Jesus and Immigration: Would He be Welcomed into the USA?

Most of us are familiar with the Biblical narrative of the Wise Men (or Magi) who journeyed from the East to worship baby Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. We are not so aware of important ethical, political truths in the narrative. I find at least three important lessons in this passage (based on the verses in bold type).

Matthew 2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’” Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Here are three important truths from this passage:

Herod the Great, like many politicians today, combined lies with false piety.
The Wise Men practiced civil disobedience and did not return to Herod when they became aware of his deceit and his desire to kill Jesus.
Egypt had an immigration policy sufficiently benevolent to welcome the refugee family of Joseph, Mary and Jesus.

In this post, I would like to hone in especially on immigration policies. On the one hand, every country has the “right” to establish and implement their policies regarding immigrants and refugees. Nevertheless, I believe this is a qualified “right” with ethical dimensions. If there if is a just God, along the lines of the Judeo-Christian traditions, both individual and national actions (including immigration policies) will be evaluated according to God’s justice. Even in secular societies, immigration policies are treated as serious ethical decisions. Our nation’s history reveals both welcome and rejection of immigrants and refugees. At times, we have lived up to Lady Liberty’s call, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost, to me. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.” Sadly, there have been stains on our past when we have closed our doors to foreigners, or worse, oppressed and scapegoated them (the Irish, Jews, Africans, Mexicans, Chinese, etc). We are currently living in a difficult time for immigrants. Millions are leaving their home countries in search of a better life, peace, religious or political freedom. Many are fleeing persecution, war, or famine.

I urge all people of good will to raise their voices in defense of immigrants. This is especially relevant for those who claim to follow Jesus. If Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus made their way to our southern border, would they be welcomed? I would hope that, at the very least, they would be given the chance to explain to an immigration officer why they are seeking asylum.

Last week, a former student sent me the following poem penned by his father, Don Bemis. His poetry vividly portrays our current challenging situation.

Once in Donald’s royal city stood a lowly garden shed,

Where a mother laid her baby in a cardboard box to be his bed:

María was that mother mild; Heh-sus did she name the little child.

In a palace in the royal city, great king Donald thundered from his lair;

Sent his troops to seek out and eject those persons for whom he did not care:

Not for him the poor and lowly, only those who called his mission holy.

Thirteen men in balaclavas surged around the garden shed,

Took the crying mother and the baby, tased the father while he pled:

Woman and babe sleep on Fort Bliss floor, man to prison in El Salvador.

Now in Donald’s royal city everything is pure and strong,

And his followers are not confronted by suggestions that they might be wrong:

Let the foreigners all perish as we celebrate with those we cherish.

“Treat the foreigner who lives among you as you treat your native-born.”

“Love the Lord with all your being; love your neighbor as your own.”

“Lord, when did we not serve thee?” “When you did not serve the least of these.”

Donald Trump Should Learn Important Immigration Lessons from Ronald Reagan

Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan have various experiences in common (both were Republicans, both served as president, etc.). Today I would like to concentrate on their similar challenges regarding undocumented immigrants. During the Reagan administration in the 1980s, there were civil wars going on in Central America, especially Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. To save their lives and the lives of their children, many Central Americans migrated north and crossed into the United States without the appropriate documents. It is estimated there were about 5 million undocumented immigrants in the nation at that time. President Reagan knew some essential information that helped to shape his decisions.

The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants had found employment in agriculture, construction, restaurants, etc. and were making significant contributions to the US economy.
These immigrants were paying taxes: sales taxes, property taxes, and even taxes to the IRS without much hope of receiving the benefits (Social Security, Medicare) that citizens receive.
The crime rate among these immigrants was much lower than the average crime rate of US born citizens. (Entering the United States without documents is appropriately classified not as a violent crime or felony, but rather as a misdemeanor.)
Most of these immigrants were putting down roots in the culture, by participating in religious congregations, by their children actively involved in primary and secondary education, Little League, etc. Nevertheless, many lived in fear of being arrested.
Just like immigrants in previous times (the Irish, the Italians, Puerto Ricans, and many others) these Central Americans were scapegoated and incorrectly blamed for society’s ills.

