Even though I should know better, I feel the need to address some of the myths about immigration. Throughout history, when called on to choose between siding with the powerful or siding with the marginalized, God’s people were called to stand up for the weakest in society. It feels right to continue to do so.
So let’s explode a few myths:
- MYTH: Our ancestors came here legally; others should do the same. A small percentage of our population can make such claims. Most of us are descended from people who came at a time when immigration was open. You could say they came here legally; you could also say they came here without visas and work permits. We’re comparing two very different things.
And important elements in our nation’s heritage came without respecting the authority wielded by local leaders.
We also need to recognize that most of our ancestors came as unskilled workers. They would have almost no chance of immigrating legally today. - MYTH: Those who immigrate illegally are line jumpers, not willing to wait their turn in the process. Actually, they have no turn in the process. Current limits allow 5000 unskilled workers to immigrate legally each year. As many as 10,000 per day entered via Ellis Island back in the day, many of them unskilled workers. (An estimated 40% of our population has an ancestor who immigrated via Ellis Island) The quotas are unrealistic both in terms of demand abroad and in terms of the need for workers in this country.
- MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our network of social services. Most undocumented workers pay taxes and Social Security, yet are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. One government study estimated that the average immigrant will pay in $80,000 more than they will ever receive back in services.
- MYTH: Undocumented workers damage our economy. Research strongly suggests otherwise. In 2007, President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers concluded “immigrants not only help fuel the Nation’s economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.”1 The Pew Research Center found “there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia.”2 Political rhetoric aside, there’s no basis for the claim that immigrants are “stealing jobs” and “hurting our economy.”
Immigration has decreased in the last few years and deportations are on the rise. Tougher immigration laws have scared immigrants away from some areas. Time will tell, but initial data suggest a negative impact on U.S. agricultural production (see this study by the Georgia state government, for example). Americans aren’t lining up to become farm workers; they aren’t interested in taking the jobs the immigrants are leaving vacant. - MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to the United States. Again, statistics say otherwise. Realizing that run-ins with the law will lead to deportation, most immigrants are especially eager to avoid being involved in crime. According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.3
Christians have no excuses for any lack of hospitality toward immigrants. Let the politicians fight this one out. Let me end with something I wrote in answer to a question by Ed Heida in yesterday’s comment section about what our response should be:
Ed,
I think we take advantage of the opportunities God is bringing us, as he brings the world to our doorstep. We operate with compassion above all and Christian charity in everything.
We reject politics, like the Tea Party skubalon that somebody posted here before (and yes, there is Democratic skubalon and Republican skubalon and Libertarian skubalon…). We reject the labeling of people as “illegal,” especially people that are only trying to provide for their families in an unjust world.
We deal with people as people, not as political pawns. We don’t look to the courthouse nor the statehouse to solve these problems; instead we open our own house to the stranger and the alien.
If the people of this nation object, we remind them of the words engraved on the Statue in New York Harbor:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”No one can claim to want to restore the values of the United States and seek to oppress the immigrant. And certainly none can claim citizenship in the Kingdom and participate in any such oppression.
-
Council of Economic Advisers. Executive Office of the President. “Immigration’s Economic Impact,” Washington, D.C. June 20, 2007.
-
Pew Hispanic Center. “Growth in the Foreign-Born Workforce and Employment of the Native Born,” Rakesh Kochhar, August 10, 2006.
-
National Institute of Justice, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. “On Immigration and Crime,” Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Matthew T. Lee, July 2000.
AGAIN, thank you for posting on this issue. I get emails like the following frequently – and this came from a Christian man.:
Unfortunately, this type of communication is all that many people see. Thanks for adding some balance to the conversation. There is much more to the story than many people are hearing.
Jerry,
Were any citations given in the original L.A. Times article? (Or was it even confirmed that this came from the L.A. Times????)
Suppose someone found some similar list of data that was, say, 50 or 60 years old all concerning African-Americans. How would people be inclined to judge the character of that list? My guess is they’d say it was a proof of terrible prejudice, racism, and injustice. Yet when we supplant illegal immigrants for African Americans, then it’s a good ideas and we’re “fools” not to believe it and do something about it???
–guy
Jerry,
That one’s even on Snopes. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp) Some of the facts are true, some are grossly in error. Some are pure xenophobia (21 Spanish-speaking radio stations! Hide your wife and kids, grab the shotgun. Them foreigners is comin’!)
