The following article was published in the Des Moines Register August 10, the day before the Iowa Straw Poll, Iowa's biggest day for Republican presidential candidates. It became the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON THE DES MOINES REGISTER COMMENTS PAGES: One week after the article was published, as of 1:06 pm, "views" of the article comments stood at 530, and "replies" at 54. The next highest, of the 25 articles which had received posts during the previous 24 hours, was 362/53; then 304/23, 288/36, ("Immigration debate ignores real people behind it", to which I had also contributed), 179/26, and 100/18. The remaining 19 articles listed averaged 27 views and 5 comments. Update: By Midnight, Friday, 608 had viewed it, 59 replies were posted, and weighing in is the Press Secretary for Tom Tancredo, based in Virginia, with an invitation for me to talk to him by phone! Saturday morning: 620/59. Sunday 2pm: 713/67. The next highest is 314/34. Sunday 7:30 pm, 733/70. Monday 2:30 am 765/75. 3:30pm 835/77. 10pm 852/78. Tuesday 11:30 am 900/78. 4:15 pm 911/79. Wednesday 2am 929/81. 6pm: 1020/88. Friday, 8/24/7, 9am: 1130/91. Saturday 8/25/7 11pm, 1188/94
Here is my 900 word article as I submitted it to the Des Moines Register, not knowing they prefer 600 words maximum. The parts they edited out are in blue:
Straw Poll Version: Guest Opinion
897 words complete: you have my permission to delete any portion of paragraphs 11-18 which total 554 words, so if you delete all of them the remaining article will be 343 words.
(My headline was: "Straw Conservatives")
It used to be that we “Moral Conservatives” would go to the Ames Straw Poll and complain that top candidates didn’t meet our standard, but at least we knew what our standard was.
Our standard was the Bible.
If anyone ever spelled it out publicly, it was rare. But we would wink at each other and know. Our political positions lined up with the theology taught us in our Sunday Sermons, in the “conservative” churches, meaning the ones that thought every word of the Bible was put there by God, and ought to be applied literally to our public as well as private life.
Whatever the political issue, at least a few of us knew the Scriptures in support of it.
All that has changed.
Since the last Straw Poll, a new issue has raced to the front burner of Moral Conservativism without benefit of Bible study, without consonance with familiar Scripture, and even without patience for someone who would quote Scripture.
Those leading this new position even call themselves “more conservative” because of it, and they get away with it, turning the points of our secret Moral Compass so far around that if I would still cling to familiar Scripture, I must find myself on the same side with Rekha Basu.
The new issue: illegal immigration.
Just one familiar Scripture upon which the new issue was not founded:
"And if a stranger [immigrant] sojourn [come to live] with thee in your land, ye shall not vex [deport] him." Lev 19:33 (Also Ex 22:21. “Thrust out” is part of the Strong’s Concordance definition of the Hebrew word rendered “vex” in the KJV. For an exhaustive context study of the word, see www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-vex-a-stranger.htm)
~~~~~~~~~~~ Paragraphs 11-18:
In a vacuum of Scriptural foundation, strange angry rationales have arisen to dehumanize 12 million fellow U.S. residents.
One is “get in line like everybody else”, as if there actually is a line for more than 1% of those who have come, and as if the line even for those has a humanly bearable wait time rather than the typical 10-30 years before families can reunite legally.
“Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” Luke 11:46 (Also Act 15:10, Mat 23:2-4, Gal 6:13)
“Amnesty rewards lawbreakers” is another rationale. “Amnesty” once forgave wartime “treason, sedition, and rebellion” while laws against treason remained unchanged. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1967). Now “amnesty” apparently means “rewarding the innocent victims of a stupid 5 mph immigration speed limit, by fixing the law.” Since raising the limit would only “reward lawbreakers”, we must make the law more stupid, by lowering it to 2 mph. Their definition is vague enough that they are all able to claim to be against it, while accusing each other of being for it, and who is to say?
“...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: ...for...I was a stranger [immigrant], and ye took me not in: ...” Mat 25:41, 43; (Other warnings of God's judgment for having no mercy for immigrants: De 10:17-19, 27:19, 28:15, 43-44, Jer 7:3-7, 22:3-9, Eze 22:29-31, Zec 7:9-14)
Tom Tancredo has spun our unofficial Moral Compass around like a Wheel of Fortune, with enough success that the other candidates are afraid to define “amnesty” correctly, and are afraid to oppose Tancredo’s National ID agenda. (Real ID, Electronic Employment Verification System, “secure card” with biometric measures, etc.) The National ID Tancredo wants is more Big Brotherish, more Mark-Of-The-Beastish, than the one in Hillary Clinton’s 1993 Health Care plan, at which Moral Conservatives professed to be aghast, yet now our candidates pledge their loyalty to it without a peep of protest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Moral Conservatives used to be against the drawing of lines around the rights of others where God has not drawn them, whether it was skin color, not yet being born, or being born on the other side of a line. Who hijacked my category? I feel like an illegal alien in my own category!
The link to my op-ed article: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070810/OPINION01/708100347/1035/OPINION
Mr. Leach, Thank you for sharing your thoughts about immigration from a truly Christian point of view. So many people nowadays claim to be Christians, yet when I hear them talk about their opinions, I'm convinced they don't belong to the same family of Christians that I do. There are some nasty comments on the DSM Register website in response to your editorial. Ignore the nasty responses and pray for their authors. The love of Christ shines from the editorial you wrote. Regards, W.B.
REPLY: Thanks. I'm a sucker for critics who will engage, so I'm look forward to jumping into the comments. Dave
Dave: Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You have managed to get yours printed in the Des Moines Register (8/10/07 re: Immigration). I'm sure you mean well, but your use of Scripture to justify your position regarding illegal immigration is frightening. First, in your reference to Lev. 19:33 you attempt to justify translating the Hebrew word yanah as "deport," dubiously stating "'thrust out" is part of the Strong's Concordance definition of the Hebrew word rendered 'vex' in the King James Version." Your tortured explanation deals with an English word ("vex") that is the translation of several different Hebrew words. But instead of honestly attempting to suggest that in the context of Lev. 19:33 yanah could be understood as "deport," you shift to Strong's definition of a different Hebrew word that elsewhere is translated "thrust out," as if this is applicable to Lev. 19. I do not know if its a lack of training, a misunderstanding, or an attempt to mislead, but your approach will only confirm to skeptical thinkers that Christians play fast and loose with the facts. Next, you use Exodus 12:49 to argue "we draw a line around the rights of others where God has not" (I suppose you mean those who wish to enforce current immigration laws). You appear to be condemning existing laws as being "harsh." Perhaps they are. So, what if I think certain laws are "harsh?" Is that an argument for justifying my breaking the "harsh" law? In your amazing application of Exodus 12:49 you fail to point out Exodus 12:48 that "strangers" ("sojourners" or "foreigners") had to be circumcised in order to celebrate the Passover. In other words, if a stranger ("immigrant") wanted to participate in the Passover, the immigrant had to conform to the laws of Israel (e.g., circumcision--hardly a painless requirement for immigrant males). Thus, the real import of Exodus 12:48-49 is that to enjoy the blessings of Israel and fully participate in its feasts, the "stranger" had to comply with Israel's requirements. In the United States, that means getting in line. Isn't requiring circumcision a "harsh law?" Yet the Scripture required this to fully participate. I do not know anything about you other than what is in the DMR, and a quick glance at your web site. But I would strongly suggest that you cease and desist twisting Scripture in efforts to refute opposing views. If you don't like current immigration laws (which are rarely enforced, anyway), work to change them. Until then, perhaps we should enforce the laws, as St. Paul says in Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, andthose which exist are extablished by God. Therefore he who resists authority has oposed the ordinance of God; and they who have oposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." (NASB) J.S.
REPLY: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I really mean it. Willingness to engage is too rare a quality in this generation.
You may already suspect not everything gets printed that one submits. One item left on the cutting room floor was my reference to my exhaustive word study of yawNAW at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-vex-a-stranger.htm If you are an expert in Hebrew I would greatly value your analysis of it. Otherwise I must acknowledge I am a man of more limited resources than I would prefer. I wish I were surrounded by a panel of willing experts with the time to double check everything I discover. But I am not. I take advantage of what access I can gain, and when something seems true after all the testing I can think of, I feel compelled to proclaim it.
