I believe that our immigration policy is in need of reform, particularly with regard to Mexican immigrants. Mexicans benefit from coming here to work. Americans benefit from having them here to work. Mexicans coming to the United States are far more likely to encounter evangelical Christianity than they are in Mexico. I have them in my church, as do most pastors in Texas. Ethnic churches are one of the major growth areas of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I’ve only ever heard two arguments against permitting Mexican immigration: One is economic and one is political. The economic argument is protectionist, desiring to accomplish runaway wage inflation by blocking the supply of less expensive labor that comes from south of the border. The political argument is the self-fulfilling prophecy that Republicans have to try to harry Mexicans out of the land since they’ll all vote Democrat. Let me just say that if that is true—that nobody but a white man would ever vote Republican—then the GOP is both doomed and unworthy of our support. But I think it is not true, for whatever my opinion is worth to you.
Of course, even among those who might agree that the law needs to be changed, there may be significant difference of opinion over what to do with those who have broken the former law. These are, after all, criminals who have crossed our borders illegally. As a nation of laws, we can’t pretend that doesn’t mean anything.
And yet, in the immigration debates people often throw around the word “amnesty” as though it is an injustice and an evil unto itself. I disagree. I think all-amnesty-all-the-time would be unjust and evil. But I favor some amnesty some of the time.
For example, I think the amnesty that our nation granted to Confederate soldiers in 1865 was a good idea. It recognized that a legal situation existed in which an enormous number of people had committed what, from the perspective of the government, amounted to high treason. It recognized that a political situation existed in which the prospects of lasting peace, future political unity, and an end to interpersonal rancor were fragile and sickly. Amnesty, the government calculated, was the best way to reconcile those two realities. It worked, perhaps better than anyone imagined it could.
Thus, amnesty is not evil or unjust just on its face. If one believes that a particular grant of amnesty would be evil or unjust, one must make a case as to why it is evil or unjust in the details of that case.
Regarding the people who live alongside me in Texas who have entered our nation illegally, I will simply say that few, if any, have bothered to try to make the case to me as to why amnesty for them would be evil or unjust and that none have made it to my satisfaction (conversations seldom rise above “Because AMNESTY”). Since—and this is true even if we were, by some miracle, able to deport all of the illegal aliens in our midst—the “browning” of our demographic future is all but inevitable, I think one could make a case that the political realities calling for immigration amnesty at the present moment are as immediate and pressing as those we faced in the 1860s.
Of course, amnesty in 1865-1868 did not amount to an acquiescence to unbridled civil war as a natural right. Far from it: The government made it clear that such would not be tolerated. In the same way, our nation must draft and enforce more realistic immigration laws and secure our borders once and for all. But those realistic immigration laws need to make a much larger space for legal immigration from Mexico to the United States.
On this night in particular, I should add that President Obama’s way of changing immigration policy is dubious constitutionally and poisonous politically. I regret that he has done what he has done. I also regret that the question of immigration reform has become so intractable in our government. Perhaps Congress will override the President by enacting realistic reform of our immigration laws in the near future.
If people are against illegals breaking our laws because they are afraid of the “browning” of America, they are making a sinful argument and don’t understand the gospel. However, if people merely see it as highly irresponsible for America to allow people to come in from other countries, break our laws (by the way they enter the country), work as slaves for people who will not pay them a decent wage or provide them with health insurance, use our subsidies, and send the bulk of their income back home to their families in their native country, I see no sin… Read more »
I believe in free markets. If Mexicans were being mistreated as slaves in America, it wouldn’t be very difficult to keep them out, now would it? My experience with the Mexican-American work ethic and character is right along the lines of Rick Patrick’s experience.
Just because we can argue that they have more earning potential in the United States than they do in their home country does not mean that we necessarily treat them humanely in our hiring practices. They do get treated very humanely with the subsidies we offer them (free healthcare, free education, etc.), but that again is a tremendous drain on our economy. Their presence may be a great gain for many highly unethical small business owners in the U.S., but it is not an overall benefit to our economy. Here, I am speaking from a voter standpoint, not from a… Read more »
So… separation of Christian and civic views when it serves economic interest but not in other situations?
This is an unhelpful comment. It strips my worldview of any nuance. I would argue that my Christianity informs my civic duty. If the government doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, I am hindered from doing what I am called to do. For instance, if the government makes choices that bleeds our economy dry, I can’t rightly feed the poor, because I will be poor myself. If God convicted me to start a homeless shelter in my community and gave me the land and resources only to feed, clothe, and shelter only the homeless in my community, it… Read more »
I’m just going by your statement “We (Christians) do need to love them, but that is not be conflated with how we (citizens) manage our economy.” You introduced the separation between your actions as a Christian and your actions as a citizen – be a citizen when it comes to the economy, be a Christian when it comes to love. I doubt you would suggest a similar separation on issues such as same-sex marriage.
Did you read my last comment. I don’t care what you think I meant. I just told you what I meant. Stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you.
The idea that our economy would be better without illegal immigrants is overly simplistic and is wrong, IMHO. 44 of 46 economists (according to known radical left-wing rag The Wall Street Journal) agree that the impact of illegal immigrants upon the American economy is a net POSITIVE effect. Consider some of what would likely happen if they all just left: 1. It is not merely Mexican immigration putting downward pressure on American wages. Unless you have some sort of a plan for isolating our nation from the entire Pacific Rim, you’re not going to drive up American wages across the… Read more »
William, could you be more specific as to which US programs illegals participate in to get the free health care?
Those who work here and then send the bulk of their earnings outside the country are a great boost to our economy.
Their work is done here, so we receive the benefit of their labor. As for their earnings, just how much do you think they make? Not likely to make much difference in our economy whereas increased productivity does make a difference.
Bart, As usual, yours is a very well reasoned and well written article on a tricky and nuanced subject. I, too, believe in a reasonable path for citizenship for those already in this country, as opposed to the deportation of eleven million people. We have only two undocumented aliens in our church family and both are simply outstanding in their work ethic, behavior, attendance and attitude. We would have hired one of them for a custodial vacancy if it were legal to do so. He is a great worker. The other is a mother of two children who is exemplary… Read more »
Rick,
You have highlighted what is the great challenge here: How to say “¡No mas!” while adopting such a policy. Love compels us to do so. Think of all the children from Guatemala, Honduras, and Belize who were raped, tortured, and killed as they came on foot to try to reach our borders this year. My wife served down there for Disaster Relief with those children and heard their stories. Anything we might do that would launch another wave of that would be inhumane and unloving.
Bart, This post, along with two previous ones that I read regarding the Ebola concern, represent a compassionate conservative, or what I call a Kingdom justice perspective that, quite frankly, some of us seldom see or read from “conservatives.” You may disagree with that analysis; but, it’s my story & I’m sticking to it.???? I strongly agree with the vast majority of what you say here. It was refreshing to read this from one that I share a fairly common theological & political conservative perspective with. The reason that many people of color don’t vote Republican has to do with… Read more »
Dwight, Thank you for the words of encouragement. I value our kinship in the gospel. It was good seeing you at SWBTS. Allow me to explain how it is that I can agree with these principles and yet disagree with the President’s actions: Why on earth did the President have to do this at this particular moment? A new Congress is on the way in. If they stand ready to do something helpful in the way of immigration reform, why not work with them to do so ? If they prove unable to do so, just like the previous Congress,… Read more »
Bart, that is exactly right. I support a path t citizenship for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who work hard, and I have come to America looking for a chance for economic freedom and in many cases escape from tyrannical government’s and dangerous living conditions – but I totally disagree with the way the president is going about it – and I think your analysis is spot on – with a large majority (10 or 11) in the senate now for Republicans – and a few Democrats will likely vote with them on strong border security – he decided to jump… Read more »
Rick, based on the numbers I have seen, surprisingly few of the immigrants chose to become citizens. The path to being a “legal worker” seems to have more value than a “path to citizenship.”
Bart, I try to guard and pray against becoming cynical as I grow older. I want to look for what is good in situations. In spite of these efforts, I am afraid I have arrived at a different conclusion as to the timing of the president’s action. A thought is he knew after the first of the year the Republican controlled congress would not pass any amnesty policy that did not have “comprehensive” immigration reform attached. He chose to use executive order to bypass the new congress and he chose to make his executive order at a time when there… Read more »
They won’t pass anything even if it does have “comprehensive” reform attached. Again, see the last attempt under Bush.
As for the timing, what do you think will distract us from his executive order? What will you say if such a distraction does not arise?
I was wrong.
Hahaha.
Great answer, Dean.
So what do you anticipate being the distraction? We need to know how to evaluate whether or not it is time to get you to admit to being wrong.
Chris, I believe the announcement from the grand jury in Ferguson, MO will be top dog in any news cycle short of a declaration of war or a tremendously public figure dying a sudden tragic death. This news will be top billing regardless of the public’s response to Ferguson whether that be peaceful or violent. You do make an assumption that may be incorrect. If there is no news to distract us from this executive order it does not necessarily mean I was wrong in the reason I gave for the timing of the order. It could be the president’s… Read more »
So the timing wouldn’t have anything to do with enacting reforms before the holidays and prior to a Republican senate taking over? The election/swearing in cycle seems a more likely justification for the timing than the relatively brief blip the Ferguson news will cause.
Don’t get me wrong, Ferguson will be big news no matter what, but no matter how the protests go, I suspect reporting on it will be relatively short-lived.
Chris, here is a quote from my comment to Bart, “He chose to use executive order to bypass the new congress and he chose to make his executive order at a time when there is a real possibility something explosive may happen any moment that will relegate this news item to the back page and out of people’s minds. ” What I was attempting to say is that President Obama’s intentions since the election that gave the Republicans both chambers of the Congress has been to make this executive order. That is what I meant by, “bypass new congress.” IMO… Read more »
Story in local paper this morning: Family, husband, wife, two kids. Husband came illegally 20 years ago. Kids born here. Not sure about wife. He is a floor installer, owns a home, upright citizen. There’s no good reason not to give this man citizenship. I’m curious as to what my friend Rick would do with this man or the two illegals in his church. Nothing? Deport? Citizenship? If the latter, is that amnesty? Should the mom and kids be told to go back and apply? Should the man close his business forgo the income that supports his family, possibly lose… Read more »
I see the same story over and over.
William,
I indicated in my earlier comment my belief in a *pathway to citizenship* for such individuals. It’s not quite simple amnesty, although I do not have all the details worked out.
Perhaps it would involve things like: (1) citizenship classes, (2) sponsors or references, (3) language education, and (4) either employment or volunteer work.
I don’t see us deporting 11 million people.
Yea – I agree, Rick. (It actually hurt just a little to type that) I think the problem is that the phrase “pathway to citizenship” is thrown around so much though by people who have vastly different intents behind the phrase – this reality makes discussing this difficult. I like your definition. This is such a huge issue that, as I’ve argued in other parts of the comment stream, that it should be legislated in small and digestible bills so that our legislators know EXACTLY what they are voting on and even more importantly we do too… If nothing else… Read more »
I think that a “path to citizenship” is “amnesty.” 1. Amnesty simply means the forgiveness of a crime. Any “path to citizenship” that does not execute the sentence for the crime (i.e., deportation) or at least commute it (“now you’ll only have to pay a fine and serve some time in jail”) is, technically speaking, amnesty. 2. Amnesty almost always comes with strings attached. The Confederate amnesty required the swearing of an oath of allegiance and the concomitant renunciation of their past crimes. 3. The stipulations you have listed are already part of the naturalization process. So, a very bold… Read more »
I don’t know about Rick, Bart but I never said anything about illegals “jumping in front of any line” – that is not fair to people who have obeyed our law talk about an injustice – the ones who did it right shouldn’t be penalized so that we can make those who did it wrong right with the law.
You miss the rhetorical flow.
I’m not alleging that anyone said that. I’m saying that even as radical an amnesty plan as THAT would still meet all of his qualifications.
I’m simply trying to demonstrate that any and every “path to citizenship” that I’ve ever seen has amounted to amnesty…and not necessarily even a milder form of amnesty.
Bart, Thanks for your courage in posting this. I believe that the relative legitimacy of amnesty must be weighed against the relative justice (or lack thereof) of the law being broken. For example, in the days of slavery and abolitionism, it was definitely against the law for a slave to run away from a cruel owner. But most of us today, with the ethical perspective of hindsight, would be in favor of granting amnesty to runaway slaves. This leads to the question of the justice (or lack thereof) of current immigration laws. For me, any law that exists primarily for… Read more »
David, Thanks for the kind comments and for joining the conversation. Although there are the varying perspectives conveyed in the different names (“war of Northern aggression,” “war between the states,” “civil war,” “Southern insurrection”), I think all would have to concede that amnesty in the 1860s was in no way based upon any notion that the crimes pardoned were insignificant. They were among the highest crimes that our system of jurisprudence recognizes. And so, I don’t perform the “weighing” that you have in mind. Rather, my theory is that general amnesties usually involve situations in which (a) the government has… Read more »
The real lawbreakers, who should, in my opinion, be prosecuted, are employers who take advantage of the vulnerability of these people in order to profit from cheap wages and pitiful work conditions. Get rid of these low-lifes, and the immigration problem practically solves itself, as immigrants generally go wherever they can find work.
Here in affluent Collin County I don’t see that. I’ve heard that there are some bad working conditions in parts of West Texas or down in the valley. For my part, if the wage is legal and the taxes are paid and everything is above-board, I’m content to let the market set the wage.
Stiffly Prosecuting the magnets – employers who violate our laws to get “under the table cheap labor” – I think is also an important piece of this puzzle.
Bart, it may not happen in your portion of Texas but I’ll tell you for sure it happens in Virginia. If they paid under the table, and not minimum wage, who are they going to complain to? It’s not like they can call the government and say that their employers treating them badly.
I don’t deny that it happens. And certainly the ability to hold deportation over someone’s head would empower that kind of misbehavior.