A History Lesson

As we celebrate the 4th of July I have seen several post about immigration. I even posted one myself. And of course, several people had to comment about how those coming to America for a better opportunity better do it legally or go back to their home country. That got me to thinking. How many of our ancestors came to America legally over the years? So I did a little research.

When talking about immigration policy many people argue that immigrants coming to the United States should all have to enter the United States legally in order to obtain legal immigration status in the United States.Their argument goes something like this:  We cannot make any changes or exceptions in our immigration laws to allow for any type of “amnesty” because it would be unfair to our ancestors and all those who have immigrated legally to the United States over the years. My response to this argument is that you have to examine what the law actually was when you or your ancestors immigrated to the United States. Unless you are a Native American, everyone currently in the United States is either an immigrant or a descendant of a person who immigrated to the United States. 

When our ancestors came to the United States from countries around the world, they did not enter the United States “legally” or with any sort of visa. That’s because immigration laws were virtually non-existent in 1775, as America was still a colony of the United Kingdom. When most of our ancestors arrived at the different ports, they were likely not asked many questions or subjected to “extreme vetting.” They likely did not have visas or any permission to enter the colony. Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, as long as a person was a “free white person” of “good moral character” (who decided that one?) and they could prove that they had resided in the country for two years and had lived in the same residence for a year, they would be allowed to apply to become citizens. This is how most of our ancestors became citizens. Of course many people were brought to America against their will and in shackles. But today, those white ancestors would be considered “illegal aliens” upon arriving in the United States, and after being illegally in the United States for more than one year, would have to leave the country and come back legally through proper processing, with a waiver of the ten year bar. And only if they had a qualifying relative that petitioned for them.

The immigration laws in the United States have become much more restrictive and complicated, especially since 1996 with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Plus the different restrictions that have been enacted since the Reform Act of 1996. So when people argue that their ancestors came to America legally, so current immigrants should as well, I challenge them to examine their family history to determine how their ancestors first came to America. Let us not forget our history. America was built on the backs of immigrants. Most of them here against their will. It’s not politicians who make America great, it’s the immigrants who have traveled far and wide and have endured dangerous situations that make America great. If it were not for so called “amnesty” our ancestors and the rest of our family descendants would not have been “legal” or allowed to become American citizens.

That’s your history for today. I encourage each of you to study history before making blanket statements. ~OC

The “Hypothetical Game”

Today’s a new day! A few weeks ago, I wrote about the “What If” game (10/22/24). Today as our nation votes for a new president, I want to write about the “Hypothetical Game.”

As most of you know, the abortion issue will be a major factor for many as they head to the polls today. That is the only reason some people are voting for former President Trump and against Vice-President Harris. But let’s play the “Hypothetical Game.”

But before we play this game, I have to share I believe life matters from the womb to the grave. But I am also concerned about the women who have to make one of the toughest decisions they’ll ever have to make in life. Their lives matter too. And as a man, I will never have to make that tough decision.

I also want to speak to the Christian community about our part in this abortion debate. As I heard many of my Christian friends celebrating the overturning of Roe v. Wade, this question came to my mind. “How many babies are you going to adopt, since Roe has been overturned?” Pretty much complete silence and as of 11/5/24, still mostly crickets.

Then we have the foster care system in the United States. It continues to grow. I believe those number will only get bigger in the coming years. I have a few friends who have stepped up and fostered or adopted children out of the foster care system. They are true heroes to me. But I have to be honest. I have more friends and acquaintances, who continue to complain about the evils of abortion and how sad the foster care system is, but have not stepped up to foster or adopt one of those precious children they love to talk about.

But let’s get back to the “Hypothetical Game.”

If the former president wins, a national abortion ban could follow (I do not believe Trump is being honest when he says he won’t sign it). The ban could establish criminal penalties for women who get abortions. And that’s not all.

It’s not a stretch to see each state begin to add language or emphasis to mandatory reporter laws – which require people in certain professions to report to authorities reasonable suspicions of child abuse and neglect – to include reporting women who have had abortions or who are contemplating having an abortion.

Pastors are mandatory reporters, so anything that falls under that statute is exempt from confidentiality.

So, let’s say a woman comes into a pastor’s office and she’s grieving over recently having an abortion. She doesn’t know if God will forgive her, and she’s seeking counsel on how to move forward in her faith. In this scenario, instead of ministering to her, the pastor would have to notify the authorities and report the woman as a criminal. If a pastor chooses their calling over the legal mandate, they could face civil or criminal penalties.

If that’s not government overreach into the role of a church, I don’t know what is.

Likewise, health care workers are mandatory reporters.

So, let’s say a woman walks into a faith-based pregnancy care center, an act that by its very nature indicates she is open to keeping her baby or discussing adoption. During her visit, she tells a nurse she has seriously consulted someone about having an abortion. By law, in this scenario, the nurse might have to report that.

As a consequence, it would be easy to see how illegal, and unsafe, abortions would rise as faith-based pregnancy care centers shutter and churches become less effective as a refuge.

So a vote for someone other than Trump looks pretty “pro-life” by comparison.

When the fate of the Constitution is on the ballot, nothing else should matter. A vote for the so called “pro-life” candidate could tremendously jeopardize the legitimate faith community’s ability to function – not to mention upend everyone else’s basic civil rights. A win for Vice-President Harris, even if she is pro-choice will uphold the Constitution and work within the strictures of our institutions.

In short, Vice-President Harris keeps Christians in the ballgame to minister to the poor, needy and heavy-laden without fear of government interference, not riding the bench as so many in America continue to suffer. ~OC

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