Full Text, Bush Speech.

Instapundit ^ | May 15, 2006 | GWB

[steve-b]

There is a basic concept in law called "due diligence" -- failure to learn a relevant fact is treated much more harshly if you chose to look the other way than if you failed to discover it after a good-faith effort.

The illegal alien problem, by and large, isn't driven by employers who were honestly fooled after a routine check of SSN, green-card records, and the like came back OK. It is driven by employers who simply don't bother, or who actively prefer to employ illegals (because they can be threatened with deportation if they complain about unsafe conditions, lousy pay, etc).

Exploiting the issue to sneak in the government's pre-existing your-papers-please agenda is unacceptable.

[Leisler]

Good fisking of this delusional pap.

Hey, the '6,000' guardsmen. I think, I am not sure and how can I be, being but a citizen and dependent upon the cryptic weasel words of Bush, but anyways I take it this doesn't mean at any time there will be 6,000 men on duty. I think, again I am not sure, that it means, over a year, there will be 6,000 deployed, thus at anyone time this words out to a extra 270 people. If Bush ment 6,000 every two weeks, then that would tie up 156,000 guardsmen a year. Que Sabe? Wow. I feel good now.

[GarySpFc]

Therefore, it is only by interpretation that someone can arrive at such a conclusion that our legal/illegal immigrant distinctions are present in ancient middle eastern cultures.

The point is that the Hebrews were not illegal aliens in a foreign land, but we do have illegal aliens today.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Matt. 22:21

Apparently you do not believe this passage, but allow the 12 to 20 million illegals in the country to stay here, but your faith overlooks the 4 million waiting in line to immigrate here legally. There are going to be delayed for several more years due to your faith.

If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; Exodus 22:2:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both. Proverbs 17:15

From Luke 28-37: "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
(Note that Jesus excluded the lawbreakers from consideration here.)

[BlueStateDepression]

Fon news reports that if the National Guard actively detains illegal invaders that they will sue in court.

Don't that just beat all. A foreign nation threatening to sue in our courts over our ability to defend our own nation.

Thanks Liberal LEFTISTS...you are responsible for THIS!

[BlueStateDepression]

By the THEY I refer to Mexico. The way I wrote that it appears ai meant FOX would do the suing. My appologies for that.

[ZULU]

O.K.

That makes sense to me.

[ZULU]

I think the Dems would support NO troops on the border and total unqualified approval of illegals.

The difference between Bush's proposal and a Democrat proposal is the Dems would hire the illegals already here with tax dollars to run a bus srvice from Tiahuana and Mexico City to bring more in.

[PhilDragoo]

I expect we will get played on all this until the elections.

I agree. Assuage the angry base with pretty words.

[GarySpFc]

THE BIBLE AND THE BORDER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

--Robert Klein Engler

HE IS AN ILLINOIS MINUTEMAN!!

(CHICAGO--7 Nov. '05) Most social observers agree that the United States is a very religious country. By all measures of religiosity, the U. S. ranks high. At least 85 percent of the U. S. population claims they believe in God. Church attendance is high in the U. S. and so are donations to religious groups. With such a large number of citizens holding religious beliefs, it is little wonder that these beliefs are beginning to enter the debate over illegal immigration. To some observers it may seem that God and the border patrol are going to meet head-on.

If the U. S. is a very religious country, then it is also a predominantly Christian country. Some 80 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Yale professor S. P. Huntington argues that Anglo-Protestant Christian beliefs are at the core of traditional American values. Anglo-Protestant beliefs, however, have changed and developed through the centuries since the founding of the nation. From the doorway of a storefront church on the south side of Chicago to the stained-glass windows of New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral, the U. S. offers multiple expressions of the Christian faith.

Many Christians are now caught up in the debate about illegal immigration. Some do not know what to do to stop illegal immigration while at the same time living a faith that asks its believers to practice charity and forgiveness. Other Christians mistakenly believe that groups who are against illegal immigration, groups like the Minuteman Project, are immoral and dangerous. These Christians believe that illegal immigrants should be seen as people who need our assistance and compassion, not our judgment and condemnation.