Although Reagan had his share of human flaws, at times he demonstrated true leadership and a compassionate heart. Together with a Democrat controlled Congress, Reagan pushed legislation that became the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The immigrants had to meet certain requirements: they had to pay a penalty and back taxes, they had to have lived in the United States for at least five years, etc. Far from conducting “raids” on job sites where the undocumented worked, the Reagan administration encouraged them to continue working in their “illegal” jobs. Knowing that the immigrants would naturally be fearful of interacting with government authorities, Reagan urged congregations and groups like World Relief to become the intermediaries that would offer legal advice, English classes, and other services. (My church, the Evangelical Free Church of Des Plaines, Illinois, participated in this project). The program was compassionate. For example, if immigrants had not lived in the country for a full five years, they were advised to “lay low”, keep on working and improving their English until they met the five-year requirement.

President Reagan signed the bill in a ceremony at the Statue of Liberty where he affirmed, “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

The Act was an overwhelming success! The majority of the immigrants came out of the shadows, regularized their legal status, continued in their jobs, and most importantly, kept their families intact. Immigrants becoming active participants in our society is truly “the American way”.

The immigration situation today is quite similar to the challenges that President Reagan faced. The bullet point information at the beginning of this post accurately describes the ten million undocumented immigrants in our midst. During the past week, Trump admitted that our economy desperately needs the labor provided by these immigrants on farms and factories, hotels and restaurants, and in construction. Nevertheless, President Trump has seemed bewildered. He said raids on immigrants are on again, then off again, then on again. Mr. President, on this issue, learn from the example of Ronald Reagan. Do the right thing and work with Congress to pass a bill similar to Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Act.

Buyer’s Remorse and Trump, Part 3: Ethics

In my recent posts, I have explored “Consumer’s Remorse” applied to our recent presidential election in light of Trump’s first days in office. Some who voted for him are having “second thought” about that choice.

About 35% of U.S. voters consider themselves to be part of the MAGA base. They enthusiastically voted for Trump. They generally do not acknowledge any significant defect in his policies or personal character. They would go to the ends of the earth for Trump. There is a second group, consisting of “swing“ voters who voted from Trump (about 15% of the total population), but who are willing to admit some faults in his policies and character. They are willing to listen to reason and evidence, and to follow the truth wherever it leads. I am writing this blog post primarily for them. This post is about Trump and ethics.

I am appealing to the conscience of my readers. I recognize that individuals vary somewhat in how they reach their understanding of what is right and wrong. I unashamedly acknowledge that my code of ethics is largely due to my understanding of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is broad agreement on general ethical principles among all people in our country. Most of us believe that murder is wrong. Lying is generally recognized as wrong, as well. I suggest the following areas where people who follow basic morality might find common ground regarding contemporary political events.

Respect for the Law

Most of those who voted for Trump that I personally know are generally law-abiding citizens. Although they drive a few miles per hour above the stipulated Interstate Highway speed limits, they generally obey the important laws of the land and want their president to obey those laws. They are proud Americans who cherish our Constitution. They should be outraged when our president issues an executive order that clearly violates that Constitution. With the alleged goal of reducing the incentives of undocumented immigration, Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. The problem is that this order is a clear violation of the 14^th Amendment to our Constitution. Trump supporters might approve of his goals, but they should publicly reject his actions if they violate the Constitution. (There exists a legal way to amend our Constitution, but the president has not chosen that route.)

A President has the right to disagree with the appropriation decisions made by Congress but does not have the right to freeze the disbursement of those funds that have already been appropriated. In our country we have a balance of power: three co-equal branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Congress has the power of the purse. The President has the responsibility to carry out those decisions. The courts have the responsibility to interpret the laws where there is disagreement. On Sunday, Trump ordered a funding freeze on federal program grants that negatively impacts millions of citizens. Although Social Security and Medicare were exempt, thousands of programs were frozen. This freeze includes food programs like SNAP, aid to Ukraine, housing, etc., although there was much confusion regarding which agencies were affected. In fact, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, was not able to answer the question whether Medicaid (which serves 72 million Americans) was included or excluded. A federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze. The good news is that Trump has changed his mind (acknowledged his mistake?) and has rescinded the freeze. The bad news is that the president will probably issue another freeze which would be more limited, but would still be illegal.

Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. He has also affirmed that his priority is to deport those people who are felons or who have committed violent crimes. (Technical language is important here. Entering the U.S. without legal documents or overstaying one’s visa is considered a “civil offense”, not a “crime.” The White House Press Secretary deliberately mixed these categories.) On the first day of the deportation raids, 1179 immigrants were arrested. 52% of these were considered “criminal arrests”; 48% were “non-criminal arrests”. I hope those who voted for Trump hold him accountable.

