Search This Blog

My Basic Political Philosophy

My political philosophy is the same as my philosophy about any other subject. The Bible is the guide to what is right. The Bible says that governing authorities are “agents of God’s wrath” (Romans 13:1-5) sent by God to punish people for evil, “not bear[ing] the sword in vain”. This is the primary (if not the only) legitimate function of government. God is sovereign above all and governments should not assume power that is not given to them by God. Any commandment from God in the Bible should be assumed to be universal unless otherwise stated. God’s directives concerning the punishment of criminals are not exceptions. Psalm 2 talks about how God will pour out his wrath on nations whose rulers want to “cast off the fetters and chains” of God’s laws. Throughout the Bible, minimum requirements of fairness and justice are given by God for the nations to follow, such as the punishment of all murderers, thieves, and the sexually immoral. In addition, there is much wisdom and advice given for rulers in the Bible. These principles do not include exacting justice on foreign nations (unless they violate the attacking nation’s sovereignty). They do not include punishing people for things in their thoughts and hearts (such as hate) because only God is qualified to judge these things. I am not trying to create a theocracy in which people are coerced into joining a particular religion, but only to uphold principles of justice and fairness that come from God and oppose any system that advertises sin, teaches people how to sin, gives people incentives to sin, or hinders Christians from obeying God’s word (particularly in regard to evangelism).

Man-made systems of justice are always flawed because of selfishness. If godly principles are abandoned, the default is “economic benefit”. That is to say, anything is acceptable as long as it benefits the nation as a whole economically. This is based ultimately on selfishness, so any such economic gain is only temporary.

The Bible says that we should obey the laws of the land that we live in, and it condemns lawlessness. The Constitution is the highest law in our land and must be obeyed above all other laws (I am talking about what the Constitution really says, not opinions of courts.) No President, congressman, or judge is above the law. Our elected officials must be held accountable for their actions. Our rights and freedoms are granted to us by God, not government.

Overview of Specific Issues

No one can receive true freedom or true rights by taking them away from someone else. When people start demanding rights that are not given by God, such as abortion rights, it ruins things for everyone. Women who have abortions and doctors who perform them and those who wish to secure the possibility of doing so in the future are in the bondage of sin, until they repent. Unless they repent, they have no freedoms or rights because they are rejecting the freedoms and rights given by God.

God will not tolerate this rebellion against him any more than he would tolerate people sacrificing infants to idols. God did not tell the kings of Israel and Judah to tolerate the murder of babies. He commanded them to tear down those idols. He never said, “Murdering babies is wrong, but there should be no laws against it”.

As long as this goes on, the United States will move closer and closer to a Nazi style government. 45 million babies have been brutally butchered in this country. Compare that to the number of Jews who were killed in Nazi Germany. Jesus prophesied that the hearts of most would grow cold because of lawlessness. This is it. If any form of child abuse should be illegal, abortion should be. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

How can you expect anyone to take any of our laws seriously if they are so unjust and inconsistently enforced? It seems like every time someone breaks the law, we have to beg the courts to enforce it. I believe in rule by law, not rule by men. Murder is against the law and it should be enforced in every case. The “legalization” of abortion weakens all of our other laws. If a law is not being consistently enforced, then the greater the penalty for breaking that law, the greater the injustice. (Think about this for illegal aliens also.)

Legalizing homosexual marriage is tantamount to subsidizing sodomy and lesbian sex. The government should not encourage people to commit sin. The definition of marriage is also beginning to lose its meaning in this country.

Why should we even think of going to war to with a country like Iraq that is not much worse than we are? Why would we expect God to be on our side?

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that governments can take away property from anyone as long as they can justify it economically. This is the new definition of “public use”. Governments are already using this power to take homes and even churches to sell to businesses because they are more economically profitable. The same Supreme Court Justices who allowed this are also the very same ones in favor of preventing the States from punishing the murderers of the unborn. Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal are beginning to lose their meaning in this country.

Taxation should be mainly for purposes of funding law enforcement. Any other taxation which forces taxpayers to fund programs that they don’t want or don’t use is a form of theft.

