Your morning jolt: Southern Baptists could support DREAM act, leader says

A leader of the most influential religious denomination within the GOP says the children of illegal immigration should be given a place in the United States. From the Associated Press:

A Southern Baptist Convention leader says the group’s policy arm supports a version of the DREAM Act — the proposed law that would allow illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to earn legal status, either by going to college or serving in the military.

Richard Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, made the statement in a Monday letter to Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, who are the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.

Land wrote that his commission could support the DREAM Act, with conditions. One condition would be making sure the bill does not allow young adults who gain legal status to help their relatives gain legal status or enter the country. He called such a measure “back-door amnesty.”

In explaining the commission’s position to the subcommittee, Land wrote: “The children of undocumented immigrants who were brought here by their parents should not be forced to bear the full penalty of their presence in the nation illegally. To consign them to lives often-times bordering on poverty levels for actions in which they had no part is too severe a penalty.”

In an interview on Thursday, Land said he was asked by a member of the subcommittee, whom he would not name, to provide the panel with a letter outlining what provisions the commission could support.

***
Several students involved in non-violent protests against cuts to the HOPE scholarship at the state Capitol this spring have been barred from the entire state government complex – forever and ever and ever. Click here to see one of the criminal trespass warnings from Lori Geary of Channel 2 Action News. here’s the video:

***
Oh, snap. Way over in Iowa, GOP presidential candidate and Georgia businessman Herman Cain has let it be known that he’ll campaign this weekend in the town of Winterset, birthplace of actor John Wayne.

It doesn’t sound like a coincidence. From the Des Moines Register:

Presidential contender Michele Bachmann made headlines while in her native Waterloo on Monday when she told a Fox News reporter: “John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.”

Bachmann was criticized for failing to know her Iowa history even as she tries to stress her Iowa nativity.

Bachmann is at the top of the polls in Iowa with 22 percent support of likely GOP caucusgoers (tied with Mitt Romney) while Cain is in 2nd place with 10 percent.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

106 comments Add your comment

ByteMe

July 1st, 2011
9:04 am

Capitol this spring have been barred from the entire state government complex – forever and ever and ever.

Unlikely they’ll make that stick. Access to our government is one of the basic tenets of the country. Hello? ACLU?

RCH

July 1st, 2011
9:47 am

I don’t have a problem with this for existing children that are already here. They should not have to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. However, from here on end, NO children of illegal aliens should be granted citizenship.

Aquagirl

July 1st, 2011
9:57 am

However, from here on end, NO children of illegal aliens should be granted citizenship.

Repeal of the 14th Amendment by blog post seems doubtful.

Also, were you trying to say “from here on IN?” This is America. Speak English, or go back to where you came from.

View From Midtown

July 1st, 2011
10:12 am

You know the DREAM act was originally sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch – REPUBLICAN from Utah. Of course that was before the racists and xenophobes took back control of the GOP. Funny how the Southern Strategy raised its ugly head as soon as a bi-racial president was elected.

jconservative

July 1st, 2011
10:16 am

This is the second time in a month that the SBC has widened its interpretation of “the right to life.”
Interesting.

Slowly but surely the SBC is coming around to the position that “the right to life” does not end at birth.

RCH

July 1st, 2011
10:21 am

Aquagirl,

Both you and I know that the 14th amendment was not written to protect illegal alien’s children. The “spirit “ of the law was written to protect the children of native Americans and freed African Americans.
Sorry about the grammatical mistake. I don’t have time to proof read. I am busy earning a living and paying taxes.

Centrist

July 1st, 2011
10:26 am

Election year grandstanding by submitting bills that have no chance of becoming law is a long U.S. tradition. The DREAM Act has no better chance of passing in the House as the balanced budget amendment does in the Senate.

No amount of AJC support for the DREAM Act will get it done without a Democrat party run Congress, and there is no chance that will happen any time soon.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
10:35 am

For everyone opposed to the DREAM Act, please present your alternative.
If you’re opposed to it, that’s fine, but offer a solution.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
10:39 am

RCH, don’t waste your time worrying about AquaGirl. She loves pandering to illegal immigrants. I’ve seen her on a few of these illegal immigrant boards talking ’bout how we “need” illegals. Which we really don’t.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
10:39 am

Ric, my solution is don’t give them anything. They are not deserving.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
10:43 am

So when an undocumented student who was brought here when she was 9 months old graduates valedictorian of her high school class, what would you like her to do?

