There Is No Free Lunch

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

but the law was not always His primary concern.......

Please provide an example of Christ disregarding civil law. I know that the apostles disregarded civil law when it contradicted God's law but I cannot even think of a time when Christ was in that circumstance.

May 28, 2006

Can't provide that example, but if the law comes in preventing churches from helping illegals, I'm pretty sure that's a law he'd have disobeyed. There are plenty of Bible texts, mostly in the old testament, about how we should treat the 'alien' in our country fairly, and plenty more about justice and mercy.

Look, the US has allowed this situation to go on and to grow for years or decades... it's a bit rich to suddenly one day wake up and decide to enforce the full extent of the law, when there's been this huge de facto practice of ignoring it.

Much as some people like to fantasize, it's simply not practical to round up and ship off 11 million people: particularly if you want to try to do so without images of armed guards with dogs herding people into cattle cars and camps. (I did read one rather horrifying blog post that said 'well, it only took Hitler 3 years to get rid of 6 million Jews, so we should be able to get this done in 8 years. Not saying that represents anyone here at all, but someone said it... and the efforts required (even if you're deporting, not killing) would be on a similar scale).

So the fantasy of 'not rewarding law breakers' and 'shipping them all back where they came from' is just that, a fantasy. The situation is what it is, and the US needs to go forward from here. Bush's proposal is actually realistic in that context - kudos to him (bet you never thought you'd hear that from me!)

And finally, the fantasy has two roots, and to me neither of those reflects the character of Jesus:

1. Simple racism - comments about who the Mexican immigrants are in relation to their attitudes, actions, choices about work and lifestyle and so on that assume they are in some way different from other Americans are racist. People are people, and America is a melting pot of people from all over the world. As somsone said, if you're made uncomfortable by a world that isn't all Anglo and homogenous... well, I was going to say you might be in the wrong country, but I'm not sure there are any countries like that any more.

2. Grasping to hang onto material goods. Even the title of this thread assumes that the Mexicans are coming to take away material goods from Americans. A Biblical perspective would recognise that we're *given* wealth, out of God's ownership of everything, in order to serve those less fortunate (as well as to serve our families). Perspectives that are based on 'Americans are rich, Mexicans are poor, and let's work hard to keep it that way don't seem to me to fit.

Of course the arguments are more complex than that, and I'm not accusing anyone here specifically: but I think both a dose of realism about what can be accomplished starting from where we are, and a good hard look at motivations is important in this debate.

May 28, 2006

From the Earl Ofari Hutchinson article Neil quoted:

"But what if the farm contractors, car wash owners, and manufacturers paid a living wage and provided benefits. It might be a different story, at least for some young people in Los Angeles."

See, there's the other rub. It's not so much jobs that Americans don't want to do, as it is conditions that *no-one* should have to work under. That's one of the reasons this debate is complicated: because the illegals form an easily exploited work force with no power, and employers like that.

How about enforcing a living wage and decent conditions and benefits for *all* workers in America: that by itself would get rid of a lot of the incentive for employers to employ illegals. Those who are so keen on enforcing the immigration law ought perhaps to transfer that to the employment law.

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

if the law comes in preventing churches from helping illegals, I'm pretty sure that's a law he'd have disobeyed.

Well, that would be like the underground railroad that helped runaway slaves escape. That was not an easy issue for Christians to deal with 150 years ago.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

it's simply not practical to round up and ship off 11 million people

No one in politics is even suggesting this. Those that do not want to grant any form of amnesty are suggesting that the employer verification process become tight that no illegals would be able to become employed in the US. Without jobs, they would go home on their own.

I don't have a problem letting the illegals stay as long as they pay a significant fine, have to learn english, have to clear a criminal background check in the US & their own country and a health screening.

May 28, 2006

Historically legal immigrants have always done the jobs that the average American didn't want. Those include building bridges and the railroad.