I am not motivated by the fact that immigration law "seems harsh". Many of God's restrictions on me have, especially when I was young, seemed harsh. I am motivated that God has no respect for our immigration laws; in fact He judges those who keep immigrants out, according to
...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: ...for...I was a stranger [immigrant], and ye took me not in: ... Mat 25:41, 43; (Other warnings of God's judgment for having no mercy for immigrants: De 10:17-19, 27:19, 28:15, 43-44, Jer 7:3-7, 22:3-9, Eze 22:29-31, Zec 7:9-14)
One law [equal liberty] shall be to him that is homeborn, [natural born citizen] and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth [comes to live] among you. Ex 12:49 ( also, 20:10, 23:12, Lev 16:29, 24:22, 25:6, 25:47, Num 15:16, 29, 35:15, De 1:16, 5:14, 24:17, 27:19, Ps 94:6, Jer 7:6, 22:3, Eze 22:7, 22:29, 47:23, Ob 1:12, Zec 7:10, Mal 3:5)
Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Luke 11:46 (Also Act 15:10, Mat 23:2-4, Gal 6:13) 2, Is 10:1-2
I'm glad you noticed the striking comparison between Exodus 12:48 and verse 49. But don't think verse 48 repudiates verse 49! Here is my analysis of it, from www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/God-Plan.htm which has much more immigration Scripture analysis:
"Exodus 12:43-49, below, applies the same "circumcision" criteria to participation of immigrants side by side with Jews in Jewry’s most sacred worship, the Passover Meal. God emphatically said that as long as foreigners meet the same criteria that citizens meet (circumcision), they should enjoy the same privileges (“one law”) that citizens do. In fact, notice God says in verse 43 “there shall no stranger eat thereof”, and again in verse 45 “A foreigner...shall not eat thereof”. Normally we would take these as unqualified statements. But God says in verse 48 that if a “stranger” is circumcised he may partake! This implies that God means other passages restricting foreigners from religious activities to be also qualified by “unless, of course, they are circumcised”."
What this contrast presents to us is a Biblical precedent for immigration criteria. Criteria, as a condition for full rights of citizens, is familiar to U.S. law. A child must be 18 before he can vote. An adult must graduate medical school before he can operate. But U.S. criteria are fair, and do not rule out anybody except the disabled. God said once an immigrant satisfies the criteria which all natural born Israeli citizens already meet, (circumsion), he may enjoy the full rights enjoyed by Israeli citizens.
It is upon this Biblical premise that I build my vision of U.S. immigration reform - found at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Border-Security.htm - the replacement of numerical limitations with reasonable criteria. This simple change would not only simplify the immigration process by solve every immigration problem quickly, easily, and cheaply. What a surprise, that obeying God actually "works"!
A note about Romans 13:1 from another paragraph left on the DMR cutting room floor, which I had actually inserted before Exodus 12:49 (amazing that the DMR cut my words and left God's words in! The reverse of their usual MO):
“Rule of law” is another hot-tempered appeal to reason, but it is defined upside down from the way our Founders meant it. They defined “law” as applied equally to everybody, so that majorities are not “above the law” which they impose on minorities. But we draw a line around the rights of others where God has not. We apply harsh laws and insufferable bureaucracy upon those born on the other side of our line, which we would never tolerate upon ourselves. We call “rule of law” what our founders called “rule of tyrants”. They understood that the “higher authorities”, plural, which Romans 13:1 tells us to obey, presumes higher authorities in agreement; so when they conflict, we are to obey the highest authority: “we ought to obey God rather than men”, Acts 5:29.
We have Bible discussions every Saturday night in my home (except this Saturday when we will be at the Straw Poll). We are televised; I call it the Uncle Ed. Show. You are welcome to join us and analyze these Scriptures for the benefit of the Des Moines area.
In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)
Dave Leach
137 E. Leach
Dsm IA 50315
515/480-3398
Dear Dave, Thank you for your guest editorial in today's Des Moines Register! I agree with your interpretation of the Bible as being the correct immigration policy. Sincerely, C.O.
Thanks! Are you the same C.O. I knew several years ago? Long time no see! For your interest, here is a challenge to my Scriptural interpretation, and my answer to it: (I sent a copy of my correspondence with J.S.)
Hi Dave, Yes, I'm the same C.O. I said I agreed with your interpretation of the Bible regarding immigration. That does not mean I did some kind of scholarly analysis to prove it. All it means is that I agree with what you said and the passages you quoted. Isn't there a scripture that says something like, "some have entertained angels without being aware of it." "I was a stranger and you took me in," sounds like an open door policy to me. I took your comments as a criticism of the law, as well as the positions of the various candidates. C.
I saw your editorial in the paper. Hopefully it will help sway some Christians to look at the roots of our faith call us to. - J.A.
Good for you, David, in writing this and taking the heat from it! I'm sure it opened people's eyes much more than the web comments reflect. L.C. [immigration attorney]
Dave: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. My time is short this a.m., so I cannot respond in detail. I can see your heart is in the right place. There is certainly room to disagree on the application of Scripture to things political. I would stand by my previous comments, and add that you appear to want our laws to conform to Old Testament ordinances (as you understand them). Thus, you are arguing to change our immigration laws. I would also tread softly on Acts 5:29, since the context is the apostles refusing to be silent when ordered not to preach the gospel. There is a great gulf fixed between that and disobeying "harsh" immigration laws. By the way, I am the former co-host of ____ [a] nationally-syndicated [Christian]radio program, and former assistant director of the ____ Institute (listed in Who's Who in the World in Biblical Studies and Archaology). My wife and I are in the process of retiring from the practice of law to expand into full-time ministry. We are from southern California, but have a summer home here at Lake Panorama. Perhaps I can attend your Bible discussion before we return to Calif. at the end of August. Blessings, J.S.
Wow! Can't wait!
Explaining the relevance of the Old Testament to a Christian, briefly, has long been a challenge for me, but how's this:
The manner in which we apply Scripture to our lives, whether Old or New Testament, is explained in Matthew 9:14-17. We look for the “original intent” or the “spirit of the law”, and apply it appropriately as circumstances change. In that context, Jesus affirmed in Matthew 5:17-19 that not one comma or semicolon shall go out of date of Moses’ laws until all prophecies have been fulfilled, and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 agrees that every word of it is useful.
An example of how to conduct this application is given by comparing 1 Cor 9:7-14 with Deuteronomy 25:4. The only Biblical authority for preachers getting paid is founded, by the New Testament, on the Old Testament. Since I do not know a preacher who refuses to be paid, I know preachers will back me in affirming the relevance of the Old Testament for Christians.
I have read through the laws given by Moses and thought about how the categories there are reflected in U.S. laws. Auto insurance, and consideration for fault, is right there in treatment of accidents with oxen. Even the distinction between involuntary manslaughter and murder is right there. Today's hygiene laws are there.
In response to my Register article someone said "get your nose out of the bible ...i'll fight to the death to support your right to hold your religion true but i will not support fanatical religious views to creep into legislation." Another said "...So biblewizard professes to know what God thinks about laws made by man. I call that scary arrogance bordering on fanatical."
My Reply: "So Stormn thinks it a new idea, that anyone can read God's opinions of man's laws, just by opening his Bible? And Commonsense INDSM thinks he can prevent "religious views" from "creeping into legislation"? How do you think our legislation started? Do you think a bunch of atheists got together and dreamed up the most successful Constitution in world history (outside the Bible itself) out of the air? If you want to live under a Constitution and set of laws not dripping with Christian influence, you should consider living in Mexico, Russia, China, or Iran."
I probably shouldn't have taken this time this morning either - it's making me past my planned departure time for the Ames Straw Poll - but your email got me excited. If you are willing, you can provide me a level of scrutiny I have longed for.
In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)
Dave Leach
PS my only point in raising Acts 5:29 was to counter the popular absolutist interpretation of Romans 13:1, which ignores the plural of "powers", which once supported "the divine right of kings". To whatever extent we are ready to obey Romans 13:1, we need to balance it with Acts 5:29. They are not in conflict.
dave, you're wrong on many levels. the illegal aliens are BREAKING THE LAW when they enter illegally. one can expect that since the BROKE THE LAW then, they will do it repeatedly in our country.
the bible was written a long long long time ago and was revised many times. you shouldn't take it so literally.
Reply to CommonSenseINDSM: I DO take the Bible very seriously, as very good, practical advice which works, a whole lot better than, for example, immigration law today! The fact that you break a law requiring you to fill in a government form a certain way that you don’t even understand, does not prove that you will break a law against rape. God shows utter contempt for our immigration laws, but complete respect for our traditional criminal laws. I don’t know of anyone who is actually proud of our immigration laws. If we are interested in restoring respect for our border laws among everyone, we need to be interested in investigating God’s opinion of what they will need to merit respect.
fierce_carrot
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 304 Location: Des Moines Fri Aug 10, 2007
5:44 am>Dave
It appears that by your "reasoning" all the laws
other than GODs laws as defined in the bible should be cast aside.
As a Christian, I totally reject your interpretation of it.
The churches have this very bad habit of wanting to bring immigrants
to America but you don't want to fund them, you want the taxpayers to
do that.
Reply to fierce-carrot: Yes, I find it fascinating to compare U.S. law with Moses’ laws. Most of our laws today really are patterned after principles found there. To reject the Bible as irrelevant would be to throw out most U.S. law. Taxpayers do not fund unauthorized immigrants. Snopes.com deals well with that rumor, or see my article at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Illegals-Welfare.htm
Himtngal Joined: 12 May 2007 Posts: 3 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: Have moral conservatves lost their way?
