liberating the fuller thread from the hijack

[Full Quiver]

Do you believe that, in any way, travel outside one's native country changes a person's perspective?

I do PG but I also realize that perspective is not always truth. Also I realize that such a change in perspective could be based on emotion and not what's best for the USA. We could all get emotional and say let all the poor people of the world come here now (where does it end) but that would not be the best thing for the 300 million US citizens that make this country what it is.

The United States Of America was established by a bunch of "rule breakers."

Thanks for driving home a great point. If we continue to allow our immigration laws to be trampled on then this country will not be what it was founded to be. The immigrants will change this country and I fear for worse. Just look at Mexico and most of Central and South America. The people of those nations could have mirrored what the US did and built for themselves a great nation but they haven't. Instead they want the easy way out and they are willing to destroy the US for their own temporal gain.

FQ, I am not an expert on immigration, I know what I do by example and real life situations that I encounter often in working overseas. The US is the hardest country to get an entry vida for. And next to impossible to get into legally. Each year their is a small allotment of peole allowed from various countries around the world. Also there is a lottery that some can win a green card for resident here. When I say it is difficult, you cannot imagine how hard. That is the reason so many choose other means to get here.

Neither am I an expert on the subject Paul and as I learned in grade school yes the process is long and hard. Good things don't come easy my friend. We all know that success comes with hard work. If they are not willing to work hard for their citizenship then they will NEVER appreciate it.
Those that have migrated LEGALLY know this and that is why they too are so up in arms over this issue.

I am aware of the lottery process and the odds. Funny that you likened it to the powerball and it's odds. I could take on the same spirit as those that have total disregard for our immigration laws and go down and hold up the the lottery office here in Nashville and just take millions. Same thing brother, it's the same thing.

My brother is a contractor in Texas. He has spent huge sums of money trying to get some of his key supervisors legal. He has sent some back to mexico and is willing to pay the cost, but they still have to wait and go thru the process and can still be denied.

My oldest son married a girl from Peru. They were legally married, she has a college degree, was gaurenteed a job here in the US. My son has a masters and working on his doctrate, he also teaches at a junior college. They have spent three years to get her resident card. ( Not citizenship ) just resident. The quta for Peru was reached and she is just out of luck for the present time. She fears going back home to visit family that she might not be alowed back into the US.

I feel for your son and his bride but surely they knew the process and the statistics involved in immigration before they said their I do's. Were they married here of abroad? Why not move to Peru until they can get legal status? By advocating what you are you are undermining our laws. You are more than free to contact your congress person and Senators and ask them to revise the current laws and I am not encouraging you to ask them for amnesty.

Your brother's business should be closed down, his licenses should be revoked, and he should be fined heftily. I'm sure you will take that personally but when we or our loved ones break the law we should be responsible enough to face the consequences.

Also remember that our forefathers did not change a nation, rather they came and built a new nation, and many might argue at the expense of the native americans that were here. IMHO, what happened to the american indians is a black mark of genecide in our history.

Our forefathers did change a nation. Their actions changed the British Empire. I agree the native Americans were mistreated and many of our leaders throughout history should have been ashamed for their actions and we should not lift them up as reputable people in the history books.
We did what we did to the natives by using force and multitudes of people.
We will see the same things done to us in the not so distant future if this lawlessness (anarchy) continues. It's not about immigration for the most part, it's a scheme to conquer. I don't see people allowing boat loads of Europeans, Africans, Australians, and/or Asians to come here. If were about immigration laws being unfair then entrepreneurs (called coyotes on the souther border) would buy ships and do just that.

[paul]

Contrary to what you might think, I do not advocate breaking the law, nor illegal immigration. But I certinally understand why some choose the latter.

The premise that I am sharing is that the system is so distorted that those why try to do it the legal way are generally the ones penalized and it becomes next to impossible to get to this country.

It is very easy for one to arm chair quarterback and say what should be done or how the game should be played and something altogether different than actually having to play the game.

As for my brother. He is one of the few employers that is actively working to help these workers become legal, at his own cost. Shut him down and more will open and hire these men without any regards of them becoming legal. they are viewd only as cheap labor. At least my brother sees them as real people that want to work and provide for their family the same as you do for yours. Maybe the Indians should have put up fences along the coast to have kept our forefathers out of this country. ( Yea, I know that was different because it is something that would have affected us ).

What I have learned over the past 38 years of ministry and working with people all around the world and having traveled and ministered all around the world is that nothing is as simple as we think it is. More grey than you could ever imagine.

