Christian Post Supports Illegal Aliens In Public Schools

Much of Big Eva has been advocating amnesty for illegal aliens who invaded the United States. One of the longest advocates for this is Richard Land who ran the Ethics of Religious Liberty Commission before Russell Moore. He has since become the executive editor at Christian Post while his successor Russell Moore followed him in becoming the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today. But in a strange twist, arguing against legislation proposed in Tennessee that would allow public schools to deny enrollment to illegal aliens.

In an article titled, “Do not ban illegal immigrant children from public schools, Land makes clear his stance on using taxpayer resources for invaders.

This bill (House Bill 793) is explicitly aimed as a challenge to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1982 that requires public schools in America “to provide equal access to all children.” The Tennessee bill would not require Tennessee public schools to bar the children of illegal immigrants from enrollment, but would “allow” them to do so. 

Under any circumstances, this is a truly bad and destructive idea on several levels and should be rejected immediately and emphatically.

Republicans are targeting a liberal Supreme Court precedent and Land believes this would have catastrophic consequences. But before explaining why, Land wants to provide a disclaimer.

We are a nation of immigrants, but we are a nation of legal immigrants. People came here legally and embraced our language and our political belief system if they wanted to stay here permanently. 

I support the president’s policy of removing illegal immigrants who have broken the law either here or in their country of origin. Perhaps we can find a pathway to legal status (not citizenship) for others who agree to pay fines, go through a probationary period (at least ten years), and demonstrate proficiency in written and spoken English. Such people might be granted legal status, but not citizenship. Being ineligible for citizenship is the permanent penalty they would pay for having broken the law by coming here illegally.

In a liberal fashion, Richard Land argues for amnesty while denying that he’s arguing for amnesty. Moreover, he perpetuates the liberal lie of America being a nation of immigrants.

So why is the idea of turning away the children of illegal immigrants from our public schools a truly bad idea with potentially terrible consequences?

First, it is immoral to punish people for other people’s crimes. Children of illegal immigrants did not bring themselves to America. They either were brought here by their parents or they were born here after their parents came here illegally. 

To deny these children access to education is both wrong and cruel. Denying them access to education during those crucial years of their childhood and adolescence as a consequence of circumstances beyond their control is the essence of infamous and cruel and unusual punishment.

Land argues that the proposed policy is cruel. For some odd reason, the value of public education is so vital that denying it to an illegal is cruel. But instead of punishing the child, Big Eva would rather the taxpayers suffer the burden of funding students who do not belong here.

Second, having these children of illegal immigrants in our public schools gives us a chance as a society to keep “tabs” on them, to know who they are, where they are domiciled, and if they are in any sense endangered. Are they showing signs of being malnourished? Are there any indications of physical neglect or physical abuse? Are there any indications of sexual abuse?

If they are not in school, we have very little ability to know of their existence and what the circumstances of their lives are. If they are in school, we have teachers, nurses, and school social workers who can make home visits to ensure each child’s welfare and safety. 

If they are not enrolled in school they are much more likely to disappear from the social grid and to be trafficked into child labor or sexual servitude. 

Richard Land’s second reason is an appeal to emotions. He figures that public schools are effective vehicles for protecting children.

Even granting his point, denying an illegal alien a public education puts a strain on their parents’ abilities to work jobs which creates an environment conducive to remigration. While self-deportation is a farfetched expectation of an individual policy, any discomfort on illegal aliens assists in deterring further invasion.

As a civilized society, we have a responsibility to these children, regardless of what their parents might have done or the circumstances of how they arrived on American soil. 

Richard Land concludes by arguing that America has a moral obligation to provide childcare for its invaders, and this is ridiculous on its face. They are entitled to nothing except deportation.