Allemansrätten-The Right to Wander

December 29, 2010 in politics, Theology-Philosophy | Tags: Allemansrätten, Asian, Berlin, California, Dream Act, Great Wall of China, Hispanic, human rights, immigration, israel, Latino, Libertarian, Mexican Border, mobility, Xenophobia

I’m going to plant a flag on this issue.

Please hear me, I respect the opposing view. I just don’t share it.

The truth is, God gave the whole earth to the human race and told us to go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.

Even when he gave Israel to the children of Jacob, he warned them to treat the foreigners nicely; that they would be evaluated, as a nation, by their hospitality toward them. All through the Old Testament stories, there are prominent foreigners sharing the lives of Israelites (e.g. Uriah the Hittite) at a high level.

I have Scandinavian heritage, and you have the right, in my ancestral homeland (the Swedes call it “Allemansrätten”), to wander across anyone’s property, as long as you respect their privacy and leave everything the way you found it. And you can camp for free on anyone’s land, as long as you don’t disturb anyone or make noise, for up to two nights.

I believe in the right of every peaceful man or woman on Earth to be able, unhindered, to:

Travel anywhere on planet Earth he or she can afford to visit. As long as you pay your way and are not a burden.
Seek and take gainful and respectful employment anywhere it is legitimately offered.

I don’t believe in gated communities.

I don’t believe in national fences that keep people in (Berlin Wall) or keep people out (Mexican border at Tijuana).

All God’s people have access to all God’s world.

People of Western/Northern European ancestry have no greater right to staying in my California county than people of Latino ancestry.

And I believe that a mobile population is good for the economy. Anytime free labor can find its way to free capital, there is prosperity for all. That’s the free-market libertarian in me, talking.

Mobility is a basic human right.

The big question is: Do you see people as an asset or a liabilty?

Sure there are people who are one or the other. But on balance, how do you see the human race?

America was founded on the idea that people are, on the whole (and with some exceptions), an asset. Look at the Statue of Liberty. We saw the “huddled masses” of peasant Europe as an amazing asset. They built the farms that now feed us. Their blood now runs through our veins…

Overpopulation is a total myth. Europe and Russia are starting to decline in population. Most of America is empty (every spend much time looking down out of the window seat?). Our rural areas are depopulating. Detroit has thousands of acres of emptiness and some of it is returning to native forest. Sure there are areas of overcrowding, but Anglo North America could easily handle two billion people. (Currently 350 million). Our biggest challengers in this new century will be China and India, because they are blessed to have more people. More workers. More ideas.

We have to re-think transportation and energy–but that’s been done before and we can do it again.

People are not bad for the earth. People are beautiful and creative. We are the crown of creation. Made in the image of God.

I live in California. We are so blessed to have hard-working Latino and Asian immigrants in our midst. They have, together with us, built this state. I have driven all over our great state for the past ten years, and most of it is….empty. There is room for all–especially those willing to work.

You can’t have free markets (and I’m a free market guy) without freely mobile labor. We can’t put a fence around America.

My wealthiest California friends say “Unless we let inexpensive labor connect with our abundant domestic capital, we may as well ship all of our manufacturing to China.” Sobering.

Fences just accumulate and build up tensions, artificially. It’s where weapons tend to congregate. The barbed wire fence across Korea is a source of great tension right now.

Truth is, fences don’t work anyway. The Great Wall of China was a colossal failure. And the “Iron” Curtain rusted in one generation. Walls will always be breached, just like in medieval warfare. Eventually, European towns just quit building them because they were ineffective.

We have to learn to live together. It won’t be easy. There will be huge challenges.

We may have to get rid of the welfare state altogether to make for a workable world.

But building more fences is not the answer.

They won’t last.

They won’t work.

About these ads

161 comments

Comments feed for this article

December 29, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Ann hafften

Thanks for this wonderful analysis, David. O have little to add, I agree so completely. We had a marvelous conference on immigration reform issues on our stone just a few weeks ago. Attorney from LIRS very helpful.

December 30, 2010 at 1:43 am

Chuck Radasch

Carole and I enjoyed your comments. You have a much different point of view on immigration, and the future of the world. And a Happy New Year to you and hello from OR.

December 30, 2010 at 5:41 am

Steve

With humility to people who differ on this, I’ve always felt strongly that Christ was opposed to immigration restrictions in general. We’re all immigrants and I feel that but for the Grace of God I could have been a citizen of some other country. If God gave me this privilege, I don’t think I have the right to prohibit another of God’s children from enjoying the same.

December 30, 2010 at 5:58 am

Chaplain Paul Slater

First of all, I thought your post would get far more comments but then again, it is the holiday season.

Interesting, with a middle name of Larson, I too am of Swedish descent. But then my son did a study of our family ancestry, only to find I had a great, great grandfather who was Jewish. Seems there was an influx of Jewish immigrants into Scandinavia in the 1700′s or 1800′s.

I also live in California, but confess I lock my doors at night and when I leave the house. My question is how far do you go in your actions to match your beliefs. Do you lock your doors?

Have a very happy new year!

Onward with purpose

December 30, 2010 at 6:13 am

David Housholder

Locking doors has to do with private space and public space. We are all entitled to private space.

But that should be limited to what a person can actually occupy.

I don’t let people take my clothes off or walk into my bedroom.

But the sidewalk in front of my house is a totally different matter. Any peaceful human being from anywhere on Earth should be able to walk on it.

December 30, 2010 at 6:17 am

David Housholder

In fact, unoccupied private space in Scandinavia (e.g. your summer cabin when you’re not there) is left unlocked for others to use.

Granted, this is an extreme case and a foreign idea to most of us.

In a nutshell, I am for the total liberation of public space.

December 30, 2010 at 7:16 am

George Macaulay

What about something like a golf course. Can a golf course exist? If so, can I restrict who golfs, or can anybody just walk on and golf? Can I camp there on the 18th green if I am quiet? Am I restricted in what I wear? Can I golf in a Speedo with no shirt? Do I have to play the 18 holes in order or can I use my freedom of mobility to play them in the order I choose? Can I require people to pay to golf? Can I limit when people can play based upon gender (men’s league, or ladies day )? Can the course be closed in the off season or can people use it and hang out all year long? Can the course try to close on a certain day or does it have to stay open to me anytime I want to use it?

December 30, 2010 at 7:38 am

David Housholder

Golf is an evil game

It brings out the worst in me and I quit it for that reason years ago.

That aside, a golf course is like a farm. A large piece of land for a particular value-added purpose agreed upon by the community and its rules on private and public property. Some golf courses are public, others private. Fine. The community agrees that this land is for golf.

Here’s what I’d like to see: If I want to take a walk on the golf course at night and look at the moon, or cross-country ski across it in the winter, no one should be able to call the cops on me.

December 30, 2010 at 7:20 am

Steve

George, I don’t think your examples are quite consistent with David’s idea of public vs. private space. It’s not an either/or questions. One can believe in property rights which have limits. I don’t support the “anything goes” policy you’re offering as a counter example to David, but I neither do I support the status quo. It’s really an empirical question of where to draw the line.

December 30, 2010 at 7:35 am

George Macaulay

Steve,
The golf course is a good analogy. Here’s why. Let’s assume that you work hard and save your money to buy a membership at a course. I come along and jump the fence and decide to play. If I play by the rules of golf, dress appropriately, and use proper etiquette, you would be happy to give me a membership, right?

As for my silly questions, we either have property rights or we don’t. The idea that someone can camp for two days on my land as long as they are quiet is just silly. If 300 people camp on my land for two days and two days later another 300 come, etc. I have no property rights. If that applies to a house, does it also apply to a golf course? Can I just wander through whenever I choose?

December 30, 2010 at 7:42 am

Steve

I don’t think I agree that there’s not such thing as limited property rights. For example, a community could agree that people can walk across your land, but not through your house.

I can see your point, though about the 300 trespassers. Perhaps the issue is whether visitors (or trespassers) harm your own use of your property. If David skis across your land at night, perhaps that’s permissible, while 300 folks camping in your doorway would not be.

December 30, 2010 at 7:53 am

David Housholder

Also, in Sweden, the deciding issue is whether or not you get in the way of the lives of the hosts. Through noise, getting in the way of their business, etc.

All I am saying is that more mobility freedom would benefit us.

I am concerned with mounting restrictions on that.

Soon we will be “the land of the free and the home of the brave” in name only.

December 30, 2010 at 7:55 am

George Macaulay

Steve, I don’t know if you have any kids or if you are married. If your wife or teenage daughter was enjoying the sunshine in the backyard of your house would you have a problem with men you don’t know just wandering through? If so, why? If not, would they be allowed to look at your daughter? How quickly would they have to pass through or are you okay with Sweden’s idea of camping out? Can we have any expectation of privacy outside of our house?

December 30, 2010 at 7:58 am

David Housholder

All property rights are limited. Stop paying your property taxes and you’ll soon see who also is a part owner…The public. That’s why we call it Real Estate. “Real” as in Spanish. Belonging to the king.

Sure, we can own land, but we are only stewards of it. You can’t buy property in a cute little town and turn it into a toxic waste dump.

All property use is by definition limited. The question is, where are the limits? I am pleading for liberalization before the whole country turns into a gated community with “no trespassing” signs.

December 30, 2010 at 8:09 am

George Macaulay

David,
I would ask you the question I asked Steve – Do we have any privacy expectations if we step outside of our house?

December 30, 2010 at 8:33 am

Steve

George, I am married and have sons but not daughters. Where I live (in suburban Washington, DC, I don’t really have much expectation of privacy outside my house due to the close proximity of neighbors. That said, I would feel uncomfortable about strangers looking at my family from inside my yard. However, we have a community path that runs thru our neighborhood (one house away from mine) that strangers walk along all the time. I am okay with that.

December 30, 2010 at 6:00 am

Ted Carnahan

Don’t leave out the biggest, baddest wall of all: the Israeli Separation Barrier.

December 30, 2010 at 7:39 am

George Macaulay

Ted, does Israel have a right to exist?

January 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm

David Housholder

I don’t think any nation has a “right” to exist. It is a privilege for any nation to use a part of the Earth, and can’t claim the land of others unilaterally–some things have to be worked out in a way that everyone can live with. And we have to share it if we use it. And clean up after ourselves…

December 30, 2010 at 6:11 am

Jolene Anderson

I must admit Dave, you have stirred new thoughts on this. Up until now, I have been in total agreement with our border defense. Now, after much thought, I agree with the historical parameters that even my ancestors enjoyed. I have no right to tell other immigrants they cannot live here when I came from European ancestry. They have all worked to create the most powerful & productive society in the world. I do stand steadfast on my conviction that they must become citizens, obey the rules, & learn to speak English as my ancestors did. Maybe this “overload” on welfare is a blessing; self destruct a broken program. Maybe our $$$ on border defense should be spent on compliance of citizenship & laws instead.

December 30, 2010 at 6:18 am

David Housholder

Citizenship should be as easy to get as a driver’s license. That would solve the whole problem.

December 30, 2010 at 6:19 am

David Housholder

And yes, compliance with local laws is a key to any traveler or immigrant’s good manners. And trying to speak the language of the host country. Part of being polite.

December 30, 2010 at 6:53 am

Kelsey Jones

Such a great post on a hot topic today! If you haven’t already read it, the book “Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalism” by Richard Longworth takes a look at this topic of immigration and how it applies to the Midwest. Our industrial cities and towns are disappearing and one of the only ways to save small towns in Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, etc. is through immigration. The immigrants are keeping small town America alive.

We, as Christians first and Americans second (or anywhere else down the line), need to learn how to adapt to the changing world around us and embrace the fact that any and all immigrants are children of God. This of course doesn’t mean embracing illegal activities, but I agree the system for becoming a legal immigrant needs to be simplified to allow more people to enter legally. Thanks for the insight! God Bless!

December 30, 2010 at 6:58 am

Jay Egenes

Dave,
I think you’ve captured here what ought to be the true free market or libertarian view on immigration. I’ve been amazed (amused?) over the years that so many people who claim to be free-market libertarians turn into cultural conservatives on immigration (and some other) issues.

If the market is or should be free, then so should the labor market. Capital can move easily. It’s harder for people (labor) to move even without artificial restrictions like walls and immigration policies that hinder rather than promote immigration.

Thanks for stating this so clearly and for providing a theological rationale as well.

Full disclosure: I’m not a free marketer. The starting point for liberal (with a small “l”) thought, running from Hobbes through Locke and on to utilitarians like Bentham and Mill, to egalitarians like Dworkin, economic free marketers like Uncle Miltie and philosophical libertarians like Nozik (I think that’s where he belongs) and the Tea Partiers, is that we are all “little sovereigns.”

