Wednesday, March 16, 2011

5 Cheers for Mike Delph and Immigration Reform ;-)

I just realized five reasons why I should support the "Arizona style" immigration bill that Mike Delph got through the Indiana Senate today.

First, I know I'm not smart enough to learn another language, so I'll never know whether those people are talking about me.  I'm frightened when I'm around people who are different from me and they're saying things I don't understand.  Whatever happened to the Mid-West as a place of monolithic rural culture and one room school houses?  I want the good old days back!

In fact, I think no one should be allowed to speak any language but English within the borders of the country, and, as I think they've introduced in Texas, we should not be teaching any foreign languages on the tax payer's bill.  Why should I be asked to pay for someone to learn someone else's language?

And why limit it to illegal immigrants?  I think we should send all immigrants back to wherever they came from.  We should send the Chinese back to Africa where they came from, and Mexicans back to Cuba.  Mike, I'm with you!

Secondly, I'm afraid they're going to mug me.  You know, Chinese, Canadians, Mexa-ricans, blacks.  I keep an eye on anyone who looks like they wouldn't have attended my Hoosier high school basketball games (that is, from my school--sometimes there were, you know, on the other teams that visited).  You just can't trust foreigners and, you know.  We need to send them all back because you just know they are waiting for you to let your guard down.  I can hardly sleep worrying that some foreigner is going to break into my house.  I'm with you, Mike!

Thirdly, I'm afraid they're going to take my job.  I moonlight as a janitor at a local Motel 6 and you don't know how many cleaning jobs I got passed on because some foreigner beat me to it.  I don't care whether they were legal or not.  Whites should get first dibs.  I'm with you, Mike!

Fourthly, a law is a law.  I don't care that your parents brought you here when you were two months old and you don't speak Hungarian.  Back to Hungary for you!  I think J-walkers should be thrown in jail too, along with all those people who fudge on their income taxes.  A law is a law--we're going to throw you into jail if you make personal copies on the company printer because we believe in justice here.

Better yet, let's send anyone who ever breaks any law to Guantanamo or some new island we'll call "ILLEGAL LAND."  No, wait, we'll send them all to California, which hardly counts as American anyway. I'm with Michelle Bachmann, let's send all the un-American lawbreakers to California and then drop it in the ocean.  I'm with you, Mike!

Finally, I'm with Mike.  Jesus didn't know what the heck he was talking about.  The Sermon on the Mount--what a bunch of bunk!  And give a child a cup of water--if you're not legal or don't speak my language, no way you're getting water from me.  That's justice, baby!  That stuff in the Law about the stranger in the land; that stuff in the Prophets about the poor, the orphan, and the widow; that stuff Jesus said in the gospels--I've got one word for you: L-I-B-E-R-A-L!  If that's Christianity, Glenn Beck and I want nothing to do with it.

I'm with you, Mike!  We're Hoosiers.  Education's for those liberal states like New York and California.

[For those who thought I was actually serious, here is the translation]

18 comments:

::athada:: said...

Now you're starting to make so much more sense... better send the ICE agents in on the Spanish-speaking MDIV students in Marion. I hear they're up to something sinister... but I'm still confused what they're studying b/c the Bible was written in English!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

LOL! Good response, too, ::athada::
Seriously, Ken, don't we have to question whether there is a "moral ought"?
Richard Carrier has a good blog entry on "Moral Ontology", but I also liked this dissertation from Princeton; (His view doesn't hold to moral realism)....

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-Dissertation.pdf

I am finding that I need to clarify terms many times, as I am not informed formally about philosophical distinctions. But, it is interesting, nonetheless...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

BTW, I didn't appreciate what you said about Michele Bachman. I think she is a valuable asset to our government. She attempts to hold government accountable and represent her constiuency...and I think she is well-spoken and attractive...

As to Mike Delph, I don't know his poliy or stance, except for what you've written here. Even though I think it is funny what you write, since I don't know his stance, wouldn't your sarcasm hinder my ability to think about the subject rationally and seriously?

Make no mistake, I believe that your entry was "entertaining" (and your civil right) if that was what you were wanting to accomplish.

Anonymous said...

wow im impressed. you have lowered yourself to the standards of the extremists on both sides by your extreme sarcasm. Great example for the dean of the seminary to set

Ken Schenck said...

I thought it was softer than "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites..." ;-)

Anonymous said...

haha it probably was softer than that.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I should've suspected that you also were a moral realist, too. And I bet with John Wesley's perfection of love doctrine of holiness, that those "scribes and Pharisees" who aren't bent on subverting our country's honor, viability and future to Utopian goals are "doomed" under the "judgment of God"...because they don't do good works to the poor by granting entitlement programs....;-)
Public policy is dangerous in the hands of religion or ideologues of any kind. Therefore, while I can grant you that implimenting a 'Christian Nation" would be tantamont to Taliban oppression to many, the more moderate in the Tea Party movement have concern over our nation's future hope. There is nothing to dismiss about that concern, or their activism.

Tim said...

Wow, what an immature insulting satire of any Christian who loves foreigners and diversity but who believes in the rule of law and a honest gate through which our cherished visitors can come. I've never read anything more infantile and steriotypical. Very tolerant of you sir! T.C.

Tim said...

I have never read a satire so infantile and steriotypical in my life, i.e. regarding Rep Delph. Why must a Christian be so hatefully satirical to other Christians who believe in the rule of law and a gate through which our diverse foreign visitors can arrive in our great country - I do not hate them. i.e. those who are here illegally - we are enriched by those who wish to live side by side with the rest of us. We welcome them, legally, and we extend the love of Christ to our neighbors, legal or illegal - but we're talking here about the matter of law and common sense. Why be intolerant and incindieary about it! And, I am not stupid, as you imply.

FrGregACCA said...

"The sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath."

As the above statement from our Lord illustrates, the rule of law also is but a means to an end and, when that end is better served by bending the law rather than harshly enforcing it, the latter becomes imperative.

Ken Schenck said...

Tim, since the above is obviously exaggerated satire, who knows, perhaps our actual positions are not as different as you think.

I do have two thoughts on the "rule of law" response, which I tried to poke a little fun at in my #4 (as you know, we say all sorts of things to justify our underlying motivations, many of which we are not even aware of).

The legislation that sparked my humorous satire was new legislation. So the idea of the "rule of law" does not apply. I am questioning a new set of laws, not existing ones.

Second, we're the ones that make the laws. When Reagan made a pathway to citizenship in the 80s, that was the rule of law too, because it was done legally and Constitutionally.

I'm not sure, however, how someone would appeal to some higher law here, either by way of philosophy or Christianity.

FrGregACCA said...

Ken writes: "I'm not sure, however, how someone would appeal to some higher law here, either by way of philosophy or Christianity."

My goodness, Ken! Going back to Abraham, the people of God are wanderers and sojourners (cf. Hebrews 13:14) and those of us who are temporarily more-or-less "at ease in Zion" are called always consider the sojourners among us. This is, as you know, a recurrent theme in Deuteronomy. See Deuteronomy 24:17-22, for example, as well as such verses as Hebrews 13:2.

I would also note that even the word "parish" comes from a Greek word which refers to a colony of resident aliens in a city, a "ghetto" in the original sense, a "Little Italy" or "Chinatown".

It is especially important that we, as North Americans, remember this, in that NAFTA is largely responsible for the destruction of small agriculture in Mexico, leading to a large influx of people north of the border, seeking only to survive.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/?fa=1473

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I think it is impossible to live under biblical texts as an absolute for life and all that is. It bcomes irrational, because it isn't based on what humans have come to understand in their study of different disciplines, but some supernatural revelation that has priority over other sources of information about 'what is".

As to what "should be", well, that is a matter up for debate and is what drives the culture wars. If people understood the text to be a conglomeration of different languages, times and purposes, then they might be more honest with themselves and think for themselves about what society "should be" apart from the "demands of God"...which is really interpreted in some way or another.

"Secular sources" were just as much a part of our legal system as the "Ten Commandments"....

Ken Schenck said...

I meant I didn't see how you could equate "the rule of law" as Tim meant to some higher law either determined from philosophy or from the Bible. In other words, I was suggesting the that the trajectory of Scripture is in the other direction, as you suggest.

FrGregACCA said...

Sorry I misunderstood you, Ken. Thanks for clarifying.

Craig Moore said...

I have a real good idea Ken, why don't you keep your job at Motel 6 and ask your boss if you can be full time.... let the illegal Mexican take your job at IWU, I know I would be happy.

Ken Schenck said...

It could happen Craig. I'm sure there are illegal immigrants out there who are far more righteous than you or I.

Craig Moore said...

Speak for yourself Ken. I was suggesting a possible upgrade at the position for the University only:)