Many of these agricultural jobs do not pay by the hour. They pay by the quantity of produce which is harvested by the worker. Those that work in the fields do so because they can make more than they could in some minimum wage job. If farmers were forced to pay more, they would be unable to compete on the global market.

The conditions in the field are determined by God, not the farmer. The farmer cannot control if the sun shines, it is cloady or rainy. The workers are given breaks and portable toilets.

May 28, 2006

But see, that's where laissez-faire capitalism falls down: you're right, market competition alone means a race to the bottom, where the farmer who pays his workers least is the most competitive/successful. That's why some level of legislation about minimum wages (and that can as easily be calculated by piecework as by hourly rates) that is properly enforced becomes important.

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

but the law was not always His primary concern.......

does not equal

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Christ disregarding civil law.

Why do you ask for an example of something that I had not suggested.

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

By the way when Jesus fed the 5,000 it was a free lunch!

That lunch was not free! The original fishes and loaves were paid for by someone. Some fisherman had to catch those fish and someone had to bake that bread. The excess was a gift from Jesus. I believe he paid the price. There is no free lunch.

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

it's simply not practical to round up and ship off 11 million people

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

No one in politics is even suggesting this.

There are many such as hannity, limbaugh, savage who are suggesting just that. This is what the split in the republican party is all about. Those republicans wh reject a guest worker program or amnesty have only one other option; mass deportation. I guess they could be jailed too!

Thanks Bravus for addressing the WWJD question. When we look at this issue in the light of Jesus' emphasis on mercy justice and compassion maybe our language and attitudes would be tempered!

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That lunch was not free! The original fishes and loaves were paid for by someone. Some fisherman had to catch those fish and someone had to bake that bread. The excess was a gift from Jesus. I believe he paid the price. There is no free lunch.

I guess my attempt at being light fell rather heavy

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/sad25.gif" alt="" />. It was free to those who recived it. Thats the beauty of it.

I must say I detect a resentment swerling against these immigrants.

I've paid about $6,000 for all my immigration stuff in the last 4 years. I honestly don't feel any resentment towards the "illegals" I have met. They sometimes ask me for work or sometimes we just chat.

I just wonder why there is so much negative feeling especially from Christians? I guess Bravus already answered that.

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

There are many such as hannity, limbaugh, savage who are suggesting just that.

Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage are not politicians. They are in the media not in politics.

May 28, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

a living wage and decent conditions and benefits for *all* workers in America:

"living wage" always sounds so lofty, but it is a) indefinable, and 2)punitive to low wage workers.

It's also inexplilcable in this particular case, since the illegals working for this "less than living wage" not only risk a great deal for the opportunity to work for that wage, they also live on it and manage to send money home.

I'm also fascinated by the assumption that Jesus is a socialist who would condemn America. It's hackneyed and it's tiring. In my reading of Scripture, Jesus generally addressed root causes, and not surface symptoms. He also addressed the deep motivations of the human heart, and not superficial behavior.

So, if Jesus was serious about dealing with this issue-- and I don't know if he would address it at all-- He would address the corruption of Mexican society first, because that's where the root of the problem lies. I suspect he would also address the hypocrisy of people who speak only about inequities in the U.S. economy, and overlook the far more pernicious inequities of the Mexican economy.

True, in absolute terms, the difference between the poorest and the richest Americans may be greater than that of Mexico, but the poor in America are well off compared to the poor in most of the world. The poor in Mexico not only lack money, they lack education and opportunity. Yet there are many multi-millionaires in Mexico. If one is determined to condemn the U.S., one should declare that they would prefer to be poor in Mexico rather than poor in the U.S. Mexicans who have experienced both have registered their verdict.

Another point of interest. Jesus told the parable of the the vineyard owner who recruited worker three different times during the day, and paid them the same wages. The point that he made is that although the three groups were paid the same amount of money for differing amounts of labor, none of them had any justification for complaining, since they had each agreed on the rate they were paid. They were all treated justly.