Bullying

Bullying can be defined as “the behavior of a person or group that hurts or frightens others who are smaller or less powerful, often forcing them to do something they do not want to do”. Most decent people denounce personal bullying as hurtful and destructive. It is not acceptable on an individual level. Neither is it appropriate behavior for relationships between nations. A week ago, the U.S. sent undocumented immigrants to their home country of Colombia in military airplanes. The use of U.S. military aircraft, instead of commercial planes, shows a complete ignorance of U.S./Latin American relations. The U.S. has immorally invaded Latin America dozens of times (Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, etc.). This invading mentality is even enshrined in our Marine Hymn where we declare that we will invade and make war “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”.

Colombian president Gustavo Preto refused to receive these planes. Trump immediately threatened Colombia with severe tariffs and penalties. Preto countered with tariffs to be applied to U.S. products sold in Colombia. Colombia and the USA are not of the same size nor economic GDP. Colombia is economically dependent upon its coffee exports to the U.S. Those exports make Colombia extremely vulnerable. Preto backed down and received the aircraft. Trump claimed victory and boasted “the United States is respected again”. This is not respect; it is fear. According to the definition above, it is bullying because a more powerful country is forcing a smaller nation to do something it does not want to do.

My friends and readers of this blog post. I know that most of you don’t agree with bullying at an interpersonal level. Denounce it when it takes place at an international level.

Respect for the Family

Those who voted for Trump usually have a high respect for the family. They believe in the family and vote in favor of our country’s families. I don’t think they are aware of how Trump’s immigration policy is tearing families apart. As I wrote above, 48% of those arrested on the first day of raids were “non-criminal” arrests. Most of these people live in families where their spouse and children are legal U.S. residents or citizens. These raids are ripping parents from their kids and children from their parents. Readers, if you are truly pro-family, urge the president to make his immigration policy more humane.

The Truth

Regrettably, the president has a troubled relationship with the truth. He lies even when there is no justification to do so. For example, he has made repeated claims that he won the November 2024 election in a “landslide”. The truth is that he won a plurality of the votes, but he did not obtain a majority (49.8% compared to Harris’ 48.3%). His margin of victory was the smallest since the election of 2000.

His reputation for lying and hyperbole is so bad that we need to take his statements with a bucket of salt. Carefully examine statements from all politicians (and from me, as well), holding on to what is good and rejecting what is not.

My Plea

Friends, regardless of whether we agree on Trump’s goals or not, we can agree and find common ground on the following:

Presidential actions and executive orders must be legal and not violate our Constitution nor our laws.
Presidential actions and criticisms from his opponents must have a high regard for the truth.
We commit ourselves to examine the positions of the “other side” with honesty and integrity.

Buyer’s Remorse Regarding Trump, Part 2: It is Harder to Govern than to Make Campaign Promises

Donald Trump 2.0 has finished one week into his second presidency. He signed a flurry of executive orders and made several presidential decisions. Many of these were popular with his base, but some were not. In my post last week, I suggested that his blanket pardon of the January 6 rioters (including those convicted of assault against police officers) was not popular with the U.S. public. Only 21% of North Americans approved of that decision. In fact, some of his supporters are showing signs of buyer’s remorse. What about his other decisions? Will they increase his support or lead to greater dissatisfaction. Let’s explore some of them.

The War in Gaza

I begin with giving credit where credit is due. Even before his second inauguration had occurred, Trump’s team worked together with Biden’s people to pressure Netanyahu to agree to the tenuous ceasefire and prisoner/hostage release with Hamas. The ceasefire has held so far. Why did Trump support the Biden plan? Trump had bragged that he was Negotiator-in-Chief and could end any war. Kudos to Trump, but the road ahead will not be easy. Will he be able to help negotiate a long-lasting peace that is fair for both the Israelis and the Palestinian people? Or will his administration get bogged down by a never-ending conflict in the Middle East? His suggestion that two million Palestinians leave Gaza does not sound fair nor just.

Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Candidate Trump had promised that he would end the war in Ukraine by his first day in office. Of course, this did not happen. Those that voted for him should either feel some buyer’s remorse or that they were utterly naïve to believe his false promises.