It is interesting that the Beast will require that his mark be placed in the same places (on the hand or forehead) that God commanded his commandments to be placed. (Read this article and Revelation 13). He will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25) as opposed to Christ whose laws are unchangeable because God does not change. (Matthew 5:17-19, Malachi 3:7, James 1:17) The Beast will come on a platform of peace, safety, and economic prosperity. Then he will take away the property rights (the ability to buy or sell) and eventually even the right to life of anyone who refuses to take his mark. How much closer do we have to get to this before liberal Christians change their minds and start opposing this lawlessness? When real Christians stand up and oppose the Beast and the taking of his mark, will the liberals still be accusing them of “mixing religion and politics”? Make a good choice and commit every part of your life to Jesus Christ, uncompromisingly condemning sin whenever and wherever it’s found. Obey God and leave all the consequences to him.

Libertarianism vs Theonomism

There are two schools of thought which have influenced my political views and I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether one is the correct view or if some middle ground position is best.

It is obvious that not all forms of evil are to be judged by civil authorities. They are not in the proper position to judge merely sinful attitudes (the heart, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 25:2-3). (This is why I am against hate crimes legislation.) In the end God will punish all sins (Psalm 5:6, Proverbs 17:15, 18:5, 24:12, Ecclesiastes 12:14), but common sense says that government cannot punish someone every time they get “angry without cause” (Matthew 5:21-26).

When Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:14 speak of governing authorities as being “agents of God’s wrath” who are “ordained of God” to “punish evildoers”, it is in our interest as Christian statesmen to study the Scriptures revealing which forms of evil the governing authorities are charged with the authority to judge.

The Libertarian View

The libertarian philosophy is that government should simply protect our rights and not interfere with anything “between consenting adults”. Under this philosophy, the government should enforce the terms of any contract between two parties as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of a third party. The rights we have are the right to life (to be protected against physical violence) and the right to property. Therefore, the only acts of evil which the civil authorities are charged with judging are acts of violence and theft (which would include violations of the terms of a contract between agreeing parties).

The biblical basis for such a philosophy is that the Old Testament laws have passed away (e.g. Colossians 2:14) and all authority now comes from Christ (Matthew 28:18). The conclusion drawn in this school of thought is that civil government does not have the authority to regulate other things since the New Testament does not specifically give it this authority.

The problem with strict libertarianism (from a biblical point of view) is that you can’t point to a place in Scripture where is specifically says that all but the authority to punish violence and theft has passed away. There could be other things like prostitution, illicit drugs, and pornography that should be prosecuted. The Christian libertarian does not advocate doing these things, but says government should not get involved. There is no regard (with respect to government) for the principle that one should go to extreme lengths to keep oneself from temptations (especially sexual, read Matthew 5:27-30). This is a view that is embraced by both Christians and secularists as well because it doesn’t advocate prohibition of various forms of immorality, but at the same time it advocates the protections and freedoms that most everyone agrees is necessary.

The Theonomist View

When many people say that they believe that the laws of our land should be based on the Law of Moses, they aren’t really thinking through what they are saying. But a theonomist really does believe it (or at least they try harder). According to the theonomistic view, the laws of the Old Testament can be classified as ceremonial, moral, and civil. The ceremonial laws have passed away, and the moral laws do not necessarily concern government, but civil laws should be enforced by government today the same way they were under the Old Covenant (see Matthew 5:18). Unlike the libertarian view, theonomism advocates stoning people to death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), witchcraft (Leviticus 20:27), and other sins which are “between consenting adults”.

The problem with strict theonomism is that even theonomists make exceptions to the rule. The Law says that death is a punishment even for doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) which even includes picking up sticks (Numbers 15:32). Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this was abolished in the New Testament (Colossians 2:16, which would seem to contract their interpretation of Matthew 5:18), there are other things they take out that are not explicitly rescinded in the NT such as the commandment to marry the widow of one’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).


So which, if either of these views is correct? As Christian statesmen, we need to develop a coherent apologetic so that we can uphold biblical principles of righteousness and justice as God would have us do, but in a way that no one can accuse us of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible we want to obey. This apologetic does not have to answer every question that one might pose. We need to start with an open-minded humbleness that allows us to be guided by God through both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. We need to not allow one principle to guide all of our thinking if this principle isn’t contained in Scripture.