PG wrote:

Thanks. No trick question. Do you believe that, in any way, travel outside one's native country changes a person's perspective?

For me the answer is absolutely. But not only outside ones country, simply different walks of life. Possibly for me it is our ethniclly blended family that has cause me to view things in a very different light.

[Full Quiver]

Nevertheless Paul, your brother is breaking the law when he hires illegals. why not hire legal immigrants?

Again I understand the process, heartache, and frustration that your daughter in law is in for but just because the process is hard, TOO HARD, doesn't make it OK to be here illegally.

Since you say

I do not advocate breaking the law, nor illegal immigration.

then I ask have you advised your daughter in law to leave the country until this can be worked out LEGALLY?

[paul]

Nevertheless Paul, your brother is breaking the law when he hires illegals. why not hire legal immigrants?

Again I understand the process, heartache, and frustration that your daughter in law is in for but just because the process is hard, TOO HARD, doesn't make it OK to be here illegally.

Since you say

I do not advocate breaking the law, nor illegal immigration.

then I ask have you advised your daughter in law to leave the country until this can be worked out LEGALLY?

I can see you are a great man of compassion.

Also that you do not see the forest for the trees. As for my daughter in law. She is here in this country under a matrialmony permit while she and my son try to get her resident card. Totally legal. So once agin you misunderstand.

You do not understand the heartace, nor the process because you have never had to go thru it. My grand son's mother is a african american. It like me saying because I have a grandson who is half black I understand the blacks. I will never understand their situation becaue I am not black. Noe will you ever understand the immigrants situation because you are not one. You have a black/white mentality. ( I am not referring to racial )The world doesn't work that way in reality.

You constantly talk about the law. How many on this forum break the law each day ? Speeding, rolling stops, fudging on that tax deduction. Writing a check when the funds are not there and beating it to the bank on Monday morning. How many break God's law by backbiting, gossip, having no faith.

Are the illegal immagrants breaking the law. Yea, as most of us do one way or another .

[Full Quiver]

And how many get audited by the IRS and tickets for speeding along with INF fees from their bank Paul. By your own explanation you cannot know the heartache of the illegal immigrant because you are not one and since you don't know then how can you say whether I am wrong or right? I have compassion Paul, men and women died for the liberties of this country and to protect and serve. When people spit on our laws they spit in the face of those people's families and in the face of those who died serving. Where's your compassion for those people?

As far as your daughter in law being here by permit goes, GREAT, I am happy for that. You failed to give me and those reading this interaction that info up until now.

[dolfan]

The idea that the law tells us what is right overlooks the fact that Peter preached the gospel while breaking the law as it was given to him by men with the brute power to enforce it. He said that he should obey God rather than man.

The law is to be respected not because it is right, but because it (ideally) promotes peace and order, which are things God loves (i.e., "follow peace with all men", and also 1 Cor. 14:40, Romans 13:1, etc.). However, it has no moral authority beyond its reflection of God's character. That's why Peter was not wrong when he refused to obey the human authority to whom he was subject --- because the law applied to him was an immoral law.

Now, as to who may judge whether a law is moral or immoral, I leave to the person (individually and as part of a church) and God under each specific circumstance to determine simply because it is not for me to say. But, the question of when the civil law may be breached in order to reach over it to "do the right thing" is, as I see it, a simpler one to approach once it is determined after thoughtful, prayerful and accountable consideration that the law, although valid in its power, is void in its moral substance.

So, what I'd ask is to consider in the framework of the gospels of Jesus whether one should hire an illegal alien in the U.S. in a situation as Paul describes relative to his brother in Texas. What biblical reasons (implied or explicit) can we find to not do so?

[Full Quiver]

Dolfan, Paul's brother can be loving and charitable to these individuals without hiring them. They broke the law by coming here. He breaks the law by hiring them. If his heart is to pay their fees to get them legal then he can do so without hiring them. It seems that his intents are having them as employees and not merely to help them out. I have learned that some employers will go to great lengths to get what they want.

Peter was preaching the gospel which was a harmless enterprise and bettered the community. yes it was viewed as illegal but was it really considering that they resided under Roman rule? I hardly see the comparison of Peter's plight and that of the illegal immigrant. Jesus never told the Samaritan woman to move to Jerusalem.

[TW]

Peter was preaching the gospel which was a harmless enterprise and bettered the community. yes it was viewed as illegal but was it really considering that they resided under Roman rule? I hardly see the comparison of Peter's plight and that of the illegal immigrant. Jesus never told the Samaritan woman to move to Jerusalem.

