Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Requests to bring in child brides OK’d; legal under US laws

Published

on

WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of requests by men to bring in child and adolescent brides to live in the United States were approved over the past decade, according to government data obtained by The Associated Press. In one case, a 49-year-old man applied for admission for a 15-year-old girl.

The approvals are legal: The Immigration and Nationality Act does not set minimum age requirements for the person making the request or for that person’s spouse or fiancee. By contrast, to bring in a parent from overseas, a petitioner has to be at least 21 years old.

And in weighing petitions, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services goes by whether the marriage is legal in the spouse or fiancee’s home country and then whether the marriage would be legal in the state where the petitioner lives.

The data raises questions about whether the immigration system may be enabling forced marriage and about how U.S. laws may be compounding the problem despite efforts to limit child and forced marriage. Marriage between adults and minors is not uncommon in the U.S., and most states allow children to marry with some restrictions.

There were more than 5,000 cases of adults petitioning on behalf of minors and nearly 3,000 examples of minors seeking to bring in older spouses or fiances, according to the data requested by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in 2017 and compiled into a report.

Some victims of forced marriage say the lure of a U.S. passport combined with lax U.S. marriage laws are partly fueling the petitions.

“My sunshine was snatched from my life,” said Naila Amin, a dual citizen born in Pakistan who grew up in New York City.

She was forcibly married at 13 in Pakistan and later applied for papers for her 26-year-old husband to come to the U.S. at the behest of her family. She was forced for a time to live in Pakistan with him, where, she said, she was sexually assaulted and beaten. She came back to the U.S., and he was to follow.

“People die to come to America,” she said. “I was a passport to him. They all wanted him here, and that was the way to do it.”

Amin, now 29, said she was betrothed when she was just 8 and he was 21. The petition she submitted after her marriage was approved by immigration officials, but he never came to the country, in part because she ran away from home. She said the ordeal cost her a childhood. She was in and out of foster care and group homes, and it took a while to get her life on track.

“I was a child. I want to know: Why weren’t any red flags raised? Whoever was processing this application, they don’t look at it? They don’t think?” Amin asked.

Fraidy Reiss, who campaigns against coerced marriage as head of a group called Unchained at Last, has scores of similar anecdotes: An underage girl was brought to the U.S. as part of an arranged marriage and eventually was dropped at the airport and left there after she miscarried. Another was married at 16 overseas and was forced to bring an abusive husband.

Reiss said immigration status is often held over their heads as a tool to keep them in line.

There is a two-step process for obtaining U.S. immigration visas and green cards. Petitions are first considered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS. If granted, they must be approved by the State Department. Overall, there were 3.5 million petitions received from budget years 2007 through 2017.

Over that period, there were 5,556 approvals for those seeking to bring minor spouses or fiancees, and 2,926 approvals by minors seeking to bring in older spouses, according to the data. Additionally, there were 204 for minors by minors. Petitions can be filed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

“It indicates a problem. It indicates a loophole that we need to close,” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told the AP.

In nearly all the cases, the girls were the younger person in the relationship. In 149 instances, the adult was older than 40, and in 28 cases the adult was over 50, the committee found. In 2011, immigration officials approved a 14-year-old’s petition for a 48-year-old spouse in Jamaica. A petition from a 71-year-old man was approved in 2013 for his 17-year-old wife in Guatemala.

There are no nationwide statistics on child marriage, but data from a few states suggests it is far from rare. State laws generally set 18 as the minimum age for marriage, yet every state allows exceptions. Most states let 16- and 17-year-olds marry if they have parental consent, and several states — including New York, Virginia and Maryland — allow children under 16 to marry with court permission.

Reiss researched data from her home state, New Jersey. She determined that nearly 4,000 minors, mostly girls, were married in the state from 1995 to 2012, including 178 who were under 15.

“This is a problem both domestically and in terms of immigration,” she said.

Reiss, who says she was forced into an abusive marriage by her Orthodox Jewish family when she was 19, said that often cases of child marriage via parental consent involve coercion, with a girl forced to marry against her will.

“They are subjected to a lifetime of domestic servitude and rape,” she said. “And the government is not only complicit; they’re stamping this and saying: Go ahead.”

