Yesterday here at Voices, Bart Barber wrote A Non-Nativist Case for Strict Enforcement of Immigration Law. There are several reasons I approached Bart’s article with a lot of anticipation. One of which is the huge amount of respect I have for Bart. Another is that he’s helped me think through immigration-related issues before (here, here, here, and here, for example) in ways that have been really, really helpful.
But yesterday’s post left me scratching my head. It’s not that I think Bart is wrong in advocating for the principle of strict enforcement of immigration laws. I’m for border security and better enforcement. I and many other Southern Baptists have signed the EIT Statement of Principles, which includes, as two of its six key principles, “Respects the rule of law” and “Guarantees secure national borders.”
So why did Bart’s piece not sit well with me? I’ve reflected some and I think there are two main reasons. First, I think Bart gives right answers to some of the wrong questions. Second, I think his main thesis fails under scrutiny because there are significant exceptions to the principle he lays out. Jumping from lax enforcement of bad laws to strict enforcement of bad laws may lead us to even greater injustice than what we’re currently seeing.
Agreement
Let’s start with where I think Bart is correct. (1) We want laws that accomplish just outcomes for everyone. (2) Lack of enforcement of immigration law can cause injustice in countless ways. (3) This one is huge and I really appreciate Bart highlighting it: We should reject the nativist, protectionist arguments often being advanced these days. (4) Our current system and lack of enforcement have unfairly disadvantaged potential immigrants, refugees, and others who don’t have access to a land border into the U.S. (5) Our immigration enforcement should take place without separating families at the border.
Let’s not gloss over these areas of agreement. There is a lot here. A lot of substance. And I wish that all of those involved in this debate could start from this foundation.
Problem #1: Wrong Questions
With that foundation in place, I think Bart’s argument answered questions that most people aren’t asking at this point. Maybe they should be, but I don’t think that’s where the conversation is. I understand Bart to be saying we have two options to even out the inequality between border/non-border situations: Either we ease access for non-border countries or we restrict access* for border countries.
The only conversation seemingly taking place at this point is restricting access. There is a push from the far right and this administration to severely limit all immigration, not to potentially expand immigration from non-border countries. That’s why I say this may be the right answer (making sure access is equitable) but in our current situation that’s going to be nearly universally understood as an argument for restriction.
Another fear I have is advocating for “strict enforcement” in this climate possibly communicates an approval of the harsh tactics currently in the headlines. Bart, to his credit, expressly denounces the deterrent strategy of separating families. Also, “strict enforcement” of the laws may actually point to a more humane way of treating asylum seekers than the family separation practice recently implemented (and more recently potentially reversed) by the Trump administration. I’ve seen some argue that asylum seekers are promised due process that would be more, not less, compassionate. But I don’t think that’s how Bart’s headline would normally be interpreted. Wish that everyone who saw the headline would stick around long enough to read Bart’s last paragraph!
Problem #2: Exceptions to the Thesis
I understand the heart of Bart’s argument to rest on his fifth paragraph:
Rather, I’m arguing for the strict enforcement of immigration law (and I’m open to the improvement of the laws on the books) because I believe that these laws provide justice for immigrants themselves. When our immigration laws go unenforced, the result is injustice for immigrants.
Bart makes a great case that unenforced immigration laws cause injustice to certain immigrants – particularly immigrants without access to a U.S. land border. No argument there. But what needs to be said in addition is that in our complex, confusing immigration system, there are times that strict enforcement of the law can create a different kind of injustice – one that could be worse than the first.
As an example, I watched this documentary about a year ago. One thing I haven’t been able to forget is the first-hand accounts contained where immigration laws were enforced but clearly led to injustice, rather than fair, common-sense outcomes. If you’re short on time, jump ahead to the 27:00 mark and listen to the story of Bruce and his family.
Moving from lax enforcement of bad laws to strict enforcement of bad laws potentially puts us in a situation where we’re still dealing with the problem of injustice – maybe of a different kind and possibly even more severe. We have injustice now? Yes. The answer isn’t trading for another kind of (potentially worse) injustice.
The logical progression that I understand from Bart’s post could be expressed this way:
Lax Enforcement -> Strict Enforcement -> Fix the Laws
I believe a better paradigm, a better general strategy would be to swap the second and third steps:
Lax Enforcement -> Fix the Laws -> Strict Enforcement
Of course, the reality is more complicated. We are not going to choose only enforcement or only fixing laws. We should move forward on both fronts. The question comes down to emphasis or priority. Which comes temporally first? Which comes logically first? My argument here is that fixing the laws ought to take temporal and logical priority. But again, we don’t have to choose either/or.
If we moved strategically, we could move forward in both areas without increasing injustice. Securing the border with a physical barrier (or other effective means) would be a step forward in enforcement with no (that I can see) potentially greater injustice associated. While the border is being secured in that way, let’s focus our other energy on improving existing laws so they really are more just and fair. Then, with the border secure and better immigration laws in place, we move fairly into a mindset of strict enforcement.
Moving from ‘where we are now’ directly into a mode of strict enforcement skips important steps that safeguard human dignity and compassion. We have better options available and, especially as the church, we should make every effort to get to our destination making sure people are treated fairly in the process.
And I think when you get down to it, Bart’s position is probably not much different than what I’ve tried to argue for here. And that gives me hope I’m not too far off base.
*Please note when I talk about access here, I’m talking about legal accessibility. This is not an argument against a physical barrier. The point of the physical barrier is to force people trying to enter to go through an established legal process.
Brent, you begin by saying that Bart’s thesis is asking the Wrong Questions. Have you considered that you may beginning with the wrong assumptions – assumptions that the U.S. has the economic capacity to accommodate significantly more immigrants from non border countries. The reality is that the population of native born Americans is becoming increasingly impoverished.
1. Most births in the U.S. are now financed by Medicaid – If you do a google search on Medicaid financed births, you will see the % ranges from 27% in New Hampshire to 72% in New Mexico. In the states where most SBC members reside in the south, the states and their % are: Alabama 58, Arkansas 67, Florida 50, Georgia 54, Louisiana 64, Mississippi 64, South Carolina 60, Tennessee 54, and Texas 54.
2. There is little upward income mobility in this country. This means that if a child begins life in the bottom 20% income bracket, there is little chance that he or she will move up to a higher income bracket.
3. The U.S. government is running a $20 trillion debt and it is expected to increase significantly with the retirement of the baby boomers. There will be real challenges in providing Social Security to retirees and there is almost no political will to do any entitlement reform. How is the federal government as well as state government going to be able to provide benefits to those who arrive here in need of some assistance when there may not be funds to provide Social Security for those who have been promised it?
4. The majority of immigrants appear to be coming from impoverished circumstances – particularly those from Central America. Many of the new jobs being require technical skills which these immigrants lack. Also, automation, artificial intelligence and robotics will eliminate many jobs Example: McDonald’s is now using kiosks for ordering.
Until recently, there has been little increase in wages and this is due to an oversupply of workers. The large number of immigrants, legal and illegal has had an impact on the supply and demand reality of economics which has kept wages down. Also, if there is a significant increase in immigration, should we be surprised if the % of Medicaid financed births in New Mexico increases to 90%? and is that what we desire as a country. Ultimately, this is not sustainable.
I want someone to tell me how we can continue with the national debt and a new generation beginning life in poverty (or at least in need of Medicaid to pay for their birth) and add more immigrants arriving here with their own economic challenges. Maybe, the wise thing will be to:
1. Look at how we can provide for the retirement needs of our citizens (who have been told all their lives that SS would be there and were forced to contribute to it)
2. Improve the economic circumstances of those born here in poverty
Before we take in large numbers of immigrants many, if not most of whom, are impoverished themselves.
Bart and I both reject the economic protectionist argument. Bart has argued here on that (linked above in my article as well) https://sbcvoices.com/in-defense-of-amnesty/
I believe more immigration is a benefit to our economy, not a drain on it.
More immigration would benefit the country IF there weren’t free handouts all over the place. So IF immigrants were coming and finding the same America they found in early 1900s, then you would have a point. They would have to work hard (which many do), but they wouldn’t be rushing over for all the free stuff, AND they wouldn’t then be allowed to bring in every related (though nobody checks) member of their family after the fact. However, since we have moved away from being a capitalistic free republic to a socialistic owned and run country, then sooner, rather than later, the money from taxing the upper, and especially middle-class, will lead to the economic catastrophes facing Europe right now. This, by the way, is why the country elected Trump, because they saw the forthcoming collapse the “open borders” “free health-care” “welfare for everyone” mantra the socialists push.
Well-said, Nate. Completely agree.
Nate, thank you. That was exactly my point. I have read that there are a large number of unaccompanied minors at the border. It is obvious that they are going to be on government assistance for a number for years before they can be employed. How is this a benefit to our economy? There had to have been some signal given to people in these countries that if they arrived here they will be able to stay, because years ago, we never heard of unaccompanied minors arriving here without their parents.
Now there are several candidates running for Congress asking for the abolition of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Without ICE, there will be unrestricted access for anyone who wants to move here even if they have a criminal background.
The state by state statistics I quoted about Medicaid financed births are not my own creation, but from the Kaiser Foundation. When many states have 60+% of their births financed by Medicaid, what is the logic in wanting to bring in more people who need government assistance?
