Immigration bills have ‘serious flaws,’ Land says
- Jun 22, 2006 - 4
The Senate’s recently passed bill on immigration reform has significant weaknesses, as does the version previously approved by the House of Representatives, said ERLC President Richard Land.
On May 25, the Senate voted 62-36 for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 2611. The Senate bill clashes in significant ways with the House measure passed in December. A conference committee, consisting of members from both houses, will work toward reconciling differences in the bills in order to send a conference report to the Senate and House for final passage.
House leaders, however, have signaled there may be no compromise bill this year.
“The situation that we now have is one in which both the House and Senate have passed immigration bills that have serious, perhaps fatal, flaws,” Land said. “Either one taken by itself would fail in profound ways to address the immigration crisis our nation faces.
“We need to pray that the House and Senate conferees will address those serious flaws and come forward with a conference report, i.e., a compromise bill, that will combine the strongest aspects of both the House and Senate bills,” he said, “and eliminate or strengthen the weaknesses of both houses’ versions that have currently been passed.”
The House version concentrates on border security and enforcement against illegal immigrants and those who aid them. The Senate version includes provisions intended to secure the border with Mexico but also would establish a guest-worker program and enable most illegal immigrants to enter a process to become citizens.
Senate Democrats and Hispanic leaders have sharply criticized the House measure, while some proponents of the House-approved bill have described the Senate bill as providing amnesty to illegal immigrants.
In a March meeting at the White House, Land told President Bush the “overwhelming majority” of Southern Baptists want the border secured. Land said those Southern Baptists would likely support a “guest-worker” program that does not provide amnesty if they believe the government will work to control the border. He also said such a proposal should not allow illegal immigrants to move ahead of those who have entered the country legally.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Immigration, Legislation
4 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 23rd, 2006, at 2:21pm, David Neal wrote:
Why is this an issue the erlc is taking a position on? It is neither a moral nor ethical issue and I am one Southern Baptist who sees the illegal immigration issue as a cry for help by our poor neighbors to the south. While I agree that illegally entering the country is wrong, it is hard to fault fathers and mothers who essentially want to provide a better life for their families and children? As a moral or ethical issue, our position should be more closely aligned with the poor and needy than us wealthy Americans. For the record, I am a theologically conservative, pro-life, pro-Cooperative Program, lifelong Southern Baptist and graduate of GGBTS and I live in San Diego County. Keep up the good work and continue to fight the good fight.
2 On Jun 23rd, 2006, at 3:11pm, Barry Wright wrote:
Responding to David Neal’s questions:
I agree with your statements that we should be concerned about the poor and needy, and entering the country illegally. We have to remember though that our government’s refusal to enforce the laws it has enacted is placing an undue strain on the social systems this very government has also put in place. You are right in saying the church should reach out to help these folks. God has also ordained to governments to establish order and exact justice. If the government is failing to do its job as God has intended, then we as the church need to voice our concerns to our government and hold them accountable. One last comment...this problem we are experiencing is due to a labor shortage here in America that has been caused by the brutal deaths of 42 million American children through the scourge of abortion. If nothing else, I think this one issue alone speaks clearly to the issue of morality and the immigration issue.
3 On Jun 24th, 2006, at 8:17am, Walter Tilleman wrote:
Several points need to be added to this discussion. We are quick to point out Romans 13 about the role of government in enforcing laws. The laws they are suppose to enforce are onces that protect the poor: the widow, orphan and alien. The poor are the ones society takes advantage of; government needs to come along side of the poor and meet their needs. Furthermore, by taking a conservative apporach to the problem of immigration we face the same problems of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement violated many laws because they were unjust. Today the SBC regrets not being more active in protecting civi rights and our role in prolonging slavery. Will we be making the same confession in a couple of decades? Recently I read an article that there were only 2 legal Mexicans allowed to immigrate last year as unskilled workers, het 500,000 illegal Mexicans found jobs. Is that just. How can a Mexican trying to survive be expected to go to the back of the immigration line when there is no line?
4 On Jul 2nd, 2006, at 2:09pm, Dave Carlson wrote:
Even though some are quick to remind us of Romans 13 and our responsibility to Civil Authority, We must not forget - God requires that we show love and compassion to aliens (Deuteronomy 10:18–19) (Leviticus 19:33-34) (Zechariah 7:10) (Matthew 25:35)
The Story of Ruth is a beautiful picture of a migrant worker, an immigrant. Even the family of Naomi left Israel in time of famine to find a more prosperous way of life in Moab.
When Naomi and Ruth lost their husbands, they returned to Israel to work in the fields of Boaz. If Boaz had not extended kindness to Ruth, (a migrant worker, an immigrant, probably not well received because she was from Moab, or was she maybe taking a job from an Israelite, or doing a job an Israelite wouldn’t do?) where would the lineage of David be? Where would the lineage of Jesus be?