Tom
Tancredo has my vote, here’s the reason why:
"This is
our culture - fight for it. This is our flag - pick it up. This is
our country - take it back." - Congressman Tom Tancredo
Club
for Growth Pork Report Card
Tancredo 84%, Paul 29% and Hunter
26%
algibson Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 192 Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:48 am
Looks
like Dave Leach uses his Bible as a replacement for our nation's
laws.
How pathetic and un-American.
Tony Baretta Joined: 08 Aug 2007 Posts: 74 Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:59 am
I
think we should get rid of the border all
together.
_________________
Keep your eye on the sparrow.
Campbell
Joined: 21 Jul 2007 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:17 am
Post subject: ABC/WP poll
Posts: 6As of Aug 6th, the latest
ABC/WP Ames Iowa poll shows Tancredo finishing second. Tancredo
was the only candidate to receive first-place votes other than
Romney. This was an Iowa poll taken by the 30 Republican Party
officials representing all the counties in Iowa as well as the
party's Central Committee.
JohnstonMan2 Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 254 Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:23 am
I
like that Tancredo quote, too. He & Duncan Hunter have their act
together about this illegal immigration problem. No matter how much
people like Dave Leach want EVERYONE who wants to come to this
country to be allowed to, we just can't keep letting that happen.
Sooner or later it will catch up to us, and I think it already has -
look at all across this country how communities are needing to
address the issue of TOO MANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in their
communities. Would Mr. Leach still feel this way if it was millions
of Muslims flooding our country unchecked, like what has happened to
Europe in the last 20 years? I wonder!
Wise-up, Leach - this
is a country with borders AND immigration laws. If you don't like it,
call you Congressman!
"Don't interrupt the
sorrow.....darn right. In flames our prophet witches see the
light.....The good slave loves the good book, a rebel loves a cause."
- Joni Mitchell 1974
Reply to JohnstonMan2: Millions of Muslims are already here. Do I like it? God pulls the welcome mat only when they violate the same laws which are binding on citizens. As for laws which burden only one group, whether people with dark skin, or people not yet born, or people born somewhere else, they aren’t even “laws” as defined by America’s Founders, or by the 14th Amendment “equal protection clause”, or Exodus 12:49.
Norski Joined: 10 Aug 2007 Posts: 2 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: On immigration, 'moral conservatives' have lost their way
I
would suggest Mr. Leach remember what Jesus said in Luke 17: "3Pay
attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he
repents, forgive him, 4and if he sins against you seven times in the
day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must
forgive him." Maybe I missed something, but to date I have not
seen any Illegal Immigrants come forward and turn themselves in to
authorities, saying "forgive me". Instead, I see many
unrepentant Illegal Immigrants who have plenty of excuses as to why
they broke the law, who continue to use false documents, who have
plenty of demands to change our law, and who are quick to demand
their "rights". Is not forgiving unrepentant sin the same
as condoning that sin, and thus participating in that sin?
And
then there is Exodus 20:17 “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant,
nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is
thy neighbor's.” With more unemployed Americans than there are
working Illegal Immigrants one cannot help but think that Illegal
Immigrants covet their neighbor’s jobs, and with our laws
regarding health care and welfare for U.S. Citizens and Legal
Residents one cannot help but think that Illegal Immigrants covet
their neighbor’s social programs.
And finally one
should remember Luke 20 when the Scribes and the Chief Priests tried
to trap Jesus into preaching against giving tribute to authority.
Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to
God the things that are God's". Immigration law is an authority
that was voted into law in an effort to protect American Workers from
the exploitation of using cheap foreign labor to drive down wages.
Those who care not for such things want to use our church for their
own selfish ends - to get rich off the poor by importing millions of
Illegal Immigrants. In Luke, Jesus knew if he took a political stand
on rendering tribute to Caesar there would be no end to the people
lining up to use Christianity for their own personal gains. Yet you
would take us down that road and for what? To be used by law-breakers
to achieve their own personal ends.
Reply To Norski: “Is not forgiving unrepentant sin the same as condoning that sin, and thus participating in that sin?” Very profound. However, when immigrants come whom we have not authorized but God has, who are the sinners?
...covet their neighbor’s jobs...”? Every immigrant who comes is a consumer, creating a job for each job he takes. Were that not so our world population could never have grown from 8 to 8 billion. But if God authorizes them to come here, and promises in Luke 12 to provide our needs if we will obey Him, who is any man to say the jobs which God provides for them when they come are his?
Render therefore unto Caesar” are our commandment when the “higher authorities” (plural) of Romans 13:1 are not in conflict. When they are, we ought to obey the highest authority: “we ought to obey God rather than man”, Acts 5:29.
I take it very seriously that Jesus promises Hell for those who will not receive immigrants, Matthew 25:43, 46.
Kiwibred Joined: 15 Oct 2006 Posts: 2381 Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:50 am
This
immigration thing is steeped in racism and I don't for a minute thing
there is any other real reason.
The fact that Iowa has very
few Mexican immigrants is a huge Red Flag in the Racism Card!
The
fact that reports done on minority races in Iowa and just how dismal
the things are for them shows there is a problem in Iowa.
However,
Iowans continually deny there is a problem. This is a problem in
itself!
White Supremacy is ruling in high places here and I
think it's time to step back and start questioning yourselves!
What
is really the issue here!
_________________
The focal point of
all reforms should be human liberation, and the respect for human
value and human rights. The free development of each individual is
the basis for all social progress. - Xu Wenli on Freedom 1944.
JUSTSAYNO Joined: 26 May 2007 Posts: 97 Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:20 am
I would encourage as many people as possible to go over to Mr. Leach's home and test his beliefs. There is a difference between those that are in your home (or country ) legally, and those who break in. It would not take Mr. Leach very long to recognize the difference.
_________________
There is no art which one
government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from
the pockets of the people
Adam Smith
The Wealth of Nations
Reply To JustSayNo: I may have jurisdiction to set the rules for my house, but not for God’s House, not even if I am the pastor. In the same way, the wonderful country we have, founded on Biblical principles as understood and applied by our Founders, has rules which, tampered with, cause us huge problems, such as, by the way, we are seeing.
algibson Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:41 am Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 192
Nice
attempt at trolling, Kiwibred.
Now go away.
Aaron Joined: 09 Dec 2006 Posts: 327 Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:51 am
Mr.
Leach,
Take caution in your instruction and interpretation.
As I'm sure you are aware of the instruction in Revelation 22:18.
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."
The NIV translation I read has Leviticus 19:33 state something very different than the message you are conveying.
Leviticus 19:33 "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him."
Are we mistreating them? Is deportation mistreatment? It's the very treatment that the our national law prescribes for the actions these aliens chose to make. We are advised by Paul in Hebrews to obey our leaders and submit to their authority so their work will not be a burden.
Do you also urge us to govern believers and non-believers by other parts of Levitical law?
Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
Leviticus 19:28 "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
Leviticus 19:31 "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God."
Leviticus 19:32 "Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD."
"Since raising the limit would only "reward lawbreakers," we must make the law more stupid, by lowering it to 2 mph."
Adjusting a law to make sense isn't the amnesty part Dave. The amnesty part would be if we adjusted the speed limit to 10 mph and then forgave all the people who had tickets in their hand for breaking the 5 mph speed limit. So, to bring this to immigration, it is amnesty to say all those who broke the law don't have to worry about their rightful punishment...they are forgiven without any consequence.
"We apply harsh laws and insufferable bureaucracy upon those born on the other side of our line that we would never tolerate upon ourselves."
A line that we would never tolerate? Expand on this. Americans have a long history of respecting other nations soveriegnty So your saying if Americans wanted to become a Canadian citizen that we wouldn't follow Canada's law to become one? Or are you trying to assert that our native born standard to become a citizen aren't as obtrusive as a non-citizens standard to become a US citizen? I think our allowance of the anchor children to become citizens at birth proves that we provide this same right to illegals in the nation.
I'm glad you profess your Christianity in public Dave...but I think you're way off on this issue.
Reply To Aaron: You question whether yawNAW, translated “vex” in KJV, in Lev 19:33, is properly translated “deport”. Please tell me what you think of my context study at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-vex-a-stranger.htm.
The manner in which we apply Scripture to our lives, whether Old or New Testament, is explained in Matthew 9:14-17. We look for the “original intent” or the “spirit of the law”, and apply it appropriately as circumstances change. In that context, Jesus affirmed in Matthew 5:17-19 that not one comma or semicolon shall go out of date of Moses’ laws until all prophecies have been fulfilled, and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 agrees that every word of it is useful. The examples you give from Moses’ Law, especially if you understand the practice Moses alluded to, seem like good advice for today.
I can’t quite follow your final question. But my immigration vision, which I take from Scripture as well as I know how, is to completely eliminate quotas and replace them with criteria.