I don’t buy the starting point for the whole line of argument. As my daughter Erica points out, we can’t go back to the state of nature and see for ourselves what would happen without a community of some kind, but I don’t believe we’re each “in charge” of ourselves or anybody or anything else. Absent a community, the individual never reaches his or her potential. A dynamic community made up of individuals working together in one way or another, participating together in a system, is a better model than the rugged individual as a little sovereign. A theory that privileges either the individual or the community misses the dynamic involved in the community supporting the development of the individual and the individual then participating in the development of the next generation of the community.

And, theologically, I’m pretty sure it’s God who’s sovereign, not me or any other human being I’ve ever met.

I also don’t believe that the “free market” is efficient. The term “externalities” is used by economists to refer to the costs of a transaction that aren’t borne by the parties. Think of an obvious example like air pollution caused by the smokestack from a factory–or the emissions from your car. Thousands or millions of people are affected by that pollution–creating a cost–but in a “free market” you don’t pay for it when you put gas in your car or buy a product from the factory. The hard part is to figure out how and how much to “regulate” or interfere in the market to correct inefficiencies–and how to regulate in such a way that the transaction costs of complying with the regulation don’t create new and worse inefficiencies.

Add in the problem of unequal information and the effect of unequal bargaining power–who says people with more money should get to vote more often?–do we really think that gets us the right answer to the important questions?–and there are lots of reasons to think the market doesn’t work all that well.

Whatever your philosophical and economic views, I believe that as Christians we’re called to love and care for immigrants (“legal”) or not. You don’t have to believe they should be here. You don’t have to think our de facto immigration policy (encouraging people without documents to come by not requiring employers to verify social security numbers) makes any sense.

But biblical hospitality and God’s concern for those without rights (see, for example, Exodus 22: 21, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 24:22, Psalm 146:9) requires us to care for the aliens in our midst, “legal” or not.

Thanks for taking on this important issue.

grace and peace,
Jay Egenes

December 30, 2010 at 7:01 am

George Macaulay

Okay, I will be the one who disagrees, at least with a good deal of the post. First, I think your ideas about no borders are great, if we lived in Utopia. Unfortunately, we don’t. What you are ultimately seeking is Imagine by Lennon. No countries, no possessions, etc.

In the end you’re plan leads to anarchy, as the need for government ceases to exist. If I have a right to wander anywhere and work anywhere, then so does everyone else. And if mobility is a basic human right, then wandering anywhere, anytime, day or night is also a basic human right. We don’t restrict when people can eat or drink, so we can’t restrict mobility.

As for Sweden (and I, too, share your Swedish ancestry), if it switched places with California, the letting people stay on the property would end in a week, if not sooner.

Now, if the right to camp two days on anybody’s property is a right, then their is no such thing as property rights, and therefore no ownership. If I can camp on your land, I can sleep and hang out in your house.

I could go on but I will stop and see if anyone furthers the discussion. I will ask one final question for Ted. Does Israel have a right to exist?

Dave, you are an incredibly intelligent person and I love your posts. This is area where I respectfully part ways with you and would suggest that you haven’t thought this through.

December 30, 2010 at 7:06 am

David Housholder

No question that freedom creates problems. You are right about that.

But I would rather have the freedom and solve the problems that arise from it than pre-empt the problems by curtailing freedom on the front end.

Classic libertarianism.

FINALLY, someone who disagrees! I thought there would be hundreds of you.

December 30, 2010 at 7:16 am

Luthor Nelson

I agree with everything you said except there is one problem. We have an immoral country that believes it is a good thing to redistribute wealth, to take from those who have to give to those who have not. If it was a matter of, “come on in, if you can find work fine, if not go back home.” Now it is “if you can find work fine if you can’t we will feed your kids 3 meals a day in the school we pay for your kids to go to and we will give you all the free food stamps you need all their growing up years. Any time you are sick we will force doctors and hospitals to treat you on their dime.” I know there are laws against some welfare to illegals but the some how manage to get most everything we offer our own citizens.
I am all for individuals helping illegals, I have a family I have been helping for 8 years and they are still not legal. They get no gov’t money but I do give them a good salary. The trouble is I could get in trouble for what I am doing, but when gov’t money is used to care for them it is fine.

December 30, 2010 at 7:32 am

David Housholder

The only way for a free world to work, in practice, is to dismantle the welfare states. They create inequality between nations and force us to put up borders.

December 30, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Paula

David, it may make inequalities between nations, but the safety net is an advantage to businesses competing with businesses in countries with safety nets, entrepreneurship that have healthcare for young families while risks are being taken, and most especially it is good for people, leveling the healthcare and some other basics between the families living on $20K or $20M

December 30, 2010 at 7:30 am

James

To “piggyback” on Luthor’s comment.; I am afraid this Utopian thought is not possible because of our corrupt governments. I would love to have the opportunity to share openly with others as you speak of in the essay, but we live in a society that if the govt. can’t profit from it we can’t do it. Elect good moral people, unlike what we have now, and I could see moving toward a day when everyone was being taught morals and respect for others. This would allow the opening of relations like you speak of.

January 10, 2011 at 6:43 am

Luke Allison

“Elect good moral people, unlike what we have now, and I could see moving toward a day when everyone was being taught morals and respect for others.”

I’m so fascinated by this line of thinking coming from Christians. What about the radical nature of the Gospel would lead any of us to believe that “good moral people” are capable of solving anything, or even exist for that matter?
I much prefer Luther’s “kingdom within a kingdom” view to Calvin’s “two kingdoms” view. Ironically enough, oodles of Christians who would never call themselves Calvinists completely subscribe to Calvin’s model of Christian government.

Who exactly is the “good moral person” you have in mind? Dispensationalist folksy types? Fundamentalist Mormons? Who?

December 30, 2010 at 7:48 am

Stan Lock

Dave, Thank you for your essay.

December 30, 2010 at 8:00 am

David Housholder

The gates of New Jerusalem are never shut. (Rev. 21:25) And for the Christian national identity is incidental. (Rev. 11:15) -Brian Zahnd

December 30, 2010 at 10:40 am

Jay Egenes

At the end of The Social Contract, his defense of a democratic form of government, Rousseau says that government in a nation with a largely Christian population will to a certain extent fail–because a Christian’s allegiance is to the God who made the world, not to the nation or to a national God. Despite the importance of this book in the thought of our founders, those last few chapters where Rousseau makes this argument have been largely ignored.

We should love our country. And it is one of the communities to which we owe back a duty. But our allegiance is owed to God.

December 30, 2010 at 8:05 am

Stan Lock

Those with a different point of view, Thank you for your comments as well.

December 30, 2010 at 8:08 am

Jay Egenes

One more time to get the new comments. Operator error the first time.

December 30, 2010 at 8:17 am

Kati

From Iowa:

My husband golfs after-hours at the local golf course. He doesn’t pay or have a membership because we can’t afford it. He just golfs really fast, as many holes as he can, before it gets dark. I told him he should at least ask permission. He finally did, and they gave him permission. Sometimes you can get away with stuff like that in a small town.

Also, during RAGBRAI there were people camping in our yard. I think they had to ask permission, but the community basically agrees to let the bikers camp wherever they want for one night.

December 30, 2010 at 11:24 am

Brooke Lundy

Thank you so much for this view, Dave.
My mom and I were just talking about this last night, in fact!
I agree with most of your post–most specifically with the idea that God calls us to care for the immigrants (legal or illegal). I read an interesting academic article about the terms “legal” and “illegal”. It explained that immigrants feel discouraged by those terms. That by calling them “Illegal”, it’s placing them in the same boat as murderers, people who steal, etc.

Thank you guys for all the comments as well. It really gave me some food for thought.
Happy New years,
Brooke

December 30, 2010 at 2:26 pm

George Macaulay

Brooke, by coming here illegally they are by definition illegal immigrants, and they are in the same boat as people who steal, murder, etc. They have broken the law. They could wait and come legally, but they don’t. I could save money to buy a boat or I could just steal a boat. I would be breaking the law and would not be the legal owner. That being said, I do agree that we should be compassionate towards them, just as we should to every person we meet. In the same way that we put people in prison for breaking our laws, we should help them to return to their country of origin and work to get them here legally.

December 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Jay Egenes

George,
I’m usually somewhat taken aback by the “they broke the law” argument, especially when it equates a civil violation (like not complying with a regulation) with class 1 crimes like “theft, murder, etc.”

Being guilty of one sin may make us guilty of all in God’s eyes; by that standard we’re all thieves, murderers, etc.

As a matter of practical human ethics, however, I think we can draw some moral lines and avoid false equivalencies. Or does the fact that I drive too fast (illegal, I admit; I probably break the law every day) put me in the same boat with thieves and murderers?

grace and peace,
Pastor Jay

December 30, 2010 at 9:29 pm

George Macaulay

Jay, I don’t equate coming here illegally with other serious crimes. My point, however poorly made, is that they are here illegally. They did break the law. They, and you perhaps, can feel bad about that. Those who break the law by coming here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded and moved ahead of those who “play by the rules” and wait to come legally. Sorry if I appeared to equate crossing the border with murder.

December 30, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Tim Larson

Reminds me of they lyrics of an old 1974 Neil Sedaka song:

“The Immigrant”

Harbors open their arms to the young searching Foreigner
Come to live in the light of the beacon of liberty
Planes and open skies, billboards would advertise
Was it anything like that when you arrived?
Dreamboats carried the future to the heart of America
People were waiting in line for a place by the river

It was a time when strangers were welcome here
Music would play
They tell me the days were sweet and clear
It was a sweeter tune and there was so much room
That people could come from everywhere

Now he arrives with his hopes and his heart set on miracles
Come to marry his fortune with a handful of promises
To find they’ve closed the door
They don’t want him anymore
There isn’t anymore to go around
Turning away he remembers he once heard a legend
That spoke of a mystical, magical land called America

It was a time when strangers were welcome here
Music would play
They tell me the days were sweet and clear
It was a sweeter tune and there was so much room
That people could come from everywhere

December 30, 2010 at 5:12 pm

David Housholder

Everyone should see this video. I you are a Patriot, the pictures will not leave your eyes dry.

December 31, 2010 at 6:35 am

Jay Egenes

Thanks for posting this video, Tim. Powerful stuff.

Our societal attitude toward immigrants seems to shift based on how the economy is doing and what hard or dirty jobs need to be done. Maybe the real question is whether we believe there “isn’t anymore to go around” or not. Of course, God always has all we need for us.

December 31, 2010 at 7:02 am

David Housholder

The USA is mostly empty and much of it (Upper Midwest, Rustbelt Cities) is depopulating dramatically.

December 30, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Stan Lock

Dave, you taught on this when you were at Hosanna!. From that time, I have gone out of my way to extend every kindness to aliens, foreigners, and strangers. This kindness has returned to me ten-fold. Most recently, I needed some assistance getting into my local medical clinic for some physical therapy. (I literally needed a shoulder to lean on.) A man from Egypt helped me to the clinic and when I my appointment was over, he was able to help me back to my car. As we walked I found out that he was a cab driver who wanted to eventually own his own restaurant. With his distinctively Arab appearance and accent, I can only imagine the challenges this kind man faces living in Minnesota. I pray that the people he meets are familiar with Exodus 22:21. “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. (NIV)

December 30, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Wayne Almlie

The problem with using the Old testament scriptures for imigration rights is that you are too selective. Israel had open boarders, but they didn’t have a social welfare state.

They took care of the truely needy, widows and orphans, but the able bodied worked or they didn’t eat. They let the self destructive, self destruct, they even helped them along by stoneing rebellious children, etc.

They had a form of work fare, they had gleening. The harvesters could only go through a field once. What ever they left behind was for the poor, but they had to get it themselves. The govenment didn’t get it for them or steal it from the productive to give it to the unproductive.

If someone was starving to death, for the sake of survival they would indenture themselves to someone and become their slave. If they worked hard they could buy their freedom or a kinsman redeemer could do it for them.

They had a flat tax, the tithe, and they had a temple tax, and the temple tax wasn’t a percentage, it was an amount and the poor paid the same as the rich. It specifically says the poor shall pay the same as the rich. So if we are going to try to apply Old Testament standard to Immigration, are we willing to also apply Old Testament standards to taxation?

This is what God laid out for Israel, this is what He considered just. Are we willing to follow all the way or do we want to just pick and choose the things that happen to be politically correct at the moment.

When America collapses it will be in part because of our open boarders. People will continue to come in, as soon as they are in they will through the social safety net make claims on the resources of others and we will at some point go bankrupt. It is happening all across Europe, it is happening in California, New York and several other states. The Fed will continue to bail out Europe and will bail out the states as well. But at some point it won’t work to just print money. Some people think we are too big to fail, history shows us that no country is to big to fail.

December 30, 2010 at 5:04 pm

Luthor Nelson

My point exactly, Wayne. I love open borders but not with a welfare state. It isn’t illegals that are going to kill us it is the welfare state. Who said, “When the masses realize they can vote themselves finances out of the government largess it is all over?”

