On Wednesday two prominent Evangelical Christians criticized House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) assertion that the Dream Act, which would grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, is “biblical.”
Cantor, who has received criticism for his recent claims that he opposes amnesty for illegal aliens from long-shot challenger David Brat, made the remarks Monday on the John Fredricks radio program.
“The Dream Act, like most legislation, is more complicated. No, children are not morally responsible for their parents’ transgressions. But should children benefit from their parents’ transgressions? The intent might be lofty but what are the unintended consequences?” Tooley asked.
“The Bible teaches that all people are sinners,” Tooley continued, “and every law extending new benefits inevitably will be exploited by some to the detriment of others. Would this law encourage some to make false claims about when and how they got to the U.S. illegally? Would it encourage additional illegal immigration? If so, who is hurt by these unintended consequences?” Tooley questioned.
“For people of faith especially,” Tooley concluded, “all of these questions should be examined carefully, weighing the pluses and minuses.”
“Yes, God loves us all, immigrants and citizens. We’re all invited into the kingdom of God, but that does not imply citizenship in any one particular nation,” Kullberg said. “Scripture,” she added, “does not teach undiscerning welcome, or injury to citizens including our vulnerable elderly with breaking healthcare systems — the very people who’ve worked to pay into those systems.”
“We’re really discussing the future of America culturally, economically and spiritually, and whether or not we will have a 2-party system and a Republic,” Kullberg added.
“Progressives like George Soros know this, hence their funding of the National Immigration Forum, the Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundation and similar liberal 501s with beneficiaries including the ‘Evangelical Immigration Table,’ Sojourners, La Raza, Faithful America and other pro-immigration groups with misleading names. I simply ask for biblical balance from those who quote the Bible, including its whole counsel,” Kullberg concluded.
Cantor’s challenger in the June 10 primary, Brat, who has a Masters in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary in addition to a Phd. in economics, took exception to Cantor’s claim that “there’s a Biblical root and a tradition in this country that says we don’t hold children liable for their parents’ acts and when you have kids who may have been brought here let’s say at 2 months old unbeknownst to them and they’ve been here all their lives and they want to serve in our military, my position has been I agree with that principle.”
Brat told Breitbart News on Wednesday “rights did not evolve in the Judeo-Christian tradition until about 1400 so it is hard to see how Cantor can claim that rights language, or great founding principles, which is how he referred to the rights of children all over the world whose parents make mistakes should be treated – can be considered biblical.”
“It is true that rights did derive from the Judeo-Christian traditions view of freedom of conscience,” Brat added, “but the specific rights Cantor refers to are not even constitutional much less biblical. James Madison was not aware of any such U.S. right for children around the world.”
Image source: Fairimmigration.org