Open Letter to Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)

. . . And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. ---President Ronald Wilson Reagan

I have no trouble being compassionate.

A first priority, below loving God etc, of a father and husband is to take care of his own family—including safety.

A first priority of a government is to protect the borders.

I have little trouble with legal immigration. I’ve assisted more than a few cases.

And, I’ve been, on occasion, charitable with some illegals.

But in general, this is a deliberate puppet master scheme to destroy our Republic.

Mexicans particularly are duplicitous. Their laws are the opposite of ours and much more enforced vis a vis those from other countries in Mexico.

I’m not at all willing to support TO THE LEAST DEGREE the deliberate destruction of the Republic of the USA.

You don't know me...nor know what I understand. Please don't attempt to try....

If someone who is hungry, steals ( breaks the law ) and goes to jail for it....Should I be advocating that stealing is okay in that instance? Is that my moral duty too?

What if someone steals a coat...because they are cold. Goes to the county jail for 10 days. Is it also my moral duty to advocate that the law is wrong there?

Should I go on?

With prayer support, Rev.
What kind of minister opposes amnesty?

One who follows the Living Word and the Written Word.
God offers forgiveness to all - and every one of us has sinned - but God requires repentance first. Folks can disqualify themselves from forgiveness by refusing repentance: a child molester cannot come into the Kingdom if he insists on bringing his abusive ways with him, nor can a drinker bring his bottle, nor a greedy man his wealth.

Remember when Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery? Jesus never gave her sentimental mush like, “I understand how confined and unfortunate you felt trapped in your own marriage. Of course, you went after others to get what you could. Anyone would do the same if they were so unfortunate. You could not be expected to obey the Law.”

Had Jesus been advised by the U.S. Senate, He would have had to tell the woman caught in adultery: “Stay, adultery is no more a sin.”

But Jesus had higher and better counsel. He said, “Go and sin no more.” The amnesty bill has the illegals flatly refuse both parts of Jesus’ command. They will not “Go.” They will not “sin no more.”

As I suspected, you don’t have any first hand experience with these criminals. why in heaven’s name should I accept being made poorer to appease your conscience? Why should I have to accept criminal activity in my community to appease you or anyone else?

It is objective fact that these criminals are running brothels that cater to more criminal invaders in communities and near schools. Your acceptance of that type of activity is appalling to me.]

Your type of Christianity is alien to mine, and I also find it utterly repugnant.

Please let me know your Christian reaction the next time you get run off the road by a vehicle full of illegal invaders.........having two 9 year old children in the car was the only reason my and my husband’s reaction was only to call the sheriff. Had he been alone the reaction would have been far different.

Had Jesus been advised by the U.S. Senate, He would have had to tell the woman caught in adultery: “Stay, adultery is no more a sin.” Adultury and child molestation are sins regardless of how the US Senate votes. Immigration is not a sin, regardless of how the US Senate votes.

Christians are called to obey the law, even unjust laws (this is why I keep bringing up Philemon). In that sense I agree - illegal immigration is a sin. But only because of the legal status, not because of the underlying morality of the act. It is very different from child abuse and adultury.

Here we are working in our capacity as voters. And there is no underlying sin beneath the immigration laws - unlike adultury and child abuse. As such, as voters we are morally called upon to grant amnesty.

I’m not at all willing to support TO THE LEAST DEGREE the deliberate destruction of the Republic of the USA.

Neither am I.

As I have said, I'm not tolerant of the law breakers, but based on my experiences I will admit that my compassion leans toward the Quatamalans long before it will go toward the Mexicans. The 2 groups are light years apart in regard to trying to mitigate the fact they did break the law to get here.

Webb just had one of his amendments shot down...hard. Maybe this will give him the cover he needs to vote no.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-06-27-0215.html

WASHINGTON — The Senate today rejected Sen. Jim Webb’s amendment to dramatically reduce the scope of the immigration overhaul bill that is under debate.

On a vote of 79 to 18, the Senate voted to table, or kill, the proposal by the Virginia Democrat to require that illegal immigrants have lived in the United States four years to qualify for lawful status.

The immigration overhaul bill before the Senate would make eligible for citizenship those illegal immigrants who came to the United States before Jan. 1.

Under it, at least 12 million undocumented immigrants could qualify for lawful status. By contrast, Webb’s amendment would have allowed perhaps 4 to 5 million illegal immigrants that opportunity, according to Webb aides.

“I’ve heard loud and clear,” Webb said, “not only from Virginians but across this country . . . that this Congress should find a fair system that on the one hand, protects American workers and also respects the rule of law.”

“This amendment is the fairest method I know to do so.”

A leading bill proponent, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, defended the bill as providing an alternative to a currently “dysfunctional system” that allows 500,000 illegal immigrants to enter the United States each year and 12 million to “live in the shadows.”

As I suspected, you don’t have any first hand experience with these criminals. why in heaven’s name should I accept being made poorer to appease your conscience?
Luke 18:22 - 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." It is objective fact that these criminals are running brothels that cater to more criminal invaders in communities and near schools. Your acceptance of that type of activity is appalling to me.
I don't accept it. We need to get tougher on crime. But the solution is not to curtail immigration. But with the exception of religious immigrants, most people who come to America are (1) poor and (2) uncivilized. That was as true in the Pilgrim's time as it is today. The response is to get tough on crime, not to shut down immigration.

is it not a sin to assist those trying to "steal" citizenship??