December 30, 2010 at 5:06 pm

David Housholder

Open borders may be our only hope at dismantling the welfare state. It would collapse. Since it’s never going to be voted out by congress, perhaps we can speed it up a little by cutting some holes in the barbed wire .

December 30, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Pat Gilbert

Many Americans are ignorant of the fact that our southwestern states were once part of the country of Mexico. The U.S. took half of the land of independent Mexico in the Mexican American War so the U.S. could expand westward. One could argue that the “Anglos” are the illegal immigrants since the Spanish speaking Latinos were there first. So as we consider various analogies, it may be helpful to recall whose property was whose to begin with.

Part of the current problem is that it is almost impossible for any Mexican to get a visa to come here legally and get on a path to citizenship. Waits are up to 18 years for those who are even relatives of American citizens. My son-in-law is from Mazatlan. Being married to an American (my daughter) was not sufficient to gain him legal status. They had to risk a 10-year separation for him to get his green card. He has now passed his citizenship test but needs to get additional documents from Mexico before he can complete the process and take the oath to become an American.
My Scandanavian ancestors did not face such barriers. My Irish ancestors were denied entry, so they went to Canada and crossed the border. Those of us with European ancestry have no more right here than any other immigrant. Scripture calls us to treat the alien and stranger with kindness-because we (or our grandparents) were also once strangers and aliens in the land.

December 30, 2010 at 6:31 pm

Kyle Letcher

You make some very good points in here. This article is not only an immigration issue but an economic one. For true economic prosperity we need less government not more of it. The government muddies everything up making it more complicated for people to start their own businesses and end up stifling what they were hoping to protect and encourage. As far as the immigration is concerned I’m not entirely sure I get it. I’ve always thought that if we allowed open borders, jobs for the Americans living here would become harder and harder to find. My question is how exactly would allowing more immigrant workers boost the economy other than by creating cheaper products as labor would be cheaper

December 30, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Nancy

Open borders is a nice thought but a few things came to my mind.

If we were to open up our borders, we’d need to revamp our benefits system where you can only get social benefits if you pay in. No one likes the fact that a lot of us pay big money for medical benefits and an illegal immigrant can walk into any ER and get free medical care, again at our expense. This has been a big problem in California, Texas and Florida.

And then there is the issue of Al-Qaeda and other anti-freedom terrorists groups out there that we don’t even know about. No one has mentioned this yet on the blog. If we open our borders to hard working people from every end of God’s created earth, we also open our borders to these people. So instead of the few who snuck in and asked for instruction in flying planes but didn’t need instruction in how to land them, we’d have their entire operation based here. Remember those guys? If you open the borders, you gotta take the bad with the good.

December 30, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Nancy

Let me clarify my use of illegal immigrant. To me, it’s a non-U.S. citizen who doesn’t pay taxes into the system but who uses benefits.

December 31, 2010 at 6:32 am

Jay Egenes

Many, probably most, immigrants, actually do pay taxes, because they work. Yes, some are paid under the table. Many work but provided a false social security number (a crime, I know–and they could have just got a taxpayer ID–the IRS doesn’t care if you have documents; they just want your money). So their employer withholds taxes. They probably don’t file a return–and therefore actually overpay their taxes because they could have got a refund.
Yes, some don’t pay taxes and access the benefits. But the public discussion overstates the size of that problem.

December 30, 2010 at 6:46 pm

Didkaty

We are a nation of laws for a reason. Those laws need to be respected and obeyed. Illegal aliens thumbed their noses at our laws and have no respect for our culture. I have no problem with legal immigration and welcome the diversity. Illegal means Illegal.

Where is the sympathy for the victims of identity theft? Where is the sympathy for legal citizens who have their jobs handed over to illegal aliens for less money? Where is the sympathy for the insured American who has to pay the hospital bill for all the illegal babies, education etc.

English is our language but they choose not to learn it. How safe do you feel on the road when illegals are able to take a driving test to get their license in Spanish? Second language is wonderful but the school systems do not have the right to force children to learn Spanish. Children should be given a chose. What about the cost of translation: Do you hear the Russians, Arabs, Chinese, Vietnamese, French demanding that we learn their language in our country. NO!

They come here for a better life??? Why don’t they work on their own country? If Mexico is so horrible, fix it but don’t disrespect my country, its laws and culture. I understand that Mexico encourages their citizens to break our laws. Have you looked at Mexico’s immigration laws? I think we should adopt them.

I will stop now but I have seen the beauty of immigration and the horror of illegal immigration. We need to secure our borders, penalize employers who hire illegal aliens and cut off the free services. And Yes deport families so they aren’t separated. Illegal aliens use that ploy. they have endangered their own children using them as a tool for sympathy.

Yes i use the term Illegal Alien

December 30, 2010 at 7:57 pm

David Housholder

Since our whole nation’s founding story (Brits taking land from Indians without asking) is a wee bit iffy, I think that to call others “illegal immigrants” when we are a nation based on illegal immigration, is ironic at best.

Yes we are a nation of laws.

Our president “W,” being a Texan all too familiar with the real (non-pandering-esque) issues of immigration, decided to do the right thing and change the laws that were hurting our valuable immigrants.

That’s what people do in a democracy. They change the laws that hurt people and the nation.

He was shouted down by his own party.

December 30, 2010 at 8:03 pm

Didkaty

Amnesty has been granted how many times? It doesn’t work because our government continues to lack the political will to protect our borders. Our laws need to be respected and obeyed. Has nothing to do with changing the laws that hurt people and the nation or party It has to do with PC. PC is killing our country. As someone said in another post: It is a matter of National Security. Illegal is Illegal

December 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm

David Beriss

Hey David, thanks for raising a great topic and for taking the free market position to its logical end. I agree with you completely on this one. But I would add that if we are going to open the borders to the free circulation of labor (as we say we want to do for goods, capital, ideas, etc.), then we have to have a level playing field. We need to insure that labor conditions, workplace safety, wages, etc. are relatively similar and equally enforced with whatever countries we have free trade. We generally try to do that throughout the U.S. and the Europeans have worked hard to do that within the EU. But, yeah, I absolutely think people should be able to move about freely, work, settle, etc.

Of course, the real bottom line is that even in these dire economic times, we need immigrants (legal and, alas, illegal) if we want our fruit picked and our chickens processed. Our economy depends on them. And this is not a new thing either. So, along with the rather nice video posted already here, I thought I would add a Joe Ely version of the famous Woody Guthrie song “Deportee” for everyone to enjoy as well. (There are lots of other versions on Youtube if you want to explore; I just happen to like this one.)

December 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm

David Housholder

David, as usual, you are a breath of fresh air from the left on this blog. Bless you for your articulate comments. Few make me think as much as you do.

December 30, 2010 at 10:29 pm

George Macaulay

David, I believe that you are mistaken when you say that we need illegal immigrants to pick our fruit. The correct answer is that we need illegals to pick fruit at wages that the orchard owners want to pay, or that in turn, consumers are willing to pay. So we justify treating these people horribly so oranges or chickens are cheaper, and say that’s okay, but scream at businesses that move jobs to China for the same reasons. I am willing to bet that if picking oranges paid $10,000 a week, you would have plenty of people lining up to work. The idea that they are doing jobs that Americans won’t is just incorrect.

January 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm

David Housholder

Which David? There is a Dr. Seuss book: “Too Many Daves” Makes me nervous.

December 30, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Kyle Letcher

I think the question is why are these jobs moving to China? The answer is quite simple. The government imposes a minimum wage. People are excited minimum wage went up but, in order to keep prices the same these companies have to find cheaper labor. They then go to China or India or wherever they can pay laborers at a cheaper rate. This keeps our prices “low”. Which compared to most of the world is really expensive. People complain about companies not paying workers in foreign countries enough it’s not fair to them but, I don’t think they realize that the cost of living is so much lower their that they don’t need to be paid as much. I live in an area where people were getting by fine on minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. It wasn’t grand living but it was living. Well, in an effort to make these peoples lives easier minimum wage was increased. When that happened prices of almost everything went up. Not instantly they were better off for a little bit. But, they were shortly back in the same boat they were in and the people whose wages didn’t go up but stayed the same were worse off when minimum wage was lower. Their buying power was a lot less. People will ultimately do for the most part what serves them best. If these companies stayed in the United States and paid their employees more the cost of their good would go up. Causing less people to buy their product and running them out of business. How do they stay afloat then in this government run economy? They go somewhere where the government can’t screw them over. They can keep their prices low and keep the customers they have. Rather then get mad at companies and tell our government we need to enact more laws we should be getting mad at the government for driving them away. We should be telling our lawmakers to repeal laws and make our country entrepreneur friendly again.

December 31, 2010 at 4:18 am

David Beriss

This is neat. George points out that if we pay people enough, we won’t have to have illegal immigrants because legal folks (citizens, for example) will want the jobs they do not currently want. No doubt this is true. But, of course, then the goods we want will become much more expensive or they will be produced elsewhere.

To this Kyle argues that we should simply pay people less. Then the jobs won’t go overseas because we will be able to compete with China. I assume this resolves the immigration issue because the U.S. will become a much less desirable place for those seeking a better life. Hey, if we lower wages enough, we can turn the U.S. into a country of emigration!

There are of course actual historic reasons why neither of these paths have been followed. In addition, it would be nice to try to think a bit more clearly about all of this: the economic arguments advanced here are all very abstract and, in particular, take very little account of political or social concerns people have on all sides of these issues. After all, if wages were the only issue, then we would not be so concerned about the legal status of people crossing the border.

In any case, rather than try to sort this out in a blog comment, I thought you might all find it useful to look at some research by folks who specialize in this kind of thing. I really like the work of the folks at the Migration Policy Institute, which is nonpartisan and not ideologically committed to a particular line of thinking (unlike Heritage, Cato, AEI, etc.). So check it out: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/. Lots to read and think about if you would like to develop an informed position on these issues.

December 31, 2010 at 9:26 am

Kyle Letcher

I laughed when I read “Hey, if we lower wages enough, we can turn the U.S. into a country of emigration!” I would like to state that the lowering of wages isn’t the primary goal. It would happen with jobs that are minimum wage jobs. The pay would go down there. When the minimum wage went up my previous boss who employed people at minimum wage experienced a loss in income so he raised his prices and stopped giving his employees in-store benefits. Why? Because the government was running the economy.
I believe that high paying jobs would still stay high paying and the minimum wage jobs would go down in pay for sure. This is where the free market would shine though. A few things would happen. Cheaper goods. With cheaper goods more people would have access to products. More products would be sold. Which means more profit for that company and then they can afford to give pay raises based on merit.
From observing others in my family and people I’ve worked with, pay raises don’t always go out based on merit but on who is willing to ask for raises. Part of a mobile work force is also being mobile yourself. People would have to always be in search of a better job. Which isn’t hard. It was what I was doing and I was making decent wages a year out of high school because I kept finding a better job and taking it. In effect moving up the pay scale. Then I became a student in another country where I would need to apply for a job permit and wait for the government to get around to issuing it and it would be up for question if they would grant the work permit or not.
I don’t think you can really truly get any non-biased information. Because the people conducting the research will always have certain colored glasses with which they view the world. Me, I’m a Lutheran Libertarian Idealist and I realize that living in this broken world idealism doesn’t work. Which stinks because my brain operates on those idealism’s.

December 31, 2010 at 9:27 am

Kyle Letcher

I should have stated this as well to wrap up my thoughts. The primary goal is allowing the free market to work itself.

January 3, 2011 at 11:46 am

Tim Larson

If unregulated free markets and open borders worked perfectly in creating a fair and just and prosperous society, then we wouldn’t be debating this. If regulated markets or restricted immigration always worked wonderfully for America, we wouldn’t be debating this either. I think we would all take a big step forward if we could come to agree the immigration issues, individualism, economic fairness, free market capitalism, social responsibility for the common good, multi-national corporate interests, competing values, differences in defining the American dream, and the human propensity for all kinds of sin (especially the 7 deadly ones) motivated by fear, pride, prejudice, and mental illness make for a much more complicated world than any single ideology can encompass. It’s a good thing God is merciful.

There are times that I’m attracted to ideology as a lens to view the issues I care about — but that’s really is the easy way to frame our fallen world. Then all I have to do is repeat the same thing over and over, and react creatively against those with different ideological views.

What I find is much more challenging is to look at issues of immigration from the perspectives everyone involved and work out reasonable solutions that may be imperfect or lack consensus — but everyone can live with.

Reason suffers when we become too emotionally tied to ideologies we lean on to make sense of the world. But — I hope we all agree — that reason and competitive politics is a much better way to make decisions together in our country than reaching for our constitutionally protected guns to settle our issues.

December 31, 2010 at 7:58 am

Jolene Anderson

Outstanding post & replies on a very serious subject. I love all the views & it truly opens my own eyes to other points I don’t always consider. Excellent blog Dave. Great comments everyone. I’ve really enjoyed it.

December 31, 2010 at 12:39 pm

Kevin Gilmore

Maybe many of you have seen this video before. The last thing I want is for me to be the type of person who says, ‘I’ve got mine…too bad about you’ but I have to wonder what sort of future is in store for my daughter if we continue on the road we’re on.

January 3, 2011 at 3:54 am

Terry Branham

It is not about people’s freedom. The Lord also endorsed governments to help people. The ‘One-Nation’ concept you are alluding to brings nothing but pure corruption. The biggest danger to our society and as we have witnessed with governments that are not led by Christian-Judea principles is ‘corruption’. Our own government and people have made great advances to being not much better than a banana republic over the years.
Why? It is all about greed. I spent years in Latin America working for a Dept of State program that was bringing honesty in government and police activities regarding the drug war. In just 2 years we could show incredible improvements in bringing about honesty and rejection of corruption. Then Congressman Rangel who led Government Oversight cut our program in half because as he told me face to face, ‘I don’t have any constituents in Latin America’. It was that bold greed and self serving ‘use the money for my constituents that broke our influence with Latin America to put us where we are today with all of the nations we worked with except Colombia becoming narco controlled governments. No fence and no borders and control of people will bring more corruption only because it eventually brings the wrong priorities to controlling resources.
Serve God’s children as the Lord outlined for us to do. Bring the good news of the gospel and let nations and people and cultures live in peace. harmony and pride in their own exceptionalism. Sincerely, Terry

January 3, 2011 at 3:58 am

David Housholder

You make a good case that corruption is bad. You make no case that open borders lead to more of it.

January 3, 2011 at 9:32 am

Stan Lock

As a former state department employee in Latin America, what are your views on John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRKZqdgBXg and http://www.democracynow.org/2005/5/17/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man Thank you.

January 3, 2011 at 12:19 pm

Tim Larson

So the solution to our immigration problem is to engage Central & South American countries in relationships that encourage their citizens to stay home. With all due respect to Congressman Rangel, Terry points out that it’s in the interests of the common good to do so, both here and abroad — while the preservation of Rangel’s power is all about sinfulness.

How often in politics do those holding or vying for power use voter “self-interest” as the means for selling government policies that work against the common good? One of the many duties of Christians is to hold our government’s feet to the fire to create and enforce public policy that does the best for the most — especially when it’s in the interests of a minority to spin the policy as “not in our self-interests.” Alas, given human nature, it’s an effective tactic to use alleged “self-interest” as a means to stifle change for the better, or undo good public policy that is more costly to some than the majority of others.

January 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm

David Beriss

This discussion seems to have veered a long way from immigration. Being a professor and all that, I thought I might try to bring us back to the topic at hand and maybe suggest some directions folks can go if they would like to become better educated about immigration issues.

Christian groups have long been deeply engaged in work with immigrants, both legal and illegal. In my own research with Caribbean migrants in France, I spent a lot of time studying (and working with) the Catholic chaplain to that community there (the “Aumonerie des Antilles-Guyane,” at the time) and with 7th Day Adventists, which were predominantly of Caribbean origin in Paris by the 1990s. Even though they were all French citizens, they experienced a lot of racism and cultural dissonance in Paris, as well as a failure on the part of white French people to recognize their Caribbean brothers as French. In the U.S., the sanctuary movement was especially active in the 1980s. I strongly recommend taking a look at the book “God and Caesar at the Rio Grande: Sanctuary and the Politics of Religion” by Hilary Cunningham, which has some interesting insights into the perspectives of at least some American Christians on immigration. The point here, as some of you have also noted, is that there are quite a lot of different ways to frame immigration beyond economics, legal niceties, demography, etc.

There has been a lot of recent work on the seemingly insane fears (the pseudo-scientific demography video above is a really good example of using fake science to incite fear) about Latinos in the U.S., see in particular the books of Leo Chavez (“The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation”) and Arlene Davila (“Latino Spin: Public Image and the Whitewashing of Race”), both of which are very readable books. I also think it would be worth going to the web site I recommended earlier to look into the way immigration issues are framed by specialists in that area. I start teaching a course on ethnicity around the world in about two weeks, so I am just now putting together a whole list of readings on related topics…happy to share if anyone is interested in pursuing this.

January 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Tim Larson

I think if we all took your approach to the Immigration issue, we might be able to come up with an informed, workable, dignified, and effective immigration policy we all could live with. As a pastor, it’s the “insane fears” that concern me — because an “insane fear” driven immigration policy is bound to treat at least some Latino people — and foreign workers in general — unfairly and unjustly.

For me, the madness regarding immigration is a symptom of our country’s spiritual malaise. I am sure there are citizens of this country that could care less how immigrants are treated — even cheer for their mistreatment — as long as they perceive that the same immigration policy won’t affect them, their property, or the people they love. As a Christian, that bothers me just as much.

Here is another book worth reading: “Postville USA: Surviving Diversity in Small-Town America” by Mark A Grey, Michele Devlin, and Aaron Goldsmith.

January 3, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Stan Lock

Tim, I agree with your analysis. It the ongoing battle between love and fear. As followers of Christ’s teaching we know that Perfect Love wins out in the end.

January 3, 2011 at 7:22 pm

Kevin Gilmore

David Beriss,

I’m the one who posted the “pseudo-scientific demography video” but I did not realize it was using “fake science”. If you could expand on what is fake about it and disabuse me of any belief I may have in what the video purported I would appreciate it. I mean that in all seriousness.

I first saw the video a few years ago and wondered why if it was true that none of our politicians were saying anything along the same lines?

As for me, I think many in our society could learn from the hard work ethic that many who come here (both legal and ilegal) in search of work exhibit. Those of us who have only known our privileged/blessed lives are all too often ignorant to the struggles of so many people not only in the world but also in our own communities.

I wonder how many of those who decry ilegal aliens would themselves be doing exactly the same had their roles in life been reversed?

Thank you,

Kevin g

January 3, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Tim Larson

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/12/30/anti-immigrant-group-cloaks-itself-in-progressive-issues-to-spread-xenophobia/

January 3, 2011 at 8:35 pm

Kevin Gilmore

Tim…yep…that’s the guy. Thanks for the link and for helping to put my mind at ease. Come to think of it; his audience had the appearance of some infomercial.

Kevin g

January 4, 2011 at 2:16 pm

David Beriss

I appreciate Tim beating me to the punch on this one. It would take too much time to point out all of the flaws with Roy Beck’s arguments in the video, but I will outline a few here, very briefly. Let me know if you want me to elaborate.

1) He starts out with the idea of “stabilizing” our population due to declining fertility, which he says is characteristic of “the rest of the advanced nations of the world.” Actually, without immigration, most of the European countries are confronted with aging populations that are not replacing themselves (except where they have immigration). This is a huge long term problem for retirement plans, productivity, etc. So one has to ask: why does Mr. Beck believe a “stable” population is a good thing? Is there something about the immigrant population he does not care for?

2) Beck’s argument about infrastructure investment is silly. Yes, we need infrastructure when we have a growing population. But we also have more workers, more taxpayers, etc. There is an underlying assumption here about the value of schools, roads, waterworks and even cities that you can see if you visit his group’s web site. There he claims that immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was responsible for urbanization in the U.S., which he portrays as a negative thing. This is historically wrong. Everywhere in the world, urbanization has occurred when countries industrialized (industrialization comes first, in other words). This is an historical fact (an ongoing one, I might add – just take a look at urbanization in China). Is Mr. Beck arguing that we should turn back the historical clock to a pre-industrial time, when we (apparently) all lived happily on farms?

3) Funniest moment: his projections go “off the charts.” He even says this. Amazing! This is like an amp that goes to 11.

4) When he expands the chart (oh, wait, the numbers don’t go off the chart after all), he asserts that it is “not conjecture, not subjective.” But he is projecting into the middle of this century. I am pretty sure that is the very definition of conjecture. We could also ask: what will happen if we do not have immigration and if we continue to fail to reproduce enough to grow?

5) He calls for a return to a “traditional” level of immigration. What is a “traditional” level of immigration? As data from the U.S. Census and even from Mr. Beck’s web site indicate, immigration rates rise and fall over time, for many reasons.

6) He asserts that our immigration policy is driven by a desire “to show our concern for the third world.” I suppose someone might be out there who thinks this, but that is not the basis for any of our immigration policies. It is, in fact, really silly. I have been studying immigration since the 1980s and have never heard anyone say such a thing.

7) The same goes for his claim that some people see immigration as a safety valve for population growth elsewhere. Nobody thinks this, at least nobody among immigration researchers and policy makers.

8) I feel bad about all the wasted gumballs. Oh, the humanity!

Tim’s link, which shows the extreme right-wing ties that Mr. Beck’s group has answers many of my questions above. Beck is not really concerned about any of the issues he raises. He is concerned about whiteness and about cultural changes immigration brings, but he is apparently afraid to say so in public, so he makes up silly arguments. Or he knows that most Americans do not share his fears, so he wants to mystify us into believing other things. His approach is not helpful.

Kevin, I think you hit on an essential point when you ask if many immigrants would engage in the same fears if the roles were reversed. Probably they would. The very same Martinican and Guadeloupan folks who decried French racism in Paris often complained about Dominicans (from Dominica) and Haitians who migrate to their islands for work. Italy and Germany both have huge problems with racism today and seem to have completely forgotten that they were both countries of emigration back in the 19th century. There is a great portrayal of these kinds of attitudes in the wonderful John Sayles movie “Lone Star” (alas, not streaming on Netflix, but you can rent it).

Last comment: there are two very interesting pieces about immigration on NPR’s All Things Considered today (1/4/2011) that you should be able to hear on-line. One has a discussion with someone from the Migration Policy Institute, along with some very interesting stats on illegal immigration and on border enforcement. The other reviews likely policy initiatives to come out of the new congress. The audio is not yet online, but if you visit http://www.npr.org and go to All Things Considered, you should be able to find it easily.

January 4, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Stan Lock

David, Thanks for your research, analysis, and recommendations. Stan

January 4, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Kevin Gilmore

David,

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns and more. This helps a lot. I know that God is in control so I don’t usually get all that worked up about such matters but after watching that video I couldn’t help but be consumed somewhat by a feeling of doom. We’ve got about 15 trillion reasons already for feeling that way without the need for more.

Kevin

January 4, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Tim Larson

Mr. Beck WANTS us to have a feeling of doom because then we shall be willing to embrace his answer to way-laying these fears — stop the riff-raff from getting into the US.

The US debt is high — but, in my opinion, fear isn’t the best way to approach that problem either.

January 4, 2011 at 8:17 pm

Kathy McDougall

I have so many thoughts on this subject but most of them have already been said. I don’t see any good coming from bringing them up again. Instead, I would like to ask a question.

Are there any countries where their policies on immigration are working well? Hous mentioned Sweden but I do not think his illustration was based on immigration policies but on the mores of the people.

January 4, 2011 at 10:43 pm

David Housholder

Kathy, you rock. And your mind need to push these big gears more often. Also, you write well.

January 5, 2011 at 7:05 am

Jason kramme

Actually, Sweden just got tighter on immigration officially. Most people there are OK with other Swedes roving around in the summer. However, preferences are much different when it is an immigrant…

I think that this conversation, so long as it is set in economic terms, will be unfruitful theologically. Take your “big question” for example. Should a Christian understanding of personhood ever talk about people as assets and liabilities? No. While I think that there needs to be dialogue between theology and economics in order for us to do practical theology, we should not forget that our commitment to people as image bearers of God comes before our relationship to them economically.

January 5, 2011 at 7:46 am

David Housholder

Image bearers of God? Cool. Check the “asset” box.

January 5, 2011 at 8:33 am

Jason kramme

I think that I would check the asset box if I were a human resources director talking about how much value an employee adds or doesn’t add to my company. In that context, talking about people with language like capital, resources, asset, and liability makes sense. In the context of a theological conversation, I would choose words that are worthy of the significance of what they refer to. Until we do that, this whole debate will stay stuck right where it is now.

January 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Mrs. Hume

“That aside, a golf course is like a farm. A large piece of land for a particular value-added purpose agreed upon by the community and its rules on private and public property. Some golf courses are public, others private. Fine. The community agrees that this land is for golf.”

A country is a large piece of land for a particular value-added purpose agreed upon by the international community.

For the bazillionth time, no one is against legal immigration. We oppose open borders because of the criminals who come in and abuse the population.

It is not a scriptural position to say that abusive governments can just dump their unemployed folks on their neighbors and ignore the laws of the other countries.

Criticize the atrocious abusive government in Mexico, four crying out loud.

Mexico has the greatest wealth disparity on the planet. Home to both the worlds richest man and deplorable poverty amid great wealth.

Mexico is the problem, not its charitable and welcoming northern neighbors.

January 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Stan Lock

Let’s not forget that we built our country on the backs of slaves and the genocide of much of the indigenous population. To consider ourselves “charitable” is quite a stretch.

January 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Most people there are OK with other Swedes roving around in the summer. However, preferences are much different when it is an immigrant…”

Well, immigrants to Sweden commit murder at ten times the rate of native Swedes. So the Swedes are just being rational dontcha think?

Camping on the back 40 is fine, but come up and rape my daughter? No thanks.

It isn’t xenophobia to just tell the truth about how immigrants abuse the citizens of the nations they move to.

January 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Mrs. Hume

“I don’t believe in gated communities.”

It is good that you don’t live in South Africa.
You likely wouldn’t be writing this blog, rather likely dead.

Sports writers covering the World Cup were stunned when they were told by hotel staff not to go out on the streets at all, ever.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/06/30/dont-need-no-starbucks/

It is so easy to live in a country that brave men died to keep safe and free and sit back and act like it all just happens by magic. It doesn’t.

It took 2000 years and commitment and sacrifice to get here. What about our children? Are we to take the society so many toiled to build and just uncritically allow anyone to come in turn it into the failed state that those folks come from? Pretty unconscionable.

You know, Rome didn’t fall in a day.

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2683&date=20051214

Violent immigrants and trusting natives, not exactly a recipe for peace and love.

January 9, 2011 at 11:56 am

David Housholder

The gates in South Africa, where I have many dear friends, do not solve the problem. Take the gates down, and South Africa will be force to work on the real problems–the fact that it is a violent society. Walls just accumulate problems, like a magnet.

January 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Let’s not forget that we built our country on the backs of slaves”

Not we. Corrupt elites. The same elites that oppressed everyone else they could in sweatshops and factories. The same elites who want illegal immigrants to exploit for profit. The same elites sitting in gated communities calling all of us racists and xenophobes, while we pay taxes to educate illegals and pay for their health care while our kids sit next to immigrants in public schools and theirs are in private schools. Yeah, those elites.

“and the genocide of much of the indigenous population.”

True, but there was a tiny indigenous population, and disease was one of the main reasons they died.

“To consider ourselves “charitable” is quite a stretch.”

Not compared to every other society ever, including corrupt despotic Mexico. Where is Mexican compassion for Mexicans? They have tons of resources. Why such poor stewardship and statesmanship?

January 9, 2011 at 12:05 pm

David Housholder

America has two “original sins”:

-Chattel Slavery of 1/5 of its 1860 population
-Ethnic Cleansing against the American Indians

No holder of any american citizenship can totally wash his or her hands of this, even current Indians and Blacks. No that we have to carry around any strange bourgeois phony guilt, but yes, we need to acknowledge our dark side as a country.

I think it makes you a better patriot when you own up to your “stuff.”

If you live on land that was taken illegally from the Indians, then you share in benefiting from the ethnic cleansing. It would be silly to try to “give it back,” but simply owning our role in it is a good thing.

And yes, black slave labor created much of the cultivated prosperity of the US. Even the North benefited from this. You are wearing cotton right now that was originally tilled by slave hands.

And today’s Indians and Blacks don’t get off Scott free. Most all of us are of mixed blood and mixed motives. I have a trickle of Indian blood, but what does that even mean?

If you benefit from America, you share in the dark side of our story. If you claim any part of our national story, and it is indeed glorious, you have to claim the “nasty chapters” of the story too.

That being said, I’m still a to-the-death patriot.

January 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm

Mrs. Hume

“All property use is by definition limited. The question is, where are the limits? I am pleading for liberalization before the whole country turns into a gated community with “no trespassing” signs.”

What you are pleading for, open borders, will lead to more gated communities with “no trespassing” signs, not fewer.

Either you keep out criminals at the national border, or you keep them out at your fence, or you keep them out at your door. You seem to think that the crime from illegal immigration is a fantasy that folks can wish away, but they can’t. High trust countries like Sweden are anomalies. You may see them as ideal, and hey, I can sympathize. When more than some x % of the population are truly dangerous, it just doesn’t work. So, people lock their doors, build fences, and patrol borders. I wish your open free for all could work everywhere. I really mean that, but there is just to much… sin… in the world. Sorry.

January 9, 2011 at 10:25 am

Tim Larson

So if I follow you right, Mrs. Hume, we should all accept the fact that we Americans are less sinful than people in the rest of the world — or at least people south of the border.

And if we are smart, we Americans shouldn’t allow worse sinners (i.e. a large percentage of the people born and raised in Central and South America) to force the sum total of sin taking place in America to increase if we relax immigration laws. That would only increase fear and crime. Trusting immigrants from south of the border to enter the US freely and to behave themselves would be naive. Right?

January 9, 2011 at 12:06 pm

David Housholder

As usual, good points, and point taken.

January 9, 2011 at 12:35 pm

David Beriss

Hmm. Mrs. Hume seems to have some strong ideas about immigration, but, I am afraid, is a little weak on facts. However, I am glad to help out in this area.

1) Assertion: “immigrants to Sweden commit murder at ten times the rate of native Swedes.” This is impressive, given that no such statistic exists on the web site of the Swedish agency charged with national crime statistics, at least none that I can find. I am sure Mrs. Hume will be able to show her reliable source, but while we wait, let me point out that the Swedish studies on the aforementioned site (www.bra.se), show immigrants committing roughly 2.5 crimes for every crime committed by a native. This is complicated by how one defines immigrants (born abroad, child of those born abroad, one or two parents born abroad, etc.). People born outside of Sweden are 4 times more likely to be “registered” for use of criminal “lethal violence” than others. By the way, it is important to keep hyperbole at bay here. As the report notes: “The vast majority of immigrants are not registered in connection with crime.”

There is much more of interest in the report. There is an English summary here: http://bit.ly/eJyqZD, which is what I have been citing.

2) Mrs. Hume protests “the criminals who come in and abuse the population” in the United States. Certainly, nobody wants such people, including among our native born population. After all, we have the highest incarceration rate in the world (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html), so no one can accuse us of being soft on crime. Still, has rising immigration caused a rise in crime rates? According to the FBI, crime rates overall in the U.S. are the lowest they have been since 1973 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/13/violent-property-crimes-down-despite-economy/). Of course, that is all crime tracked by the FBI, committed by anyone. So are immigrants on their own little crime spree that might be overshadowed by our overall national law-abiding behavior? Apparently not, as both statistics and studies demonstrate that even in states with high illegal immigration rates (like Arizona) crime rates have been falling (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/unfounded-fear-of-immigrant-crime-grips-arizona/).

3) David H. makes a good point about gated communities. Interestingly, they are not only not particularly safer (in the U.S., South Africa, or Latin America), they clearly do not contribute to resolving social issues. Here is a book that I found very useful on this topic and that I have used in my own research and teaching: Low, Setha. 2003. Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. Routledge. There is a great deal of good recent research on gated communities and I would be happy to recommend more if anyone is interested.

I’ll leave addressing Mrs. Hume’s odd interpretation of American history to someone else (or maybe for later), but it is worth noting that the exploited folks in sweatshops have always been immigrants. Back in the Progressive era, those immigrants were able to form unions, work for 8 hour days, child labor laws, safer work places, etc. and they were also the folks that died in disasters like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Immigrants built America. They still do.

January 9, 2011 at 2:21 pm

David Housholder

“Immigrants build America. They still do”

Potent sound bite, DB.

The urban cores of our cities hit an all time low point in the 70′s. Crumbling. We let immigrants into those areas and there has been a remarkable transformation.

Immigrants work hard. They have to.

January 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Mrs. Hume

“If you benefit from America, you share in the dark side of our story. If you claim any part of our national story, and it is indeed glorious, you have to claim the “nasty chapters” of the story too.”

No, I don’t. I am not responsible for anyone else’s actions. My guilt for their behavior is zero. I embrace that freedom from guilt. I also feel the responsibility to preserve and protect what I have inherited: “for ourselves and our posterity”

Notice to there no reference to non-citizens there.

“So if I follow you right, Mrs. Hume, we should all accept the fact that we Americans are less sinful than people in the rest of the world — or at least people south of the border.”

How very disingenuous. Everyone is a sinner. Not everyone is a criminal. Welcoming criminals to abuse us and our children is irresponsible and a dereliction of our duty to our children. Open borders means criminals can just walk right in.

Why do you think it will be so great to have tons of violent people here?

Where is the benefit in that?

Why destroy the USA? How does that help anyone?

January 9, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Tim Larson

Mrs. Hume, I’m just aiming to restate what you are saying and/or implying more clearly.

Let me try again: Your point is that immigrants who cross the US border WITHOUT proper documentation are CRIMINALS who will, and do, abuse us (you might need to define “us” a bit better) and our children. And immigrants from Central and South America will behave in a criminal manor even if our immigration laws were relaxed to allowed them in legally because they are inherently more violent and immoral than native Americans. They are not as civilized as Americans are. If we opened the borders, we Americans would be forced to protect ourselves from them by building more gated communities and increasing our police forces. We would not be able to walk the streets freely. So, allowing labor to freely cross the border is naive. It’s a nice idea but the reality is that freely migrating immigrants will take advantage of us. Is that what you are saying?

The only reason I used the world “sinners” to describe foreign immigrants in my summery is because you did…. “I wish your open free for all could work everywhere. I really mean that, but there is just to much… sin… in the world. Sorry.” This statement is confusing to me. I know you are saying that David’s immigration ideas are impractical — but by bringing in the theological dimension — are you implying we Americans would think and act the same if our circumstances were reversed because “we are all sinners”? Or are you saying that vast majority of Americans are simply better and more moral than south of the border foreigners as a group?

Another point I think you make is that immigrants are a drag on American wealth and income by forcing US citizens to support them through higher taxation. So the up-shot is that immigrants make Americans poorer because they don’t work or pay taxes.

Am I hearing you right?

January 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Take the gates down, and South Africa will be force to work on the real problems–the fact that it is a violent society.”

It is violent because it is full of violent people. Take down the walls, and the violent people will kill the peaceful people. Does that solve the problem?

January 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Immigrants build America. They still do”

How disingenuous. No one is against immigration. We welcome immigrants.

The problem is the criminals who come in illegally.

Do you know the difference between legal and illegal?

January 9, 2011 at 2:36 pm

David Housholder

Truth is, we’ve made it almost impossible for non-criminals to enter legally. Believe me, here in the OC, in my church, famlies are ripped apart by the rules. A teen in our youth group’s father just got deported back to Korea. He has done nothing criminal. He just wants to work here. She may not see him for years. I won’t even start with the Mexican situation.

My wife carries a green card after going through immigration in Seattle. I’m ashamed to say that they saw her (that she was white) at the back of the line in Seattle in a HUGE waiting hall. They brought her to the front of the line. Blatant racism. We didn’t have time to wait for days, so walked by the hundreds of people. I still remember their eyes looking at us.

January 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm

David Beriss

“Do you know the difference between legal and illegal?”

I am really glad you asked that. Of course I do. But I also think it is important to keep things in perspective. Someone who crosses the border illegally but is otherwise a good law-abiding worker is not exactly the kind of dangerous person you seem to be worried about. As I already noted, we incarcerate more people than any other country on earth. In fact, we put people in prison for ridiculous things, as this article from the Economist describes: http://www.economist.com/node/16640389. I think we have lost perspective on what really matters.

One other thing: you seem to think that people in South Africa are naturally violent. As you write, South Africa “is violent because it is full of violent people.” If you have some real evidence that the people of South Africa are naturally violent, please provide it. Otherwise you are just promoting ignorant prejudice.

January 9, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Mrs. Hume

South Africa’s crime rate is sky high. I think they have the highest murder rate in the world. This is common knowledge. Crime doesn’t grow on trees. People commit crimes.

January 9, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Tim Larson

Nine out of ten foreigners visiting South Africa for the purposes of the World Cup say that they would recommend South Africa to friends or family as a holiday destination, according to African Response’s World Cup Visitor Survey.
The survey included 722 tourists, interviewed in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria and investigated perceptions of the various elements of the South African experience, including roads, accommodation, stadia, policing and safety, amongst others.

“Post World Cup press has been very positive about the success of the tournament and its implications for tourism and foreign investment. It is very pleasing to see our survey confirming this view,” states Beatrice Kubheka, Managing Director of African Response. “African Response has been tracking the perceptions of readiness leading up to the 2010 World Cup since 2006 and witnessed doubt slowly becoming confidence the closer we got. But having 92% of visitors saying that they would recommend South Africa as a destination is more than we bargained for and is great news for our future.”

Those whose stay lasted between a week and two had a slightly higher tendency to recommend SA – at 94%. However, propensity to recommend SA to friends or family was as high as 92% amongst those tourists who were staying in the country for over a month.

http://www.truecrimexpo.co.za

January 9, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Mrs. Hume

Hey, have you bought anything “made in China” lately? If you have then you have “benefitted” from slave labor and repression and forced abortion and tons of other ills. I am not talking about what someone else did for some trickle down effect. I am talking about you, today, choosing products produced in a county well known for abusing its people. Certainly you are more responsible for your own actions than you are for those of folks a hundred years ago.

When you go for the tenuous, “benefitted from evil actions of someone else, somewhere else and totally beyond your control” then you are connected to everyone on the planet who has ever lived. Reasonable? Uh… no.

January 9, 2011 at 3:08 pm

David Beriss

One other thing: earlier you complained about “elites” who exploited immigrants and others in order to reap profits and live comfortable lives at everyone else’s expense. Too true! For instance, did you know that lobbyists for the private prison industry were largely behind the effort to get Arizona’s recent illegal immigration law passed? Yup, so they could fill up their prisons and make a ton of money. Darn elites, hoodwinkng even folks like Mrs. Hume into doing their bidding! See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741.

January 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Kevin Gilmore

Mrs. Hume…a question for you. If you were born into sever poverty in Mexico and you had the tempting riches of America just a few illegal steps away would you take them?

January 9, 2011 at 3:30 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Mrs. Hume…a question for you. If you were born into sever poverty in Mexico and you had the tempting riches of America just a few illegal steps away would you take them?”

Right back at you. Why is it I am the only person on this thread to criticize Mexico for its dereliction of civic duty to its citizens? Why is it Americans can’t bring themselves to lay blame squarely where it belongs? with the very rich Mexicans! How is it we who are good neighbors to Mexico are expected to fix the problems of the poor in Mexico? It is bizarre. The upper classes in Mexico aren’t helpless children who can’t fix their problems. They are extremely rich. They are abusive and callous to the needs of their people. Why can no one say this? The international community should castigate and sanction countries like Mexico and China. Or is the answer for all the poor of the world to move to the USA?

January 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Kevin Gilmore

I have no disagreement with what you’ve just stated but that still doesn’t answer my question.

January 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm

Mrs. Hume

It is a foolish question. I am not the standard. Nor am I dictator such that my will overrules the will of the majority of voting citizens.

Do you understand “consent of the governed” ?

If the American people want immigrants screened and are willing to pay to keep criminals out, then who are you to advocate for non-citizens at the expense of the safety of citizens depending on their government to defend them?

January 9, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Mrs. Hume

You also have exactly zero criticism for those who are actually abusing poor Mexicans. I guess its okay with you then? Just can’t bring yourself to criticize them can you? Why is that? Why is it someone in the USA should feel guilty about slavery of Africans and therefore support borders open to any criminal who wants to come because rich Mexicans don’t want to care for their own poor? What the ..? But still no criticism of the Mexicans who are actually abusing their own people. No, no. It is my fault.

January 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Kevin Gilmore

I stated that I have no disagreement with what you said wrt the Mexican government. I agree…there is plenty of corruption there and turning a blind-eye by the wealthy to those impoverished among them.

Yes, I understand where you’re coming from…you’ve got yours and those born into a life of poverty will just have to accept it and endure however best they can. And I can only assume (since you keep evading the question) that had it been you born into a life of poverty that there’s no way you would ever consider crossing the border into the land of Oz because it just wouldn’t be right and also because people might be afraid that you would break into their homes and hurt their families. Am I understanding you?

January 9, 2011 at 4:27 pm

Mrs. Hume

“I stated that I have no disagreement with what you said wrt the Mexican government. I agree…there is plenty of corruption there and turning a blind-eye by the wealthy to those impoverished among them.”

So, isn’t it reasonable for the international community to criticize, sanction, etc? Isn’t that really the problem? Shouldn’t the rest of us expect and demand they fix their own problems since they have the resources to do so?

“Yes, I understand where you’re coming from…you’ve got yours and those born into a life of poverty will just have to accept it and endure however best they can.”

Not at all. I would love to see the front pages and editorial pages covered with stories and commentary exposing the brutality and inhumanity of Mexicans towards their own folks. Don’t you wonder why we don’t see that? It is like we are so parochial, self absorbed, and arrogant that we think we are the saviors of the world.

“And I can only assume (since you keep evading the question) that had it been you born into a life of poverty that there’s no way you would ever consider crossing the border into the land of Oz because it just wouldn’t be right and also because people might be afraid that you would break into their homes and hurt their families. Am I understanding you?”

Nah, most of those criminally disposed folks would probably rob folks in Mexico except they are rational enough to know that they would be very harshly punished by the Mexican justice system and Americans are easier targets. The reason your question is foolish is that I am not a criminal. So, no, I wouldn’t commit a crime.

January 9, 2011 at 3:38 pm

Mrs. Hume

“As I already noted, we incarcerate more people than any other country on earth.”

Yeah, because they commit crimes and we don’t wish to be victimized.

“In fact, we put people in prison for ridiculous things, as this article from the Economist describes: http://www.economist.com/node/16640389.”

The burden of proof is lower for some crimes, so it is easier to convict for some things than others. However many of the folks locked up, had been or would be doing far worse crimes if they weren’t locked up.

“I think we have lost perspective on what really matters.”

You have.

Public safety is a top priority. Locking up folks is essential to keeping our families safe.

January 9, 2011 at 3:54 pm

Mrs. Hume

“For instance, did you know that lobbyists for the private prison industry were largely behind the effort to get Arizona’s recent illegal immigration law passed? Yup, so they could fill up their prisons and make a ton of money. Darn elites, hoodwinkng even folks like Mrs. Hume into doing their bidding!”

You mean I was brainwashed into valuing the safety of my family? If it weren’t for lobbyists, I would be perfectly content to be victimized by criminals?

January 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Or are you saying that vast majority of Americans are simply better and more moral than south of the border foreigners as a group?”

Mexico’s current crime situation is like crisis level in case you haven’t heard.

However, even if we have high crime, it certainly doesn’t follow that we should import more criminals. Rather, every single immigrant should have his background checked to make sure he has not committed crimes. We should accept zero criminal immigrants.

January 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Truth is, we’ve made it almost impossible for non-criminals to enter legally.”

That is just not true. We take huge numbers of legal immigrants every year.

“Believe me, here in the OC, in my church, famlies are ripped apart by the rules. A teen in our youth group’s father just got deported back to Korea. He has done nothing criminal. He just wants to work here. She may not see him for years.”

Why can’t all of them just live in Korea? It is not like living in Korea is some fate worse than death. Millions of folks live happily in Korea. It is nice. If they aren’t citizens, they have no right to be here. Where does the idea come from that we have the right to go to other people’s countries and demand their citizens accept us?

January 9, 2011 at 4:37 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Those whose stay lasted between a week and two had a slightly higher tendency to recommend SA – at 94%. However, propensity to recommend SA to friends or family was as high as 92% amongst those tourists who were staying in the country for over a month.”

So what? Rich foreigners had fun there in highly secured resorts.

The rich are fine everywhere.

January 9, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Tim Larson

I don’t think bashing “rich” tourists helps your argument. I highly doubt World Cup fans stayed behind walls in secured resorts for their entire stay. If they did, I can’t imagine they had much fun. The games were played across the country. People had to travel to get to them. And there were an enormous number of fans. Things aren’t that bad in SA.

Anyway, your point is that letting people from south-of-the-boarder will turn America into South Africa — because you just can’t trust poor people of color. They are violent.

January 10, 2011 at 7:26 am

Luke Allison

Hous,

Viewing Christianity’s success in the past as an underground movement and its relative success as Empire, I wonder if the blueprint for Christian success on issues like this lies with our ability to combat what the “earthly powr’s” construct? As soon as we become the earthly pow’rs ourselves, things start getting muddled. This seems to be the way of things in the Old Testament: true faith was incubated by exile and oppression, while powerful privilege led to temple-building and corruption.

Historically speaking, Christianity works best when it’s undermining power, not exercising it.

The welfare state is demeaning and destructive, in that it undermines one of our primary roles as fallen “assets” made in Gods image: we’re supposed to work. God works. He rests, but He also works. Work is part of Creation order. The fact that work hurts and beats people down is part of the Fall, but the satisfaction and joy that can come from a good day’s labor is distinctly God-ordained.

How do we undermine the welfare state? Through loving people enough to show them a God-centered theology of work. Not “work as god” like the “protestant work ethic” has taught us, or “work as necessary means to wealth” like consumer culture has taught us, but “work as act of worship”.

The problem as I can see it is that many Christians view the world through an inherited lens of “protestant work ethic”, and the thought that someone could get something for free while they work their tails off for the same thing sticks in their collective craw.

Only when we shed the viewpoint that this is God’s perspective (God helps those who helps themselves isn’t in the Bible, or taught by the Bible) will we be able to see clearly about this issue. As long as we view our investments and our hard work as capital towards rights and freedoms (with God’s stamp of approval), we’ll see outsiders and illegals as threats and enemies.

To what extent do the laws of the land influence our actions and thoughts, particularly if they conflict with God’s law? Maybe the takeaway here is that we’re really confused about how Christians are supposed to interact with governmental authorities.
Perhaps it’s time for a reassertment of the three primary “two-kingdom” views? Here’s another case where Luther is incredibly helpful.

January 10, 2011 at 9:49 am

Tim Larson

The reason our gov’t provides welfare is so that people who cannot work for one reason or another do not suffer or die because those of who are better off are too callus to help them.

When our society helps vulnerable people, we are doing God’s will — even if society is divided over whether to give help or not. This is the message of the prophets. Martin Luther gives this responsibility to government. And Jesus calls us to love our neighbor.

Some argue that welfare is not loving — but if you are unemployed with no adequate work to be found, no access to health care, or disabled mentally or physically — welfare is a God-send — even though it carries a negative stereo-type.

The issue here is NOT getting something for nothing. For Christians, it’s love of neighbor as Jesus commands us to love according to our ability. It’s service.

January 10, 2011 at 10:05 am

Luke Allison

“The issue here is NOT getting something for nothing. For Christians, it’s love of neighbor as Jesus commands us to love according to our ability. It’s service.”

Absolutely. I was arguing that the issue for many Christians seems to be that people are getting away with obtaining something for nothing. I’m not saying that this SHOULD be the issue, merely that it is.

Here’s a thought, though: Is welfare inherently “loving”, if we view work as something God created with our joy and flourishing in mind?
The problem that many people have with the welfare program is not that it helps people out, but that it penalizes and discourages work. Welfare doesn’t fit into a biblical worldview any more than walls against illegals do.

The message of the prophets was definitely that proper worship of God necessarily entails right treatment of others. No disagreement there, just so long as the second doesn’t obscure the first, as it so often does. I for one don’t buy the scholarly assertion that “love God” and “love others” are one in the same. But, to each his own.

I’ve argued in other places that Jesus’ commands to take care of the poor (and Paul’s as well) were focused primarily on the community of believers, and then all people after that. How that translates into secular government programs is beyond me.

The whole point of service is that it’s a person to person, soul to soul demonstration of Christ’s life and death. A faceless entity creating dependence upon itself with handouts is hardly that.

I would recommend the book “When Helping Hurts” by Steve Corbett. and “Generous Justice” by Timothy Keller for an interesting perspective that stays within Biblical bounds.

January 10, 2011 at 11:22 am

Mrs. Hume

“Anyway, your point is that letting people from south-of-the-boarder will turn America into South Africa — because you just can’t trust poor people of color. They are violent.”

In 2000 there were the following incarcerated males in the US:

white 663,700
black 791,600
hispanic 290,900

In 2009 there were the following incarcerated males in the US:

white 693,800
black 841,000
hispanic 442,000

My argument is that had we followed immigration laws and screened out criminals, then hispanic crime would not have risen 50%, just as black and white only rose slightly.

We welcome immigrants. We need to keep out criminals.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim09st.pdf

table 16

January 10, 2011 at 11:25 am

Mrs. Hume

“Anyway, your point is that letting people from south-of-the-boarder will turn America into South Africa — because you just can’t trust poor people of color. They are violent.”

You know you are dishonest when you consistently reformulate other people’s arguments into straw man arguments because you don’t want to engage the actual statements people make.

We welcome immigrants. We need to keep out criminals.

January 10, 2011 at 12:13 pm

Tim Larson

After reading all your posts — your last two statements are not reflective of your point of view. And class and race are part of your definition of “criminal” IMHO. I’m done debating you. Have a nice life Mrs. Hume.

January 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Mrs. Hume

So you concede, having no argument.