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, I have a problem with this one: MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our network of social services. Most undocumented workers pay taxes and Social Security, yet are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. One government study estimated that the average immigrant will pay in $80,000 more than they will ever receive back in services.
What is the definition of “most?” 80%? 75%? 51%? How can an “undocumented” worker pay into Social Security? Do you not need a Social Security number to do so? And would you not then be “documented?” And exactly which “government study?” The government of Pres. Obama, which obviously has no agenda to push? And how did they arrive at a figure of $80,000 more in contributions than in benefits received? Every one of those statements just reeks of statistic bending and political spin.
School systems are supported through property taxes. If you do not own a home you pay no taxes. You can say that renters pay a tax, but it is really the landlord that pays the tax. You know, the one who bought the facility and is responsible for its maintenance and is liable for any damages that occur on his or her property. Yet, “undocumented” children all receive a free education and if our experience in our community is anywhere close to the norm, a free breakfast and lunch as well. Medical services are provided with no documentation check. It would seem to me that if every “undocumented” worker provided a lifetime benefit to their communities of over $80,000 per person, if they contributed to Social Security and payed all kinds of income and other taxes yet did not draw any benefits, communities and states would be begging for such a financial windfall. I am wondering why California and Arizona are having such a hard time financially with all of this unrestricted income.
I may not be the sharpest blade in the drawer, but I simply fail to see the logic in saying that these “undocumented” workers are such a financial asset if the states with the highest percentages of these workers are also the states that are struggling the most with meeting social services. Put another way, these numbers just do not compute. Maybe it is my computer that does not see the connection.
Paul,
Let me deal with these objections as best I can:
Feel free to come up with scholarly evidence that refutes what I’m presenting. I’m open to learning.
Tim, I’m sorry if you feel I am attacking you. Your last comment seemed to me at least to carry a little heat with it.
I disagree with the idea that undocumented workers contribute more in revenue than they receive in benefits – especially in the amount of $80,000 per worker. That to me is a staggering and unjustifiable figure, especially when you factor in all of the benefits that every individual in the United States receives – legal or illegal. I did not wish to make it sound like I was attacking you or your advocacy of undocumented workers.
I apologize if my comment was misunderstood. I have a much different understanding of the problem and I am working off of personal experience, and not governmental or advocacy group (pro or anti) gerrymandered figures.
Paul,
I guess your comment about Obama seemed telling to me, that you’re approaching this as a political issue. I don’t feel like that’s the way to arrive at reasonable conclusions.
But what I mainly did was give you citations to back up the information I provided. And I asked you to do the same.
I understand how anecdotal evidence can seem strong to the person who has lived it, but we both know how subjective that can be. If you do have info from some sort of research, I’d seriously like to see it.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, in the sense that “everything is political” then yes, this issue cannot be divorced from politics. And in the current climate that means either granting every “illegal” worker blanket amnesty, or slamming the door shut on any immigration. A well thought out middle ground has not been articulated.
When I was flying there were occasions when huge, white INS planes would fuel where we were based and pick up their “passengers” bound for Mexico. (Not every deportation occurs in a rattle trap bus). One day I was talking to one of the pilots. He said that every November and December the numbers of deportations skyrocketed. It seems that the “undocumented” workers would allow themselves to be apprehended so they could get a safe trip back to Mexico for the holidays. In the spring they would return to the US along well traveled, although much more dangerous, paths. Anecdotal? Yes, but far more believable in my eyes than the $80,000 dollar figure reported by some government study.
And mea culpa, I do not trust this administration one inch. Especially when Obama simply issues a presidential directive ordering the DOJ to cease enforcing current US law. However, since Bush lied (imho) about the threat of Iraq, I have no faith in any of his administrations’ pronouncements either. I feel the government is lying to me when I hear the word “Washington.”
My question is what would Jesus have us do? Would he have us aid and abet those who knowingly and intentionally violate our legally established immigration policies? Paul had Onesimus return to Philemon – but was this a legal issue or more of a moral one? I do not see this issue as being parallel to slavery – slaves were brought here against their will and treated viciously. Illegal immigrants come here contrary to our laws and to a large extent demand Constitutional protections once they arrive. These are moral issues, but yes, they are major political issues as well.
Thanks for wading into this quagmire. You have more courage than I do. I appreciate the conversation.
Paul,
The now famous (at least on this blog :-) $80,000 figure refers to social services. Other costs, such as enforcement, incarceration and deportation, are not included in that figure. The cost of deportation, etc., are not a cost of immigration per se. For the sake of argument, were we to throw the borders open (which I *do* not advocate), those costs would disappear. Those costs are separate from the discussion of what someone coming to this country costs us should we allow them to stay and work.
As for trusting governments, if you read this blog much you’ll see that I don’t trust any of them. If you listen to the talk, Democratic administrations (like the current one) are “soft” on immigration. Yet the Obama administration has used some of the cruelest deportation tactics, those that tend to split up families, and has deported far more people than did the previous administration.
As for “aiding and abetting” people who come to this country, no I’m not advocating shooting border patrol agents, nor impeding their work. But those that continue to minister to immigrants in Arizona despite laws against it are doing the right thing, in my opinion. If the government tells us we can’t transport undocumented immigrants in our church vans, I wouldn’t feel any obligation to follow such a ridiculous law.
What about those that come? Should I teach them to accept the whims of politicians who want to use them for their own advancement? Or do I teach them to obey what the Bible says about providing for your family? Do I force someone to return to a situation where their life is in danger? Do I encourage families to split up to follow manmade laws? That’s what this whole discussion is about.
Again, Paul, I point out that Jim Crow laws were “legally established,” as were laws allowing for the slaughter of Native Americans and the stealing of their lands. If at some point Christians realize the injustices being perpetrated against the weak and powerless, it will probably be a generation too late, when non-Christians have led the way in doing what’s right. That’s been our pattern, due to the misuse and abuse of the teachings of Romans 13.
Note that Paul didn’t turn Onesimus over to the authorities. He aided and abetted this runaway slave. Paul didn’t have Onesimus arrested and forcibly returned to his owner. Nor did he give Philemon much room to exercise his “rights” as slave owner. He basically asked (told) Philemon to make Onesimus’ freedom official and to return him to Paul in Rome, as a free man.
Thanks for the discussion, even if you feel that my responses are over the top at times. It takes some push back to really analyze these issues.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Pingback: this went thru my mind |
Tim, I think we are in agreement about ministry to those who come to our country in search of a better life. I am not in favor of separating families, and I would never advocate sending someone back to a land where their life is in danger. I agree in total with your concept that we are often a generation (or more) behind in accepting the significance of moral issues – slavery being the most obvious. My comment about “aiding and abeting” had more to do with the culture of enticing people to cross our borders illegally, knowing that we are doing so, so that we can pay below standard wages in cash under the table so we are not taxed. There are dozens of ways that “God fearing Americans” aid and abet the illegal immigration issue without consciously thinking about it.
My only grief with your articles has been that one “myth” where I question the accuracy of the dollar amount given. I especially appreciated your post where you delineated your beliefs about immigration and how we can have an intelligent immigration policy and yet still maintain our “borders.” I think this has been a good series, certainly valuable to me.
I just think we are roughly $80,000 dollars apart in terms of total agreement. :)
Paul,
I find it deeply confusing that your skepticism of Bush II and Obama is being taken out on a study published in 1997, before either of them had taken office.
As Tim has already stated, most undocumented folks use false SSNs, because it is much easier to hide AMONG Americans than to hide BEHIND them. However, their fear of being found out tends to keep them away from the most expensive of American social services – medical care. None of my friends in food service got a check from the IRS, despite the fact that their wage level would have qualified them for a nearly-full tax return. Remember that the IRS doesn’t waste time looking for people to give money back to – they only hunt down folks who haven’t paid enough.
The vast amount of payroll and FICA taken out of their paychecks, the amount they pay in sales tax, and the amount they pay in rent (where are those zany landlords getting the money to pay their property taxes, anyway? the man in the moon???) seems to make the $80k figure pretty credible, especially in 1997 dollars.
Nick, we can only relate to what we personally experience. In my world “illegals,” and legal immigrants for that matter, are not paid with checks, they do not have SSNs, whether legal or not, they don’t have bank accounts and may or may not even have a house or apartment to rent. They are migrant farm workers who live in the backs of rusted out pickups who get paid in cash (under the table), live off of convenience store fast food and send the lion’s share of their meager earnings back to their families in Mexico. You cannot, outside of the wildest math formula possible, tell me that these individuals account for $80,000 more in benefits than they do in costs. They do not pay FICA, although they do pay sales tax, and “rent” is maybe a lot at a trailer park.