Stealing citizenship? In other words, stealing the right to live and work in the United States. You have been reduced to splitting legalistic hairs.

But again, I'm not defending the actions of illegal immigrants. The Bible makes it pretty clear that we are to obey all laws, just and unjust. Its goal is to change hearts, not laws. But in our capacity as voters, as people who make the laws, we have a moral duty to get rid of the unjust laws and to forgive people who break the unjust laws, just as Paul asked Philemon to forgive and then free his escaped slave.

Hiding behind Biblical quotes does not change the fact that you support criminal behavior. I live in a poor rural county. In our community we know what damage these criminals have done. Our Chritian charity is being stretched to the limit with them, both in terms of tolerance and financially.

We need to get tougher on crime.

How can you make such a statement without your fingers crossed behind your back after supporting the criminal behavior of these criminals?

The response is to get tough on crime, not to shut down immigration.

IN case you missed it, these people are NOT immigrants, they are CRIMINALS who broke our laws to illegally enter this country. You can play the semantics game all day long for all I care, but there is no doubt you are a criminal appeaser and enabler.

Come talk to me when someone you know loses their job, or better yet, a loved one at the hands of one of your beloved invaders. Believe me, you will be singing an entirely different tune.

Hiding behind Biblical quotes does not change the fact that you support criminal behavior. I live in a poor rural county. In our community we know what damage these criminals have done.

1. You don't seem to be grasping the distinction between just and unjust laws. We either need to agree to disagree on the concept, or I need to see you take the disctinction into account in your posts.

2. As a conservative, you should know perfectly well why people in your rural county are poor: out of wedlock children, lack of work ethic, and lack of esteem for education. Conservatives know that in modern America, people are poor because of their own bad decisions. Or are you going to do the John Edwards "Two Americas" thing?

Communists use the example of the Apostles in Acts selling their goods and having all things common as a biblical endorsement of the Communist ideals.

Open border do gooders can try to oppress the righteous by condemning them into accepting illegals as their Christian duty but the Apostles had things common with fellow believers.

Mexico is a rich nation who just doesn't want a portion of their population. These people are not oppressed by their government, they are just poor. These people are not rounded up by their government and murdered for their political or religious beliefs, they are just poor.

Jesus healed the daughter of a woman of great faith, but he first said something to the effect of "its not good to take the childrens meat and give it to the dogs"

The women impressed Jesus with her faith because she said "true but don't the dogs get the crumbs that fall from the table?" Not only did this woman show great faith, but great humility as well.

I say that these dogs are not worthy of the childrens meat also. This is my country given by God for the Gospel to be preached. Mexico would do well to heed what God has put together in America and emulate it for their own people. These dogs should be humble enough to come forward and show themselves worthy of our blessings with humility. Not to any one person but to our nation and show themselves grateful, like immigrants have done for centuries. Instead we have half a million in the streets rioting for a return of land that is not theirs.

Jeremiah the prophet scolded Israel by the Spirit of God that they were worse than whores. He said whores at least get paid to be defiled but Israel pays others to come in and defile it. Are we not doing that?

You’re very welcome.

This is a topic that vexes me to no end. I’m dealing with this criminal element on a daily basis and here we have FReepers telling me I should embrace them and welcome them? I’m sorry, but my compassion and charitableness only goes so far. My charity does not extend to criminals who are basically taking food out of the mouths of my law abiding friends who have fallen on hard times.

Yes, I sound harsh and uncharitable, but I am beyond the point of caring. Too many people I know have lost their jobs because of the illegal invasion. 10 years ago my husband changed careers after 25 years in construction because he saw the handwriting on the wall. guys he worked with who told him was nuts to get out because of the impending housing boom are now wishing they had got out when the getting was good. Few of them have jobs in construction.

You don't seem to be grasping the distinction between just and unjust laws.

I am perfectly capable of making the distinction. Smoking bans on private property are an example of unjust laws, the need to apply properly to enter our country is not. I do not advocate breaking either.

We either need to agree to disagree on the concept, or I need to see you take the disctinction into account in your posts.

Your concept on how to deal with unjust laws, along with your definition of them are the total opposite of my concept of how to deal with them.

As a conservative, you should know perfectly well why people in your rural county are poor: out of wedlock children, lack of work ethic, and lack of esteem for education.

Since you don't live here, how the heck would you know either what I know or the reasons for the poor in my county? Your northeastern liberal snobbery is showing. The only person I know with an out of wedlock child was a rape victim and she made the decision, at 16, to keep that child. That child is my daughter's best friend, her mother is mine. She and her husband may not have the same level of formal education that my husband and I have, but I will put their work ethic and esteem of education right up their with ours.

Conservatives know that in modern America, people are poor because of their own bad decisions.

Actually cnservatives know that "poor" is a relative and very subjective term. Just like my husband and I, the people we associate with do not have a lot of money, but we work hard, take care of our children and families and are not on the public dole. We may not make a lot of money, but we're not poor and we do not appreciate people like you supporting the ripping off of the taxes we pay by criminals.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.