a conflict of the first and the fourth principles, as outlined above, presented to the Arkansas legislators in the 2005 session with SB 206 and HB 1525. What was the proper vote for the Christian legislator? It is clear that the first principle was the only material issue contained with those two bills; the fourth principle was not directly addressed in either. The broader application of eliminating socialism from our government is one that must be considered separately and is ultimately a function of the federal legislature, as is immigration itself. The state legislature has limited options impacting these topics.

Guidelines for Immigration Policy

Where does that leave us as we strive for a coherent, logically consistent, and unifying position for immigration public policy?

We should, and hopefully we righteously can, view limitations on immigration in much the same way as we view divorce. It is something that God may permit because of “the hardness of our hearts,” but in no way should be something pleasing or acceptable to Him. In other words, the ideal is that we have an extremely open immigration policy but because we live in a fallen world we must regrettably implement minimal, just, and prudent limitations upon the rate of immigration.

What are these prudent limitations?

God is a god of order and not chaos. Therefore, immigration should not proceed at a rate that cannot be accomplished in an orderly fashion. Nonetheless, because the ideal is for as open an immigration policy as possible, we should put in place systems that will accommodate as rapid of an immigration rate as is possible. Practically speaking, this has three implications. First are the systems to screen for terrorists and criminals. Second is the methods and ability to prevent the American culture from becoming a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass” as Jefferson so eloquently stated. Third, immigration is, by its very nature, economically disruptive. This is not at all to say that it is economically destructive, quite the contrary. Just as the internet has been disruptive to the traditional media’s distribution of information, immigration is disruptive to traditional workforce patterns. This third implication is by far the weakest of the three for limitation of immigration and we should place these limitations not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the practical thing to do. Here again, we echo the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson:

"Should [reformers] attempt more than the established habits of the people are ripe for, they may lose all and retard indefinitely the ultimate object of their aim." --Thomas Jefferson to Mme de Tesse, Mar 20, 1787. (*) ME 6:105

"To be really useful, we must keep pace with the state of society, and not dishearten it by attempts at what its population, means, or occupations will fail in attempting." --Thomas Jefferson to G. C. de La Costa, 1807. ME 11:206

Favoring highly educated or wealthy immigrants is unjust. It is true that the more highly educated an individual is, the more quickly and easily that person may become an amalgamation of the American society from a language and cultural standpoint. But it also is more likely that the same individuals will hold lingering allegiances to philosophies and political systems that are anathema to the U.S. Constitution. If accelerated immigration paths are established, the “test” for this path should NOT be wealth or education, but rather the individual’s ability to integrate into American society and his submission to, and agreement with, our principles of government and it’s laissez-faire economic system.

From a practical point of view, instead of an immigration problem, what we have is a welfare/socialism problem, a crime problem, and a terrorism problem – all issues that Republicans agree upon! It is time to stop your petty demagoguery falsely wrapped in the text of the Constitution and become a team player on the issues upon which we all agree.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276; 2:01 PM, October 25, 2005
Anonymous said...: Congratulations,

You dropped the phony pretense and let your true character come out.

I said your Jefferson quotes MOSTLY don't apply. You pull out a couple that MAY, but I am not convinced that Jefferson was not referring to other nations keeping their citizens LOCKED IN, as in the Berlin Wall, from a nation willing to receive them.

This is quite different from saying a nation is immoral for keeping people out.

You list a bunch of scritures that say laws and priviledges must be the same for native-born and immigrant. Most of those scriptures you list, if the context is considerd, mean that the immigrant is OBLIGATED to follow all of the law. They are not allowed to be different, they are not allowed to keep the ways of their old people. IN some of those scriptures failure to do so is to result in the DEATH PENALTY.

It is a complete misinterpretation of scripture to say that they mean those who come here in violation of our laws should get all the benefits of our native born. LEGAL IMMIGRANTS should get all the benefits of our native born. Get it? I didn't think so.

SB206 should have passed, and I am glad Holt was not a "team player" on HB1525. Otherwise even more people would sneak in here to get free money from the stupid Americans- money which props up leftist college professors.

You say "It should also be noted that although immigration should be open, permanent residency does not automatically result in full citizenship."

That is just flat crazy. It says "Let in all the theives and dope dealers, rapists and terrorists in the world, as long as they can't vote yet everything will be OK". Having open immigration will kill this country. We have had successful self-government because we have had VIRTUE. We should only let in those with the same virtues.

Other than that bit of insanity your novella about defending immigration policy was not too awful. I don't see, except for the length, how it was so different than what I was saying earlier. I don't see what differences prompted your arrogant and snide, condescending remarks -nor do I really care.; 10:57 PM, October 25, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mr. Moore,

You said:
You dropped the phony pretense and let your true character come out.

I don't get it. How, as if I were being dishonest in my motives, have I dropped any pretense. If anyone's true character is showing, it is your own. You hate me. I mean really HATE me, and it shows. It has been you, not me, that sit in judgement of the other's salvation. It has been you, not me, that has questioned the others commitment to the ONE TRUE GOD. It is you that have judged my MOTIVES (claiming I was making false pretense), not me. I, hopefully, have not passed judgement your motives. I let those things pass as your passion for the debate. Why is it that you attempt to hold me to a standard that you make no effort to achieve yourself?

The most harsh thing I have said to you was this:
If your ideas are superior, present the evidence. Enter into the logical debate. Present scriptures, present quotes and writings of the founding fathers, as I have done. On the other hand, since your scholarship of the constitution and the Bible are obviously incomplete and inept, I will make your case for limiting immigration for you. Somebody has to, if it were left up to you, then the case for limiting immigration will be demagogued so much that a Christian solution to the problem will never be achieved.

If you cannot take that level of heat, you need to get a new hobby. I stand by the above statements. Your attempt to limit criticism of yourself under Christian pretense, then dish it out without restraint is remarkable. If anyone has been hypocritical, as you have charged me with, then it has been you. However, I do not make that charge against you.

You have yet to attempt to refute the fact that the right to immigration is an inalienable, God-given right according to the founding fathers.

You have yet to provide scripture or quotes or foundational documents which support your position. At least I have done you the honor of conducting the debate with logical argumentation and empirical facts. You make assertions, but then fail to back it up with any kind of scholarship.

You said:
I said your Jefferson quotes MOSTLY don't apply. You pull out a couple that MAY, but I am not convinced that Jefferson was not referring to other nations keeping their citizens LOCKED IN, as in the Berlin Wall, from a nation willing to receive them.

You and I both know that the quotes by both Jefferson and Hamilton are VERY clear in their meaning.

You said:
It is a complete misinterpretation of scripture to say that they mean those who come here in violation of our laws should get all the benefits of our native born.

Fair enough assertion, but it presumes that the act of coming here is a violation of God's rights endowed upon the individual. And that is where this debate hinges. That is, "How can immigration in the pursuit of happiness be “illegal” if it is a God given and inalienable right?"

You said:
Most of those scriptures you list, if the context is considerd, mean that the immigrant is OBLIGATED to follow all of the law. They are not allowed to be different, they are not allowed to keep the ways of their old people.

MOST of the scriptures say that? You err. Most of those scriptures are directed at the rulers of Israel to treat widows, orphans, and (dare I say it) immigrants justly.

As far as the "immigrants" becoming "converted" to God's laws, I covered all of that. To rehash what we don't disagree on is an attempt to set up a straw man.

You said:
That is just flat crazy. It says "Let in all the theives and dope dealers, rapists and terrorists in the world, as long as they can't vote yet everything will be OK".

You know that I plainly made the case for keeping out "theives and dope dealers, rapists and terrorists" and provided proof of the founding fathers opinion on that. I have no idea why you keep trying to level that charge at me unless you are attempting to deceive readers that I believe something that I do not. Are you intentionally using straw-man fallacies or are you just not being careful with your logical arguments?

You said:
I don't see, except for the length, how it was so different than what I was saying earlier.

You are right, applicationally there is very little ultimate difference. However, there is a gigantic gulf in how it is manifest in the Christian heart.

Here is why:
If you understand that immigrants that come here illegally are not violating God's law, but ARE violating federal code which may or may not be constitutional. Since there were no quotas on immigration until the 1920 and because of how these laws are applied, it is my belief that they may be unconstitutional. I DO believe that limits on immigration could be constitutional as I have made the case for above.

The limitation upon immigration is very similar to the Biblical defense of waging a just war. It is not something that the Christian should rush headlong into without a heavy heart and much regret. I think you made the analogy earlier about war and the taking away of "right to life." Certainly the limitation upon immigration does not rise to the level of war in seriousness, but the same principles apply.

I had hoped that we might conduct this debate with the wisdom of Proverbs 9:7-9. Upon review, we have both been failing. Nonetheless, I have judged you both a wise and a righteous man and still have hope that this debate will ultimately lead to love and understanding. If I had thought that I were simply throwing pearls to a pig, I would not have invested this much time and heartache into the debate. It is my belief that this thread will reap righteous rewards for both of us.

What you don't understand is I HOPE that you would PROVE me wrong. It would be far easier to live believing as you do. It would be far easier for me to say, "I was wrong." If I could do that, if you could prove it to me, I would be able to restore friendships, heal a point of contention in my marriage, and generally have a peaceful fellowship with my Christian breathren.

I believe the Holy Spirit has pressed this upon my heart, and reason has confirmed His witness in my mind.

Like the great reformer, Martin Luther:

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason .. my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen."; 12:51 AM, October 26, 2005
Roberto Iza Valdés said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 6:56 PM, November 01, 2005
Roberto Iza Valdés said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12:04 PM, December 24, 2005

Arkansas Watch

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Violent Crime Up In Arkansas, Down Elsewhere

19 Comments:

Contributors

Archives