Kiwibred Joined: 15 Oct 2006 Posts: 2381 Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:26 am
algibson is that the only intelligent thing you have to say?
I've been here longer than you mate, so have another go!
Denial!
_________________
The focal point of all
reforms should be human liberation, and the respect for human value
and human rights. The free development of each individual is the
basis for all social progress. - Xu Wenli on Freedom 1944.
scrapiron Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 286 Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:42 am
"I've been here longer than you mate, so have another go! "
Kiwi, you forgot to toss in a "quit being racist" as well.
Your remarks about tough stances on illegal immigration being based on racism are pretty far off base.
For me its based on money. When illegals cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year in my industry (auto-insurance) and its money that companies can typically recoup from an average US citizen yet we see our hands tied when we try to recoup our losses caused by illegals, how the hell is that fair?
When we see people that have been paralyzed for life because some illegal alien wasn't paying attention to the road and their chevy POS plows into some US citizen on his or her way to work. How do you get that illegal scum bag to pay up?
The answer is, they don't. They run from their responsibility and take a new identity, the insurer who paid out the wazoo on our fellow citizen's medical bills can try to track the illegal scum bag down, but in civil court the illegals just dodge the judgements against them.
And the price for all of this is higher insurance premiums for the average US citizens, and deductibles paid out of pocket that the innocent driver will never see a dime back on.
I'm sorry if that all just sounds too racist for you to handle.
Reply To Scrapiron:
Were you in favor of the Iowa Legislature, in 2005, making it impossible for unauthorized immigrants to get driver’s licenses, which in turn made it virtually impossible for them to get auto insurance? Seems to me we shot ourselves in the foot.
Norsky: 8/10/7 12:50 am Illegal Immigrant supporters love to express their opinion that racism is the root of all opposition to amnesty, instead of looking at the facts from the most significant lesson past immigration has taught us in the U.S.
If Illegal Immigrant supporters truly knew history, they would know that our current immigration laws were put into place as a result of the economic lessons learned a hundred years ago after a wave of excessive immigration. Specifically from the flood of unskilled immigrant labor that came to the U.S. during that time. That flood that was so devastating to the U.S. economy that the unemployment rate reached 32% for manufacturing, mining, and transportation workers by 1910. These where the big unskilled labor jobs of that day and age. And in the years leading up to that date the states of Maine, Kansas, and Michigan experienced periods of unemployment exceeding 50%. So today we control immigration.
Considering the unemployment rates of that time is it any wonder that so many people were saying "immigrants go home"? And the mass unemployment of the time laid the groundwork for the Organized Criminal Gangs that flourished in the 1920's and 1930's and still exist today. And so history begins to repeat itself because of Illegal Immigration. Meanwhile the politically correct dismiss the angst of the American Workers of 100 years ago as “xenophobia and prejudice”. And they try to brand those who know the truth about unfettered immigration as “modern day Know Nothings” and "Xenophobes".
Rather than deal with facts, Illegal Immigrant supporters seem to want to slip into the mode of branding all those who pay attention to the facts as racists. But I always thought that labeling a group of people that way was considered bigotry. And I cannot believe that just because Iowa has a lot of caucasian people in it the state should be branded as a "racist red flag".
Reply To Norski:
If you would email me with more info along these lines, I am even interested in posting your articles on my website. Although every new worker, whether citizen or immigrant, is also a consumer, creating a new job for every one he takes, I realize there are adjustments along the way which can be painful. I am fundamentally unready to assume that God’s policy is impractical, but I am interested in whatever historical case you can make. But why start at 1910? 1882 was the first exclusion of any group of people. For 60 years, from that year, not one Chinese person was allowed to come legally. What history I have read of that time indicates Chinese were an economic blessing, being willing to work the hard railroad gangs which citizens took limited interest in, and the hatred of them during a time when twice as many Germans were coming in without protest, seems purely racist. We kept them out until 1942 when we needed their help killing Japs!
To whatever extent your history is true, it doesn’t seem to apply to today, since we have historically low unemployment despite at least 12 million unauthorized immigrants.
Stormn Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 965 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject:
The writer of this article can't be serious.
commonsenseINDSM Joined: 08 Jul 2007 Posts: 103 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:33 pm
biblewizard - get your nose out of the bible and turn on the news. there is an item today about an illegal alien in newark, NJ (a sanctuary city, btw) that assinated 3 college students. he also has charges pending for repeatedly raping a minor child. what is truly outrageous is the judge let this rapist out on bond, knowing he was an illegal alien. three people lost their lives due to this sympathizer's lack of judgement. that judge should be disbarred and tried as an accomplice.
this is only one example. if you look, you'll find many many more.
i'll fight to the death to support your right to hold your religion true but i will not support fanatical religious views to creep into legislation. i'm proud of our imigration laws, but outraged at the lack of enforcement. it takes more than filing out a form to become a citizen of our country. it takes hard work and commitment. i know people that have gone through the process.
Stormn Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 965 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:52 pm
So biblewizard professes to know what God thinks about laws made by man. I call that scary arrogance bordering on fanatical.
My Reply to Stormn and Commonsense INDSM: So Stormn thinks it a new idea, that anyone can read God's opinions of man's laws, just by opening his Bible? And Commonsense INDSM thinks he can prevent "religious views" from "creeping into legislation"? How do you think our legislation started? Do you think a bunch of atheists got together and dreamed up the most successful Constitution in world history (outside the Bible itself) out of the air? If you want to live under a Constitution and set of laws not dripping with Christian influence, you should consider living in Mexico, Russia, China, or Iran.
I don't understand the point of the story about the dumb judge. Neither I nor the Bible give a pass to breakers of real laws.
NORSKI, posted 10:29 pm, Friday August 10, 2007: BibleWizard – You mention the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That is a great example of how things can go terribly wrong thanks to uncontrolled Immigration. Prior to the Gold Rush of 1849 immigration to the U.S. was difficult, so there was a chronic demand for more labor. But the huge influx of Immigrants as a result of the Gold Rush changed all that. Per Wikipedia “At first, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were well tolerated and well-received. As gold became scarcer and competition increased, animosity to the Chinese and other foreigners increased.” The post Civil War Recission aggrivated this with unemployment peaking at 32% for manufacturing workers in that state in 1892. In 1880 almost 22% of all residents of California were from China (186,000 of 865,000) making them an easily identifiable symbol of too many Immigrants and too few jobs. Thus began one of the most loathsum chapters in recent American Immigration history. We have grown and learned and we now try to balance immigration law so that we let in enough people to grow yet not so many as to damage the economy. And we go out of our way to not favor one nationality too much. Most people do not realize that Mexico is one of the largest sources of Legal Immigrants to the U.S.
I was lucky to have learned Macro Economics for Walter Heller, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to Predident Kennedy. He taught us that full employment was reached when the U.S. Unemployment Rate dropped to 2%. He stated unequivicabally that the move to make a 4% Unemployment Rate stand for Full Employment was politically motivated to make life easier for Congress and the Presidents who followed Johnson. The 10.5 to 12 million Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. (per U.S. Gov. or Pew Hispanic Center Statistics) represent 6 to 7 million working Illegal Immigrangs. Most are in the unskilled labor market. Meanwhile, there are 8.1 million unemployed Citizens and Legal Residents and that does not count unemployed teens and people who have given up looking for work. So there really are more out of work Americans that there are Working Illegal Immigrants.
With as large a workforce as we have in the U.S. the economic impact of illegal immigration has been limited to the unskilled and craft segments of our population. But remember hurricane Katrina and it’s effect on New Orleans versus it’s effect on Seattle and Boston. Just because one area is not effected does not mean other areas are not devastated.
Exampless of the impact of Illegal Immigrations on our fellow Citizen workers are many, if one only pays attention. U.S. Government Statistics show Construction Workers and Material Movement Workers pay has fallen by 11% and 13% respectively in real dollars. Swift workers used to earn $19/hr. But many of those Citizen Workers have been replaced with $13/hr. Illegal Immigrants. New Bedford has a 14% unemployment rate and yet a business was just raided for having 360 Illegal Immigrants working. In spite of a national unemployment rate between 4% and 5% people earning wages at or below the poverty rate has been increasing. And up in Minnesota last year a news program reported a significant upswing in gang violence because so many teens were out of work due to the large number of Illegal Immigrants taking jobs teens normally do. As the Son of a Bricklayer I feel their pain. Meanwhile, Professional People and Highly Skilled workers save a few bucks on the cost of things and think everything is great.
Reply: Wow! I thought this subject was dead! I thought I was going to get an email whenever a post was added, but I haven’t heard anything since Saturday morning! I really appreciate your interest. Since Saturday evening is the last post, maybe this topic finally is dead; or maybe the Register no longer sends out notices about watching this, so you will never see this response. Anyway, if you do, thanks for the fellowship, and if any of you are willing, you are more than welcome to come talk on my Uncle Ed. Show. We tape Saturday evenings. RSVP to 480-3398.
