But beyond that I just feel sorry for the left. When you're understanding of Christianity is so poor that the best religious rhetoric you can come up with is "Jesus would oppose this immigration law", all I can feel is pity. You don't get it and you obviously don't realize it or you wouldn't be saying things like that in public. There are so many things you could use good (if, in my opinion, flawed) "Love your neighbor" and "Honor your Parents" rhetoric on, but instead Hillary picks illegal immigration? What the hell?
In addition to Jeff's point about the Left's misunderstanding of Christianty in the political realm, I wanted to add this point: Christianity calls us to treat all people are our brothers and that we are their keeper. (Think Cain and Abel...) The liberal solution to just about every problem is a new law or program. Make it someone else's problem; take money from someone else's pocket, start a government program and make the problem disappear from their daily lives. There's no sense of personal responsibility for the less fortunate; it's all about passing responsibility to the government. We don't need to care for our parents any more when they get old; the government gives them money.
Aside from a individual's failure to get involved on a personal level, there's another problem with government programs: they ignore (at least in our current society) the fact that we humans have a spiritual side. Current legal opinions misinterpreting the 1st Amendment prevent any effort on the part of the government to deal with the spiritual realm, which is the what really matters. (It's why Alcoholics Anonymous has a better success rate than the Betty Ford clinic: they acknowledge and care for the spiritual side of the person to give them true healing.)
Too many Christian liberals have unknowingly fallen into sharing thought with secular liberals and wind up only looking at this world while forgetting about the next. (Could you tell the difference between a speech by a liberal Episcopalian minister and your typical atheist liberal? Not really.)
You see, one of the problems with government programs is that people start to view them as what the government calls them: entitlements. Something they're owed. Something they have a right to. (As Grandpa Simpson once said about a government check: "I didn't earn it; I don't need it; but if they miss one payment, I'll raise HELL!!") When a private person or charity helps someone, there's a better understanding that this is charity and therefore may be taken away. So people aren't as likely to demand charity; they don't get as selfish about it.
Also, assistance from the government can be seen just as people doing their job, spending money forcibly taken from another. Assistance from a private charity is from someone who took a below-market salary spending money someone freely gave; there's two levels of caring there, compared to none from the government. Plus, a private charity can spiritually feed the aid recipient and help them find spiritual healing.
Now, none of this is meant to deny the government any role in charitable assistance, but making them the first resort is not the best policy for either taxpayers or those receiving aid. Let's aid the whole person, rather than just looking at their wallet.