“Sanctuary” for illegals? "Open Borders?"

Recently I watched a cable news show interview with a Catholic nun involved with “sheltering” some Mexican or Latin American illegal aliens in her church. The crux of her argument in defense of her own unlawful actions is the New Testament passage where Jesus says, “When I was hungry you fed me…, when I was thirsty you gave me drink…, when I was homeless you sheltered me…”

It seems that Catholic churches across the country are now buying into what I think is a defective moral argument that “the church” should be providing “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants. Even though she is helping people break the law, the unapologetic nun said her actions and that of her church are all about being humane. I couldn’t agree with her less.

I’m not heartless. I’m all for helping people in need, but I’m also for upholding the law, especially our more-than-reasonable immigration laws. After all, these aren’t unjust laws worthy of civil disobedience like slavery or “Jim Crow.” To a reasonable person it makes sense that all countries have a natural right to control their borders and their immigration flow. Doing anything else amounts to anarchy and the eventual end of our civilization, as we know it. I’d love to ask that silly nun if that’s what she really wants.

And then there is the “family card!” People who break ANY of our laws do so at their own risk, AND in doing so, THEY put their families’ well-being at risk as well. The rationale that illegal immigrant families should not be made to suffer once they are in-country is deeply flawed. If we go by that reasoning then we would never “inconvenience” any perpetrator of any crime with imprisonment, since nearly everyone, even common criminals, have families. Therefore, using the “family card” as an excuse not to prosecute illegals establishes an unworkable precedent that if followed, protects ALL criminals.

Unfortunately, the US Constitution helps to facilitate this “family card” argument, particularly when we do not pursue illegals for years and then over those years they have children. Our statutes are somewhat unique in the world in that anyone born on US soil is considered a US citizen. It’s a loophole used by many to justify their own continued unlawful presence. They point to their American-born children and use those little jus soli citizens to justify their unauthorized stay. It sounds callous, but that’s not our problem. Once again, THEY made a decision that harms THEIR family.

Few countries besides the USA concern themselves with these types of factors when making immigration decisions. For instance, try having a child in a country like Japan (and a host of others) and see what happens. Both you AND your non-Japanese citizen baby will be “shown the door,” and rightly so.

Living outside the United States, I am well aware that if officials stop me for any reason that I must identify myself as a foreigner and provide documentation of my status. I find it maddening that the United States is the ONLY place where it is common policy in many of its cities and counties NOT to request proof of lawful residency of a person detained by police. Are we nuts?

I pass by the American Embassy frequently, and the lines of hopefuls applying for US entry are ALWAYS there, rain or shine. For the most part, these people’s applications are denied, usually on the capricious whim of some bureaucrat. Just the same, the lines never stop forming. This is true at American embassies and consulates all over the globe, and yet, because we have a long, difficult-to-protect border, people south of it figure they can just jump in line ahead of all the thousands of worldwide applicants duly waiting their turn. I find this maddeningly unjust, Geraldo Rivera be damned.

Fox News’ Rivera continuously makes the passionate contention that most of the millions of illegal immigrants are good people and thus should be allowed to stay. In effect, his argument is basically one of statue of limitations; to all intents and purposes he says they should be allowed to “get away” with their law breaking by simply waiting out the system. The problem with this is that the world is filled with “good people,” so why don’t we just let them ALL come? Should there be no limits Geraldo—no controls over whom and how many are allowed to enter?

The nun responded to a final question, and her astonishing answer made me feel like becoming a Baptist.

“Sister, do you believe the United States would be right in protecting its borders from further illegal entries?”

Without a moment’s hesitation she answered with complete self-assured sanctimony:

“NO!”

When I heard what seemed to me to be a most unreasonable response, my blood ran cold with indignation and dread. The indignation is easy to explain (at least to sane people!), but the dread comes of the nun’s casually spoken irrational answer. Her views may well reflect those of a sizable demographic that basically advocates “open borders.” As far as I know, no other nation of note has such a thing in place—how could they and continue to exist?

And THAT is exactly my point!

Do any Baptists or Presbyterians believe in that kind of harebrained pap? If not, where do I sign up! (Just kidding Mom).