News

How do Mexican immigration laws compare with the Arizona law?

3 Comments

Mexican leader Felipe Calderon has been doing a lot of complaining about Arizona’s reasonable immigration enforcement law. Calderon, who I normally like because he is conservative, thinks that Arizona’s law is too tough on illegal immigrants.

I wonder how tough Mexico’s immigration enforcement law is? It must be much more compassionate, since he is complaining about our laws, right? Otherwise Calderon would be a HYPOCRITE.

Story from CNS News.

First, what does Arizona’s law say?

The revised Arizona law specifically states that a person’s immigration status can be checked only if an individual is stopped for some other, valid reason. “A lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state,” the revised law says.

You have to be STOPPED for SOME OTHER VALID REASON before they can ask you about your immigration status in the USA. That seems FAIR to me. It’s not racial profiling.

But what does Calderon say about the bill?

Calderon said while he remains “respectful of the internal policies of the United States,” he firmly rejects criminalizing “migration” so that “people who work and provide things for this nation (USA) will be treated as criminals.”

What are thing like in Mexico? Are illegal immigrants to Mexico “treated as criminals”?

By contrast, Mexican immigration law, revised in 2009, gives Mexican officials the right to check people’s immigration status, and if someone is found to be in the country illegally, they can be fined and deported. The law also requires foreigners to register with the government.

More here about the immigration laws of lots of other countries, from Stan at Birds of the Air. (H/T Neil Simpson)

Excerpt:

Mexico: An illegal immigrant caught can be fined $450 and deported, and if they’re caught entering illegally a second time, they can spend 10 years in prison. Furthermore, local Mexican police must assist the Federales in apprehending illegal immigrants, just like the Arizona law requires. (Of course, it’s only “intolerance, hate, discrimination” if it’s done outside of Mexico.) (On a side note, it’s illegal in Mexico for non-citizens to protest government actions.)

It turns out that American treatment of illegals is the most compassionate of all, and the complainers from other nations are HYPOCRITES.

But some people like hypocrisy – they give it a standing ovation:

And here are the Democrats giving Calderon a standing ovation:

I have a solution. Let’s pass a law saying that our policies and border security will match Mexico’s policies and border security. That should put an end to their complaining, and Obama’s complaining with it.

Mentoring

Free e-book answers critics of Signature in the Cell book

5 Comments

From Brian Auten of Apologetics 315.

Signature of Controversy is a free eBook with contributions by David Berlinski, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Richard Sternberg and Stephen Meyer. It contains responses critics of Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell.

Download the PDF ebook here. (expires soon)

Grab it now in case so you can have it together to read with Signature in the Cell.

What is intelligent design?

Free DVD on intelligent design are online

Here are the 2 playlists:

Related posts

Polemics

How can you prefer a moral standard from one religion vs another?

1 Comment

Here’s a reply to my extremely mean recent post about atheism’s difficulties making moral behavior rational.

Llama wrote:

Why is Christian morality correct? Why not Islamic morality?

And I replied like this:

Great question. You can’t settle it by comparing moral specifics. You have to appeal to some sort of testable claim.

For example, you mentioned Islam. Islam thinks that Jesus never actually died on a cross (Surah 4:157). Are the Muslims correct in saying this? It’s a historical claim, so to history we must go.

There is no credentialed historian of any stripe (atheist, agnostic, Jewish, etc.) who doubts the crucifixion. In fact, prominent atheist scholar E. P. Sanders of Duke University puts it on his list of almost indisputable facts about the historical Jesus.

E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Sanders lists eight “almost indisputable facts” which he takes as his starting point (p. 11):

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.

3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.

4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.

5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.

6. Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.

7. After his death Jesus’ followers continued as an identifiable movement.

8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement . . . .

See now also E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993).

And prominent Jewish Professor of Religion Paula Fredriksen of Boston University says in this paper that “The single most solid fact we have about Jesus’ life is his death. Jesus was crucified. Thus Paul, the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus: the evidence does not get any better than this.”

Sanders and Fredriksen are probably two of the best scholars on the historical Jesus in the world, and they are NOT Christians – they have no axe to grind. So Islam is false as false can be. The Koran cannot contain any errors – Muslims claim it is inerrant and its moral authority is lost if any error is found. But we’ve found a BIG ONE.

Regarding Christianity, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christian morality should not be taken seriously either. Even Paul says that if the resurrection did not happen then Christianity, and Christian morality, is WORTHLESS. See 1 Corinthians 15:17-19. 1 Corinthians is one of the most early and reliable books in the New Testament. It is authored by Paul in 55 AD – and no scholars denies that. It’s genuine Paul. The creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is dated within 1 to 5 years of the Cross. By ATHEIST scholars like James Crossley.

My advice is to watch some DEBATES between Christian and non-Christian scholars on the topic of the resurrection. You’ll find some linked in this post.

Or just look here:

Debates are a fun way to learn

Three debates where you can see this play out:

Or you can listen to my favorite debate on the resurrection.

Not that I don’t think you have to be an inerrantist in order to be a Christian, so long as your claims of error are on solid historical ground. (I am an inerrantist – you don’t have to be to be a Christian – you just have to accept the classical creeds of Christendom)

Hope this helps. Come on – I typed all this in. At least listen to the William Lane Craig versus James Crossley debate. Please?

Every religion makes truth claims about the word, and you can choose a religion by testing those claims. Wouldn’t it be neat if Christians learned to argue for their worldview using facts supplied by non-Christian experts? That’s how I try to argue.