Somehow that parable never gets mentioned when we're subjected to rhetoric about "living wages" and "fair pay."

Perhaps the growing cadre of leftist Christians, who love to talk about exploitation of workers will explain the "exploitation" of the vineyard workers which Jesus justified in that parable.

May 28, 2006

How mexico handles its southern border:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13006798/site/newsweek/

May 28, 2006

Mexico has a lot of natural resources. It is one of the US largest sources for crude oil but also has copper, limestone (cement), silver, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas and timber. It also has excellent beaches, Aztec pyrimids and other ruins to attract tourists. It is only due to government corruption that it has such poverty.

May 29, 2006

just tagging on here, not a response to anybody in particular...

I read a statistic somewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), saying that for every job an immigrant "takes", they create at least 1.5 jobs.

Why? Well, they have to eat. They have to live in a house and wear clothes and have furniture. Their kids go to school and they use medical services (legally or illegally). This all ensures the continuing supply of work for other people to do.

We should not forget that the Bible repeatedly urges believers to be kind to "strangers", the "alien within thy gate", etc. The sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was two-fold:

1. Sexual immorality (this is the more obvious and well-known aspect)

2. Failure to help the poor & needy; arrogance & unconcern (see Ezekiel 16:49,50).

If you have the chance to read the Book of Jasher (mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, translated into English in 1840, so it is conceivable that E.G White may have had access to a copy), it makes a fascinating read. Of course it is not an inspired book like the canon of Scripture, but it is a historical text that gives a lot of useful background information about life in Biblical times, and extra details that make a lot of the Bible accounts make more sense.

It describes in detail how in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah the people were not only unconcerned about helping strangers and travellers, but it was actually ILLEGAL to do so according to the laws of the land. An account is given of one of Lot's other daughters (not mentioned in the Bible), who was put to death for the "crime" of assisting a needy traveller by giving him food and shelter. When I read this it was as if a light went on and I realized that Lot was actually being very courageous and taking a huge risk by taking the travelling angels into his home and showing them hospitality. He was going against the "laws" of his land and possibly endangering his life and liberty, and that of his family.

For quite some time now, Western nations (including my own and others, not just the US) have been descending to the level of Sodom and Gomorrah with regard to sexual immorality of all kinds. Now, with the worldwide tendency to "crack down hard" on "illegal immigrants", aliens, strangers, refugees, asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them, and to criminalize those who would seek to offer them assistance, we are also copying Sodom and Gomorrah in the second regard as well.

Source: The Book of Jasher, chapter 19.

Links:

Book of Jasher - Full Text Online

Some historical background and commentary

(there...you can all excommunicate me for heresy now! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/seenoevil.gif" alt="" />)

aldona

May 29, 2006

In response to Ed's comments, which I think are intelligent and balanced, and which I think were largely in response to mine, just a couple of things. More in the nature of clarifications and further musings inspired by what you said than rebuttals.

1. I hope I wasn't only criticizing the US - or really even criticizing the US. In fact, I gave kudos to the plan that will probably end up being implemented. I also recognise the inequalities and issues in Mexico, and certainly wasn't claiming that every other country is pure and blameless.

2. Perhaps 'living wage' is a particularly politically loaded term, and you're right, it's hard to define. What standard of living does 'living' include, for example. My point was not so much specifically about a certain level of wages, though, but about the fact that the illegal status of illegal immigrants makes it possible for employers to pay them significantly less than Americans with comparable skills. That in turn means that it's harder for Americans to compete for those jobs. If the issue with illegal immigrants is that they take jobs from Americans... I was trying to outline a solution that is both pragmatic and principled.

3. Do you deny that the Bible has a massive concern for how we treat the poor? I don't know whether that's 'socialist', but I do know it's Biblical, and that's good enough for me. Working to alleviate the plight of the poor is doing God's work in the world.

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

the fact that the illegal status of illegal immigrants makes it possible for employers to pay them significantly less than Americans with comparable skills.