If immigration is of economic benefit to the host country, why is Angela Merkel about to lose her position as Germany’s President after allowing over a million immigrants since 2015, and why was the new President of Italy elected promising to curb immigration?
The US permits +1M people to immigrant legally every year. The supposition that today’s political efforts attempt to stop immigration is not true. What is accurate are efforts to stop millions and millions of immigrants from coming to the US unlawfully. Europe is prime example of countries being overrun by a massive flood of illegal immigrants. The populist President running in Mexico touts flooding the US borders with its poor, uneducated, and criminals. You never hear any discussion about Mexico, the country perpetuating the crisis. We as a nation and church are facing a humanitarian crisis that threatens, those coming unlawfully, US national security as well US citizens. Please take the time to visit border agents in quest for the real story. Human trafficking, sexual abuse of children, is rampant. States are resisting efforts to create tent cities to house the size of 25K population in 4 states (+100K population). That is larger population(s) than most cities in my home state. There is no infrastructure in the US to handle this crisis. Encouraging and allowing more illegal immigrants in will without doubt increase the size of the crisis.
One of the reasons DACA legislation failed a few months ago was because Trump and far-right allies tried to attach a massive reduction in legal immigration and wouldn’t pass the bill without that measure. It’s simply not true that the far-right movement is “only opposed to illegal immigration.” Many say that but their actions speak otherwise, and that’s what I’m referring to.
Brent,
Oh, so you’re certain that’s why it failed?
For what it’s worth – another perspective might be that DACA advocates were offered way more with legislation than they were asking for under current DACA – and yet they refused it Because they are demanding their cake and eating it too.
Legislation requires compromise and Compromise requires, well compromise.
Like it or not – anti trumpers gotta give some too.
As to your last sentence….consider this…
Many say they’re not for open borders or unfettered immigration – yet they always with thier rehetoric oppose conservative efforts to secure the border and limit immigration – yet never seem to find thier voice against liberal legislative tactics….for open borders/unfettered immigration.
Tarheel Dave, those who used to say that they weren’t for open borders aren’t even saying that now. Since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran on abolishing ICE and defeated incumbent Joseph Crowley, other progressive candidates are saying the same thing. At least they’re finally being honest that they really do want open borders and Ocasio-Cortez wants universal health care for all. How to pay for all of it, she doesn’t say.
Yep, they are coming out if the woodwork.
Many are now openly suggesting getting rid of ICE and having little to even no border enforcement.
Trump, Miller, Sessions, et al, are currently trying to slash legal immigration by 40-50%. That is what the Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. David Perdue Raise Act calls for, it is what was in the Goodlatte Bill that just failed, and it is part of Trump’s 4 Pillars approach. He doesn’t just want to stop illegal immigration. He wants to slash legal immigration by 40-50%. That is well documented.
The birth rate is currently at 1.76 while the replacement rate is 2.1. We are at a 40 year low while Baby Boomers are beginning to retire and will be hitting peak dependency when the lower birth rate generation is supposed to be hitting the workforce.
25% of new businesses are started by immigrants and they actually create a benefit to the economy by creating jobs. And, with 3.8% unemployment, we have a lot of jobs going I filled. Eventually, that becomes a drag on the economy.
But, Brent’s post wasn’t really about economics. It was about just laws and just outcomes and how we get there.
Brent, what does “lax enforcement” look like to you? What specific enforcement steps comprise lax enforcement? To evaluate your argument, it would be beneficial if you could elaborate. Thank you.
Alan, the 25% figure is a bit misleading since the current immigration issues primarily involve those along the Mexican border. Included in that 25% number are many high-skilled and resourceful entrepreneurs who are able to independently make a living when they come here. Those are the immigrants who have the capital to create jobs and be a benefit to the economy. How many low-skilled immigrants are included in that 25%? Presumably not very many at all. And the 25% are certainly not the ones trying to jump the border illegally. So it makes sense that part of President Trump’s immigration policy objective is to reduce low-skilled entrants and focus on high-skilled entrants.
It is not good policy to maintain current immigration levels….just because. The ever-changing nature of businesses that often results in an increase in automation (which reduces jobs) strongly suggests that we don’t need to backfill reduced populations from low fertility rates with more immigrants, especially those with low-skilled labor. Eventually, we’ll enter another recession and the unemployment rate will go back up. At that point, we can’t just send away those who have been approved to work and live in our country.
The low unemployment rate results in a tightening labor market which then pushes up wages. There has been no drag on the economy as a result. Maybe if it got under 2%, then I’d agree with that being a threat. But that won’t happen.
Dan, you said – your first paragraph is summed up with this “The 25% figure is misleading….the 25% [entrepreneurs] are certainly not the ones trying to jump the border illegally.”