January 10, 2011 at 11:50 am

Tim Larson

“The problem that many people have with the welfare program is not that it helps people out, but that it penalizes and discourages work. ”

I completely and utter disagree with this statement. Where in the world did you develop this opinion? It’s very simplistic to assume that welfare recipients are avoiding work. In Detroit the unemployment rate is 12%. Believe me, it’s difficult and degrading to qualify for welfare assistance — partly because poor people are blamed for being poor. If the only way for you can to get by for the moment is to accept a hand out — you would swallow your pride and receive it too.

I work with poor people. Some of them were once wealthy — but now have no income and in addition suffer from poor health. Some have always been poor. A lot of them have mental illnesses or physical handicaps. To qualify for welfare these days is really difficult.

Two points:

1 ) Poverty is a problem too large for individuals to solve on their own. You can’t begin to deal with the problems caused by the poor economy in Detroit. There has to be coordination in order to serve the volume of people that need help. Private charity doesn’t have the resources to make much of a dent to meet the need of disadvantaged people in a poor economy — although everything helps. Government social programs are necessary to meet them.

2) The only time government programs harm the poor is when they blame them for the help they need, or use them to justify the poor help they provide when they are in need of reform.

Do you know anyone who has received or receives welfare?

There certainly are thing we ought not do if we love others. (Read the 10 commandments). I’m not sure that helping others via the government is something God would restrict. How could true help not be good for them? Help by definition is good. There are no bounds with regard to creatively and responsibly extending mercy and grace to those who are in need.

I know many people into libertarianism who sing the praises of individual responsibility. But I suspect that their libertarian ideas also tend to absolve both themselves — and society — from being responsible for our neighbor’s welfare.

January 10, 2011 at 3:16 pm

Mrs. Hume

“You can’t begin to deal with the problems caused by the poor economy in Detroit.”

Actually many can and do. They leave. They move 10, 100, 1000 miles away.

“Do you know anyone who has received or receives welfare?”

Yes, a refugee who spoke no English, came with nothing but the clothes on her back and got benefits just under a year. Ever after for the past 15 years she has worked and is quite prosperous. A very good friend of mine.

Just because welfare is a good idea in principle doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that it does promote dysfunction for some and is abused by others. Drug testing is used by employers. Maybe it should also be a condition for getting welfare too. This would actually benefit folks with chemical dependency because they could be more quickly identified and offered treatment.

January 10, 2011 at 12:36 pm

Luke Allison

“I completely and utter disagree with this statement. Where in the world did you develop this opinion? It’s very simplistic to assume that welfare recipients are avoiding work.”

Tim, you need to stop mischaracterizing the words of people based on what you think they’re PROBABLY saying. That’s not fair to the people who are trying to articulate something beyond “You’re stupid and wrong!” Read what I actually said. I’m not saying that people who acquire welfare are avoiding work. I’m saying that the government penalizes them for working while creating a cycle of dependence on their handouts.

You can say that “there are no bounds with regard to creatively and responsibly extending mercy and grace to those who are in need”, and I agree with you. I’m just arguing that welfare doesn’t necessarily qualify in any of these categories.

I know many people on welfare, because I too work with poor people. In almost every instance, the people I deal with are unwed single mothers with multiple children, not mentally ill or disabled.

One of my pet peeves about American Christianity is that people tend to equate their favorite American system with what Christ would be doing if He were here.

A de facto stance that I’ve heard from many poverty alleviation activists is “Avoid paternalism: don’t do anything for anyone that they can do for themselves.” This includes resource paternalism, spiritual paternalism, knowledge paternalism, labor paternalism, and managerial paternalism.

This has to do with a system of “asset mapping” that many people who work in impoverished communities have adopted. Find who’s good at what and encourage it within the confines of the community. What are your assets? Who could be helping and they don’t even know they can?

The basic assumption you’re making is that every person who receives welfare is better off because of it. I’m telling you that it’s not the case, because welfare is dehumanizing and creates unhealthy dependence.

Let me ask you one question: Do you believe that ANY disparity in resources or wealth should be considered “injustice”? How you answer that question will help me to see your point of view more clearly.

January 10, 2011 at 1:10 pm

Jay Egenes

Luke,

I’m not going to try to answer any questions for Tim. But I’d be interested to know what percentage of welfare recipients become part of a permanent underclass. I saw some statistics several years ago now that suggested it was something in the neighborhood of 20%. Meaning that for about 80% of people on government assistance, that assistance is a short term solution to a short term problem.
I think the typical recovery period was about two years.
I wonder if those numbers have changed.
Not counting people who qualify for disability payments for one reason or another, what percentage of recipients of government assistance stay on assistance for more than, say, 3 years? Does anybody here know?

January 10, 2011 at 7:38 pm

Tim Larson

Sorry Luke if I was more emotional about the point I was making that appropriate. This is serious stuff in my neck of the woods — and it gets me too worked-up sometimes.

Jay comments were much more measured — so thank you Jay.

You are right on when you say that I believe the vast majority of people who receive Welfare benefits right now (including children) are better off for it — at least in Michigan. They are better off, because there is literally nowhere else for them to turn in the current economic climate. When the economy is good, there really isn’t an excuse for someone who is sound of body and mind to find work. However, in my part of the country, the current economic recession has created the worst job market since the Great Depression. Many, many people have been laid-off — not because they were lazy or poor workers, but because the number of jobs available has significantly decreased. Many middle class people have lost their homes — and are truly poor for the first time in their lives. Welfare, along with unemployment benefits, has helped the great majority of these people get by until they can either move to a part of the country where jobs are more plentiful, or the local economy rebounds. It does seem at the moment that things are getting better around here.

I believe that the depth of the current recession has created a need for people like you and I to help. It’s in our interests to help — if you need a reason — because, in truth, most Americans today are one lost paycheck away from being without food to eat, a home to live in, or in danger of losing their means of transportation because of the current economy and even natural disasters. This includes me and my family. When bad things happen to good people, government welfare programs are available at every level to help any US citizen until times get better. Welfare eligibility is open to every US citizens because it is a right given to all of us.

I can’t directly and personally help my neighbors who lost all their income after the real estate bubble burst and they lost their jobs, but I know that some of my taxes do go to support them. I’m OK with that.

Given current Welfare programs, I cannot agree with the notion that welfare creates dependence and discourages work — whoever asserts it (as you say many do). Government welfare is more than assistance to unwed mothers with a lot of children. Today it is a collection of different programs that includes unemployment insurance, health insurance, old age pensions, accident insurance, and support for families with dependent children. The rules limit welfare benefits to adults for more than 2 years — although it is possible to have benefits renewed.

But if it were true that Welfare were inherently dehumanizing and actually creates unhealthy dependence among most recipients — as you do strongly believe — I would point out that it’s wouldn’t be the fault of those who really need it. It’s the fault of the government agencies that administer welfare — and by extension, political leaders who do what they can to cripple it. If the Welfare system isn’t doing what it’s meant to do — provide protection — we need to reform it, not eliminate it.

I”M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS YOUR VIEW… but in my own experience, the vast majority of those who oppose Welfare programs blame those who utilize the programs for their perceived short-comings.

Can Welfare create dependency? Yes…. especially when it’s in the interests of a government institution to do so. Countering that tendency was the purpose of the reforms that took place in 1996 — famously dubbed “Welfare to Work”. The whole point of this reform was to address government penalties for working while enrolled in the program and for discouraging a cycle of dependence on their “handouts.” (A less inflammatory word to use might be “benefits” or “help” or “assistance”).

Since 1996, Welfare is no longer a Federal program, but is administrated by individual states. This might explain why I experience Welfare differently than you do where you live. Michigan, for example, requires a month in a job search program before benefits can begin. This is pretty tough to do if you have an immediate need. (You aren’t from Michigan are you?)

Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for.

The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.

For more info: http://www.welfareinfo.org
http://www.answers.com/topic/welfare-system

Luke, I’m not an ideological socialist. I really don’t have a problem with those who seek and succeed in attaining the American Dream of become independently wealthy. People can make all the money they want — as long as they make it in a legal, moral, and responsible manor. And I would also hope that whatever it is that creates their wealth is beneficial to society as a whole.

However, I also believe that government’s job is to look after the common good. Ignoring members of society who are experiencing financial crisis or are in need of temporary assistance is socially unjust and not in harmony with Biblical teaching or the Spirit of Love in my humble opinion. Since government is the only institution in our country with the purpose and resources to adequately tackle this task, as a Christian man I support government Welfare assistance as a means for sharing God’s mercy and grace. It’s practical, not paternal.

You have every right to disagree…. That’s the freedom of a Christian.

January 11, 2011 at 6:37 am

Luke Allison

Tim,
Well spoken brother! I’m from Minneapolis, so things are different.

Just so you know, the whole point in me bringing up welfare is for the exact reason that you spoke of: the people behind the programs are to blame, not the people being helped by the programs. Studies would show that many people who receive welfare find it demeaning and embarrassing. I’m definitely not one of the people on this board whose solution for everything is “get a job”. Obviously there are those who abuse the system (my wife runs applications for section 8 housing…lots of fanciful stories out there), but I see that as a natural part of living in a world in which the “four key relationships”, (to God, to self, to others, and to the creation around you) have been fractured.
Christians potentially have the resources to begin chipping away at the “permanent underclass”, and to introduce holistic relief, recovery, and rehabilitation to blighted communities. There’s a LOT of money and a lot of talented people who could be working creatively at this kind of task. The problem is that so many Christians (purportedly) see the underclass as an enemy to be ignored and abandoned, not as a fellow image-bearer full of untapped resources and abilities that God has put inside of them.
I’m not saying that everyone’s a victim, but let’s face it, some people are more victimized than others. The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” approach that so many American Christians take towards life is as foreign to the Bible as ray guns. The whole point of the Gospel is that you don’t have any bootstraps to pull yourself up by. So we need to approach all people in this same manner.

This is not very well written, but here’s a site which helps articulate an example of what I’m talking about: http://chalmers.org/ida_pgm/ida_more.php

January 10, 2011 at 1:47 pm

Luke Allison

Nope, I don’t know. A good question, and worth talking about.

January 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Elizabeth of Hungary

David,

I’ve never really quite “gotten” Luther’s Two Kingdoms thing, but I think this is one of those issues that has to engage that theology…whatever it is..

In general, I agree with you. (I DEFINITELY agree with you about overpopulation being a myth. Have babies, people, have lots of babies!)

I’m totally sold on “care for the orphan/widow,” “remember that you were once sojourners,” etc…I’m glad we have a country that people want to come to, and that can serve as a refuge for those who are being oppressed/abused in other countries, or who are locked into an economic system in their own country that prevents them from providing for their families.

But I also think that nation-states have a right – an obligation? – to regulate immigration and provide for it to happen in an orderly fashion. Aside from extreme, urgent asylum-type cases, I don’t see how it’s somehow unjust or unChristian for the government to have some sort of idea of who you are, why you’re coming here, whether you have some kind of major criminal background, etc…

I think it could certainly be argued that our government could do a better job of expediting the immigration process, facilitating integration into society, and then policing things like adherence to tax/social security laws, etc…But I don’t think straight-up open borders is the answer either. By all appearances, Mexico is a totally lawless country right now – how does that situation improve for Mexicans or Americans if we start de facto returning NM, AZ, and half of CA to Mexico?

For the Christian, I wonder what is our duty when we encounter individuals who are in the country illegally? I’m talking about the general here-for-a-better-life types, who risked a lot to get here, have a job, send money home, etc…How do we be supportive of them and their efforts to better their own life and that of their families, while at the same time encouraging them to respect the laws of country that they seemingly want to be a part of?

January 10, 2011 at 4:20 pm

David Housholder

Borders are obsolete.

And impossible to maintain.

Europe got rid of internal borders a half generation ago. Now it’s like driving across US state lines.

The apocalypse was predicted.

Nothing happened.

January 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Mrs. Hume

Mexico is not like a European country. European countries actually take care of their less fortunate people. Mexico does not.

January 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Borders are obsolete.”

“And impossible to maintain.”

History and contemporary experience show that borders can be maintained extremely effectively. Many countries are doing it now.

January 10, 2011 at 7:32 pm

David Housholder

Please hear me, Mrs. Hume. You are one of the most articulate writers on this blog, and HIGHLY valued by us all, even by those who disagree with you. You write better than all of us.

I am writing for the elimination of border control, NOT from a liberal perspective, but from a libertarian/conservative pro-business perspective.

January 10, 2011 at 7:25 pm

David Housholder

I have a very close gay friend who moved to Mexico to get better medical care for HIV. He’s going to make it. Thank God. Because he moved to Mexico.

He knows where I stand on sexuality (very conservative, family oriented). But I want him to live. He had to go to Mexico to get proper health care he could afford.

Ever notice that a lot of Mexicans move to the US? It’s for jobs. Not for health care. Our health care system is a joke.