Both Christian libertarianism and theonomism assume that all of our laws should come from the Bible. The Bible does say that God establishes the rulers of the nations (Romans 13:1) and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this authority always comes through the Bible—and it certainly doesn’t mean that all civil authorities always make the decisions that God would have them make. I have come to the conclusion that there is no exact blueprint for government contained in the Scriptures, but that God rules, at least to some extent, through authorities extra-biblically. The author of Proverbs 21:1 said that God directs the rulers of the nations at a time when most rulers had never heard of the Bible.

I believe that our Constitution was given to us by God (even though I don’t agree with everything in it—we have corrupted it with the 16th and 17th amendments, for example), but yet the Bible says nothing about most of what is contained in either the Articles of Confederation or the misnamed Bill of Rights. For example, there is no place in the Bible where it says that nations should have a President, a House of Representatives, and a Senate, but yet I am strongly inclined believe that God had a hand in establishing these institutions for our benefit.

To illustrate this point further, I have used Matthew 28:18 to say that there shouldn’t be laws restricting the so-called “payday lenders”. Even though I think I would still vote no on Ohio issue 5, I realize now that this Scripture does not really prohibit such a law. I now think those who commented on my post gave more relevant points than the actual content of that article. Maybe God really did allow us to have this law (it did pass) so that poor people would be protected from unscrupulous lenders who would take advantage of them.

We need to be humble, know that we don’t always have all the answers, realize that God is wiser than we are, and that, while the Bible contains instructions that guide us in our choices concerning legislation, it doesn’t always tell us why God does the things that He does in realm of politics. Some laws will certainly have some good effects and some bad effects. We should thank God for the good effects.

For Clarification

When I speak of homosexuals, I mean those who commit or intend to commit homosexual acts. I am not advocating laws that discriminate against people because of how they were born, but I advocate that when these acts are committed it should be at the risk of the homosexual; taxpayers should not have pay for the consequences of this sin. It is not unreasonable for homosexual acts to be criminalized.

Some parts of this blog may sound contradictory, but it is not really. I may say that I am against some law in one instance, and in another, I may say that it should be enforced. What I mean to say is that I am in favor of repealing a particular law, but as long as that law is on the books it should be enforced consistently. I am against judicial activism even when judges are ignoring a law that I am against. A law should be ignored (but should not be stricken from the books by judges) when it is being used in a way that contradicts higher laws (the Bible being the highest law, then the Constitution).

Foreign Policy

The US should get out of the U.N., all of its subsidiaries, NATO, and all other such world organizations that would impose unconstitutional restrictions on the Federal government. The U.N. should be forced to relocate its headquarters and all of its other operations out of the U.S. Terminate all government funding to such organizations. No treaty, alliance, or agreement should be held above the Constitution, and should not take effect unless approved by the Senate by a two-thirds vote. The U.S. should not belong to any world organization that could potentially require taking part in some action that would sacrifice the freedoms its citizens. No decision made by a world organization should ever be binding on Americans without approval of Congress and the President, or with enough votes in Congress to override a veto. The U.S., likewise, should not impose its will on other countries. Any kind of agreement between the U.S. and another country should have to be an official treaty subject to constitutionality.

The U.S. should avoid getting involved in foreign conflicts. Congress should have the sole authority to declare war. This is the only way that the U.S. should ever use military force outside our borders. This is also the only way that taxpayer’s dollars should ever be used to fund a use of force involving U.S. troops. The President should be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces when war is declared. U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders. No weapons should ever be sold by the U.S. government to any country without a peace agreement, and they should never be sold to any non-nation groups, such as the Contras or any other revolutionary group trying to overthrow a government. The U.S. should never negotiate with terrorists.