The data was requested in 2017 by Johnson and then-Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, the committee’s top Democrat. Johnson said it took a year to get the information, showing there needs to be a better system to track and vet the petitions.

“Our immigration system may unintentionally shield the abuse of women and children,” the senators said in the letter requesting the information.

USCIS didn’t know how many of the approvals were granted by the State Department, but overall only about 2.6 percent of spousal or fiancee claims are rejected.

Separately, the data show some 4,749 minor spouses or fiancees received green cards to live in the U.S. over that 10-year period.

The head of USCIS, L. Francis Cissna, said in a letter to the committee that its request had raised questions and discussion within the agency on what it can do to prevent forced minor marriages. Officials created a flagging system that requires verification of the birthdate whenever a minor is detected.

But it’s difficult to make laws around the age when so many states allow for young marriages.

The country where most requests came from was Mexico, followed by Pakistan, Jordan, the Dominican Republic and Yemen. Middle Eastern nationals had the highest percentage of overall approved petitions.



Subscribe on YouTube

___

Follow Colleen Long on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/ctlong1

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Democrats turn Mexican Independence Day celebration in Chicago into political statement against Trump

Published

on

Democrats turn Mexican Independence Day celebration in Chicago into political statement against Trum

The long-standing tradition of cruising in Chicago streets for Mexican Independence Day had a double meaning this year as hundreds of revelers circled Trump Tower in Chicago waving Mexican flags and honking in celebration and protest.

The change in venue from the normal “cruising” in Hispanic neighborhoods was prompted by law enforcement’s decision to block off roads normally used for the occasion. The disruptive and sometimes violent celebrations were relocated after 10th district police blocked 26th St. in the Mexican neighborhood of Little Village.

The motivation behind the blocked streets in Hispanic neighborhoods was clear: To move the celebration downtown where it could become a protest. We know this because the official police statement declared their reasoning was for cleanup following a parade… but there was no parade scheduled for the streets in question. This was clearly a political move orchestrated by leftists in the Mayor’s office.

Cars and trucks with Mexican flags have been cruising Hispanic neighborhoods for Mexican Independence Day since the mid-80s. It wasn’t until far-left Mayor Lori Lightfoot sought to weaponize and politicize the celebration that the venue was changed to the streets right in front of Trump Tower.

Expression of cultural pride is one thing. Waving Mexican flags defiantly at Trump Tower has turned the celebration of Mexican Independence Day into a political statement, just as Democrats want it to be.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The non-existent Evangelical Dark Web

Published

on

The non-existent Evangelical Dark Web

There’s lot of talk about there being an Evangelical Dark Web. This is supposedly the “Christian” version of the Intellectual Dark Web, which comprises of secular thought leaders like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, The Weinstein brothers, Sam Harris and several others. They all come from different backgrounds, have different political ideologies and disagree on most issues. Their unifying factor, however, is that they believe in freedom of speech and want to engage in open and honest conversation about their differences.

What the IDW does that’s different than virtually anyone else is that they embrace the discussions. They are okay with disagreement. They enjoy the intellectual exercise of talking though philosophical differences of opinion. They’ll engage honestly with those that they disagree with. Podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience, The Rubin Report and Ben Shapiro’s Sunday Special all exemplify exactly that: Just talk to people.

When I launched my podcast, Conversations with Jeff, this was my inspiration. I thoroughly enjoy Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan, especially, because they are curious, will talk to anybody and they enjoy the intellectual exercise of talking things out in a long-form conversation. You can look through my guest list for CWJ, and you’ll see a wide range of people who I’ve had on. I’m a Cessationist Calvinist, theologically. However, I’ve hardly had any Calvinists on my show… Steve Camp is the only one that comes to mind. I’ve had on Brannon Howse and Andy Woods who are both strongly opposed to Calvinism. I’ve had on charismatics like Dr Michael Brown, Stephen Black and Ken Peters. I’ve even had on a non-Christian like Trevor Loudon. I enjoy the process of just talking to people. This is what the IDW is all about.

Earlier this year, I began talking to a small group of people about launching our own version of the IDW, even naming it the Evangelical Dark Web. Some feelers were put out, and then all of a sudden a big polemics blog started running with the terminology. Which is fine by me… I care more about fixing things than getting credit for anything or any form of self-promotion.
However, what ended up happening is that the EDW turned out to be nothing like the IDW. The group that identifies as the EDW are just a bunch of people who agree with each other. There’s no engaging in differing opinions. There’s no open dialogue. It’s literally a bunch of anti-SJWs who’ve hijacked the name Evangelical Dark Web and redefined it into something that bears NO resemblance of the Intellectual Dark Web. Sure, there may be some differing theology, but that’s ignored and not dealt with. They don’t want to talk about they disagreements, they only want to talk about what they agree on.

You see, these guys aren’t engaging with those they disagree with. They’re only talking trash about people with differing opinions… and sometimes they’re just talking trash about people they don’t consider to be in their little group, even if they agree on virtually everything! Sounds more like a clique to me.

Let me share some anecdotal evidence for you.

First, take a look at the EDW’s podcasts. Who are they talking to? People that agree with them on virtually everything. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a podcast with any of these guys that engages in a non-hostile way with anyone they disagree with.

Second, when I had Dr Michael Brown on CWJ, I strongly opposed his charismatic beliefs throughout the entire podcast. However, it wasn’t hostile and we engaged with each other’s arguments. I then got a text message from a guy who runs one of the supposed EDW podcast networks that said, “Your support of Dr Brown is the death of any claim of discernment on your platform.” I never said that I support him. I only had him on my podcast, and we spent an hour of the show going back and forth on our disagreements! THAT is the DEFINITION of the EDW/IDW mentality. Engage with each other’s arguments! The simple fact of discussion does not mean endorsement. However, this is the problem with those that claim to be a part of the EDW. They don’t want to engage with those they disagree with. They’ve turned the EDW into something that’s the complete opposite of what it’s supposed to be.

And third, I’ve invited so many people on my show Conversations with Jeff. The funny thing is, the majority of the men that would be considered a part of the EDW (or in that theological tribe) have turned me down or sometimes even put unrealistic conditions on them coming on my show.

Here are a few examples of some of the responses I’ve received from these supposed EDWers:

“As long as you are friends with *******, Jeff, I cannot come onto your program.”

“Being on your broadcast would be contingent upon you taking down those negative articles you have about me.“

After publicly criticizing me for not having anyone from his “camp” on my podcast that I’ve publicly disagreed with, I invited this next person on my show. He responded with:

“So no, I cannot possibly, in good conscience betray those good men by participating in a debate/discussion/podcast hosted by a person whose sole reputation is of a trollish controversialist known entirely for sowing discord among brethren and blasting fire upon their Gospel efforts.”

And the examples go on and on. This is not how things are supposed to be in a supposed EDW.

So here’s the deal, there is no such thing as the Evangelical Dark Web. People can claim to be a part of it, but it’s non-existent. The supposed EDW is nothing more than a theological tribe that continually preaches to the choir and doesn’t allow their positions to be critiqued. They don’t welcome disagreement, they avoid it all cost… unless it’s them disagreeing with someone else.

So where do we go from here? Let’s create an ACTUAL Evangelical Dark Web. One which engages with each other, even if we disagree. Understand that talking to someone does not equate an endorsement. Be honest. Stop playing these behind the scenes games of manipulation. Be a part of the conversation, instead of just yelling at each other from a crowd of a like-minded individuals.

So let me take the lead on this one… My podcast Conversations with Jeff is open to anyone who is a part of the greater conversation in evangelicalism. Whether we agree or disagree, I’d be happy to have you on. Whether we are friends or on different teams, I’d be happy to engage with your positions. And on the flip side, if you’d like to have me on your podcast, I’d be happy to come on and discuss anything you’d like. You can ask me whatever you want. This is how the EDW is supposed to go. So I can only hold myself to that standard. I hope the rest of you follow suit.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The Evangelical Dark Web

Published

on

The Evangelical Dark Web

The battle for the soul of the evangelical church in the United States spans across the remaining denominations that have not openly fallen into apostasy. The United Methodist Church was saved by the African delegations from rejecting biblical ministry standards. The Southern Baptist Convention struggles to reject critical race theory. Many denominations have split over the encroachment of liberal or progressive theology such as the PCA. This constant fight to maintain the doctrine of the church from false teachers is never ending, dating back to the divinely inspired writings of Paul. The Evangelical Dark Web is the latest decentralized movement in the fight against false teachers infiltrating the church.

As I enter the fray to defend the church, it is important to recognize that, in defending the church from the false doctrines and heretics, the stakes are eternal. We live in a Romans 1 era.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

The country’s descent into decadence, it’s rejection of truth, is evident in seemingly every area, and the church is unimmune. The attack on the church is one that seeks to pacify the gospel with worldly ideas. I identify three false gospels, in which, the Evangelical Dark Web combats that seek to subvert Christianity. Note: these do not include cults that identify as Christian.

The Prosperity Gospel

The word of faith heresy reduces the God of the universe to a vending machine with a “name it and claim it” philosophy. It conforms the gospel to a self-help ritual so that the practitioners can get rich and stay healthy. In short, the Prosperity Gospel is about using God to achieve worldly desires.

The Social Justice Gospel

The Social Justice Gospel can be briefly summarized as antinomianism combined with postmodernism. This heresy reduces God by denying the Word. Sanctification is discouraged. Its Jesus is a brown skinned Palestinian. Its evangelism is affirming the world. Its sacrament is abortion. Its charity is entitlement programs. Belief in the Resurrection is optional, and Muslims worship the same god. The Social Justice Gospel is the troll to the Bride of Christ. It’s how the world wants Christianity to be, if people are to identify as Christian and those who practice the Social Justice Gospel always feel the need to call out Christians who hold to orthodox doctrine.

This doctrine is a parasite. Churches who partake in the parasite dwindle, and so the parasite must find a new church to infiltrate, for the Social Justice Gospel cannot survive in the world it wants to create.

The Popularity Gospel

The Popularity Gospel is most difficult to explain. It reduces Jesus to the popular kid in high school. It’s hard to describe a heresy that creates an idol out of the living God, but this phenomenon is prophesied in scripture:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 NASB

The Popularity Gospel is an artificial image of Jesus that appeals to the masses. It’s often identifiable in those who employ a worldly definition of love when talking about a savior whose kingdom is not of this world. God is all “love” and no wrath. Its favorite verses poll extremely well. We aren’t being saved from sin; we are trusting in Jesus to protect, lead, and bless us. You are good. Jesus makes you better. This diluted gospel accepts worldly premises on goodness, judgment, love, and Christianity as a whole. Its church organizations are mass growth marketing mechanisms. Its sermons are elementary. Its commission is to baptize believers, nevermind discipleship. Discipleship requires critically thinking. With the Popularity Gospel, one just has to sit back, enjoy the entertainment, ambiance, and childcare.

Unlike the Social Justice Gospel, the Popularity Gospel is self-sustaining because marketing works, and the masses enjoy being entertained. What I described was the megachurch motif.

The Movement

A number of Christians are waking up to the spiritual battle that is going on within the Church, realizing, how many leaders are perpetuating or capitulating to the corrupting forces of the three aforementioned heresies. Just as academia in this country has largely been corrupted, our seminaries, likewise, are under attack. If the institutions that train the pastorate in this country fail, churches will struggle to find pastors worthy of the calling.

In the last few years, church leaders have responded with faith statements such as the Nashville Statement and the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel to redress such pressing issues. But these faith statements, while a commendable effort, are insufficient in rooting out false teachers by themselves. For the Bible says:

10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11 ESV

Christianity needs a united front against such heresies mentioned above as they would, in modern times, be united against the teachings of Arian. Orthodoxy must be enforced even if it means powerful figures in Big Eva get cast out in the process.

In championing the disparaging title Brian Auten and Jake Meador over at Mere Orthodoxy, this platform seeks to be theologically sound, historically literate, and culturally relevant, as called in facing the most pressing threat Christianity is facing in America today.

If you are feeling called to learn more about this important battle, join the Evangelical Dark Web

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending