Mike's Noise

Should Christians Invoke Law and Order Above Peace and Justice?

Recently I entered into an online discussion about several mainline Protestant churches that were offering sanctuary to aliens who had entered the US illegally.  The responses to my post were civil, but centered around a theme common to Protestant fundamentalism:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities..."  Sounds to me like violating the laws of a nation and crossing their borders illegally falls under that.
...

You appear to be confusing compassion for aliens with supporting their illegal activities which are very clearly sinful behavior ... I’m sure God is just thrilled that these “aliens” are sinning over and over again just put themselves first regardless of the cost to their soul or this nation’s sovereignty.
...

As Christians we are to follow man’s laws unless they directly conflict with us being required to deny Christ. This is not even close to that scenario.

Of course I am referring to "law and order" Christianity.  As a child, I was clearly taught that sin included the breaking of civil and criminal laws instituted by our government.  The call to be a law-abiding citizen is basic to the doctrines of Protestant fundamentalism.  And given that one of the major underlying narratives of the Protestant fundamentalist movement is the unique mission and blessing that God has given to the United States of America, it is also one of the primary reasons that Protestant fundamentalists are generally very patriotic.

Oklahoma immigration reform goes into effect today

A last-minute preliminary injunction failed last night.  Here is the story from NewsOK.com:

An 11th hour request for an injunction to block the implementation of HB 1804 was denied by U.S. District Judge James Payneabout 7 p.m. tonight [Wednesday] after a hearing that happened just hours before the law’s Nov. 1 implementation.

“In light of the plaintiffs’ failure to introduce evidence in support of their motion, and in light of plaintiffs’ limited argument in support of their motion, the court cannot conclude the plaintiffs’ right to a preliminary injunction has been clearly and unequivocally established,” Judge Payne wrote.

Payne said the plaintiffs, which included the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Religious Leaders, did not prove the law would cause irrevocable harm, that the harm it would cause outweighed any injuries the injunction would have caused, or that the injunction was in the public’s interest.

The law is considered to be the nation's toughest anti-illegal immigration measure.
_____________________________________________

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has proposed a no-amnesty solution to illegal immigration.  It primarily focuses on enforcing existing laws, specifically punishing employers of illegal immigrants.  I found his conclusion interesting:

Despite what the Democrats may claim, Republicans do not have anything against "people of color"; they're just beholden to "people of cash." The GOP has long been the party of business--before there were Reagan Democrats there were Rockefeller Republicans--and is not about to antagonize this group by taking draconian, though necessary, measures to defend our borders. They'll rail and rave against amnesty for illegal workers. But when it comes to illegal employers, they're willing to let these criminals off scot-free.

This is essentially true.  A major incentive for keeping the status quo is that it allows employers to hire illegal immigrants and pay them substantially less, which in turn keeps the immigrants in a perpetual state of poverty.  And because of the fear derived from their undocumented status, illegal immigrants often cannot demand basic workers rights.

Oklahoma poised to drop the hammer on illegal immigrants

UPDATE: Gov. Henry signed HB 1804 into law on May 8.  Tulsa County Sheriff's office is already planning to do citizenship background checks on anyone who is arrested or jailed in their county.  LaShawn Barber has much more on this bill.  She is a hardcore paleo-conservative on immigration (no amnesty, tight borders, deportation of all illegals) and she notes the following:

Here’s the crux of the matter: “[T]here is an undercurrent of tension between both ethnic groups at the local level that comes down to one basic point: Blacks led the civil rights struggles that are now benefiting the faster-growing Latino population.”

Yep. And it’s only the beginning, and there isn’t much blacks can do about it. As “Latinos” increase in number and influence, be prepared to kiss all those white-guilt perks goodbye.

Solution? Support enforcement of immigration law and oppose any “reform” that will reward law breakers. That’s a start.

Fellow paleo Michelle Malkin also notes that anyone who knowingly assists illegal aliens -- even on the grounds of personal convictions -- is committing a felony under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A). 

Certainly I think that the "here's how to cheat the system" pamphlets highlighted by Michelle are definitely going a bit too far.  But personal convictions?  Here is why I can't go the paleo-conservative route:

17For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. 18He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.  19Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:17-19, ESV)

---

If Democrat governor Brad Henry signs the state legislature's new immigration bill, Oklahoma will have the nation's toughest law designed to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, and to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving state aid.

This is a tough call.  We definitely need to do something about the way that illegal workers are exploited by ruthless employers (and there are plenty of them) -- low pay, long hours, improper training, unsafe work  environments, etc.  Sadly this situation has existed in this country for well over a hundred years.  Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.  The threat of deportation and the continuous flood of new immigrants looking for work keeps exploited laborers silent.  It is terribly unjust to keep a portion of the population in hiding, all but invisible to the laws designed to protect workers safety and well being.

On the other hand, the cheap labor offered by illegal immigrants limits the entry-level job opportunities of citizens, who are subject to workman's comp and state unemployment laws, must be paid minimum wage and whose employment is regulated by the DOL, OSHA, etc.  Illegal immigrants who pay little or no taxes also cost the state a tremendous amount of money in social services.  Some estimate that illegal immigrants cost the state of Oklahoma up to $200 million a year.  That's not chump change.

But if such a law passes, what happens to the illegals already here when they are no longer able to work?  I'm also concerned about the increased risk of illegals with automobiles if they cannot get a drivers license or insurance.  I can't see a program like this working unless it also includes some kind of plan to get illegal immigrants a state ID, Social Security number, and have them driving and working legally and paying their fair share of income taxes.  No, I don't believe in deportation unless someone refuses to follow a simple registration procedure like the one I just outlined.

(More details on the bill in the extended section.)

The Panama Canal and immigration

My GodBlogCon friend Charlie Lehardy recently spent some time in Panama.  With regard to the Panama Canal, he makes this observation:

Jimmy Carter took a lot of heat in 1977 when he signed the agreement to give control of the Panama Canal to Panama. It has turned out to be one of the better decisions of his presidency. The Panama Canal is a source of enormous pride here, and its importance to the world economy has brought a great deal of prestige, not to mention money, to this small nation.

... The Panama Canal is remarkable because it solves a giant problem in logistics very simply, by creating a shortcut for shipping across the isthmus of Panama. It is not a particularly high-tech system — the water that feeds the locks flows by gravity from high-elevation lakes filled by annual rains.

Because it uses fresh water and does not directly connect the Pacific with the Gulf of Mexico, there is no way for aquatic sea life to migrate through the canal from one part of the world to the other. It has created a huge fresh-water source for Panama's population — the tap water in Panama City is safe to drink — and has provided Panama with a cheap source of hydro-electric power.

The modern buzz-phrase is "sustainable development." In the long run, developing nations don't benefit from sacks of food thrown off the backs of trucks. They benefit from smart, environmentally-sound economic development and improvements in clean drinking water, medical care and sanitation.

I wonder, if America had been wise enough to make similar investments in Mexico, if Mexicans would be flooding to the US in search of decent jobs as they are today? Our history in Mexico, at least until very recently, has been heavy on exporting resources instead of building a sustainable economy. Our involvement in Panama was quite different.

A point certainly worth considering.

Oklahoma City Forum on Immigration

On June 25, 2006, Oklahoma City First Church of the Nazarene (my home church) hosted a community-wide forum on the Christian response to the issue of immigration.  Around 400 people attended, and a panel of seven speakers presented opening statements and then fielded questions submitted in writing by the audience.  (L-R: Rex Friend, Shirley Cox, Rep. Gary Banz, Rev. Gabriella Rodriguez, Rep. Kevin Calvey, Kelly Basey, Pat Fennell)

The Immigration Forum Panel included the following members:

Rex Friend - a Quaker who practices immigration law and has been an outspoken activist and organizer of compaigns for non-violence and social justice including abolishing the death penalty and the rights of immigrants

Shirley Cox - Director of Social Action at Catholic Charities in Oklahoma City for the past nine years, also practices immigration law and works as an activist for issues such as social justice, right to life, welfare reform, euthanasia, the death penalty, and immigration.

Rep. Gary Banz - serves District 101 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives (vice chair of the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee), also an Army veteran, retired public school teacher, and former member of the Oklahoma County Election Board and Rose State College Board of Regents

Gabriela Rodriguez - ordained minister and pastor of Davina Trinidad church, sponsored by Trinity Church of the Nazarene in Oklahoma City

Rep. Kevin Calvey - chair of the Revenue and Taxation committee, also a member of the Oklahoma National Guard and very active in his church community where he has taught Confirmation Class for ten years

Kelly Basey - served as Oklahoma County Assistant District Attorney for twelve years, during that time she helped to found the Oklahoma Mental Health Court; she currently serves on the Girl Scouts board of directors and practices immigration law with an Oklahoma City law firm

Pat Fennell - native of Quito, Ecuador, served as former state president of the National Association of Social Workers, earning the award for State Social Worker of the Year in 1992; also serves on the Oklahoma State Human Rights Commission and is the founder and Executive Director of the Latino Community Development Agency in Oklahoma City

My notes from the Forum, as well as some additional thoughts, are in the extended section.  This is not a transcript of the event; rather it is paraphrased notes taken during conversation.  Feel free to post comments about the points made by the forum panelists or about my thoughts regarding immigration issues.

(I also blogged a race relations forum in January.  My summary of that forum and related comments are here.)

Number of the day: 100,000,000

One Hundred Million.

That's the number of legal immigrants that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act -- currently being debated in the US Senate -- would allow into the United States over the next twenty years.  Our current population is around 300 million, so this bill would allow our country's population to swell by 33% over the next twenty years.  And that's not counting illegal immigrants who would continue to sneak across our borders and make our nation their home, regardess of what laws we have in place.

Last night, President Bush addressed the nation about the problem of illegal immigration.  His proposals?  Nothing we haven't heard before -- strengthen the border, enforce our existing laws barring the hiring of illegal aliens, end our current (and ineffective) "catch and release" program, expand opportunities for legal immigration, and give illegal immigrants who are already here an opportunity to obtain citizenship. 

I think we should begin thinking seriously about legal immigration, especially if Congress has their way and (presumably) "solves" the current illegal immigration by, in part, allowing a massive influx of legal immigrants into our country. 

America has weathered a massive onslaught of immigrants before.  In fact, probably one out of every two Americans can trace their ancestry to someone who immigrated here between 1890 and 1920.  (I don't have a citation for that assumption; I'm just making an educated guess.)

But allowing 100,000,000 over 20 years would be unprecedented, and would forever change the identity of the American people.  It would permanently alter what being an "American" means.  Whether or not you believe this to be a good thing probably depends on your conception of what an "ideal America" is supposed to be.

A hundred years ago, the KKK and other "patriotic" organizations opposed the massive influx of European Catholic and Jewish immigrants because they threatened to end the white Protestant Anglo-Saxon majority in the United States.  But those immigrants birthed the generation that fought WWII, the generation that we consider to be the "greatest" Americans of the Twentieth Century.

I imagine that we would again survive yet another influx of immigrants; yet, as with previous generations, the face of our nation will be changed.

But I wonder why liberals and progressives seem so supportive of immigration in general, and so willing to paint anyone with concerns about immigration as racists, xenophobes, and bigots.  Could it be because they scorn the conservative, traditional, evangelical/Protestant mainstream in this country?  Are they hopeful that an influx of people without ties to the "religious right" might make  Jerry Falwell and James Dobson mere footnotes on the American political scene?

Might they be hoping that immigrants with less-than-favorable opinions about America's influence in foreign politics might be willing to elect leaders with a McGovernist view of foreign affairs?

Do they believe that having more Americans without a strong belief in capitalism might make the American electorate more receptive to increased taxation and socialism?

Maybe this theory also explains why conservatives are hesitant to support increases in immigration, whether legal or otherwise. 

No major "talking heads" seem to be floating this theory around, but I think it's worth pondering.

What do you think?

ADDED:
Apparently Bill O'Reilly agrees with me: "According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will."

I can't think of any other reason the Democrats would be printing flyers like this one:

"Thank Us For Breaking Your Laws Day"

Today, illegal immigrants are supposed to take the day off, and by not showing up for work we are supposed to realize just how vitally important they are.  Cities that saw massive illegal immigration protests last month are gearing up for more huge rallies.  Here in Oklahoma City, the whirr of weed-eaters and lawnmowers outside my office window seems to indicate that many decided to show up for work anyway.

Like most protests these days, this one has been coordinated primarily by racial agitators and socialists.  If you are wondering why a protest primarily involving Mexicans was scheduled to be held on May 1 (May Day, the international socialist worker's holiday) instead of May 5 (Cinco De Mayo, which celebrates the 1862 defeat of French soldiers by Mexico) then there is your answer.

Nothing earth-shaking will probably happen today, but everyone will declare "victory."  Personally I can't imagine that most average Americans and legal immigrants -- though supportive of basic justice and human rights for illegal aliens -- will look at these protests and boycotts and suddenly believe that immediate amnesty for illegal aliens is something we can't live without.

Blog coverage: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, Powerline
(all have links to many other good writeups as well)

Controversial (though honest) Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo penned this op-ed for National Review Online, tallying the resources we would save if Illegal aliens decided to boycott social services, schools, hospitals, and criminal activity in addition to just staying home from work.

And make sure you check out this short but fascinating history lesson from Father John Whiteford, who patiently explains how Texas rightfully became part of the United States.  If you don't know Texas history then you may be surprised than many of the founding fathers of The Republic of Texas were Mexican, and that the Spanish was the major language spoken in Texas up until the Civil War.  It seems that on matters of history, Mexican schools are no better than our own.

Looking at this issue from a Christian viewpoint are two of my GodBlogCon friends, Charlie LeHardy at Another Think and pastor Mark Daniels at Better Living.

____________________________________

Follow-up: May 2

Michelle Malkin has two good picture roundups from yesterday's illegal immigration protests.  As expected, lots of Che Guevara and "Impeach Bush" signs -- a clear indication that a good portion of the protestors had little concern for actual immigration issues.  And polls from this weekend are in.  The result?  No surprise, a majority of Americans are opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens and support tougher enforcement of current immigration laws, including border security.

Another humorous theme among protestors was the elimination of all borders, presumably everything on the North American content.  Great idea, guys.  Now all you have to do is to go Mexico City and sell that one to the Mexican government.  I hear they really love immigrants from South America.

Impressions of immigration protests

My bet is that these two images will become icons in the ongoing struggle for immigration reform here in the US:

(Note that in this flyer, Texas and Mexico are one nation)

(Personally I'd be dying to put Che Guevara on a one-way flight to Europe.  Only he has been dead now for 40 years.)

Sure, the Republicans have been after the Hispanic vote for some time now, but come on.  Using these protests to recruit voters?  (Just how many illegals are voting nowadays, anyway?  A thorough investigation would probably be fatally embarassing to Democrats.)  As far as I am concerned, all debate on this topic is now moot.  Neither side is interested in solving problems; both sides simply are going after votes.  And you can't have an honest debate if both sides aren't equally serious about discussing the issue.

I think that this will come back to haunt Democrats, though.  Pandering to illegals and associating themselves with the likes of The Black Panthers, The Nation of Islam, the Reconquista movement, and International ANSWER is not good domestic politics.  And unless they come up with a real plan that addresses border security, the pitifully low wages paid to illegals, or how illegals (and their downward pull on wages) are damaging other minorites as well as union workers, they will lose votes over this issue.

As always, Michelle Malkin has great protest roundups (one) (two) (three)

ADDED:
I've seen enough already.  Simply put, these protests are nothing more than "anti-war" redux.

The groundswell of grassroots support garnered by Howard Dean two years ago must have convinced Democrats that the way to win back the White House and Congress was to energize and motivate the anti-war crowd.  They ended up nominating John Kerry (a strong anti-war advocate during the 1970's) and they sought to make Cindy Sheehan into a saint.  Unfortunately the rabid anti-war movement really never involved more than a fringe element of US society.

But now the protests are back, complete with Che posters and communist sponsorship.  Only this time, instead of scruffy hippies and burned-out Vietnam-era peacenicks, the crowds are packed with Hispanics.  They have a distinct advantage because they are "brown," and any attempt to criticize what they demand can be automatically pigeonholed as "racism" and "bigotry."

Playing the racial fear card has worked well for the Democrats in the past.  It looks like they are willing to give it yet another try in the hopes of recruiting enough voters to swing an electoral victory this fall and in 2008.

Rally Organizer Tied To Marxist Party (Washington Times)
Will Noncitizens Decide The Election? (National Review Online, published Nov. 2000)

And courtesy of Michelle Malkin again, here's one more photo -- a delightful blend of jihad, reconquista, and socialism (maybe with a little Black Power thrown in too) ...

Gate Crashers from Mexico

Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans protested this past week all across the southwestern United States, voicing their opposition to any plan that would tighten our borders to slow down illegal immigration, or round up illegal immigrants already in the US and ship them back home.

Half a million Mexicans marched in Los Angeles, where the Mexican population proudly displays a disturbing nationalist and separatist attitude.

(ADDED: In today's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan notes that while we assimilate immigrants culturally and economically, we are not "assimilating our immigrants patrotically."  She explains that we are no longer teaching the "American dream"; rather we spend our time on the politically correct deconstructing and debunking and disassembling of it.  And without a shared dream, patriotism atrophies and dies.  Interesting.)

Naturally this display of anger has Washington DC in a tizzy.  Republicans are treading on glass, because they have been actively courting the Hispanic vote for the past eight years.  Democrats are ecstatic because once again an opportunity to present Republicans as "racists" and "bigots" may have presented itself.

But here are a few reality check points.

First, a vast majority of Americans are very concerned about illegal immigration.  Even though Mexican protesters numbered into the hundreds of thousands, their numbers are still only a drop in the bucket of the American population. 

Second, it should be assumed that an appreciable portion of the protesters are illegal immigrants.  Even though they are angry, their illegal status prevents them from voting in elections (California notwithstanding).  And the boldness of this weekend's protests gives lie to the notion that illegal immigrants are "hiding" and "living in fear" in this country.  Such imagery is designed to conjure up images of the Frank family huddling in terror while jackbooted Gestapo officers tear apart their building.  The fact that so many illegals took to the streets with virtually no arrests made -- and no deportations -- should squelch that idea once and for all.

Third, the anger expressed by Mexicans is not shared throughout Latino communities.  There were no major protests in Florida, where the majority of Latinos are of Cuban and Puerto Rican descent.  It is doubtful that Latino immigrants and their families, who either came to America as political refugees or entered legally and endured the naturalization process, have much patience with illegal immigrants who are bucking the system.

Economist Thomas Sowell has probably the best rational discussion of immigration problems in this article published by RealClearPolitics: Guests or Gate Crashers?

Sowell's conclusion:

None of the rhetoric and sophistry that we hear about immigration deals with the plain and ugly reality: Politicians are afraid of losing the Hispanic vote and businesses want cheap labor.

More:

We could solve the problem of all illegal activity anywhere by legalizing it. Why use this approach only with immigration? Why should any of us pay a speeding ticket if immigration scofflaws are legalized after the fact for committing a federal crime?

Most of the arguments for not enforcing our immigration laws are exercises in frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry, rather than serious arguments that will stand up under scrutiny.

How often have we heard that illegal immigrants "take jobs that Americans will not do"? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.

Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs.

If Mexican journalists were flooding into the United States and taking jobs as reporters and editors at half the pay being earned by American reporters and editors, maybe people in the media would understand why the argument about "taking jobs that Americans don't want" is such nonsense.

Finally, Michelle Malkin has an amusing post regarding "undocumented workers," the euphemism given to illegal aliens by the mainstream press, which demonstrates that illegals have plenty of "documents" -- forged ones, that is.
_________________________________________

President Bush is meeting with Mexican president Vincente Fox today to discuss his immigration plan.  (More on Bush's proposed "guest worker" program here.)

Republican leadership isn't happy with Bush's plan and have proposed the Secure America's Borders Act.

Democrats generally support a "guest worker" program and have strong reservations about heightened border security and deportation; they accuse Republicans of trying to criminalize the rendering of aid to illegal aliens.  They offered a comprehensive immigration plan two years ago, The SOLVE Act.