Evangelical about immigration
Pro-immigration activists are marching on Washington DC this weekend, and evangelical Christians play a key role in their fight
Stewart J Lawrence / guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 March 2010 16.00 GMT
Thousands of pro-immigration activists from across the country will flock to Washington DC on 21 March to demand that President Obama and Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2010. Mainline Catholics and Protestants who have long defended the rights of illegal aliens plan to be front and centre, as they have been for years. But marching alongside them this year will be some fresh religious faces: evangelical Christians.
Last October, the conservative-leaning National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which represents some 30 million evangelical Christians, passed a resolution at its annual meeting in support of comprehensive immigration reform. The resolution, which received little notice outside of religious circles, produced shockwaves among US conservatives who frequently look to Christian evangelicals for political support, but who are still wary of embracing immigration reform as a conservative-led cause.
Most evangelical Christians, including most NAE members, backed George W Bush for president in 2000 and 2004. Even so, when Bush pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the NAE found itself too internally divided over the issue to take a public stand, and Bush's proposed legislation suffered a crushing defeat.
What happened to change the NAE's mind? NAE leaders say that continued "theological reflection" on the Christian concept of "witness" has led its 40-member denominations, including its largest group, the 3 million member Assemblies of God, to recognise the need for greater clarity and purpose in its national policy views. A similar process has led the NAE to issue policy statements on climate change, and to announce its support for congressional legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
But another key factor is organisational: Hispanic evangelicals, whose ranks are steadily growing, have been actively lobbying the NAE to support immigration reform as a part of a broader campaign to make evangelical churches more attentive to the faith needs of their Hispanic members - in part, by promoting more Hispanic ministers but also by developing more culturally attuned models for worship and outreach.
Leading the charge is Rev Samuel Rodriguez Jr, president of the 15 million-member National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, who, like an estimated 80% of Hispanic Christians, backed Bush for president. But in 2006, when Rodriguez tried to convince congressional Republicans that their increasingly strident attacks on illegal aliens would backfire politically, he was rebuffed.
Rodriguez's efforts to convince the NAE to adopt even a mild resolution supporting the need for immigration reform also went nowhere.
But GOP failures to attract independent white voters with their harsh anti-immigration rhetoric, and their steady loss of support from moderate Latinos, is now causing religious and secular conservatives to reassess their hard-line views. Another factor is the sheer growth of the Hispanic evangelical movement, which is beginning to outpace that of its non-Hispanic counterparts, thanks to ever-increasing Hispanic immigration. With a growing flock, leaders like Rodriguez are gaining a stronger voice.
A similar trend is underway in the US Catholic church, which remains home to 70% of Hispanics. The nation's powerful Roman Catholic Bishops haven't needed a new growth trend to convince them to embrace Hispanics or immigrants. But with the expanding Hispanic presence - an estimated 40% of the US Catholic church is now of Latino origin - the Bishops devote almost as much policy attention to immigration as they do their most visible concern, abortion.
The evangelical swing on immigration - and climate change - is also influencing secular leaders like the Republican senator Lindsey Graham, whose views on these issues largely dovetail with those of the NAE. Graham has replaced John McCain as the GOP's leading moderate voice on immigration, and he's currently working closely with Senate Democrats to get a reform bill passed in 2010.
Two years ago, when Graham ran for a second Senate term, outraged GOP conservatives tried to mobilise Christian evangelicals in South Carolina to run their own candidate in the GOP primary. Graham defused the challenge, and easily won re-election.
Another recent "convert" on immigration is Gary Bauer, who served as President Reagan's chief domestic policy adviser and went on to found the Family Research Council, one of Washington's most respected Christian pro-life organisations. Last month Bauer came out in favour of a phased legalisation programme that would tie green card processing for illegal aliens to demonstrated improvements in border and workplace enforcement. Dan Stein, president of the rightwing Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, which opposes an "amnesty" of any kind, recently branded Graham and Bauer "traitors".
For President Obama, the evangelical shift on immigration is especially welcome news. Last week he suggested to immigration advocates gathered at the White House that he may still push for comprehensive reform in 2010, even in the face of Republican opposition. It's a dicey move, but one largely prompted by Democratic fears of an erosion of Latino electoral support. The NAE's endorsement of immigration reform legislation, and its active lobbying on the Hill, could be just what Obama needs to cover his right flank.
I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word 'citizen' but I disagree; I don't believe they need to become a citizen of the United States. I agree they should be here legally but I don't agree that immigrants need to renounce their homeland and become an American.
Also believe it's unrealistic to think that the millions of people that are here illegal can return to their country of origin and start over legally, we need to find a means for them to change their status while they are already here.
Quoting Redteux:
I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
I agree and disagree.
I agree, they need to be here legally. And if our immigration laws are so byzantine that they cannot be reasonably followed, then our laws need to be "tweaked". Do they need to become American citizens? That's up to them. But while they're here, citizen or not, they need to comply with our laws.
I do believe that if they are not citizens, they are not entitled to the benefits and privileges granted citizens. Social programs, voting, etc. Those are rights and perks granted to members of this country. You want them, become a member of this country.
I totally agree - it's not only unrealistic, it's statistically and logistically impossible to make millions of illegal immigrants start over. There has to be another way. If they want to stay and work, or want to stay as citizens, or just go back home - there needs to be a much more efficient, "user-friendly" way to accomplish that. But I honestly don't know enough about the whole naturalization/work-visa process to say. I'm woefully ignorant there.