James

July 1st, 2011
10:44 am

Let’s keep rewarding people for entering the country illegally…that makes perfect sense only to Democrats.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
10:48 am

Make her go through the citizenship process.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
10:48 am

There is no process for DREAM-eligible undocumented youth already living in the United States.
If there were, the DREAM Act wouldn’t be relevant.

jd

July 1st, 2011
10:50 am

If we were a Christian Nation, the Sermon on the Mount would be our strategic plan…

ShallWeGather@TheRiver

July 1st, 2011
10:52 am

“A Southern Baptist Convention leader says the group’s policy arm supports a version…”

Gotta wonder if they polled the membership before they issued this statement. I doubt it. This business of making sweeping social policy pronouncements in the name of millions of congregants is driving so many people away from organized religion.

Centrist

July 1st, 2011
10:52 am

The ILLEGAL immigrant resident should use her U.S. education back in her country of origin or legally emigrate somewhere.

What about the ILLEGAL immigrant high school graduate who was in the middle of their graduating class and takes a college position away from a similarly qualified LEGAL resident? How is that fair?

Sorry. No rewards to families of ILLEGAL immigrants other than what they have already received on the backs of taxpaying citizens.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
10:53 am

Ric, call ‘em what they are. ILLEGAL, not “Undocumented”. Then she can go back home and start the application process. A buddy of mine came here years, got his green card and finally got his citizenship. If she can’t do that, then too bad. Send her home.

Rob Woodall Has Always Gotten His Healthcare for Free (but Paid By You), Yet he wants your grandparents to forgo food to pay out from their fixed income for healthcare

July 1st, 2011
10:54 am

Criminal trespass warnings and lifetime bans for peaceful student protesters?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Aquagirl

July 1st, 2011
10:55 am

Both you and I know that the 14th amendment was not written to protect illegal alien’s children. The “spirit “ of the law was written to protect the children of native Americans and freed African Americans.

I don’t “know” or agree with any such thing. Seeing as how actual, y’know, COURTS don’t agree, you can “know” anything you want. Are you looking for an activist judge to overrule a very clearly written law? How about we stick that to the 2nd Amendment? Plenty of people—actual judges among them—say the spirit of the law is protection of state militias, not individual homeowners. Plus it was clearly written to apply to muskets, not semi-auto rifles with magazines. I don’t see many conservatives agreeing with this approach on the 2nd, yet they’re happy to screech like harpies about the 14th. Having your cake and eating it too only works at imaginary tea parties.

Proofreading slip, yeah, right. Substituting words in idioms is not a keyboard mistake. It indicates the speaker doesn’t know what the h3ll they’re doing with their words.

Olderandwiser49

July 1st, 2011
10:57 am

There is no formal law about separation of Church and State. It actually came about as a “gentleman’s (and I use that word to define gender, not character) agreement” between politicians and the ministry. Pols thought ministers and churches were in a position to easily influence voters to elect those pols who would be favorable to them(much like public unions), so the politicians basically bribed the church to stay out of politics, and in exchange, churches were allowed to remain tax exempt. With the church now wading in far too deep on political issues (abortion, Sunday sales, immigration, etc.), it is time to either remind them of their “agreement,” and tell them to butt-out or lose their tax exempt status. Our government uses extortive tactics with the American people all the time (Obamacare’s mandate and the IRS, just to name two), so why not give the church a jolt of reality, too? I guess the Baptists need as many new parishioners as the Catholic church does to offset the losses of contributions due to the economy. All that land and those palaces…er, I mean, places of worship cost alot of money to maintain!

Centrist

July 1st, 2011
10:57 am

@ JD – We are NOT a Christian nation. That is part of our under used Declaration of Independence and Constitution our forefathers demanded. We have a majority of Christians, and many on the far right would like to ignore our Constitution and forefathers to make the U.S. a Christian theocracy. This drives many out of the Republican Party (along with other far right wing stances).

Clinton "Skink" Tyree

July 1st, 2011
10:58 am

The Southern Baptist Convention seems to be moderating in certain areas — even though their logic regarding the Dream Act is muddled — but, not by choice but of necessity as their numbers are down dramatically.

Increasingly, their narrowness has placed them on the precipice of irrelevancy. It’s either moderate or continue in a downward spiral.

Now, if they’d take a look at their views on the inerrancy and literal interpretation of scriptures, they might soon enter the 20th century with hopes of entering the 21st century in 15 or 20 years.

yellowdog

July 1st, 2011
11:00 am

so smug and self-righteous. what have you given back to the world lately?

Ric

July 1st, 2011
11:00 am

First of all, illegal describes actions, not people. The term is somewhat misleading, since it leads many people to believe that it is a criminal offense to be in the United States without permission (it’s not.) Using your logic, if you’ve ever driven one mile over the speed limit, you are an illegal person.

But that’s beside the point. If you think sending someone to a country that he or she has no recollection of, no family in, and no knowledge of the language to wait for more than a decade is a reasonable solution, then I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.
Simply put, your solution is uphholding the status quo.

Ashley

July 1st, 2011
11:03 am

I can’t believe what I’m reading ….the SBC is actually supporting a group of people who don’t think and act like they do. Usually their mantra of “fire and brimstone” is the only thing they support. I want to know where is there compassion for other American citizens ,like certain people sexual orientation or women who don’t buy into your subservient view of them or females who want decisions about their body left to them. Until you stop making judgement calls on legal american citizens you can all turn into a pillar of salt.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
11:04 am

Ric, no. The correct term for them has “illegal”, “Undocumented” is just a politically correct word.

“The term is somewhat misleading, since it leads many people to believe it is a criminal offense to be in the United States without permission (it’s not).”

Who cares? The illegal alien has NO business being here in the first place.

Centrist

July 1st, 2011
11:06 am

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947 that affirmed the interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Trey

July 1st, 2011
11:11 am

The political correctness of some is appalling. I can’t believe people of legal status here would pander to illegal aliens.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
11:13 am

Trey,
I believe Christ said something about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matt 23:24).
As I’ve already said, the terminology is beside the point. You were the one who brought up the issue terminology. I honestly don’t care what word you use to describe people. I’m more concerned about the big picture: the fact that our immigration system is making our nation less competitive and less productive, one outdated, dysfunctional immigration law at a time.
…Which makes it all the more baffling to me why the biggest thing on your mind is whether to call them “illegal” or “undocumented.”
Let’s talk about issues, folks.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
11:17 am

Ric, who cares what Christ said? Do you even have proof that he existed?

We have proper channels for people to come over here legally. I’m sorry, but the laws are what they are and we have stricter immigration laws. Who cares? We can’t let everyone over here, even if we wanted. There are close to 7 billion people in this world and not everyone can into one country. If you can’t become a citizen the first time, then keep trying and maybe you’ll get lucky. To reward anyone who is here illegally is appalling. What about the people waiting in line to become a citizen? Why should illegal aliens get to skip ahead of the line?

Bobby

July 1st, 2011
11:21 am

I was a Southern Baptist for 55 years. Their conditional Christianity is what finally convinced me I would find Christ in another denomination.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
11:23 am

Who said they should cut in line ahead of those already waiting legally?
Not me.
I prefer a legal system that works. If we make it easier to come to the United States legally in the first place, illegal immigration will become a non-issue.

And not to be contrary, but hypothetically, the entire population of the world could fit in the state of Texas and would it would still be less crowded than Bronx. That’s not to say that I want the entire world living in the United States, but it’s a false dichotomy to present it as “status quo vs. the entire world living in the USA”

Ashley

July 1st, 2011
11:24 am

@Olderandwiser49….I want to be on your team, your post makes good sense, love your matter of fact stance on religion. People don’t realize certain people interpet religion to suit them and their needs.

Aquagirl

July 1st, 2011
11:26 am

Trey, and I can’t believe people of legal status buy cheap produce, houses, and other necessities produced by illegal labor, then turn around and stick their snoots in the air. Yet, it happens.

These true-blue ‘Mericans get up and have their eggs, ham, and OJ produced by illegal labor. They stroll through their McMansion (built by illegals,) look out the window at the illegal labor mowing the lawn, and then log on to complain about those damn illegals. Then they run to Wal-Mart to buy cheap Chinese produced crap and produced picked by illegals.

Engaging in bigoted hollering is the only satisfaction you’ll receive. Despite endless moaning and b!tching on blogs, I have yet to see workable plans to deport 10 million + people. Illegals aren’t going anywhere, and (RCH’s wishful dreams aside) they’re having children who are legal citizens.

This game is over. It’s been over for years, and you think the post-production carping is a win. Yeah, a Charlie Sheen kind of win.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
11:36 am

Ric, yes you are. Saying she should be allowed to become a citizen because of the DREAM Act. What about the immigrants with the green cards trying to become citizens? Why should she be able to become a citizen without going through the process?

TruthBe

July 1st, 2011
11:38 am

View from midtown, Please check you facts it was YOUR party the jim crow crowd democrat party who are the racists, homosexual perverts, and child molelesters.

LG - West Metro -

July 1st, 2011
11:39 am

Please understand – While Mr Land holds a prominent position in the Southern Baptist Convention, he in NO WAY is our spokes-person. He is only ONE prson speaking for himsel!! As a Southern Baptist, I am bitterly opposed to the Dream Act as is being cooked up in Washington. We welcome immigrants to this GREAT COUNTRY but they must ALL MUST come the true legal way – none of this free coming in the back door that is being created by the current bunch of politicans in Washington. The children of illegals immigrants are ILLEGALs like their parents. Period!!!

Trey

July 1st, 2011
11:39 am

Aquagirl, I already know why you support illegal immigration. You like the legal slave labor that they have to deal with on a daily basis to get by.

Do you even know the definition of bigot, aquagirl? People who are against illegal immigration are not bigots. People like you use the bigot term loosely, just because real Americans want our immigration laws followed. Oh, and illegals are going somewhere. The new immigration law just took effect this morning.

Red

July 1st, 2011
11:43 am

Believe it or not there are many in the SBC who take Scripture to heart – caring for the fatherless, the widow, the poor, and the alien.

As for the concept that the kids should be forced to suffer consequences of their parents, you do realize we the taxpayers cover the cost of parents’ actions right? Ever heard of foster care? DFACs?

For those who keep saying get in the back of the line, there is no line. The process is convoluted. There is no line or order. If those here now were given the ability to serve in the military to repay the nation they live in, why deny this? Are you now against repayment?

jconservative

July 1st, 2011
11:45 am

Bobby at 11:21 am
“I was a Southern Baptist for 55 years. Their conditional Christianity is what finally convinced me I would find Christ in another denomination.”

Bobby (or anyone who actually knows):
What is “conditional Christainity”? I am not familiar with the term.

Thanks

RCH

July 1st, 2011
11:46 am

Aquagirl
July 1st, 2011
11:26 am
Trey, and I can’t believe people of legal status buy cheap produce, houses, and other necessities produced by illegal labor, then turn around and stick their snoots in the air. Yet, it happens.

This may be true, yet we pay higher Federal, state and property taxes to support these illegal’s to educate, incarcerate, and medicate them.

I have yet to see workable plans to deport 10 million + people. Illegal’s aren’t going anywhere, and (RCH’s wishful dreams aside) they’re having children who are legal citizens

Strange. Didn’t the state of Ga. Just pass a restrictive imitation bill that resulted in the departure of numerous illegal’s. Must have been my imagination.

The case of “anchor” babies and other parts of legislation that has been frozen by Federal judges will eventually be heard in the Supreme Court

Ric

July 1st, 2011
11:46 am

There is not a “line,” singular.
There are dozens of different lines to come to the United States, based on nation of origin, skill level, education, personal wealth, whether or not you have family in the United States, and a litany of other different factors.
There have been several different incarnations of the DREAM Act, each of which differs slightly on how to process DREAM-eligible youth. I have not read the full text of the version that has been introduced in the 112th Congress, but the version that was voted on in December 2010 would have created a seperate , not “skipping ahead” of those already waiting.
Ideally, I would much rather prefer a broader overhaul of the immigration system that would focus on long-term systemic change instead of a short-term fixes like the DREAM Act. That way, we wouldn’t have the confusing issue of dozens of different lines.

Trey

July 1st, 2011
11:50 am

Ric, you and I have different views of immigration laws. You obviously want illegal aliens to stay here and I don’t. By the way, you know exactly what “line” I was talking about. It’s a figure of speech for those waiting to start their citizenship process. Why should an illegal alien be able to get the DREAM Act to benefit then? Why don’t we allow the people in the waiting process of becoming a legal citizen to get the DREAM Act instead? We know they are trying to become citizens.

Red

July 1st, 2011
11:54 am

There will be no meaningful immigration reform. One faction wants all legalized to exploit their vote. One group wants to keep cheating the tax and wage system. One group hates foreigners/Latinos/etc. and wants them all rounded up 30’s Germany style. Too many groups with varying stakes and most people truly do not care enough to line the streets demanding one way or another.

I do find it ironic that Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has authorized a 6 ft wall be erected around his home to protect him. So the guy against a wall on the border wants a wall around his home?

Former Baptist

July 1st, 2011
11:54 am

Why is the SBC getting involved in this? This committee of the SBC is nothing more than a PAC (political action committee) and should be treated as such. I has ordained a Southern Baptist Deacon and born and raised a Baptist. After 58 yrs I have left the SBC over issues like this. It is time they worry more about sharing God’s love and grace than trying to run people’s lives. The SBC has lost their focus and that is why they are declining.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
12:02 pm

Trey,
You are wrong in asserting that I want all “illegal aliens” to stay in the United States.

If we expedite and simplify the visa process for those already waiting, I would have no problem with DREAM-eligible youth waiting until after all of those already waiting have been processed.

mum

July 1st, 2011
12:09 pm

@Trey, you confuse green card resident to citizens. Regardless of how you got here, you have to be a permanent resident for a number of years before you can even apply for citizenship, and you do have to apply and go through extenisve criminal background checking. You’re not just given citizenship.

Maddox

July 1st, 2011
12:10 pm

The DREAM Act rewards those who broke U.S. immigration laws and only encourages more illegal immigration;

The DREAM Act unfairly allows illegal alien students to tap federal and state benefits, when those benefits are desperately needed by Americans who are struggling every day to make ends meet.

Ric

July 1st, 2011
12:13 pm

Maryland’s in-state tuition law requires that eligible students must prove that their parents paid income taxes during the student’s years in high school. I’d like to see that included in the federal DREAM Act.