The U.S. should remove its military presence from all nations where it is not welcomed or where this would cause the U.S. to become involved in unnecessary foreign conflicts. The United States should no longer support foreign despots who utilize torture, murder and genocide to control their people. Rather than supporting these regimes we should utilize pressure through international cooperation, including volunteer boycotts. Tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it should be imposed. If nations do not respond, they should be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

All government subsidies, tax preferences, and investment guarantees to encourage U.S. businesses to invest in foreign lands should be immediately terminated. I am against all foreign aid and lending. Debts currently owed to the U.S. should be collected in full as soon as possible. Under no circumstances should such foreign debt ever be forgiven. No foreign entity should be allowed to tax U.S. citizens. The U.S. should get out of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, etc. Substantial penalties, civil and/or criminal, must be imposed upon any corporation or government entity, to include those personally responsible, found to jeopardize national security as a result of technology transfer or other actions.

Americans traveling abroad should be subject to the laws in the nations they are visiting. But no non-national organization such as the World Court should ever be allowed to enforce laws against the U.S. or its citizens.

Ambassadors should be approved on merit, not quid pro quo for political donations. They should be recalled if they do not act on behalf of American citizens or are profiteering from their position.


I hold to the Monroe Doctrine. Here are my conditions for going to war. The United States should not go to war unless at least one of the following conditions hold:

1. Another country attacks us on our soil. In this case, we should only go to war against the country that attacked us and those who join in the fighting against us, once the war has begun. The attack must have been sanctioned by the official government of the nation that attacked us.
2. Another country officially declares war on us.
3. When we are required to, by treaties that were passed by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. We should avoid such treaties, unless they are vital to our national interest and would be temporary during times of war. Any agreement between the U.S. and any other country or foreign governing body should be ignored if it has not been passed by a 2/3 vote in in the Senate or if the other parties do not live up to the agreement. Any treaty can be rescinded by a simple majority vote in both houses and the President’s signing.

Before going to war, both houses of Congress must pass a resolution to officially declare war, not just an approval and budgeting of the use of force. Undeclared wars are illegal (Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). Every war and conflict that the U.S. has gotten involved in after World War II has been illegal. I agree with FDR’s decision to get involved in World War II (but not the aftermath and his alleged inaction to prevent the Pearl Harbor attacks). Our involvement in World War I was a mistake, and our involvement in wars before that were justified and proper for the most part. The war in Afghanistan is the only other modern war that has any moral justification. Even though I don’t believe that God would be on our side in a war when we have homosexuals in the military, it would be wrong not to bring Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen to justice since they are responsible for attacks on our soil. It would have been better if we had issued letters of Marque and Reprisal instead of getting into an all out (undeclared) war.

When a country violates the sovereignty of another nation or of its people, or violates an international agreement, the U.S. should not automatically be obligated restore order and justice. However, if this occurs, we should take appropriate precautions which would include supplying affected or nearby nations with armaments and intelligence when appropriate, only if we are allied with these nations and they share our values of freedom and human rights. Supplying armaments and intelligence in this way should only be part of a treaty which would forbid the use of them for purposes other than defense. We should never supply weapons to revolutionaries, even if they are fighting against terrorists, Communists, or Fascists. We should never even negotiate with terrorists.

I favor a Neutrality Act which would prevent the U.S. from getting involved in wars or supplying armaments except under the conditions stated above. We should impose taxes sufficient to nullify any war profits obtained by manufacturing corporations in the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and other war profiteers in order to take away their incentive to lobby for unjust wars.

When we do get involved in a war, it must be sustained until the enemy surrenders unconditionally, or victory is total. This does not necessarily mean overthrowing the government of the nation with which we are at war. For example, if we were to declare war on Afghanistan (for not cooperating in handing over Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda), we should have given the military orders to capture or kill Al Qaeda only and make every effort not to engage the Taliban government or the general populace to minimize the loss of innocent life.

We should only get involved in establishing a new government if the majority of the nation’s population is (at least nominally) Christian or if instability was our own fault because of our involvement in an unjustified war. I don’t believe that real democracy can work in nations that are dominated by other religions. This is why our own Republic is crumbling. Regarding the U.S. involvement in Iraq specifically, my view on the subject can be found in the first four verses of the 18th chapter of the book of Revelation (the Apocalypse).