FEMA, North Carolina and California

To his credit, Trump visited the hard-hit areas of North Carolina (hurricanes last fall) and Los Angeles (wildfires during January). Nevertheless, he made comments that raised significant concerns. He suggested that in the future, emergency aid would become a responsibility of the states and not of the national government through its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).. The possible elimination of FEMA did not sit well with most Americans who have come to believe that emergency relief is primarily a duty of the federal government. For each state to maintain a large, stand-by emergency workforce would be inefficient and extremely costly.

Immigration/Birthright Citizenship

Trump made many decisions regarding immigration. He ordered that babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants would not have an automatic right to citizenship. This is a clear violation of the 14^th Amendment to our Constitution which does grant that right to everyone born in our country. The president’s order was immediately blocked by Federal Judge John Coughenour (who had been appointed by former president Reagan) who declared Trump’s action to be “blatantly unconstitutional”. Trump also affirmed that “we are the only country in the world that grants birthright citizenship”. This is a LIE! Dozens of countries permit birthright citizenship. I know because our three children were born in Mexico and have Mexican citizenship (even though neither my wife nor I are Mexicans).

Immigration/Scapegoating

We have a long sad history of scapegoating foreign immigrants, falsely blaming them for many evils they did not commit and not acknowledging how they toiled under difficult conditions to build our country. We did this to the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese, the Mexicans, and many more. We continue to do this today with undocumented immigrants. They work night and day on our farms, in our hotels and factories, or in construction. They pay sales tax, income tax, Social Security tax, real estate tax, and other taxes, yet we accuse them for the failures of our economy. They are blamed for the crime in our streets, even though police records consistently show their crime rate is much lower than those born in the United States. President Trump has said he will deport nine million undocumented immigrants. This would lead to skyrocketing inflation, especially for groceries. As more and more citizens realize that scapegoating is ethically cruel and economically inaccurate, buyer’s remorse will rise.

Tariffs

Nations place tariffs upon certain products from other countries, usually to punish another country or to protect a national industry. The use of tariffs almost never works and almost always raises prices for consumers. It is the opposite of free market capitalism. Trump has promised to levy 25% tariffs on products from Mexico and Canada and 50% on some from China. The overwhelming majority of economists disagree with the president. They affirm this would greatly increase inflation. On Sunday, Trump and Colombia’s President Gustavo Preto had a conflict on Sunday as Petro refused to receive Colombian immigrants who were being deported. Both presidents slapped a 25% tariff on the other country. It appears that last night the disagreement had been resolved. If the tariffs were to take effect, coffee prices in the U.S. would skyrocket.

Trump campaigned on lowering prices on groceries, rent, and gasoline. He has more recently tried to walk this back and has acknowledged, “It is really hard to lower prices”. He is now making a more modest promise of “lowering the rate of inflation”. The following political affirmation is quite true regarding the criteria used to evaluate a president: “It’s the economy, stupid”. If Trump lowers inflation, most citizens will give him a good grade, but if inflation rises, so will buyer’s remorse.

In my next post, I will analyze the morality/immorality of Trump’s executive orders.

Defending the Immigrant: Thanksgiving, Father Abraham, and Brother Jesus

The recent election reveals a lot about us in this country. Polls show that immigration was one of the most important issues and that up to half of our population would like to see millions of undocumented immigrants deported. If you are in favor of this massive deportation, I write this brief article with the hope of changing your mind. I appeal to your conscience, your sense of integrity, and if you are a religious person, your understanding of Biblical teaching.

Let’s begin with Thanksgiving. According to our national folklore, the first Thanksgiving took place in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1621. Members of the Wampanoag indigenous people shared food (venison, bass, mussels) with the pilgrims. Whether it occurred exactly in this way is not that important for this post. What is important to remember is that on the eve of the European colonization of the Americas (by the Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and others), these lands were under the stewardship of the indigenous people tribes. Not many Europeans asked the indigenous leaders for “permission” to occupy and settle in the land. In other words, they were “illegal” or “undocumented” immigrants, although they tried to justify their actions by affirming “manifest destiny” or other religious arguments. Others claimed that although their government was wrong, they were individually innocent. Over the next centuries, treaties were made…, and frequently broken. The result was that almost the totality of the land previously under the stewardship of indigenous people was taken by Europeans and their descendants. I am a descendant of those European colonists and a beneficiary of that unjust land takeover. Most of my fellow citizens are in a similar situation. It would be hypocrisy for me to glory in this pursuit of the “American Dream” of my predecessors and to deny other immigrants that same opportunity.

Our national history regarding immigrants has been quite checkered. Protestant immigrants from western or northern nations of Europe have been very privileged. Others, not quite so much. At various times, Italians, Poles, Jews, the Irish, Mexicans, the Chinese, and others have been scapegoated, as if they were the cause of all our country’s ills (as claimed today). Some suffered outright persecution and deportation. Of course, the capture and enslavement of Africans was our nation’s most horrific evil committed against foreigners. If we were honest, we would confess our national sins against immigrants.

Now, let’s turn to the Scriptures. “Father Abraham” is recognized as the founding patriarch of the three great monotheistic religions in our world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. According to the sacred texts, God called Abraham to leave his father’s house to go to a distant land (Genesis 12). He became an immigrant “par excellence”. God told Abe that those who welcomed and blessed him would also receive the Lord’s blessing. Along the way, Abe made many mistakes. (Like some contemporary immigrants, Abe told some lies to save his own skin.) Nevertheless, people in other countries forgave him and blessed him… and Abraham became a blessing to others, just like God had promised.

Some will say that God’s promise to Abraham was quite specific and does not apply to immigrants today. Not true… at least not for those who want to follow the God of the Bible. The Scriptures tell us that all people, including all immigrants, are made in God’s image, and therefore, have immense value. Because immigrants are frequently subject to mistreatment (just like orphans and widows), God defends them and provides them with special protections (Leviticus 25:35, Deuteronomy 14:29, the entire book of Ruth the immigrant, and Malachi 3:5). The Lord Jesus is even more radical in his teaching: “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me… what you have done to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done to me” (Matthew 25:31-46). The way we treat an immigrant is, in fact, how we treat Jesus himself.

How should we treat the millions of undocumented immigrants in our midst? The overwhelming majority of them are working in gainful employment. Our economy, especially the agricultural and construction sectors, needs immigrant labor. It would suffer greatly if millions of immigrants were deported. Undocumented parents would be separated from their children, many of which are U.S. born citizens. A good solution would be to follow the contours of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, carved out by President Reagan and Congress. Let them regularize their legal status, pay a penalty, continue in their jobs, and most importantly, keep their families intact. A good first step would be to increase the pathways for legal immigration.

Let’s do better in the future than we have in the past!

Pope Francis Weighs in on the U.S. Presidential Election: One Principle, Several Issues

A week ago, Pope Francis wrapped up an eleven-day pastoral visit to Southeast Asia and Oceania. On the plane trip home to the Vatican, he held a press conference for the reporters who accompanied him on the plane. One reporter asked the Pontiff for his opinion on the presidential election in the United States. Although he did not mention Donald Trump or Kamala Harris by name, it was obvious who he was referring to. “Sending migrants away, not allowing them to grow, not letting them have life is something wrong; it is cruelty. Sending a child away from the womb of the mother is murder because there is life. And we must speak clearly about things.”

After denouncing the sinful policies of both Trump and Harris, he stilled affirmed that it is a Christian’s responsibility to vote. He was asked whether it would be morally admissible to vote for someone who favored the right to abortion, he responded: “One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Each person must think and decide according to his or her own conscience.”

Although I strive to follow Christ, I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with Pope Francis on every issue, but I acknowledge him as a fellow traveler who advocates for the most vulnerable in our society (according to the Bible, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger). His ethical principle is fairly simple and echoes the teaching of Jesus. All of our actions, including voting and other political acts, should seek to enhance the lives of our neighbors, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He urges us to apply this Golden Rule to all aspects of human life, what Catholic ethicists call the “Seamless Garment”. Therefore, all government policies should be evaluated according to how they enhance humanity’s wellbeing: policies regarding marriage and family, healthcare, education, employment, care of creation, abortion, immigration and other issues. He does not think that people should evaluate political candidates by only one issue. People are fallen creatures and political policies exemplify their flaws. That should not lead us to political apathy. We should evaluate these options and vote for the “lesser of the evils”, that is, those that achieve the greatest good in the world.

This papal advice might affect the U.S. election in unexpected ways. Not all people of faith agree with the Pope that human life should be legally protected from the moment of conception. Many place that point at the moment of the viability of the fetus outside the womb, while others believe it should begin at birth. Many of these people will vote for Harris. Even those pro-lifers who agree with the Pope’s position on abortion might vote for Harris, because Trump’s immigration policy is equally evil.