I think, for the most part, this is a misconception. Employers that hire illegals ask for their papers. The illegals have fake papers they provide. The employer uses the papers to fill out the I9 form, files it and pays the worker as if the worker was legal.

The only common exceptions I am aware of are live-in maids. There are many that employ live-in maids for what would be less than minimum wage. Many such people will not be able to afford a live-in maid once they are made legal. That means they will have to hire a cleaning service to come in a few times each week like most people have to.

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Do you deny that the Bible has a massive concern for how we treat the poor?

Christians do not disagree about their duty to help the poor. The disagreement is over who helps them. Is this the government's responsibility or the church's responsibility? That is the issue at debate among Christians.

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The disagreement is over who helps them. Is this the government's responsibility or the church's responsibility? That is the issue at debate among Christians.

But you're talking about welfare in both cases. A third alternative is that 'the worker is worthy of his hire', and that people are paid enough to care for their own needs, not needing charity from either the government or the churches.

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Now, with the worldwide tendency to "crack down hard" on "illegal immigrants", aliens, strangers, refugees, asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them, and to criminalize those who would seek to offer them assistance, we are also copying Sodom and Gomorrah in the second regard as well.

This is a false comparison.

Illegal immigrants, aliens, strangers, refugees, and asylum seekers are not the same thing. They are quite different.

The U.S. has long been a leader in accepting asylum seekers and refugees, people fleeing political or religious persecution. By contrast, the Arab nations, with the recent exception of Jordan, have insisted on keeping Palestinians as "refugees." Indeed, for the first time in history the term "refugee" has been applied to second and third generations.

Aliens are simply people who are not citizens. Many, many resident aliens live legally in the U.S.

Strangers are people you don't know. This of course includes the vast majority of one's fellow citizens.

Illegal immigrants seek to enter a country in violation of that country's laws.

To compare today's illegal aliens with the strangers of Old Testament times is comparing apples to ipods. There were no nation states in the OT world comparable to today's.

But even then, God did not endorse simply taking over someone else's land.

[:"red"]"Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone."

Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" [/]

WHile owners of fields were required to leave food in the field for the poor to gather, they were not simply required to give up their land so that others could occupy it.

Illegal aliens essentially want to "move the boundary stone," by simply ignoring it.

Illegal aliens not only break the law by entering the country illegally, they falsify social security numbers, and defraud the government in various other ways. This is not an economic issue, it's one about respecting the law.

It may well be that an illegal alien creates jobs. So do legalized gambling and prostitution, but that's not an argument for making those przctices legal.

Borders perform the same function for nation states that the skin performs for the body. If the skin is compromised, the body is in danger; if borders are compromised, the nation is in danger.

May 29, 2006

Were the two angels who visited Lot legal or illegal aliens? Did they obtain the "correct" visa or other paperwork before they arrived in the city?

Did Lot enquire as to whether they had a right to be there, or a right to be cared for and offered protection?

The Bible is full of commands to welcome the stranger, offer hospitality to strangers, treat aliens with kindness and justice, etc, etc. Can you show me one passage to suggest that this only applies to those we consider "legal"?

(I speak as the daughter of "legal" immigrants from Poland, but also as the grand-daughter of those who risked their lives by hiding "illegal" Jews from the Nazi occupation in Warsaw.)

aldona

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

A third alternative is that 'the worker is worthy of his hire', and that people are paid enough to care for their own needs, not needing charity from either the government or the churches.

Again, a minimum wage is established. If a company cannot get people to work for that wage it has to raise it to the point that people will work for it. Thus the market sets the wage.

Now, if a farmer has to pay $2/head of lettuce that is picked he will simply have to quit growing lettuce because it can be imported from countries where it is harvested for 25¢/head. Forcing farmers to pay more will just cause farmers to stop growing crops they cannot harvest mechanically.

When the government steps in to artifically play with the market forces, the results are seldom what they anticipate.