Other Uses of Military Force

The U.S. should not participate in nation building or "peacekeeping" operations. The best way to promote peace in the world is through diplomacy and exercising restraint, rather than through force. We should remove our military presence from all countries where we are not welcomed. It is prudent for the U.S. to keep strategically placed military bases and intelligence operations around world for our protection, but we need to get rid of most of these because the Cold War is over and they have become a source of entanglement. Members of the U.S. military should never serve under the command of foreign or world government commanders. I would put a stop to the use of non-military "mercenaries" such as Blackwater for military purposes as they are not held accountable for their actions under Iraqi law, U.S. law or military law.

There may be times when the use of force on foreign soil is necessary without officially declaring war. This should only occur when American civilians or facilities are attacked unprovoked. When any group (such as Al Qaeda), which does not represent the government of a nation, makes such an attack upon people of the United States, letters of Marque and Reprisal should be issued. Our military should defend itself and American installations abroad. We should not order our military to violate the laws of the country hosting us, or international law when in international waters. If we cannot do this without violating our own laws then we should not be in that country. American citizens should travel to foreign countries at their own risk. Our military should not be obligated to protect them.


The main purpose of the Federal Government is to provide our national defense, and this should be its main focus. I am against any treaty, pact, or arrangement with any foreign nation or organization that would require any type of disarmament. I believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures. Congress has the power “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” (Article I section 8). I am in favor of the Strategic Defense Initiative and other cutting-edge advances in defense technology.

I am against the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the office of National Director of Intelligence. The last thing we need to do is create more bureaucracy and take away power from the directors of the CIA, FBI, and other agencies and give it to one man. We have enough corruption as it is.

The main source of defense for our nation should be the long forgotten Militia. Most people know that the 2nd amendment protects our right to bear arms, but they forget the first part:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It is sad to see that most people don't even know what the Militia is! It is a requirement that ALL able-bodied males should receive firearms training and military discipline, to be carried out by the States, not the Federal Government. Only a portion of the Militia is to be in "service of the United States", so the National Guard does not fulfill the requirement. The Militia is necessary to repel invasions and insurrections, and act as a check against Federal power. It does this all without the dangers associated with the standing armies we have now, which are condemned by our state constitution.


I support increasing pensions for veterans so that they can serve and live with dignity without the aid of public assistance. All veteran's current spouses and widows should be treated equally, in accordance with Federal law. All deceased veterans should be buried with honor. There should be no reduction of military pay in combat areas. By law the County Commissioners have oversight of veteran health care benefits. They sign off on the assurances that each veteran in the county has received proper services. If such officials are found to be misusing public monies or falsifying federal documents, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (code title 38 USC & 38 CFR) Veterans, including those with permanent and total disabilities, are entitled to complete health care at any medical facility licensed to provide health services. Veterans’ Universal Insurance by law provides these services and does not stipulate that they must only occur at a VA Hospital. As a contract this cannot be changed until all the members of the class are deceased. I am against any attempt to reduce any veteran’s benefits from their current levels.


America has been greatly enriched by immigration. I agree with the “Give me your tired, your poor, your weary, yearning to be free...” statement. However, immigration must be done in a lawful manner, not just anyone should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., and immigrants should have to fulfill some reasonable requirements. We need a temporarily halt to immigration, and fix this badly broken system first. I have nothing against the Mexicans or any other ethnicity or race, but we are not doing them any favors if we encourage them to become criminals.

For clarification, when I say “illegal immigrant”, I mean anyone who knowingly, willingly, and illegally came into the United States from another country. If someone overstays a legal visa for a short time, this is a crime, but it is not as serious. I would exclude young children who were smuggled across the border from my definition of “illegal immigrant”.

I am against amnesty for illegals. I define amnesty as being the elimination or reduction of penalties or punishments required by law for a crime, after the crime has been committed. They should not be given Driver’s licenses, State IDs. This or another verifiable form of ID (but not Social Security Card or Number or any National form of ID) should be required in order to get a job in the U.S. Non-citizens should never receive welfare or any other taxpayer-supported benefits. All law enforcement agencies should be required to promptly deport illegals in their custody. I agree with the efforts of the Minutemen to stop illegals from entering this country. If the government won’t do its job, then the people should rise up to do it!