Does the Bible and Christian theology have anything to add to the illegal immigration debate? Are Christians supposed to act one way or another on this social issue? I think Christianity does have some answers to the moral questions raised by illegal immigration. These answers are to be found both in Christian scripture and theology. In my view it is possible to be both a good Christian and have secure borders. It is also possible to demand illegal immigrants be deported and to practice Christian charity.

In chapter 13 of the apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans, the English translation reads, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed..." (Romans 13:1-2). Clearly, this is advice to Christians to follow the laws of their nation and to respect the laws of other nations.

When people come to the U. S. illegally, they are committing a crime. They are doing something that is against the governing authorities of the U. S. Illegal immigrants are not good Christians from Paul's perspective. Illegal immigrants may have reasons for breaking U. S. laws, but those reasons do not excuse their illegal actions. We should not let charity and compassion blind us from the criminal act illegal immigrants commit.

Those who work in a law-abiding way against illegal immigration and those who ask that the laws of the U. S. be enforced are being good Christians in doing so. Likewise, those who demand that illegal immigrants be detained and deported respect the governing authorities of their nation. In line with Paul's argument, they are doing what good Christians ought to do.

This is not to say that illegal immigrants should be treated badly. Christians practice charity and respect for the individual, but they do not condone law breaking. Law-abiding citizens of the U. S. have every right to make sure their borders are secure and that illegal immigrants are removed from their country as quickly and humanely as possible.

There are ideas implied in Paul's other writings that also shed light on the contemporary issue of illegal immigration. In his Letter to Philemon, Paul address the issue of what is to be done about a runaway slave. In short, Paul sends back the runaway slave, Onesimus, and encourages his master, Philemon, to accept and forgive him. This may seem an unusual act by Paul to those who know that under Roman law, the master had absolute authority over the life and person of the slave.

Although illegal immigrants are not slaves the way Onesimus was a slave in the apostle Paul's time, we can see illegal immigrants today as persons running away from their moral obligations to improve their own country and not run down ours. If that is the case, then it is certainly a moral and Christian thing to encourage illegal immigrants to return home and make life better in their own country.

Moving from scripture to the domain of Christian theology, we learn that moral actions have both an objective and subjective component. The theologian Thomas Aquinas held that both subjective intention and objective consequence are necessary in making a moral judgment. In one of Thomas's examples, while out hunting it is better to kill your father believing he is a stag, than to kill a stag believing it is your father.

From the point of view of the moral theology of Thomas Aquinas, we may judge illegal immigrants from Mexico from both a subjective and objective point of view. Objectively, illegal immigrants are breaking U. S. immigration laws, but do these criminals have a subjective intention that outweighs the objective criminal act? Is breaking U. S. immigration laws justified because it is the only way poor Mexicans can feed their families, or do illegal immigrants who come to the U. S. have another choice?

Coming to the U. S. illegally is not the only choice poor Mexicans can make to improve their lives. They could also choose to stay in Mexico and work to make Mexico a better country. In fact, as good Christians it is their moral obligation to do this. It is better to improve Mexico than to be a criminal in the U. S. Illegal immigration may be the easy way out, but it is not the moral way. Christians are supposed to do what is good, even if the good is difficult to do.

Although Christianity encourages acts of charity, we cannot be both charitable and law breakers. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The Archbishop of Mexico City should be encouraged to prevent Mexicans from coming illegally to the U. S. He should encourage Mexicans to work for Christian social change in Mexico instead of criticizing U. S. immigration policies. Unless the Mexican state changes, many Mexican citizens will never be able to have a fulfilled life. Nor can they find fulfillment by breaking U. S. immigration laws. To push the poor from your door to your neighbor's door is not an example of Christian charity.

It remains to be seen what other religious questions will be raised about illegal immigration to the U. S. It seems clear for the moment that as the debate over illegal immigration grows, so, too will the theological and scriptural debate over this issue grow. It may very well be that just as liberal Christianity in the U. S. inspired the civil rights movement of the late 20th century, so, conservative Christianity will inspire the secure border movement of the early 21st century.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is an adjunct professor at Roosevelt University. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I don't see the base buying it this time. If Bush wants to help the GOP, there needs to be fence a wall construction on a large scale. The ICE raids are a Dog and Pony show that does not fool anyone. If Bush was to be believed on that score they need to be arresting executives at Tyson Foods and "Frog Marching" them to the dock. I don't see Bush doing anything like that. There is time to build a lot of fence.

[GarySpFc]

However, there is more that informs us to be a compassionate people than suggests that we should be a hard, legalistic people.

Jesus was accused of being a hard and legalistic man, when he told the Pharisees to look on a woman and lust is adultery. That said, we are to be compassionate. However, we are to worship God in spirit and truth, and spirit without truth is mere sympathy.

[justa-hairyape]

By that standard (politically acceptable vs. not politically acceptable) what can, or will ever be done?

IMHO - It is not a political problem. President Clinton had no problems deporting Elian Gonzalez even in the face of intense political pressure not too. Clinton cared more about what Castro thought then what the majority of us Americans thought. Deep down the Oligarchy cares not one bit about politics. They think Globally and act Globally. Local politics is the canard they brainwash the sheeple with. Our current President appears to care more about what Fox thinks, then what the majority of us Americans think.

[skateman]

Cute, no?

No.

[Gorobei]

I really don't care who you are or how many posts you have made.

It is cost prohibitive. Wasting a single dime on simply rounding them up and shipping them back is a dime wasted. The incentive to come here in the first place is what needs to be removed, and that doesn't cost a thing, and would infact free up even more resources. No more free health care, tuition breaks, and so on.

Clear?

[xzins]

12 to 20 million illegals in the country to stay here

I don't think you can find where I said the above. What I have said is that I think the President's faith is informing his policy. I also have said that the bible DOES require compassionate treatment of the alien. It's simply a biblical fact. The Hebrews were once illegal aliens in a foreign land. Certainly you don't think that the sack of all those cities they overthrew in their invasion of Palestine was approved by the laws of those cities????

[GarySpFc]

The Hebrews were once illegal aliens in a foreign land. Certainly you don't think that the sack of all those cities they overthrew in their invasion of Palestine was approved by the laws of those cities????

No, the Hebrews were never illegal aliens...period.

No, the overthrow of the cities was not approved by the kings of those cities, but what you are missing is the Lord was the authority who told them to overthrow them. He was the governing legal authority at the time, and the Hebrews attacked at His command. The Lord specifically commanded the Hebrews to drive out the other kings. It is simply not correct to say the Hebrews were illegal aliens.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I really don't care who you are or how many posts you have made."

I'm pointing out that I'm just "slightly" more likely to understand the ettiquette of the forum than you, NOOB.

"It is cost prohibitive. Wasting a single dime on simply rounding them up and shipping them back is a dime wasted. The incentive to come here in the first place is what needs to be removed, and that doesn't cost a thing, and would infact free up even more resources. No more free health care, tuition breaks, and so on."

Wrong. It is NOT cost prohibitive. It is actually cheap at the price. The economic impact of the money sent home every year ($30 billion/year) ALONE is six times the TOTAL budget of INS ($5.3 billion). The net effect of having that $30 billion not spent in the US economy is at least $150 billion dollars (assuming a multiplier effect of 5X). This says nothing about the direct costs.

I agree that it would be nice to reduce the incentives, but that is even less likely to happen than deportation.

[xzins]

the Hebrews were never illegal aliens...period.

IF it were according to the law of that land, then they wouldn't have had to conquer the cities.

As it was, they had to subjugate.

It is the law of our land that you cannot take my property except for a public use. If you come in with a team of lawyers and a court order and take it and hand it over to a Strip Mall, then you have demonstrated your power.

Now....what's the law of the land regarding the taking of property?

[Gorobei]

""Wrong. It is NOT cost prohibitive.""

Yes, it is. Might as well throw the billions right down the sewer for all the good it will do.

Remove the incentives, and they will go back themselves. If no one can hire them, no one can give them medical care, etc...there will be no reason to be here. They can go home, and then come in through the front door with the rest of the lawful immigrants.