Immigration Reform Is a Moral Imperative

Wall Street Journal ^ | March 30, 2014 | Ralph Reed and Russell Moore

[C19fan]

Republicans in the House of Representatives—sensing the political winds at their backs heading into the midterm election and distrustful of President Obama's willingness to enforce the law—have opted to do nothing about immigration. Their strategy is shortsighted.

Reform will require moral courage and leadership, but it is necessary. Because of the federal government's failure to secure the border, antiquated policies and a patchwork of conflicting regulations, there are now millions of people who have overstayed visas or crossed our borders illegally. The current system is inadequate for the country's needs, and it is inequitable as well.

[forgotten man]

WSJ BS! Most voters do not give a rat’s a** about immigration reform or globull warming. Voters are worried about putting food on their own tables. GOP should talk about 0bama’s failures and pin the tail on the donkey.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

I wouldn’t subscribe to that rag called the “Wall Street Journal” if it were free.

Rupert Murdoch and his co-horts ruined that paper.

[Ohioan]

While I already responded to this article, above, I must comment further on this comment of yours, which I agree is a logical implication of the WSJ article:

"I can take that statement to its logical conclusion and say we should have zero borders and whoever wants to come here should be allowed."

We have limited lands, limited resources. The essence of sovereignty is the right to use your lands & resources for your own people. It is the ultimate insult to any people, to pretend that they, their generations, history, characteristics & culture, are immaterial. Yet, this basically, is the dogma of the Egalitarian Collectivists, who insist that we must treat all humanity as one entity.

The basic issue, here, is whether Americans have the right to self-determination. The writers, however, seek to disguise it with an obvious red-herring, "each person's God-given dignity." While not everyone exhibits their "God-given dignity"--and some would argue that not even 1% of humanity does--the question has absolutely nothing logically to do, with formulating a reasoned immigration policy to protect the unique interests of the rooted American population. Nothing, whatsoever!

This is somewhat analogous to the stage magician's creation of illusions by getting an audience to focus on the wrong object. Conservatives need to understand the technique, so as not to get suckered into making apologetic arguments, rather than ones that cut to the actual issue.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Rupert Murdoch and his co-horts ruined that paper.

I do not read it often enough, any more, to go along with that broad a statement. But whatever may be said about the Aussie media magnate, good or bad; he is one of the last people anyone should listen to on the subject of immigration.

Is Mr. Murdoch not that oxymoron of a "dual citizen?" How can one serve multiple, but conflicting, allegiances? How can anyone be a conscientious "dual citizen." The concept, logically analyzed, is mind-boggling. Surely it is just another form of that rejection of allegiance, of country, fellow countrymen, and national honor, "a citizen of the world."

This sort of article is the last thing Mr. Murdoch should be promoting. But then, even the intelligent can be led very far astray--particularly when they have already compromised their own honor.

William Flax

[GeronL]

ugh

it is immoral to the bone

[GeronL]

WSJ has been for open borders for decades so it is not a suprise. If it had been on the other side the WSJ would probably not run it

[Zuse]

“I can take that statement to its logical conclusion and say we should have zero borders and whoever wants to come here should be allowed.”

Keep going. We should recognize every individual in the world and send them a “living wage” check.

[achilles2000]

Moore replaced Richard Land at the lobbying arm of the SBC as a part of a purge of “conservatives” by “moderates”. Land was, in fact, working with the CFR (he is a member)and the SBC leadership to swing the SBC membership behind a cryptoamnesty proposal. Unfortunately for Land, the new “leadership of the SBC, which thinks it can increase membership by being “theologically conservative” and socially “moderate”, fired Land, primarily for referring to Jackson and Sharpton on his radio show as race pimps. This was unacceptable because the leadership has gone all-in for “diversity” as a way of allegedly attracting more members.

Moore, I understand, worked in the office of Dem congressman earlier in his career and is identified by some who know him as a “moderate” Dem. The Land message on cryptoamnesty wasn’t working because it was not subtle enough. This article is a trial balloon to see if this particular combination misdirection play and pack of lies can get some traction within the ranks of the Happy, Clappy, We-Must-Be-”Nicer”-than-Jesus evangelicals.

If the rank and file don’t clean house at the SBC, it will resemble the PCUSA in about 10-20 years.

[Impy]

Ralph Wiggum is clearly more intelligent than Ralph Reed.

[ObamahatesPACoal]

The illegals should be stopped so they stop engaging in a lifestyle of gluttony. They need to be more humble.

[BillyBoy]

Oh fun, another “Christian” leader who loves illegal aliens.

I must have missed the section of the Bible where Jesus commands his followers to reward people who unlawfully entered their country.

I’ve heard the argument that the Catholic Church officials are promoting illegal aliens because most of them are Catholic so they figure that would fill up the pews on Sunday. The argument makes sense, except all the protestant Christians leaders love illegal aliens just as much. Reed being the latest example.