Reply to Norski: I would love to know more about the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the history before and after it. It is interesting that their presence was felt in California that heavily. I wonder what percentage was Hispanic, since it was part of Mexico until 1848?
I also marvel that there was so much hatred for Chinese, when German immigration so far outpaced Chinese without nearly the protest? The USCIS (as of a couple of years ago when I got the figures) that from 1820, Chinese legal immigration totals 1,477,680, while German is 7,227,324. I don’t remember how much of the German influx was before 1882, but I think a lot of it; proportionate to total U.S. population in those early years, German immigration was huge. Were Germans accused of causing unemployment too?
Mexico by the way has contributed 6,675,296. But most Mexican immigration came very recently, so that their proportionate impact on our population is much less than German immigration was. (I am about 1/3 German. My wife is more.)
My mind struggles with the concept of immigration causing unemployment. What am I missing? Isn’t every new worker also a consumer, creating a new job for every job he takes?
I realize I do not hear others with this perspective. But when I read immigration laws about requiring employers to advertise for months for a citizen so every citizen will have a crack at the job first, and then if the job is still unfilled immigrants can be hired, though through a process that doesn’t allow employers to meet their employees first, I think, “This is crazy! Every worker that comes will need to buy services from citizens, thus creating a job for every job taken. Therefore the new jobs needed to be filled by immigrants will always equal whatever number of immigrants who come. So why all this bureaucracy that shuts out small businesses who really need to interview workers before hiring them? And who need workers in less than several months?”
Is there something about immigrants that, in your mind, creates unemployment more than when citizens have babies that grow up and join the work force? Or do you think legal immigration doesn’t cause unemployment but only illegal immigration? What’s the difference? Or do you think citizens should not have babies either?
Recessions, unemployment, stock market crashes, all these things are caused by many things. But wherever there are humans, there is work to do. My wife used to dream of being a telephone switchboard operator. Well guess what? She had to adjust her dream when machines worked faster and cheaper. Finding what you can do that others need done, badly enough to pay you for it, is often a challenge. Here in the U.S., we have a great advantage over other nations, because we are free to try. We are free to be creative.
You don’t have to go to New Bedford for an example of a high paying company dropping its salaries. Firestone is right here in Des Moines. And after that, Titan Tire. I knew a Sudanese man who “scabbed” for Titan while it was on strike. I don’t know anything about the skills needed by these companies, but in reflecting on a number of strikes I have heard of over the past half century, it seems there is a natural limit to how much unions can get their salaries raised. A certain level can be reached just by sheer power of monopoly, but that level cannot be secure if the workers are not also competitive. If there are enough other workers available who can do the job just as good, and are willing to work for less, the union will ultimately price itself out of a job. The key is to do the job better than anyone else can. In many areas, Americans do have that edge.
If you think immigration causes unemployment, (more commonly it is alleged that immigration “drives down wages”), then which do you think would cause unemployment most: the present system where an illegal works for $4 an hour; President Bush’s system where he becomes legal and works for $10 an hour; or Tom Tancredo’s system where he is deported and works in Mexico for an American auto parts manufacturer for $5 a day?
You say the decision to count 4% unemployment as full employment was motivated by making life easier for presidents. You are always on shaky ground assuming what motivates another, differently than the reason they have given. 1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts (secret intentions): and then shall every man have praise of God.
The classic reason for counting higher than zero unemployment as full employment, that I remember in school, is that some of those down as unemployed are actually looking for a better job while they are still employed in their old one. On the other hand, of course, some who are down as employed are actually unemployed but who have given up. Then there is under-employment to consider. But if someone has given up looking for work, shall we blame the job market? Shall we give up too, assuming that if a person gives up looking, that proves there really is no work? My point is that these calculations are complex, cannot be measured directly, rest on assumptions which rest on value judgments, and they are not so far away from reality that we need to accuse the motives of the economists who make them.
Herbert Naff Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: Thank you, David Leach As a seminary graduate, ordained minister and college professor of religion, I thank David leach as a Bible-reading conservative for his on target editorial in the Des Moines Register. However, he seems to have made an erroneous assumption, namely, that conservatism automatically entails biblical literacy and acceptance of the Bible as a guideline for faith and life. We make a mistake by equating the conservative movement with biblical Christianity. Much of conservatism is out of line with and contradictory to biblical principles and is not at all hesitant to reject the Bible is invalid. Therefore, David Leach cannot effectively appeal to a great many conservatives on the basis of biblical principles. But he is not alone in this. He joins good company. Moses and the prophets and Jesus himself were ridiculed and called offensive by the so-called worldly wise. The biblical dictum of obedience to the commands of a gracious and loving God has never set well with those who prefer the laws of human authorities that are harsh on others and self-serving. David Leach is correct from a biblical standpoint. But in an unloving world he should not expect his words to be welcomed any more than were the teachings of Moses or Jesus. Leach's words have drawn fire. Good for him.
REPLY TO HERBERT NAFF: Thanks for the excellent company in which you have placed me, possibly over their strenuous objections. I never thought “conservatives”, per se, are with me in seeking Biblical guidance. Those who call themselves “moral conservatives”, however, have struck me as casting a hearty wink at the Bible. Until the “illegal immigration” issue achieved top burner. It is also within my experience for moral conservatives to wince when one of their fellows quotes a verse in public, or sometimes even to say the Bible is not what will bring us “credibility” in public; some might even say Biblical discussion is “irrelevant”. But I haven’t heard a moral conservative call the Bible “invalid”. I have certainly heard that from “fiscal conservatives”, though.
NORSKI: Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:08 am Post subject:
BibleWizard - Your interpretations of various Bible versus are interesting but when it comes to Illegal Immigration they are all based on one thing, that it is better for a person to illegally immigrate to the U.S. than it is for them to work in their own community to make things better. Ironically, Illegal Immigration kills the development that would solve the Illegal Immigrant problem.
In the past, when the U.S. had more jobs than there were workers, those excess jobs were exported to other countries. A few decades ago that process resulted in the economic development of Korea, Taiwan, and the other economic powers of the Pacific called the “Five Tigers”. At no point did their development make the U.S. economically weak. While U.S. economic expansion made these countries strong.
Per the Pew Hispanic Center six million Mexicans have illegally immigrated to the U.S., over three million of which are working. Per the CIA World Fact Book the 2006 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of Mexico was $741.5 billion and the Labor Force numbered 38 million. That means that the average GDP per working person was $19,513. If the U.S. had exported three million jobs to Mexico and paid the average GDP rate and the six million illegal immigrants had stayed home we would have pumped $59 billion in wages into the Mexican economy. In the U.S. economy approximately 57% of our GDP is made up of wages. What this means is that wages generate business, which in turn generates more wages, which in turn generate more business and so on. Assuming this same job multiplier effect for Mexico means that an additional $59 billion in wages added to the Mexican economy would increase the GDP of Mexico by more that $103 billion or 14%.
But instead, greedy people want a continued source of cheap labor and like true misers they what to keep economic development in their own backyard while denying it to other countries. So the very act of supporting illegal immigration chokes off the very development that would solve the illegal immigration problem. And for what purpose? Per Economist George Borjas, "In dragging down wages, immigration currently shifts about $160 billion per year from workers to employers and users of immigrants' services." The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And this is economic growth of the worst kind. As Henry Ford said, a society cannot long survive if its workers are paid so little they cannot afford to buy the goods they produce.
Around every corner you find people making money off Illegal Immigration while keeping those countries from which the Illegal Immigrants come in poverty so the gravy train won't end. Can this really be God's will? If we truly have more jobs than we have workers, isn't it "helping the stranger" to export those jobs to countries that need them like Mexico so the people don't have to move to get a better life?
SECOND REPLY TO NORSKI: When did I say I assume it is better for an immigrant to come here than to work in his home country? Shall I say it were better for my brother and sister, my son and daughter, to come back to Des Moines with me rather than move to Mississippi, South Carolina, Colorado, and Chicago? It would be better for me! But it is not for me to say. I honor their freedom to decide for themselves. We have laws against them coming here. But our laws violate God’s laws which allow them to come here. (Cited in my article.)
It is easy to say, now, that exporting all those millions of jobs to the orient made us even stronger. It is obvious, now. But it wasn’t then! I remember newspapers and politicians moaning about it for decades! And we hear it still today. Multinational corporations are frankly difficult for most people to understand. Or at least they are difficult for me to understand, though I may not be most people. But I look around my house and workplace at the luxuries which are routine now, which my grandparents never imagined, and I can’t make the case that we have been hurt economically.
But you actually urge the deliberate exportation of jobs, for the purpose of building the Mexican economy! This is the kind of original thinking which is likely to get you some of the same names I have been awarded! Certainly NAFTA has encouraged exportation of jobs. I don’t know what more could be done than that. As a matter of freedom, I don’t foresee any good from government trying to manage such decisions. I don’t share your confidence that as it continues to happen, it will help the Mexican economy as much as you say. They have a quasi Communist government which is not real good about making good jobs available based on merit. People down there either inherit, or buy, good paying government jobs! That means that while there are many making $20,000 a year, and a few billionaires managing Communist banks and oil wells, most make $3-5 a day.