Danny, you are not taking a historical look at this, but rather viewing it solely from a Christian perspective. In the Christian perspective Peter's preaching "bettered" the community by bring them to a knowledge of Christ. You will get no argument from me that this knowledge was not an improvement to Roman culture. However, when viewed from the perspective of the Roman authorities, the teaching of the Gospels was an act of sedition. One must remember that in Roman culture it was not uncommon for the Emperor to either declare himself to be a god, or for the Roman Senate to Deify the Emperor. This, by implication, placed the ultimate power in the hands of the government. The Christian teachings on the other hand said that the ultimate power was God's alone.

Too Roman authority this was a dangerous view. One that would never allow an Emperor to be elevated to the level of godhood. The historical fact is that normally when Rome conquered a nation, or people, the gods of that nation or people were absorbed into the Roman religious community. The Romans even went to the point of building a special Temple in Rome to honor all of the gods, the Pantheon. However, the beliefs of the Jews and Christians, that there was only one God, challenged not only the Roman religious community, but the civil authority as well. Because Christians believed that all power and authority came from God rather than the state (the Emperor or Senate) it was a direct danger to civil authority. This would present a greater threat than the situation with the illegal aliens that are being discussed here, at least from a governmental viewpoint.

For the record, let me state that I neither support nor condone the illegal entry into the U.S. by people of any nationality. Nor do I support amnesty for those that are in the country illegally. I do believe that there needs to be immigration reform, and I support immigration as long as it is done within the guidelines of the law.


TW

[Full Quiver]

TW, my understanding of Peter's lawlessness in Acts 5 was to the Jewish religious elite, the high priest, and not to the Romans. It appears to me that usually the Romans allowed the Jews to hash out their own religious differences.


Due to the notion that someone thinks that my entire existence here at Jude 2 is to fight with people then I suppose it best to bow out of this discussion at this time and possibly all others.

[one love]

ok I wrote a really long post and it was deleted by accident. I will try to shorten this up because I know I will not remember all of this.
I feel we must obey the laws of the land unless it goes against God's word. Preaching is something we are commanded to do. Breaking the law is against God's word.
I feel you are misunderstanding fullquiver, he is correct here and I really dont feel he is being hateful at all. I do have compassion for good people that want in this country but how can we justify someone breaking the law to get here because of there poverty. Should we allow poor americans to steal because of there poverty, would that be acceptable? Surley not. What about dope dealers that know no other way but to sell dope and want to get out of the ghetto, do they get a pass?
Why cant we still trust God that HE is able to supply the needs of us all and to bring them here legally if it is his will. God supplies our needs not America. I love this country and times have changed. There are terrorist that enter in through our boarders which makes it very unsafe for our citizens. Our economy is effected by the illegal immigrants. Many do not pay taxes, yet they get government money (sorry our money) such as welfare and healthcare but work a job illegally. Why is this justified?
I feel there has to be a way that illegalls can work here and pay taxes to contribute but be monitered. If they break the law they are subject to being deported.
I had a friend that was brought here at an early age from the ghettos of scotland. He was raised in this country always paid taxes etc. Yet he started selling dope and was caught. His lawyer let him know that since we are in a post 9-11 world that he could be deported since he was not married and never recieved his citizenship, he was here legally though. He was out on bail and married his girlfriend. That week he went to a party and when he got home they raided his apartment and he was deported by the next day, just flown to scottland knowing really nobody and had not been there since he was a child.

I own a buisness but if I hire illegals I am wrong. It takes jobs from americans that are obeying our laws. Also I would get a serious penalty which is justified. I do feel for your situation Paul I do. But Fullquiver is not saying anything that is wrong. Compassion should not justify lawlessness or we should allow our own people do do the same.
I think we should remember breaking the law is agianst Gods word unless it goes against the word of God.
God Bless.

[dolfan]

For the record, I don't think you're being hateful Danny. I hope I didn't say that (I re-read, and didn't find anything that -- to me -- came across that way. If I'm a bluntskull -- and I am often -- and I did say something to indicate that, then please know it was not on purpose and I'm sorry for being reckless with my words.) I like the discussion on this. It is a great way to explore the scope of where God and man's laws collide and how we work out our salvation while in a God-hating world.

One love wrote

I think we should remember breaking the law is agianst Gods word unless it goes against the word of God.

I suppose my point is exactly that, too. Not helping, not doing unto the least of these, as it is written, is not doing unto Him. Helping, OTOH, is doing unto Him. The argument you're making is that helping these folks in the ways that Paul describes by his brother and the ways others are doing (granted, not many but still....) is illegal (although it is indisputably done, at least for the sake of our argument, as unto the Lord), and that the law of the land is agreeable and reasonable, and therefore it is good and Godly.

I have no problem with that way of weighing the righteousness of our laws, broadly speaking. If it makes sense, it is probably not unrighteous on its face. But, what is the law really? Is it the written law passed in due process through legislation? Or, is it not also the practice and policy of those charged with executing the laws, also passed in due process through legislation (and, I would add of equal importance, court cases). We have, literally, conflicting laws. On the one hand, "do not enter without a visa", on the other hand, "don't let us catch you coming in, but once you're here, you've reached a safe harbor of sorts and we'll have to deal with you in a different and as-yet indefinite manner." That's the law.

Now, there are also laws about hiring these people who broke the law (entering without permission), that puts the onus on the employers not to put these people to work. The theory is that they'll either (a) turn to government or other relief groups and starve and live very poorly but be beholden to the hands that feed them OR (b) leave the U.S. Now, this is a law that ---- for all of the theoretical arguments in support it (i.e., saves American jobs, lowers our tax burden, etc.) ---- puts these people who have made an illegal entry but who are now here and who are now within our own reach as believers without means. It does so deliberately. It also commands us not to help them in the most productive and practical way -- hire 'em. So, if we want to help them, we can only do so as the government tells us. In other words, when Jesus commands us to feed the hungry, we can offer a tray of food, but not the means to help them get their own. This is the very thing we've said is immoral about welfare, and rightly so.

In the end, we have to make a decision that, in my own view, is not easy to escape. Do we Christians walk by these illegally-here people and give them piecemeal relief as the notion strikes us, or do we show actual what's-good-for-them concern and love by giving them something that helps them live better lives (jobs and pay) when they're willing to work for it? What law should qualify as one righteous enough to compel us to ignore the need for productivity and sustenance? I want someone to tell me that.

[one love]

For the record, I don't think you're being hateful Danny. I hope I didn't say that (I re-read, and didn't find anything that -- to me -- came across that way. If I'm a bluntskull -- and I am often -- and I did say something to indicate that, then please know it was not on purpose and I'm sorry for being reckless with my words.) I like the discussion on this. It is a great way to explore the scope of where God and man's laws collide and how we work out our salvation while in a God-hating world.

One love wrote

I think we should remember breaking the law is agianst Gods word unless it goes against the word of God.

I suppose my point is exactly that, too. Not helping, not doing unto the least of these, as it is written, is not doing unto Him. Helping, OTOH, is doing unto Him. The argument you're making is that helping these folks in the ways that Paul describes by his brother and the ways others are doing (granted, not many but still....) is illegal (although it is indisputably done, at least for the sake of our argument, as unto the Lord), and that the law of the land is agreeable and reasonable, and therefore it is good and Godly.

I have no problem with that way of weighing the righteousness of our laws, broadly speaking. If it makes sense, it is probably not unrighteous on its face. But, what is the law really? Is it the written law passed in due process through legislation? Or, is it not also the practice and policy of those charged with executing the laws, also passed in due process through legislation (and, I would add of equal importance, court cases). We have, literally, conflicting laws. On the one hand, "do not enter without a visa", on the other hand, "don't let us catch you coming in, but once you're here, you've reached a safe harbor of sorts and we'll have to deal with you in a different and as-yet indefinite manner." That's the law.

Now, there are also laws about hiring these people who broke the law (entering without permission), that puts the onus on the employers not to put these people to work. The theory is that they'll either (a) turn to government or other relief groups and starve and live very poorly but be beholden to the hands that feed them OR (b) leave the U.S. Now, this is a law that ---- for all of the theoretical arguments in support it (i.e., saves American jobs, lowers our tax burden, etc.) ---- puts these people who have made an illegal entry but who are now here and who are now within our own reach as believers without means. It does so deliberately. It also commands us not to help them in the most productive and practical way -- hire 'em. So, if we want to help them, we can only do so as the government tells us. In other words, when Jesus commands us to feed the hungry, we can offer a tray of food, but not the means to help them get their own. This is the very thing we've said is immoral about welfare, and rightly so.

In the end, we have to make a decision that, in my own view, is not easy to escape. Do we Christians walk by these illegally-here people and give them piecemeal relief as the notion strikes us, or do we show actual what's-good-for-them concern and love by giving them something that helps them live better lives (jobs and pay) when they're willing to work for it? What law should qualify as one righteous enough to compel us to ignore the need for productivity and sustenance? I want someone to tell me that.

have to admit very well put let me ponder this for a while