January 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Luthor Nelson

Dave, two thoughts about what you called America’s original sins. What in the world was original about slavery in America. It was universal and ever present. What was original was our ending it along with other God fearing nations like England. The other is your reference to ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. Read the first chapter in Michael Medved’s book, The Ten Big Lies about America. Lie number 1, “America Was Founded on Genocide Against American.” We have been fed all sorts of lies. Both sides did ugly stuff.

January 10, 2011 at 7:22 pm

David Housholder

Not advocating giving America back to the Indians or paying modern African-Americans damages for their deep-ancestral slavery.

Just saying that owning your “stuff,” especially the bad stuff, makes you a more credible patriot.

The Indians were a stone age people. We had artillery. We took what we wanted and broke most (not all) of our treaties. It’s done. It is what it is. But men “own” their stuff and remain patriots.

I still believe (more strongly than almost anyone else) in American exceptional-ism. We are a most blessed nation and the carrier (despite our past) of some of the highest ideals espoused by humankind. We have the keys to the world’s future (a constitution that works, human rights, free enterprise, no nobility, all men are created equal, etc. etc.).

We can most embrace these “stellar” qualities if we are honest about our national sins. If we try to soft-pedal and explain away the sins of our ancestors, we lose credibility.

January 10, 2011 at 7:48 pm

Stan Lock

What about the stone age people that we are currently using artillery on?

January 10, 2011 at 7:17 pm

Luthor Nelson

To Tim Larson-promoting the general welfare was never intended to provide specific welfare. They meant government should only promote things that helped everyone in general, not specific people. And promoting is not providing, we have it all backwards. inn 1794 congress thought it a good idea to help some people in need and the request was for $15,000. James Madison said,”I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed money to help the mentally ill and said, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.”
Ben Franklin said, “The more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves and of course became poorer.”
I am all for charity, I give thousands of dollars a year to unwed mothers and girls saved from sexual slavery. But that is private charity that brings healing and hope, not 3 and 4 generations of able bodied welfare queens.

January 10, 2011 at 9:09 pm

Tim Larson

I guess we look at it differently. I’m not a classic libertarian — although I do believe that everyone has unique individual abilities to serve God and others. You would probably expect as much from a Lutheran pastor.

The purpose of government is to provide for the common good. There is enormous president for this in American history and law. Sometimes that means helping specific groups of people in our country who lack the fortune and opportunity of others. It’s an investment — and there are numerous examples of the dividends this investment plays. It’s also compassionate — and I believe is the right thing to do.

I like Theodore Roosevelt’s quote regarding the good society: “This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.”

Your charity is admirable. But a few thousand dollars won’t make much of a difference for the unemployed in Detroit if it’s not part of a much large coordinated effort. Only the government has the institutional purpose and resources to tackle the immediate problems that have resulted from the Great Recession.

The argument that Welfare today mainly creates “three and four generations of welfare queens” is stereotypical at best. I list the changes since 1996 above.

I don’t agree with James Madison, Franklin Pierce or Ben Franklin on this issue. Tax financed help and assistance for those struggling with poverty is not an inherent evil in my humble opinion. Americans and their government have a responsibility to help provide social stability for all of us — and create opportunity for those less fortunate. It’s in everyone’s interest to nurture the potential of those who now live hand to mouth. it’s one of the reasons we have public schools.

And if that isn’t enough, without a social safety net we will create an ever larger and stubbornly permanent underclass in the United States with little chance for social mobility. That’s not exactly the American ideal — or the social ingredients for a peaceful society. History bears this out.

And from a religious perspective, the Bible is clear that the Lord has a special affinity for the most vulnerable in society. The Old Testament prophets proclaim that ignoring poor people, refusing to share our wealth, and instilling laws that create indifference to social inequality will come back to haunt us.

January 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm

Tim Larson

I’m going to take a break for a while folks. Nice talking with you.

David, I hadn’t thought of intentionally opening the city of Detroit to foreign immigration as a matter of strategy and policy. It’s an interesting idea.

My neighborhood is not like the stereotypical Detroit image of urban decay, racial division and tension. Our community is as diverse a community as you will find anywhere in the United States. I like it.

January 11, 2011 at 7:25 am

Luthor Nelson

I understand Tim you are taking a break but for those still reading I disagree with your opening line. “The purpose of government is to provide the common good.” I don’t want the government to provide anything more than the constitution allows them. That is why it is limited to a couple things. You extend it to the common good and there is no end to the “good” things they will come up with and I have to pay for them. We have the government our founders were afraid of.

Our country was better off when charity was in the hands of those who knew how to get people out of it. I am surrounded in Los Angeles by 3rd and 4th generation welfare, it is a reality here.

Find “provide for the common good” in the constitution. Provide means government thinks and my footing the bill never ends. “And of the increase of this government there shall be no end.” Sorry Isaiah.

January 11, 2011 at 7:38 am

David Housholder

Exactly, Luthor. Amendment 10 is my happy place.

January 11, 2011 at 7:44 am

Allen

Yes, let’s bring back the 60′s love fests where the world is Shangri-La. People with no specific ownership in any part of this world will make sure its upkeep continues because people are good at heart.

January 11, 2011 at 7:50 am

David Housholder

People are complex of heart. Not simplistically good or bad.

January 11, 2011 at 7:53 am

Saint Rodney

I believe that the borders of every country should be the wide open. I also believe that if you are an immigrant in a country, you should respect that country and its heritage. If you want to be seen as a positive for america than be a positive for america. Be productive and peaceful, try to learn the language of the land; obtain your citizenship. I believe that these are the core issues.

January 11, 2011 at 8:45 am

David Beriss

I had promised myself that I would not re-post here unless the discussion returned to immigration. But then I wondered: why does this group of people, some thoughtful, some hysterical, some full of fear of the foreign, seem to have taken the discussion of immigration in the direction of crime, welfare, the constitution, the history of U.S. relations with Indians, etc. Hardly any of the writers who focus on those areas have made any explicit connection with immigration issues and the links are far from obvious in many cases.

I don’t have time to get into each of these areas as they relate to immigration. On the welfare issue, you might all want to take a look at this testimony by Michael Fix, of the Migration Policy Institute, on the relationship between welfare and immigration from 2006: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FixTestimony072606.pdf. It will help you sort out whether or not immigrants really do draw very much on public benefits. Essentially, he shows that legal immigrants have relied less and less on public benefits (and much less than citizens) since the 1996 welfare reform, while contributing substantially to the U.S. economy.

I am not sure what was meant by the dust-up regarding “America’s original sin” or how that relates to immigration. Reference was made to the work of Michael Medved as a reliable source on American history. This is disturbing. Medved is a media blow hard, not a scholar. I find it very disturbing that so many people seem uninterested in reading work by actual historians or in placing their ideas in a real historical context. The idea of America’s original sin was invented not to suggest that we are a good or bad nation, but simply to point to the fundamental contradiction between our ideals (“all men are created equal”) and our practices (killing and mistreatment of Indians, enslaving of Africans). We are not by any means the only country to have engaged in those practices, but we are one of a very few for whom the practices contradicted our stated ideals in the 18th and 19th centuries (post-revolution France has a similar set of issues, of course). We have, as a nation, been aware of that contradiction for 2 centuries and have debated, discussed and studied it all along. It saddens me to see people on this list simply dismiss what has been a rich and productive debate and area of scholarship out of hand, as if the work and thoughts of thousands of serious people is mere political correctness. Dismissing our past as insignificant or ignoring our history is no way to be a patriot or to build a country that can live up to its ideals.

But that leaves my original query still unanswered: why are so many issues evoked by an immigration debate? My guess is that Americans feel increasingly insecure about all sorts of things and immigrants provide a convenient scapegoat for feelings of fear and insecurity. I have in mind things like stagnant wages, job insecurity, a problematic housing market, growing inequality, increasingly unaffordable health care, etc. Blaming immigrants for such things has been done in other countries historically, especially in Europe in the 1930s. In fact, the sorts of anti-immigrant laws being put in place little by little in places like Arizona resemble some of the laws put in place in Germany in the 1930s and the rhetoric of fear and loathing used by people resembles the debates in Europe at that time as well. Like the 1930s, the actual sources of our insecurity are not really immigrants, but deeper shifts in the structure of our economy. I hope most of you are able to see past your ideological and theological blinders and take a deep look at the substantial research in these areas. You may be enlightened.

January 11, 2011 at 9:18 am

David Housholder

My guess is that Americans feel increasingly insecure about all sorts of things and immigrants provide a convenient scapegoat for feelings of fear and insecurity.

-D Beriss

This is the neuralgic point, indeed.

January 11, 2011 at 9:23 am

Luthor Nelson

David Beriss, the only reason I bring up welfare is that I am very positive towards an open immigration policy except for all the give aways. My only hesitation is connected to all the American demands on citizens to cover for free all their medical, educational, and food and housing needs. I am fine competing with immigrants for work. We are not biologically replacing ourselves and we need them for growth in labor and paying for our social security. I just have problems with the growing demand on those who have, paying everything for those who have not. I am not “increasingly insecure” because of immigration. I am increasingly insecure because the private sector is increasingly responsible for supporting an ever increasing public sector. Their pay and benefits are growing while ours are shrinking. That can only go so long before it collapses

January 11, 2011 at 9:40 am

David Housholder

Luthor, your non-fear based stance is, unfortunately, the exception and not the rule.

Your view is based on years of huge direct exposure to LA/OC culture (more than almost anyone else I know) at all levels. And faith.

January 11, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Mrs. Hume

“Ever notice that a lot of Mexicans move to the US? It’s for jobs. Not for health care. Our health care system is a joke.”

This is just not true. A huge fraction of all health tech comes from the USA. Every ethnic group in the USA lives longer and makes more money than they do in their places of origin.

We welcome immigrants. We need to keep out criminals.

Open border with a county like Mexico is not a winning idea. European countries had their houses in order before the EU. They now have the problem that non – EU immigrants that get into one country illegally can easily get into any of them due to the open borders. It is not so swell.

January 12, 2011 at 2:00 am

Rev. Naomi King

Nice to see a defense of Articles 13 & 28 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (freedom of movement & return to one’s state; 14- right to a nationality; 28 – international law that supports human rights) through a religious lens. The reasons for undocumented migration are many, but they also pertain to other articles, like 23, 25, 26 & 27 (right to work that supports a reasonable standard of living, adequate standard of living, education, participation in society). In 2008 we celebrated the 60th anniversary of this Declaration of basic human rights, and yet we haven’t made it possible for stateless peoples in the Caribbean (the 3rd largest concentration of stateless people in the world) to apply for documented immigration status, let alone acknowledged or addressed U.S. policy decisions that have made articles 23-27 difficult in many areas of the world. The Bible encourages us to remember that once we were slaves and strangers and treat others with kindness and dignity because of that. Thanks for writing!

July 11, 2011 at 3:49 am

Patti S mith

My property is my property. Where the sidewalk ends is my property. Stay on the sidewalk and walk back and forth in front of my house all day for all I care. But ride your bike across my lawn enough times will leave it ruined, walking across my yard (I suppose I shouldn’t have a fence or wall), will trample my flower beds and my dogs will run rampant through the neighborhoods ruining other people’s flowerbeds. If people want to live in a gated community to feel more secure, they should be able to pay the extra few hundred thousand on their homes to do so. Not too long ago, there was a fatal police shooting just three doors from me. After robbing a liquor store, a man sought to hide on my street, in a neighbors yard and after not dropping his gun, was shot dead. I don’t think this would happen in a gated community, and I don’t think he was a friendly passer-by who just wanted to wander. This is southern California, not Scandanavia….there is crime, gangs, drugs and violence even in our beach city. Fantasy to think otherwise. Although I like your idealism, and glad it works for some countries – socialist as they are, it’s just not realistic until people respect each other and have a stronger code of ethics.

July 11, 2011 at 4:03 am

Patti S mith

Hous: My wife carries a green card after going through immigration in Seattle. I’m ashamed to say that they saw her (that she was white) at the back of the line in Seattle in a HUGE waiting hall. They brought her to the front of the line. Blatant racism. We didn’t have time to wait for days, so walked by the hundreds of people. I still remember their eyes looking at us.

I understand your dilema and didn’t want to wait in line. However, you missed an opportunity to make a “statement” about racism by declining special treatment because you are white. I believe we are given opportunities every day to be salt. Next time, stand even though it is inconvenient!!!

Allemansrätten-The Right to Wander

Like this:

Email Subscription

Engage My Thinking!

Top Posts

Follow me on Facebook

Tags

Recent Posts

Archives

Essay Topics

Follow Me on Twitter

161 comments

Leave a Reply--It's Your Voice We Want to Hear Cancel reply

Recent Tweets

Lutheran Blogroll

Follow “David Housholder Essays”