Your opposition to illegal immigration is motivated, according to your arguments, by compassion for the substandard wages they suffer here. That is why, you say, you want more jobs exported so they can stay home and get paid better. You say those who employ them here, instead of exporting their jobs south, are taking advantage of them, because of their greed.
I marvel at the originality of your thought. You have obviously thought a great deal about this. But if someone comes to you and asks “please employ me”, and you give him what he asks, does that make you greedy? At least three factors contribute to their low wages here: (1) their English is often poor. I have worked enough with legal immigrants with poor English to appreciate the difficulty of directing them even in menial work because of the human temptation to nod “yes, I understand the directions you are giving me” when the directions are only half understood. (2) The market dictates wages. If I make a product for a certain price and my competitor makes them a penny cheaper, because he hires employees for a penny less than I do, I simply can’t afford to raise wages and stay in business. (3) Our laws make them illegal! Which makes them afraid to complain even when grievances might easily be remedied. Which makes them willing to put up with bad conditions besides low pay, for fear of drawing attention to themselves, which might cause the boss to realize they aren’t even here legally.
Your quote is exactly right: "In dragging down wages, immigration currently shifts about $160 billion per year from [the underpaid] workers to employers and users of immigrants' services." That’s right! It’s us Americans, getting rich off them, because we are paying little for their services to us! It’s not us being hurt by them for “driving down OUR wages”! They appear content to remain with us, as bad as we treat them, rather than head back home; but it must annoy them to be accused of hurting us financially while we are milking them!
Carson D. Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: I'm getting a kick out of this article because I'm NOT an economist. I can sort of see how a myopic economist may be able to see an increase in profits by snuffing the descendants of the founders of this country (Zero Population Growth, Family Planning, Safe Sex). That makes room for the criminals in business's illegal labor. Not only can many of the illegal invaders be paid off in token wages but that also leaves the honest workers stiffed with the invaders taxes, medical and social services. It's a pure genius way of eliminating any competition. They wont be able to compete on that playing field. Every day more and more will go under. The part that confuses me is I can see examples of some of the illegal aliens previous work. And... How will all of the crime that surrounds illegal immigration be helping you out when the honest people are forced to join in, in the lawlessness?
CARSON D. Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: I lived with my Grandmother when I was growing up and helped on my Uncle's farm. It was a farming community and the people there were the most honest people I have come across in my lifetime. I can't understand a farm that uses illegal labor knowing it may lead to their neighbors to a life of crime in order to compete. What about all of the other lawlessness that surrounds it entering the community. I just can't see it making any sense or see how it could happen. How do you drink a sody at the store and look your neighbor in the eye?
REPLY TO CARSON D: What “previous work” do you mean? What “lawlessness” do you mean “honest people are forced to join in”? Do you mean the “life of crime” of using “illegal labor”? What “all of the other lawlessness that surrounds it” do you mean?
COMMONSENSE INDSM Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: biblewizard, if you knew history as well as ou profess to know the bible, you would know this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom. all religions. not one fanatical view, such as yours. fanatisism in any form is dangereous so don't flatter yourself by thinking you are being singled out. the point pf my example about ther judge? well, you totally missed it. 3 peple are dead because the judge is an illegal alien sympathizer (;like yourself) and ignored 'real laws'. do a little research using current information - not something written (and re-written) an eon ago. if we were to use your verision of literature as a guide we would still have stoning as a punishment.
RESPONSE TO COMMONSENSE INDSM: Yes, our nation was founded on religious tolerance. But religious tolerance is a Christian principle, and the reason we have it is that our nation was founded by Christians. In those days the entrance requirement for college was to be able to translate fluently from New Testament Greek into Latin, which is a skill beyond that of most seminary graduates today!
Religious tolerance certainly isn’t a Moslem principle! But the Bible’s heroes proclaimed God’s Truths with words against swords. They gave their own lives, to save others, never slaughtering unbelievers just for not agreeing with them. Even God Himself allowed us to kill Him, rather than defending Himself by killing us. Love is even defined in John 15:13 as giving your life for another. I know of no such principle in Hinduism either. So our Founders, being Christian, built religious tolerance in our laws; but at the same time, they warned us that if we vote for morally corrupt leaders, we will lose our freedoms.
Although stoning isn’t our best option today, it had a lot going for it then. It is probably the most humane way to execute someone without our modern methods. It beats a sword, or boiling in oil, or crucifixion, or being drawn and quartered. Unconsciousness comes with a rock or two to the head. The other thing it had going for it was the participation of all witnesses. Our counterpart to it is conviction by jury. No single judge could execute by stoning. Indeed, our constitutional prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment”, even during execution, is exactly in the spirit of Moses’ laws concerning stoning.
So I guess your mention of the judge’s dumb ruling is relevant because, let’s see, because his dumbness proves he is an “alien sympathizer”, which I am too, and the fact that his alien sympathies led to murder prove that mine, too, lead to murder? Is that your reasoning? So likewise if God wrote the Bible, or whoever did since you doubt there is a God, their “alien sympathy” is likewise lethal?
HIMTNGAL Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: Moral conservatives hve lost their way. Playing the race card has lost its pump and serves no logic when debating the invasion from our Southern borders. Illegal immigration is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. Wanting our borders enforced isn't racist. We're not talking about immigrants, we're talking about illegal immigrants. Does the comment writer generally support violation of the law, or only in the case of illegal immigrants who have enriched his family's life? Who's the racist here?
REPLY TO HIMTNGAL: I agree that racism is usually not a useful accusation. 1 Cor 4:5 warns against accusing people for their motives, which we cannot know (except when people tell us, and even then we are not absolutely sure). When a justification for treating another badly becomes hopelessly irrational, then racism becomes a plausible guess. But while a justification retains some vestige of reason, any flaws in that reason are the most direct and appropriate target. Ephesians 6:12-18 explains that our real enemies are not people but ideas, so that is how we should prepare to fight.
I am interested in protecting borders. Replacing numerical limitations with criteria would quickly end illegal border crossings. A much cheaper fence would do far more than what we have now. I am interested in border security. We don’t have it now, and Tancredo’s plan will not give us nearly the security which mine will. I am not aware of having become rich from immigrants, or from anyone else, but if someone you know is willing to enrich me, they will be absolutely welcome. Send them over.
DAMAGED EAGLE Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: Since I consider myself agnostic why should I play along with the scripture thumpers that seem to justify things to suit their needs? As I see it the citizens of the United States were promised that the border would be secured last time amnesty was granted. An old Scottish proverb says 'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.' If the congress wants to discuss granting amnesty to the illegal foreign nationals that currently reside in this country then before they bring it up they need to finish what they promised the last time amnesty was granted, namely securing the borders so we can control immigration. After that we'll talk about granting amnesty. Then we can talk of changing the United Sates immigration policy so it is fair and equitable to peoples of all nations; so that we the people of the United States, do not appear to favor one racial grouping over another.
"Not only did we play the race card, we played it from the bottom of the deck." Robert Shapino
RESPONSE TO DAMAGED EAGLE: Replacing quotas with criteria will secure our borders.
COMMONSENSE INDSM: 4:39 am, 8/14/7 biblewizard, the answer is yes. it is reasonable to conclude that when illegal aliens exhibit criminal behavior entering our country illegally, their criminal behavior will continue.
AreREADY 9:23 am, 8/14/7
[Response to] "biblewizard, the answer is yes. it is reasonable to conclude that when illegal aliens exhibit criminal behavior entering our country illegally, their criminal behavior will continue."
No, it is not. We have a general acceptance of people stealing so they do not starve to death. We accept murder in self-defense. We realize that a person in desperation will commit acts completely inconceivable to the person otherwise. There is no reason to expect them to continue to commit crime, unless we force them into a situation where their only choice is crime - don't let them work, force them into hiding and don't allow them to build a life here.
Furthermore, this crime is a crime of walking across a line in the sand. That's a simple misdemeanor around here. You can even wander across property lines armed while hunting and you're unlikely to be charged if caught. There is absolutely no reason to assume that 12 MILLION people are going to commit crimes at a higher rate than a similar economic class of people. Yes, there are some illegal immigrants who commit heinous crimes. But there are legal immigrants and born Americans who do the same and worse. It is only an arbitrary construction of stupid rules that makes these people "criminals." Seeking a better life through work and opportunity should never be a crime...the crime is that it has become so.
_________________
COMMONSENSE INDSM: 10:22 am 8/14/7 areready says: "It is only an arbitrary construction of stupid rules that makes these people "criminals." Seeking a better life through work and opportunity should never be a crime...the crime is that it has become so."
ha! i got you to admit they are criminals, at least. calling them 'undocumented immigrants' is the same as calling a car thief and 'undocumented driver'.
as for killing in self defense, and stealing food - i don't see what that has to do with the discussion.
HIMTNGAL 10:24 am, 8/14/7 In the interests of full disclosure, Bible Wizard should be honest about the following -- has he/she, their family, or any other group they're associated with knowingly aided and abetted illegal immigrants in obtaining employment or in using false documentation for any other purpose? Does the Biblewizard support wealthy employers avoiding taxes by paying illegal immigrants low wages in cash? Does he/she generally support violation of the law, or only in the case of illegal immigrants who have enriched her family's life? "
REPLY: areReady’s response is so eloquent that I would like to use it. But not knowing a real name, how can I give proper attribution? May I plagiarize?
COMMONSENSE INDSM unfairly accuses areReady of admitting undocumented immigrants are criminals. He said only that they are “criminals”. There is a huge difference between calling someone a criminal, and calling him a “criminal”. As for calling them “undocumented immigrants”, you “rule of legalism” folks will be interested to know that is a favorite term used by the Supreme Court. Another is “unadmitted residents”.
Why don’t you see the connection between our expectation that violating an illegal law does not indicate predisposition to violate legitimate laws, and our experience that killing another in self defense does not predispose one to murder? Or that stealing food when you are starving does not predispose you to steal luxuries unnecessary for your life?
REPLY TO HIMTNGAL: First off, I sign with my full name. “Dave” is not a woman’s name, that I know of. Second, I hate to repeat myself, but I am unaware of having been enriched. If someone would care to step forward, I will certainly allow it. Third, no, I’m not into tax evasion, even though I’m ready to repeal the 13th Amendment and replace it with what the candidates are calling a “Fair Tax” - a national sales tax.
Fourth, the closest I can think of to aiding and abetting an illegal immigrant is the night I stood in a Nuevo Progresso church, talking after the service with a young man who was planning to swim the Rio Grande that very night. Fear was written all over his face. Swimming a wide river (it’s been a while but my impression is about three times as wide as the Des Moines river) in pitch black darkness, with border guards watching, and then stumbling in the dark through snake, tarantulla, and scorpion-infested wilderness, is not the safest thing you can do. I asked him what awaited him after he got across. He said if he could make it through a certain field without being caught, members of a church would help him and give him temporary shelter and work on their grounds.
I could not actually have turned him in had I wanted to. I didn’t know enough Spanish to communicate with Nuevo Progresso police, I never learned his name, I didn’t have a camera to take his picture, and I didn’t know where he meant to cross. But my crime which I acknowledge is not hating him for his resolve. Being sorry that his desire for the freedom which I take for granted was so costly to him, possibly costing him his life.
I’ll take that back. There is something I could have done. He told me the name of the church that would help him. I could have reported them to the authorities. I could still do it today. But I refuse. I dare not obey man when man requires me to disobey God, Acts 5:29. That church is obeying God, according to the immigration Scriptures I provide in my article.
You agnostics can prognosticate all you want about my arrogance because I try to understand God, but it’s my soul facing eternal time that motivates me, more even than your strange definition of “arrogance”
Norski, 12:21pm, 8/14/7 Biblewizard – Your analysis misses the third leg of the economic tripod. There is Supply, Demand, and Capital. Demand for labor increases only at the speed at which Capital is available to start businesses that hire that labor. Meanwhile, the supply of labor increases as rapidly as people can immigrate to the U.S. In today’s modern world the easy ability of people to immigrate from place to place could easily flood out Capital’s ability to make more jobs for them. The result is a lot of unemployed people. This economic fact came to light as a result of the Gold Rush of 1849 and the post Civil War Recession. We have spent the last 150 years trying to learn how to deal with it. And in the early part of the last century we Americans proved how bad things could be if this simple fact is ignored. Unfortunately, our sometimes politically correct school system refuses to teach this to our students. You have to take college economics before you learn it. So everyone now assumes that our immigration law must have been dreamed up by some Racist rather than based on hard economic experience.
With regards to how we determine full employment, I am simply relating the views of Walter Heller. As the man on the scene, he was perfectly situated to “know what everyone was thinking” as he was talking to them directly. And Unemployment Statistics are drawn from direct sources, such as Number of People Drawing Unemployment. They do not include people who are currently employed but looking for work or people who are under-employed. The reason 2% Unemployment is suggested as full employment is because there will always be people between jobs. People who quit a job because they did not like it, people who have lost their jobs when the job is relocated, etc. Statistically, those situations make up about 2% of the work experience at any given time so 2% was considered full employment. And I can personally vouch for that as I have lived in a couple of areas the reached 2% unemployment and in both cases those areas had to resort to bringing in people from elsewhere to grow their businesses whereas before they reached that level of unemployment business continued to hire locally.
If you are familiar with American History you will note that Germans played an important part in helping us win the Revolutionary War. Germans trained the bulk of the Continental Army under Washington. So in spite of the fact that the British hired Hessian Mercenaries Germans were well thought of. And after the war the Continental Congress almost made German the official language of the U.S. I believe that the motion to do this fell one vote short of passing. So the Germans have tended to have a special place in the American experience until World War I. Comparing the number of immigrants from Germany to immigrants from other countries does not make sense in that light. Regarding People of Mexican decent in what became the U.S. Southwest after the War with Mexico, there were only 12,000 non-American Indian people living in that area at the start of the war. That included Mexicans, Europeans, Asians, Africans, and Americans. In spite of repeated attempts and incentives on the part of the Mexican Government to get people to move there, few would go. Most Mexicans viewed California, Arizona, Utah, and the surrounding areas as wasteland.
And finally, the quote of $160 billion being transferred from the poor to the rich includes the occupations most effected by illegal immigration. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that for the most Illegal Immigrant affected jobs U.S. Citizens and Legal Residents still fill three quarters of all agricultural jobs, 83 percent of office and house cleaning positions, 86 percent of construction jobs and 88 percent in food preparation. These are the American Citizens who are on the loosing end of the $160 billion transfer of wealth away from the poor. Every time we thank the Lord of the food on the table we are also by default saying thanks to Growers who have forced the wages of our Citizen UFW members down by bringing in illegal Immigrants to undercut their wages.
REPLY TO NORSKI: I love your history lessons!
I have thought a lot about what you call the third leg of economics, capital. I have thought a lot because the Bible challenges it with a new economic model: Ac 4:32 ¶ And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
I have thought about it when I have listened to economists debate the role of currency: gold, silver, barter, paper.
It has occurred to me that civilization is the personification of cooperation: it consists of each of us sharing our specialties with others, as opposed to each of us hunting, planting, building, etc only for our own private needs. How necessary is money to this process of sharing our talents with each other?
For our secular economy, barter works when people have services of equal value to trade, but money has the wonderful ability to trade services that are unequal in value, and with the involvement of third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties. But money, itself, has no intrinsic value! Certainly not paper! And even gold, before our modern age when it is valuable in electronics, had little actual usefulness other than to look great!
So the question rises before me: is this swapping absolutely dependent on worthless paper money? Is there something missing with this picture?
Back to the usefulness of paper money to accurately measure the value of traded services which are not equal: obviously people could, if they would, trade services just as freely without worthless paper. It is the services which are valuable, not the paper. The practical problem is that if I provide my service to you, you might be a stinker and decline to return your service to me. In which case I would be hungry and angry. Money, even paper, is a guarantee that if I provide my service, the money you repay me will enable me to buy your, or another’s service, whether you remain willing or not.
But God’s system worked, according to the Bible, without money. Why? How? To the extent people are willing to serve others, with or without pay, this trading of services can proceed without capital. If all within a community are willing to reciprocate, again without money, then to that extent, money is actually useless.
What does that have to do with America today? America is a land where the Christian value of “service”, or self sacrificial service to others, is honored. Businessmen are not honored, here, for their wealth, but for their “service”, which we define as service given beyond what the mere pursuit of money can account for.
Here in America, if we see a need someone else has, and we are able to meet it, we have the freedom and disposition, more than elsewhere, to go ahead and meet it even if the person in need cannot repay. For example, we spend great sums on the disabled, and the poor. And what do we find? Many of the disabled become productive! They serve us in ways others could not! They enrich us far more than we could have imagined!
My conclusion: I agree with you that capital is great if you have it. But it is not an absolute bar if you do not. Lack in capital can be made up for by the “free enterprise spirit”, which is a combination of a spirit of service, set free by political freedom. The willingness of immigrants to do just about anything has created work for them which did not exist before. Set them really free, and their opportunities will be even greater. What do you think?
COMMONSENSEINDSM 5:48 PM, 8/14/7 biblewizard says:
Reply to Commonsense INDSM: : Your analysis of a sentence would appear more informed to people if you would listen all the way to the end of it. Pr 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. "
if you are referring to the sentence where you started out saying "all catholics agree...", there is no value reading the rest of the sentence. you can't possibly be speaking for all catholics. that would have the same value as me saying all catholics are pedophiles.