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Do you deny that the Bible has a massive concern for how we treat the poor? I don't know whether that's 'socialist', but I do know it's Biblical, and that's good enough for me. Working to alleviate the plight of the poor is doing God's work in the world.

Of course God expresses concern for the poor. I deny that government can fulfill that fucntion. As I have pointed out in another venue, neither righteousness nor any of its components--such as charity--remain righteous when coerced. When I devote my time, money, and other resources to help someone, that may be compassion. That responsibility is personal. Paying someone else to do that so I don't have to be personally involved is something else. Voting to have someone confiscate your resources to discharge that duty for me is just coercion.

When a married couple unite physically that can be love. Should one party pay someone else to fulfill that role, we have a different name for it. If the state were to coerce someone into meeting my sexual needs, that would be quite something else again.

There are many such examples. Quite often, that which is virtuous when personal and voluntary, becomes progressively more corrupt when it is, shall we say, "outsourced."

For those concerned about the union of church and state, it always puzzles me why government coercing one Christian duty (charity) is good, while coercing another (Sabbath-keeping) is bad.

I believe both are wrong.

May 29, 2006

Moderator hat on for a moment, everyone (I keep asking for someone else to take over in here, but no takers so far).

This is an issue about which people feel passionately. Aldona's sig tells me she cares passionately enough to be actively working on this issue, not just posting opinions on a web forum (like me!) (This is by no means to cast aspersions on anyone else's seriousness.)

Everyone has been polite and clear so far, and that's hugely appreciated. This is just a post to encourage that to continue in the discussion.

Thanks to all of you.

May 29, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Were the two angels who visited Lot legal or illegal aliens? Did they obtain the "correct" visa or other paperwork before they arrived in the city?

The point is moot, since such things did not exist at that time.

To the degree that the text speaks to the issue, there is no mention whatsoever that the travelers were there illegally. None of the crowd outside Lot's house said they were aliens who did not belong, or who had entered the city by stealth.

Ancient walled cities had gates, and guards at the gates. Presumably, Lot's visitors passed through those gates, under the surveillance of those guards. So they passed through what served as "immigration" in those days.

Again, the text does not say they were legal, but the complaint against them was not that they had entered the city illegally.

When people in need come to my attention, my first thought is how to meet their needs. I have never asked, nor does it occur to me to ask, if they are illegal aliens. If I somehow found out, I would urge them to either return to their homeland or turn themselves in. If they were fleeing from persecution or violence, I would assist them in seeking asylum.

I would not, however, move near the border and set about helping them flout the law.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The Bible is full of commands to welcome the stranger, offer hospitality to strangers, treat aliens with kindness and justice, etc, etc. Can you show me one passage to suggest that this only applies to those we consider "legal"?

Yes, it's right next to the verses that condemn smoking. That is, you can't ask for texts concerning issues that were not known in Bible times. As I mentioned earlier, nation-states as we know them did not exist in Bible times.

However, you might want to consider the events described in Joshua 9. God had commanded that Israel not make treaties with any of the inhabitants of Canaan. So the Gibeonites pretended to be from far away, when in fact they were neighbors. So Joshua entered into a treaty with them.

But the basis of the treaty was a lie. The Gibeonites sought to found trust--for a treaty demands trust--by betraying trust.

[:"red"] Then Joshua summoned the Gibeonites and said, "Why did you deceive us by saying, 'We live a long way from you,' while actually you live near us? You are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God." [/] Joshua 9:22-23

So they were perpetually enslaved "until this day." (v. 27)

Since you mention justice, the Bible apparently cosidered this justice for those who sought protection by deception--by breaking trust. When a person breaks a law, justice involves penalties.

Sign In

There Is No Free Lunch

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Bravus

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Bravus

lazarus

Fran

lazarus

lazarus

Dr. Shane

there buster

Kountzer

Dr. Shane

aldona

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Bravus

there buster

aldona

Dr. Shane

there buster

Bravus

there buster

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity