E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiNews reports in both the national print and electronic media have unfortunately sown some confusion over where Southern Baptists, and I, stand on the question of immigration reform.
Like most Americans, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals continue to search for a morally responsible way to address the growing immigration crisis while honoring the rule of law.
To date, legislation offering truly comprehensive immigration reform—legislation that will garner the support of a critical mass of Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals—has yet to be written and introduced in Congress.
Immigration reform that is “truly” comprehensive and will earn my support will square with the points covered in a resolution overwhelmingly adopted by Southern Baptists’ elected messengers meeting at their annual convention in June 2006.
The reform would:
• Insure the federal government provides for U.S. security “by controlling and securing our borders”;
• Enforce immigration laws, including oversight of the hiring practices of private employers;
• Deal judiciously and “realistically” with those in the country illegally; and,
• Allow the people of God to act “redemptively,” reaching out to meet the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all immigrants as they work toward an earned pathway of “legal status and/or citizenship.”
If I were a U.S. Congressman or Senator, I would not support any immigration bill that has yet been introduced. Each of the bills falls short in some critical areas.
Senate measures have been too lenient and have not adequately addressed border security. The House bill, which gained passage in the last session, was inadequate in that it focused almost exclusively on border security and failed to position the government to deal “realistically with the immigration crisis in a way that would restore trust among the citizenry,” as the SBC resolution urges.
The legislation that will generate majority support among Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals is still out there waiting to be written and introduced in the Congress.
It is imperative that Congress—consistent with national sovereignty and with our national security—expeditiously find a way to resolve this moral problem in a moral way in line with the ideals of our nation.
I am in favor of a measure that includes controlling the borders and enforcing immigration laws inside the country, while offering no amnesty for lawbreakers. This is my position and the position that emerges from any fair and objective reading of the SBC resolution.
The term “comprehensive legislation” is not code for amnesty, no matter what my critics contend. Webster defines amnesty as the “act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Amnesty is wiping a transgressor’s record clean—it is a free ride.
Proper reform should consist of a “guest-worker” program that requires an illegal immigrant to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn English, and get in line behind those who have legally migrated into this country in order to apply for permanent residence after a probationary period of years. Amnesty? Hardly.
To call any proposed requirement—that individuals must learn to read and write and speak English and go through a rigorous process in order to earn their way out of a lengthy period of “probation” in order to apply for legal status—“amnesty” is to do violence to the English language. Continue »