Tariff rates on a foreign country and suspension of visa privileges should be partially tied to their willingness to take measures to stop illegal immigration into the U.S. from said country. I call for the use of U.S. troops (National Guard or Army) to protect the states against invasion. This would have been a much better use of our military than going to war with Iraq (remember the first Gulf War also).

Some of the land bordering Mexico is owned by private citizens. The U.S. Government should make efforts to purchase portions of this land in order to beef up security. This would be one of the few cases where the use of eminent domain would be legal and beneficial. I call on the president to stop blocking the implementation of bills passed to build a fence to keep out illegal aliens.

All laws concerning legal naturalization should be approved by Congress (Article I section 8), and subject to Constitutionality.

Anyone born to parents who are already U.S. citizens or who marries a U.S. citizen should receive free citizenship in the U.S. regardless of where they are born. If someone receives U.S. citizenship by a marriage which ends in divorce, then he/she should be required to be naturalized again in order to remain a citizen. When someone receives citizenship, this does not automatically grant citizenship to his/her spouse or children. They must also be naturalized. Someone should not automatically become a citizen just because they are born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment applies only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and should not include those who have already been made a citizen of or who are automatically eligible for citizenship in another country. I favor a federal law to clarify this point.

I support a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens or in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration. After these conditions are met, I would not be in favor limiting the yearly number of immigrants to the U.S. Instead I would require that immigrants pay for their citizenship, an amount equal to at least that which would cover any possible financial benefits (from the government) they would receive by becoming a citizen, less what they would pay in taxes.

I call for the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States. Immigrants should have to pay a fee which would cover the cost of screening potential immigrants on this basis. If an immigrant has citizenship in another country, and their citizenship makes requirements of them that are inconsistent with U.S. laws, then that citizenship must be voided before they can become a U.S. citizen. I am against the idea of prohibiting immigration based on race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, as the Constitution states that naturalization laws must be uniform.

The idea of using charity donations to pay for the cost of an immigrant to come to this country is a good one, especially for an immigrant who is being mistreated by his/her government on the basis of race, religion, or political beliefs. I want U.S. citizens to help people from other countries to able to experience the freedoms that we have in this country. It is not a good idea to use tax dollars for this purpose.

I would reform the visa preference system to give priority to reuniting nuclear family members such as spouses and minor children, and ending the chain migration of extended family relatives.

I insist that those who wish to take part in the electoral process and governance of this nation be required to read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship. I support English as the official language for all governmental business by the United States. They should also be required to learn about American History and U.S. laws, especially the Constitution.

I also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

I would bar the importation of temporary foreign workers. They reduce the wages, working conditions, and incomes of American workers. However, there is nothing unbiblical or unconstitutional about this concept. It is an economic issue. I would be willing to compromise and support a bill containing a guest worker program (or expansion thereof) only if it would contain the following provisions:

1. There would be no amnesty for illegal immigrants (see my above definitions).
2. Criminals, including illegal immigrants, would not be allowed to participate in the program.
3. The program would be open to any corporation or citizen who wished to participate and was willing to follow the guidelines of the program. The participants would not be hand-picked (pardon the pun) as they are now.
4. The workers and the corporations would be subject to all the same laws as any other employers and employees. These laws would be enforced equally.
5. Local law enforcement officials would at least be allowed to turn over illegal immigrants to the proper authorities who would then deport them.
6. Corporations would be given stiff fines for hiring illegal immigrants. There would be no acceptable excuses for not knowing that someone was illegal.
7. There would be no “pathway to citizenship” or any possibility of legal reentry for illegal immigrants until they have paid the full penalty of their crimes and have been "sent to the back of the line".
8. All government benefits (including ID cards, voting rights, education, and Social Security benefits) for illegal immigrants would be cut off.
9. There would be increased border patrols and/or a wall built at the border to stop illegal immigration.

About Me

My photo
I am born again Christian with a strong interest in politics, doctrine, science, and how these relate to one another.