May people in the U.S. seek the truth, evaluate the options and vote as their conscience leads them.

Trump is Unbelievable! The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the border and the budget

Biden and Trump both have records to run on… or to hide from. God has given each of us a brain and a conscience to evaluate their actions as a former or current president. I will analyze Biden’s record in upcoming posts, but in my writings today and tomorrow, I will address Trump’s promises and practice in two areas: the Border and the Budget.

The Border

Ever since his escalator descent when he began his first presidential campaign in 2015, the southern border has been one of Trump’s principal issues. A major thrust of his solution to the “immigration crisis” was his promise to build a wall along the two-thousand-mile border between Mexico and the United States. In fact, the phrase “Build the wall… Build the wall” became the standard chant at MAGA rallies. Last night, Trump promised that he would complete the wall, although he had already “finished most of it”.

Fact # 1 – During his previous four-year presidential administration, Trump built a whopping 52 miles of new wall (according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report). He had the full authority of the White House and a Republican controlled Congress, yet he only constructed fifty-two miles of new wall. We should evaluate people, and especially presidential candidates, by their “fruits”, that is, by their actions (or in this case, inaction). Given this fact, it is incredible that anyone would believe Trump’s words about the border.

Fact # 2 – Earlier this year, the conservative Republican Senator James Lankford was the main author of a tough immigration bill in the Senate. It included everything that Republicans wanted in immigration legislation. Republicans were in favor of the bill… until they weren’t. What happened? Trump urged Republican officials to vote against the legislation. Trump did not want to solve the “immigration crisis”; he wanted the crisis to continue as a political issue for his campaign. This was pure hypocrisy.

In my post tomorrow, I will analyze Trump’s promises about the budget and the national debt. Meanwhile, seek the truth, follow the truth, live the truth. Do not believe lies, whoever they come from.

“Illegal”: From Linguistics to Divine Ethics

There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.

I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.

There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.

There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.

The State of the Union address last night and the Republican response: Facts and Fiction

Last night, President Biden gave his State of the Union address. Before (and during?) his speech, Democrats were anxious that the president would make many gaffes, would come across as out of touch, and would appear a bit senile. Nevertheless, he surpassed the expectations of his friends and foes alike. He was coherent, fiery, and passionate. His frequent ad libs were on target. He even joked about his age.

In these addresses, presidents highlight their successes. Biden did this with a long litany of achievements, and his fellow Democrats roared their approval. Most of his affirmations were factually accurate, although some were misleading (example, taxes paid by corporations. See Fact checking Biden’s State of the Union | CNN Politics for the evidence that overwhelmingly confirms (and occasionally challenges) the accuracy of his statements.

Biden also tackled immigration, one of his weakest issues. He advocated for the immigration bill passed by the Senate and waiting for a vote in the House. It is a bipartisan bill, largely written by conservative Republican Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma. What are the facts?

Is it the toughest immigration bill of our generation? Yes.
Did Republicans originally support it? Yes.
Is it supported by the union of Border Patrol officers? Yes.
Did former President Trump communicate with Republican congressional representatives to not vote on the bill?
Is this because immigration is his best campaign issue and not a challenge to be resolved? Yes.
Is calling it a crisis and not voting on it in Congress hypocrisy? Yes.
Let’s have the vote!

The Republican response was delivered by Katie Britt, a Senator from Alabama. It was good to see an elected official from a younger generation. Although she was too dramatic for my taste, I agree with her statement that people are only as good as their word. Is our word honest, accurate, full of integrity? Sadly, her few affirmations did not match the truth. She said, “We have the worst inflation in 40 years” (present tense). That is false. Although inflation rose to 9.1% in June 2022, it is now 3.1%. Instead of criticizing Biden on this issue, she should have given him credit. On the topic of immigration, she conveniently forgot to mention that Trump had promised he would “build the wall and make Mexico pay for it”. Of course, the former president did not keep either promise.

The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was sitting behind the President and was in clear view the entire evening. He has been roundly criticized for not applauding enough. Although I strongly disagree with him on some issues (for example, not bringing the Senate foreign aid bill up for a vote in the House), last night he did urge members of his own party to show respect for the office of the presidency. He applauded when he agreed with Biden and respectfully kept quiet when he did not.

We the people have the responsibility to seek and speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Although our political preferences do shape what we see, if we work hard enough, we can overcome our biases, and reach some common ground of truth. For the sake of future generations, let’s seek those truths.