I thought exactly the same thing when I read Alan’s Comment.
To be clear I’m Not calling Alan a liar – I think he’s just perhaps dropping that stat without proper context. Perhaps though he has data to show that illegals are starting businesses since illegal immigration is the subject of this conversation. .
Trump and many others (many of whom who are in fact biblically faithful Christians) support developing a slimmer, sleeker merit based immigration system.
Regarding the intimation made that immigration reform is unjust because it reduces legal immigration – While It’s true that a merit based immigration system will necessarily reduce sheer legal immigrant numbers the reason it’s true is because many would be entrants would not meet the standards of a new merit based system.
No, I was using the 25% number in regard to the question about slashing LEGAL immigration. That was the context of my response. And yes, there is data to back that up. I don’t make things up.
Alan,
I wasn’t accusing you of making things up….I just think it’s important to note that it’s not illegals who are “creating jobs” and that no one, that I know of, certainly not myself, is really arguing that those aspiring immigrants who are ready and able to do so Shoukd not be able to migrate here legally.
As I said…a merit based system – which many faithful and compassionate Christian people do support will necessarily decrease the numbers of legal immigrants – at least initially – as some of the immigrants who “qualify” now for immigration likely will not qualify under a merit based system. Also eliminating the lottery and chain migration will also necessarily reduce the numbers of currently legal entrants. Right?
I hope that as the immigration qualification bar is raised that more people will rise to meet it and the numbers of merit based persons allowed to immigrate will then be increased.
To be clear – While I support a merit based system – I’m not for shutting off all “low skill” ( to use the term that is used by most to identify that group of immigrants) immigration – and I haven’t seen where those legislative conservatives suggesting a merit system are either, quite frankly.
Dave, completely agree.
The problem with Secular Americans is that they all have become Democrats or Republicans rather than simply Americans.
The problem with Christian Americans is that they have become Democrats or Republicans rather than simply Christians.
Partisan politics is killing America.
Partisan politics is killing the Christian witness in America.
Amen CB!
Any discussion of a just immigration policy has to move away from economics. And it has to move away from incorrect assumptions. Merit based immigration policy winds up being nothing more than money based immigration policy. Until all of that gets out of the discussion, there won’t be justice for immigrants.
Back in 2017, I wrote an article here entitled,” You Don’t Have to Buy the Whole Load”. In it I talked about how that we should have the right to agree with some tenets of a political view while disagreeing with others. I am a conservative politically, but I have disagreed with the immigration policy of the Republican party for a long time. For security reasons I am not a full blown open borders advocate, but I do think that much less stringent guest worker requirements would be helpful in bringing some form of solution to this problem. When I realize that I am dealing with human beings who bear the image of God, it should modify my rhetoric toward them, and fill my heart with compassion for anyone who is seeking a better life. If you think about it, immigrants are paying us a tremendous compliment.
Whatever happened to the America that looked on the down trodden of the world and proclaimed, “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”?
Good word, John. Some days I wonder how much value there is in comments sections. Other days I read something like this.
Thank you, Brent. That’s very of kind of you to say. To be honest, I’ve made a lot of comments over the years that I have come to regret, if what I say can encourage anyone I am thankful
It is my contention that until the tendency of some to identify any immigration policy they disagree with as “unjust, “Uncompassionate”, “unbiblical”, or “non Christian” (along with accusations of nativism/racism/bigotry) – as well as the tendency to reflexively resist any policy advocated by a president/admin they do not like (no matter that some of it is a continuation of previous admin policy) is put aside we will get no where with immigration discussions on this site.
I do not care which admin did it….catch and release is not only bad policy but leads to greater amounts of human trafficking and the abuse that comes with it – and family separations without cause is immoral and inasmuch as as it has been or is happening it should stop. Our current President has ordered it stopped by the way, and efforts are now underway to remedy without needed congressional action.
Simply put the United States can and ought to have a strong border,s merit based immigration and do so without family separations and without calling those measure immoral/unbiblical.
Last paragraph, edit…looks like the previously announced 15 minute threshold for edits has been reduced.
Simply put – it is my belief and hope that the United States can and ought to have a strong borders, and a merit based immigration system – and can do so without family separations.
Certainly, this discussion should be able to happen without some Christians calling (overtly and subtly) other Christians who support those measure immoral/supporters of injustice.
I agree. Tarheel, your comment is honorable and in no way unbiblical, immoral, or without compassion.
Thank you, CB.
Here’s an article Wayne Grudem posted on Townhall today that speaks well to this issue, in my opinion.
https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2018/07/02/why-building-a-border-wall-is-a-morally-good-action-n2496574