"Bibles, Badges and Business for Immigration Reform" ("BBB") describes itself as "a national network of faith, law enforcement and business leaders working together to educate and support members of Congress as they consider reforms to our immigration system". It's run by the National Immigration Forum and it's associated with their board member and former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
BBB is starting a new ad campaign in support of comprehensive immigration reform and this post will be updated with questions BBB should answer. If they can't answer these questions, then how can you trust them? If you're buying a used car and the salesman won't answer a straight question (like "Is this a Hurricane Sandy car?"), then you'd be a fool to buy what he's selling.
Tweet the following questions to @BBBimmigration, @anoorani, @MarkShurtleff, @LakeCoILSheriff, @pastorfleming, and others involved with their effort. If they respond, contact @24AheadDotCom_ and I'll post it here. I'll also be tweeting them and will update this post if they respond. If they won't respond, then there's your answer: they're selling something that they can't defend and you'd be a fool to buy it.
The first ad (video below) features Lake County Illinois Sheriff Mark Curran saying immigration reform will make the U.S. "safer" and that we should deport criminals and "not law-abiding, hard-working immigrants".
The second ad is at Politico ( peekURL.com/zsg45TA ) and features David Fleming of Houston's Champion Forest Baptist Church. Fleming says "my ancestors came to America looking for opportunity. As a Christian, I accept God's mandate to welcome today's immigrants coming for the same reason." He says we must "welcome the stranger" and "repair our broken immigration system".
Here are some questions based on those and the general effort; more questions will be added to the list later:
1. Isn't Curran's use of "immigrants" deceptive for the reasons stated on the immigration terminology page? The only group who can be called "immigrants" are legal immigrants: those here illegally aren't immigrants but instead are illegal aliens. Legal immigrants are generally speaking only deported after committing crimes, so what Curran says doesn't apply to them. Instead, he's referring to illegal aliens. Does the very name not indicate that they aren't "law-abiding"? Simply by being an illegal alien, someone has not abided by our laws either by remaining here when their visa expired or by entering illegally. In addition, illegal aliens tend to commit other crimes such as using false documents to obtain work. Hacks usually say things like "otherwise law-abiding", yet Curran didn't even go that far.
2. Assume - just for the sake of argument - that immigration reform increases the number of people coming here illegally, in the hopes of getting into the next amnesty. Won't some of them be criminals and won't that increase the absolute number of criminals in the U.S.?
3. Some far-left persons and groups work against deporting criminal illegal aliens, such as in this case, by establishing sanctuary cities, and by not cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security on programs like 287g and Secure Communities. Human Rights Watch wanted to give a "second chance to many non-citizens with criminal convictions" and even wanted criminals who'd been deported to come back to take advantage of immigration reform. What tangible steps if any will Curran and the National Immigration Forum do to oppose far-left groups who tend not to want to deport anyone?
4. Some far-left persons and groups also oppose immigration sweeps, even when criminals are the targets (see immigration raids and for instance this). Does Curran support sweeps by the DHS to find fugitive criminal aliens? If not, will he just wait until criminal aliens commit more crimes? If he does support such sweeps, what tangible steps if any will Curran and the National Immigration Forum do to oppose far-left groups who tend to vehemently oppose immigration sweeps?
5. Does Fleming agree that today's immigration isn't like the immigration of a century before? If he says they're much the same, then what's his point-by-point rebuttal to the immigration tradition fallacy page?
6. Don't some or many Christians disagree on the "welcome the stranger" talking point Fleming uses (see the link)?
7. If Fleming thinks God wants us to welcome immigrants, does that mean we should make the official U.S. policy? If some religious group supports something that most people oppose, does that mean everyone else should be forced to support that too?
8. If it's in fact "God's mandate to welcome today's immigrants", where would Fleming draw the line? Assuming just for the sake of argument that a few billion people decided to move to the U.S. illegally, would Fleming welcome them with open arms?
9. If Fleming truly thinks our immigration system is broken, please give his rebuttal to that page. Isn't the problem not so much with our immigration laws, but that crooked politicians have tried to undercut or not enforce our laws, and - since most do that due to donations they receive or personal power they hope to gain - isn't that an example of political corruption? Won't immigration reform reward such corruption and thereby encourage more of it? Is it acceptable for religious leaders to enable political corruption?
See the Question Authority page for links to dozens more questions Curran, Fleming, and the BBB could be asked. And, use the Twitter handles above to ask them and contact me if you get a response.
Mon, 03/10/2014 - 17:07 · Importance: 4