Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party nominee for President, has released a column entitled, "If I Were President." On immigration, he says:
If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.
By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.
And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.
The Constitution Party claims to be both Christian and Constitutional. This position on immigration is neither.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for giving work to a citizen of another country?
It's not there.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for being a member of "a gang."
It's not there.
And what exactly is Baldwin's problem with "anchor babies?" Doesn't this concept go back to Blackstone?:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Does Baldwin propose to take us back to the glorious days when the king of France could seize all the property of anchor babies upon their death?
Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to issue visas and passports?
It's not in there.
Baldwin's nationalist position is contrary to a libertarian position of a global gold standard and free movement of people and capital.
Globalization and Monetary Policy (Southwest Economy, July/Aug 2005 - Federal Reserve Board Dallas) (see the quote at the bottom by John Maynard Keynes)
Unfortunately, Baldwin's perspective has been picked up to some extent by the Libertarian Party.
Immigration and the LP Platform
Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform
Above all, Baldwin's anti-immigrant position is unChristian.
If we're facing a judgment, it's because we have repudiated the original ideals of America, as well as clear Biblical principles.
America's laws were built on God's Laws: The Ten Commandments and "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" sum up the whole of America's foundation: the Bible. The immigration policies of all the major parties -- including third parties like the Constitution Party -- ignore America's Biblical foundation. Immigration is a huge theme in the Bible.. You may remember it from your Sunday School class: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph," and Israel became in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. There was a great Exodus, after which God reminded Israel:
Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Many more passages could be cited throughout the Bible. Evangelical treatment of aliens is a major Biblical theme, and even the Constitution Party misses it! David Chilton, in his book Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, has done a fine job of summarizing Biblical law on this issue. Baldwin probably should read that link.
America's Founding Fathers abolished the king. In principle, the "consent of the governed" abolished the nation-state. The ultimate in "consent" is a Free Market, "laissez-faire capitalism," where everyone votes with his wallet or his feet. The "New Order of the Ages" was a Christian world of international liberty; globalization in which every one dwells safely under his own vine & fig tree.
Isaac Watts, whose hymnal shaped America, understood this vision of Christian globalism, and set Psalm 72 to meter and paraphrased it as follows:
Jesus shall reign where'er the Sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till suns shall rise and set no more.
The heathen lands, that lie beneath
The shades of overspreading death,
Revive at his first dawning light;
And deserts blossom at the sight.
The saints shall flourish in his days,
Decked in the robes of joy and praise;
Peace, like a river, from his throne
Shall flow to nations yet unknown.
With power he vindicates the just,
And treads the oppressor in the dust:
His worship and his fear shall last
Till the full course of time be past.
Notice that this time of global Christianity is not in eternity, but in time, in history, as the sun still journeys. This is our goal now, not after we've been "raptured."
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said a legislator should vote NO on any bill if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
Madison would say that The Constitution Party position on immigration reeks of an "unChristian timidity" where it should be bold, as well as a fascist boldness where it should be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution."
Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional
The Constitution Party is to be praised for not buckling under the pressure to secuarlize all things. I admire its desire to be explicitly Christian. But the Constitution Party is also hostile to globalism, and is willing to empower the federal government to stop it. I alluded to this here. The Libertarian Party does not claim to be Christian, but it empowers the State with fewer unconstitutional obstacles in the path of the global reign of Christ than the Constitution Party does. For this reason, I am a Libertarian.
Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - June 23, 2007