Maybe in New York City the situation that you describe exists. But coming from where I live, that scenario cannot be the the story of the majority of “illegals” here in the US, who are barely making enough to survive, and sending most of that to their families in Mexico.
As is with every situation, your mileage may vary. In my state, if the governor (who is Hispanic, by the way) could count on $80,000 from every undocumented worker, she would roll out the red carpet and beg those workers to come here. Unfortunately it does not work that way.
And, distrust of the government can work retroactively. When the depth of governmental corruption finally smacks you upside the head, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out its been going on for a long, long time. If the mule kicks you once, shame on the mule. If the mule kicks you twice, shame on you. I’ve been kicked more than twice.
Paul,
Remember that the number you are kicking and screaming about does not represent money paid to state governments. Most governors would be thrilled to be able to keep payroll taxes for the state budget, but it doesn’t work that way.
You are an educated man. Present evidence from a reputable source that refutes the evidence given from reputable sources.
While we may not be able to relate to broader experiences, surely education has taught you that we have to look for evidence beyond our own experience. Otherwise we’d continue to insist that the world is flat and the sun circles the earth.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Any firm which has employees has to keep books on how much each are being paid. Each paycheck has to deduct payroll and SS taxes and deposit them in an account corresponding to the SSN provided by the employee. If the employee is using someone else’s SSN the money will go in that person’s account. If the SSN is completely fictitious and made up, the SS Administration holds all such deposits in an ad-hoc account. Money which is never withdrawn because the illegal immigrants do not have legal grounds to claim the deposits. Unless an employers is paying massively low wages and I mean less that 50% of the minimum wage, they do end up showing the employee paychecks on the books properly. If the employer is paying in cash off the books, then he/she would not be able to claim the wages as business expenditure, which would really drive up his taxable income, which really makes it a rather undesirable situation for the employer. Plus the employee would have to explain how he is able to conduct a business without any employees on the books.
So Mr. Archer’s point that even Illegal immigrants pay into SS is actually true. Also I believe the 80000 dollar figure is how much illegal immigrants put in over a lifetime which they do not claim, rather than a single year.
Mr. Archer makes a very poignant point on the morality of opposing “illegal” immigration. Back in the early 1900’s the United States placed immigration quotas for each European country to deal with each immigration wave from different countries. Whether it be Irish, the Italians or the Polish. Many people who came in despite knowing they may not make the quota, used false names, false countries of origin and false histories to beat the system. From a purely legal standpoint this was immigration fraud. But those who came did so for a better life, for a fresh start. And they and their children are now part of America as naturally as anyone else.
Those clamouring to deny children of illegal immigrants born in the US, natural born citizenship or amnesty to kids/babies brought into the states often miss this important part of US immigration history.
The only difference is, it was easier to game the system earlier given the lack of centralised records and sophisticated identification methods and people’s claims of identity and origin were taken on their face value. Earlier generations got away with it. Honestly feels a tad sanctimonious.
Majority of the immigrants from Mexico to the US came after the nafta was signed, which severely affected the Mexican farmers. US economy greatly benefited from an additional open market where they could sell their goods, but its effect was a large unemployed population in Mexico who eventually turned up in the US to do what many of the Irish, Italians and Polish did back in the day. These people technically also committed immigration fraud, but immigration fraud is a tricky issue for the United States, considering it is a country which was founded on vastly unregulated immigration and conquests based on dodgy methods.
Mr. Archer makes the important distinction between what is legal and what is moral. On some level the original immigrants to the New World were really illegal immigrants. One may pick on the fact that there was no legal framework back then to allow immigration. But that is retroactively applying present day laws to a different era. the natives of America were not told who were coming, how many were coming, when they are coming. Present day if one wants to come to the states legally, One has to make these things known, at least the who and how many. The Europeans came and the natives took them in without much problems, what happened afterwards was not the nicest things one could have done, including the systematic re-location, elimination of the natives.
On a moral level immigration to the US by those in need is tricky issue for anyone to debate without addressing the historical context. this has been a country where those in need have always turned up to start a new life.
An interesting tid-bit. there is a massive movement within the US saying that all immigrants should speak English and that people’s ancestors who immigrated, picked up the language rapidly. One case comes to mind about immigrant German farmers in Wisconsin who continued to speak German exclusively till the early 1900’s. they did not need to use any other language. And the figure was as high as 10%. This till about 1920’s. Language changes slowly. Mostly dependent on need.