Quoting katy_kay:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word 'citizen' but I disagree; I don't believe they need to become a citizen of the United States. I agree they should be here legally but I don't agree that immigrants need to renounce their homeland and become an American.
Also believe it's unrealistic to think that the millions of people that are here illegal can return to their country of origin and start over legally, we need to find a means for them to change their status while they are already here.
Quoting Redteux:
I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
Quoting Redteux:
I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
I agree with you. I don't think they necessarily have to become citizens but I agree that they need to go through the process, pay the fees, do the paperwork, and go through the interviews that are required inorder to gain legal status.
It is those who chose to break the law and not go through the process that make it so hard and expensive on those of us who did choose to go through the correct legal process.
I agree with you except for what I highlighted in red.
As an immigrant of this country I pay taxes and provide income to your country I feel I should have the right to have social services if I need them, especially since I have been here since I was 7 yrs old. I have my reasons to why I don't want to renounce my country... trust me, if I could go back to my own country without worrying about the well being of my children and husband I would... but right now it's not possible, so since I give my time and income to this country I think that if tomorrow I am in need then I should have the same privileges... I already can't vote so taking the social services away as well would be like a slap in the face imo
Quoting Redteux:
I agree and disagree.
I agree, they need to be here legally. And if our immigration laws are so byzantine that they cannot be reasonably followed, then our laws need to be "tweaked". Do they need to become American citizens? That's up to them. But while they're here, citizen or not, they need to comply with our laws.
I do believe that if they are not citizens, they are not entitled to the benefits and privileges granted citizens. Social programs, voting, etc. Those are rights and perks granted to members of this country. You want them, become a member of this country.
I totally agree - it's not only unrealistic, it's statistically and logistically impossible to make millions of illegal immigrants start over. There has to be another way. If they want to stay and work, or want to stay as citizens, or just go back home - there needs to be a much more efficient, "user-friendly" way to accomplish that. But I honestly don't know enough about the whole naturalization/work-visa process to say. I'm woefully ignorant there.
Quoting katy_kay:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word 'citizen' but I disagree; I don't believe they need to become a citizen of the United States. I agree they should be here legally but I don't agree that immigrants need to renounce their homeland and become an American.
Also believe it's unrealistic to think that the millions of people that are here illegal can return to their country of origin and start over legally, we need to find a means for them to change their status while they are already here.
Quoting Redteux:
I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
because the laws are. I paid $1000 just to be told my husband and I haven't been married long enough for him to apply through me and us be considered seriously....
Quoting Redteux:I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
I don't know a lot about imagration, but why can't they hold a duel citizenship? My husband and kids are navitive Chickasaw and they hold a duel citizenship. I do believe, they should make it easier to become a citizen of the country. We are, after all, a nation of imagrents, for the most part.
you can have dual citizenship here if you want it ... some don't want to have dual citizenship (me for example).. but I will be getting my children dual citizenship on our trip to my native country
Quoting tornados4:
I don't know a lot about imagration, but why can't they hold a duel citizenship? My husband and kids are navitive Chickasaw and they hold a duel citizenship. I do believe, they should make it easier to become a citizen of the country. We are, after all, a nation of imagrents, for the most part.
Quoting Redteux:I'm torn on the whole immigration issue, honestly.
It's not that I'm against immigration. Because I'm not. Hell, I'm a native Texan. Our state history is inextricably entwined with Mexico LOL!!!
But I do feel that there has to be some control, management, adherence to our federal laws - something. I am against the blatant illegality of it. If you want to be in this country - great. Do it legally. Follow our laws, or deal with the consequences, as a citizen. Just because you're physically present, doesn't mean you automatically reap the benefits and privileges of being a citizen. You want those benefits and privileges? Become a legal citizen.
*sigh*
Why does it have to be so confusing and convoluted?
I'm with you to a certain point. Because I believe our laws regarding immigration (especially hispanic immigration) are almost impossible to follow for the average immigrant. Regarding immigration it is easy to say 'its against the law--you must follow the law or you're a criminal and should be treated as such' and leave it at that but I believe this falls under the category of "easier said than done..." Becoming a legal citizen isn't easy and it's not that all immigrants are just being 'lazy' and refusing to bubble in some paperwork.
Most immigrants DO follow the laws and pay taxes. They just aren't always able to do that as citizens. Can any legal citizen honestly say they follow every single law 100% of the time?
I know that in Germany if you pay taxes and live on their economy you are considered an integral part of the system and you are allowed social services even if you are not a citizen.
I do think that sometimes some Americans forget that immigrants are not here in a vaccuum. Of course they pay taxes and provide income for this country. I can understand and agree with non citizens not voting... but denial of social programs is not okay with me.
Quoting Joqui:I agree with you except for what I highlighted in red.
As an immigrant of this country I pay taxes and provide income to your country I feel I should have the right to have social services if I need them, especially since I have been here since I was 7 yrs old. I have my reasons to why I don't want to renounce my country... trust me, if I could go back to my own country without worrying about the well being of my children and husband I would... but right now it's not possible, so since I give my time and income to this country I think that if tomorrow I am in need then I should have the same privileges... I already can't vote so taking the social services away as well would be like a slap in the face imo
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
- katy_kay
on Mar. 20, 2010 at 9:57 AM