Thread: Evangelical leaders join Obama in push for amnesty

Evangelical leaders join Obama in push for amnesty

July 19, 2010 6:25 AM
12 Comments

We've been hearing rumblings of evangelical leaders moving to the left on the immigration issue for awhile. Now it seems they are ready for an all out push.

Normally on the opposite side of political issues backed by the Obama White House, these leaders are aligning with the president to support an overhaul that would include some path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here. They are preaching from pulpits, conducting conference calls with pastors and testifying in Washington -- as they did last Wednesday.

"I am a Christian and I am a conservative and I am a Republican, in that order," said Matthew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious law firm. "There is very little I agree with regarding President Barack Obama. On the other hand, I'm not going to let politicized rhetoric or party affiliation trump my values, and if he's right on this issue, I will support him on this issue."

When did evangelical leaders lose respect for the law? When did they start preaching from the pulpit that it's ok to disregard our laws?

"Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial," said the Rev. Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm. "They are hard-wired social conservatives, unless they're driven away.

I agree with Land's assessment of most Hispanics. BUT, that does not give them a pass on obeying our laws. All aliens MUST come to this country legally.

But some evangelical leaders said their latest strategy was to push a handful of lame-duck Republicans to join Democrats -- probably after the midterms -- to pass an immigration bill on the ground that it is morally right.

"My message to Republican leaders," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and one of the leaders who engaged his non-Hispanic peers, "is if you're anti-immigration reform, you're anti-Latino, and if you're anti-Latino, you are anti-Christian church in America, and you are anti-evangelical."

http://www.gopusa.com/fresh-ink/2010/07 ... mnesty.php

Obama Wins Unlikely Allies in Immigration

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 18, 2010

At a time when the prospects for immigration overhaul seem most dim, supporters have unleashed a secret weapon: a group of influential evangelical Christian leaders.

Normally on the opposite side of political issues backed by the Obama White House, these leaders are aligning with the president to support an overhaul that would include some path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here. They are preaching from pulpits, conducting conference calls with pastors and testifying in Washington — as they did last Wednesday.

“I am a Christian and I am a conservative and I am a Republican, in that order,â€

[b]But Mr. Blackwell said the whole effort could implode if the final legislation extended family reunification provisions to same-sex couples where one spouse did not have legal status. For evangelicals, he said, “That would be a deal-breaker.â€

(quote)

My Immigration Debate with Matt Staver — Bryan Fischer

By Bryan Fischer

I devoted the final hour of my program Friday to a lively discussion with Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, over the evangelical approach to immigration. The debate can be viewed by going to our Facebook page (American Family Radio – Focal Point) or by going to RightlyConcerned.com.

Mat is the author of a high-profile position paper on the evangelical approach to immigration reform, which you can read here. This position statement was signed by such evangelical luminaries as Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Lou Engle of The Call, and Ken Blackwell.

Mat and I agree that a double-layer security fence should be built along the entire southern border, and that this should be a first priority. So on that very, very significant point we are in complete harmony.

However, Mat disagrees with the Arizona law, on the grounds that immigration should exclusively be a federal matter, while I support the Arizona law completely. I pointed out that the Arizona law is patterned after federal law (word for word in significant portions), and is even more restrictive than federal law since federal law – upheld by the Supreme Court – allows immigration officials to check anyone’s immigration status at any time, with or without probable cause. In Arizona, an illegal has to break a law first, and then give law enforcement some reason to suspect he is in the country illegally, before his status can be checked. There is nothing remotely racist about the Arizona law, since its implementation is based on conduct, not skin color.

Plus federal law actually requires local law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration law, something sanctuary cities flatly refuse to do. If the federal government should be suing anyone, it should be sanctuary cities. If creating your own immigration policy is a bad thing, consistency demands that these evangelicals press the federal government to sue every sanctuary city in the land.

Arizona officials are not in fact usurping federal authority on immigration. They simply turn over any illegals they detain to federal authorities. Arizona hasn’t deported anyone. That’s the job of the federal government, and Arizona hands illegals over to the proper authorities for prosecution and deportation, just as the law requires.

A second area of disagreement is over what should be done with the 12-20 million illegals already in the country. Mat believes that those who have not committed crimes in America should be given the option to pursue a path to citizenship. While he took issue with me for charging that he is advocating a “guaranteedâ€

"My message to Republican leaders," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and one of the leaders who engaged his non-Hispanic peers, "is if you're anti-immigration reform, you're anti-Latino, and if you're anti-Latino, you are anti-Christian church in America, and you are anti-evangelical."

Unbelievable! What a piece of brain washing propaganda HOGWASH!

This is why I stopped going to church. The church turned it's back on me, so I will do the same (but I won't turn my back on God!)

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Evangelical leaders join Obama in push for amnesty

"Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial," said the Rev. Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm. "They are hard-wired social conservatives, unless they're driven away.


http://www.gopusa.com/fresh-ink/2010/07 ... mnesty.php

-========================================

Surprise - SURPRISE!

The two largest proponents, sponsors, advocates, enablers, and protectors of illegal aliens in this country are organized religion and your local public school systems (all the way through college).

I recently did a sweep through Tennesse, Kentucky, and Missouri and noted in both large and small towns many traditional (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran) denominations with signs on their marquees advertising services "NOW HELD IN SPANISH ALSO."

And that is in the BIBLE BELT.

Catholic churches need not advertise this. It is a given that the Vatican promotes illegal alien amnesty throughout the United States.

What do you think about this sudden push for amnesty by organized religion?

These churches should immediately give up all tax exemptions. They are now political organizations pushing political agendas that will change the political and social landscape of America for the next one hundred years.

Evangelical Leaders: Car Thieves Can Keep Cars If Pay $1,000 & Study Owner's Manual?


By Roy Beck, Monday, July 19, 2010, 12:41 PM EDT

Well, of course, if religious leaders were to support car thieves keeping the cars, we would all know those clergy were no longer fit to provide moral guidance.

But the headline's logic is essentially their argument when it comes to immigration. What nearly all religious leaders speaking out on immigration say is that: Illegal aliens who steal jobs should be allowed to keep them as long as they pay $1,000 and take English classes.

Please tell me how the recent flood of pronouncements from national religious leaders on "earned legalization" is any different from the headline on this blog.

I'm picking on the evangelical Christian leaders because they have been the loudest voices lately in congressional hearings, Brookings Institute seminars, blogs, NPR and lots of newspaper interviews. And now a giant article in the New York Times tells us that evangelical leaders may be able to save "comprehensive immigration reform" from its otherwise obvious death this year.

The evangelical and Baptist leaders have simply joined a 25-year effort by Catholic, United Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran and Presbyterian leaders to flood our middle-class and lower-class occupations with more foreign workers.

This was the opening paragraph of the Times story:

At a time when the prospects for immigration overhaul seem most dim, supporters have unleashed a secret weapon: a group of influential evangelical Christian leaders.

-- "Obama Gains Evangelical Allies on Immigration," by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, July 18, 2010

We know from polling that most evangelicals and Baptists disagree with the evangelical and Baptist leaders who have been pronouncing it immoral to deport illegal aliens and who say that the moral imperative is to give illegal aliens permanent access to jobs and U.S. citizenship.

But I'm unaware of more than a couple of major evangelical or Baptist voices that state the immorality of letting millions of foreign citizens steal jobs from vulnerable Americans, leaving them and their families unemployed and approaching financial ruin.

One exception is this piece in the national evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, which has an editorial policy for supporting "comprehensive immigration reform." I have to hand it to them for at least allowing this very thoughtful anti-amnesty article to be published: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... -21.0.html

And I also have to hand it to the Times that it found one evangelical leader who thinks like most evangelicals (and like most mainline Protestants and Catholics):

'Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a national conservative Christian organization in Tupelo, Miss., said, “What my evangelical friends are arguing is that illegal aliens should essentially be rewarded for breaking the law.

“I think it’s extremely problematic from a Judeo-Christian standpoint to grant citizenship to people whose first act on American soil was to break an American law,â€