BELKER: 6:08 pm, 8/14/7 At the risk of sounding hypocritical: If a person's fear of a mythical god figure will prevent him from doing violence upon me then I am glad he has religion...however, if another person uses his mythical god figure as permission to do violence on me then religion is the root of civilization's downfall. The latter always trumps the former.
COMMONSENSE INDSM 5:35 pm speaking only for myself, there is no difference between "crime" and crime as you put it. like it or not, this is a nation where the rule of law holds things together.
REPLY TO COMMONSENSE INDSM 9:44 pm 8/14/7
Just to be sure we are on the same page, my tongue in cheek distinction between crime and "crime" refers to the difference between real crime as defined by tradition, common sense, history, and religion, and so called "crime" about which these four standards are silent, but which is made a "crime" by legalistic rules which themselves raise Constitutional, not to mention Biblical, difficulties.
I too honor "rule of law", but apparently you define the phrase much differently than I do, which I think is how our Founders did. I mentioned the difference in my article, but here is the complete paragraph I submitted, only part of which was published due to their 600 word limit:
“Rule of law” is another hot-tempered appeal to reason, but it is defined upside down from the way our Founders meant it. They defined “law” as applied equally to everybody, so that majorities are not “above the law” which they impose on minorities. But we draw a line around the rights of others where God has not. We apply harsh laws and insufferable bureaucracy upon those born on the other side of our line, which we would never tolerate upon ourselves. We call “rule of law” what our founders called “rule of tyrants”. They understood that the “higher authorities”, plural, which Romans 13:1 tells us to obey, presumes higher authorities in agreement; so when they conflict, we are to obey the highest authority: “we ought to obey God rather than men”, Acts 5:29.
“One law [the same laws; equal rights; equal liberty] shall be to him that is homeborn, [natural born citizen] and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth [comes to live] among you.” Ex 12:49 ( also, 20:10, 23:12, Lev 16:29, 24:22, 25:6, 25:47, Num 15:16, 29, 35:15, De 1:16, 5:14, 24:17, 27:19, Ps 94:6, Jer 7:6, 22:3, Eze 22:7, 22:29, 47:23, Ob 1:12, Zec 7:10, Mal 3:5)
One thing I could not get into is how the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution says the same thing as Exodus 12:49; Plyler v. Doe (1982) said the clause specifically applies to "illegals", and that government has no right to pass laws infringing upon their fundamental rights; and other cases have called liberty a "fundamental right". One case even pointed out that the right of an illegal to liberty is more explicit in the Constutition than the merely implied right of Congress to enact a law to deport him.
"Rule of law", as originally defined, took sides when a lesser law conflicted with a greater law. Tom Tancredo thinks, however, that the lesser laws are the only "rule of law" he wants to know about, and the 14th amendment simply ought to be changed. The trouble is, if you start limiting the rights of certain people, can you stop it?
NORSKI, 9:40 am, Wednesday, 8/15/7
Biblewizard - You are confusing Capital and Money. They are not the same. Money has come to represent Capital to many because it is the most easily visible form of Capital and the most liquid form. Capital, so far as the labor markets are concerned, is the physical things that allow business to happen. Capital is machinery, buildings, trucks, nuts and bolts, circuit boards, and such, and yes, money. You cannot have a store to employ people unless you have a building, a means of processing sales, a supply of goods to sell, and money to pay your employees. In order to raise food you must have a farm and a physical location to sell that food at, and money to pay your farm hands. If you are producing a good you have to have a factory, a supply of raw material, machines, storage equipment, the ability to ship and receive product, and money to pay workers. That is capital.
The old saying "Rome wasn't built in a day" applies to Capital and thus to the demand for labor in a very big way because of this. Because buildings are not built overnight. And machines take time to put together and smelting the steel for them is no easy task. And most people do not even have enough money to hire someone else much less to acquire the capital it takes to run a business. Thus our ability to expand our labor markets is limited by the availability of Capital and those who can amass it. Even back in Biblical times the need for capital was understood and appreciated. A couple of parables actually use the care of Capital as illustrations of the spiritual point being made.
A great Economist once said that money is the oil that lubricates a modern society. It allows an economy to become a technologically advanced civilization. Without it all we would have is the barter system. The Mexican economy is woefully short of money at the grassroots level which is why so many Mexicans choose to immigrate to the U.S. outside of U.S. Law (Illegal Immigration). But what Mexico is really woefully short of is Capital. The means to build a society above the barter and Surf to the Landlords level. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man the means to fish and teach him how to use it and he eats for a lifetime. Capital is the means to fish
REPLY 9:58 am
Thanks for the clarification. So how do you see the role of capital in a "service economy"? Obviously there is a blurring of lines between service and retailing and manufacturing, but to the extent one offers a service, don't you see that there are many opportunities for service to one another which require no more capital than is available?
I would love to hear you address my attempts to imagine the Biblical economy where people served each other without money. By the way, it is said that some, but not all, sold their possessions and put them in the common pot. My thesis is that it worked then because people were willing to serve each other without a careful accounting of how much or whether they were compensated. And that it works a little bit today in the U.S. because we are a little bit that way. Which is what makes it feasible that, should we legalize the "unadmitted immigrants" already here, they will have all the opportunity we could want for them, without more capital than is available.
But just like corporate management, the existence of the service economy is only justified by what they support in the production of goods. Without goods there is no need for services because there would be no way to compensate service providers for their services. Which is why, historically, no society based predominately on services has ever survived as a free society. Sooner or later that society will become enslaved to those who produce the goods.
Which brings up the concept of putting all possessions into a common pot and sharing them and the fruits of everyone's labor. In a perfect world that concept has a lot of merit. So much so that a couple of very well known economic systems have tried to utilize the concept. And of course there is Star Trek, which portrays such a system as a possible future for Mankind. But in every real case where the system has been tried it has always run into the inconvenient truth that people are not Angles. Someone always tries to freeload off the work of others while those who work very hard do so for a while then get resentful of those who do not and burn out. I have even seen this play out among the very young in organizations where I have been involved. So this is a behavior that is not necessarily learned. Rather my impression is that it is a behavior that some people learn their way out of while others do not.
Now back to my comment about enslavement. There has to be a balance between Service Workers and Goods Producers. If there is not, then the Goods Producers wind up with too much power, which is a bad thing if the goods producers are less than altruistic. The reason most third world countries are poor is because they do not have enough goods producers. The reason the U.S. does so well is that we have many goods producers, much capital, and many people who want to build things. Teddy Roosevelt was right to be a Trust Buster because the more people there are that are producing goods, the less likely it is that the less than altruistic people can control markets and thus other peoples lives.
Norski 7:42 pm The bottom line on immigration is that too many low skilled immigrants coming in at one time upsets the balance between Capital and Business's ability to create jobs versus the supply of people looking for jobs. If this imbalance happens, the first sign is falling real wages. The second sign is an increase in the number of people earning "below poverty line" wages. The third sign is isolated pockets of increasing unemployment. Then everything starts to go south in a hurry.
Thus, the falling wages in Material Management and Construction, the increase in people living on "below poverty line" wages, and the unemployment problems in New Bedford and Detroit I mentioned earlier are cause for concern. And the increasing demand to raise the minimum wage is also a sign of a potential problem developing. All are signs that the cumulative economic effect of the illegal immigration problem may well be gathering steam.
HIRAM, 11:21 pm, 8/15/7 I'm not sure where the Bible talks about illegal immigrants.
It speaks often of being kind to aliens but the Bible recognized borders.
Tell me where the Bible says that God recognizes no borders?
God clearly established lands that belonged to the Jewish tribes. Our current system of importing workers, separating them from the families and cultures and delaying the reforms needed in Mexico by proping up their government with the money sent back is not a kindness.
The largest source of income to Mexico even exceeding oil revenues is the money sent back from Mexicans working in the U.S.
We have 15% of the Mexican workforce employed in the U.S.
This is propping up a corrupt government in Mexico that continues to stratify into the rich and the poor.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1203/Bilello/Bilello.html
"Mexico is a fragmented country with high levels of illiteracy, malnutrition, with an abysmal difference in the level of life. Modernization begins and it aggravates these elements: it is collective suicide," Pipitone said, adding that in Mexico the top 10 percent of wage earners earn some 36 times what the lowest 10 percent earn. In the United States the richest 10 percent earn only 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent, said Pipitone. In addition, the wealthiest 20 percent of the population in Mexico controls 65.5 percent of the capital while the bottom 20 percent share 2.4 percent, according to a study on income distribution by political analyst Miguel Basanez.
To compete in the international economy officials say Mexico will keep its low wages even lower."
Now I can see arguing for increased legal immigration.
In that case the immigrant can come bring his family and integrate into American culture.
Allowing the current situation of lax border control and letting criminals and drugs flow freely to continue is not a kindness.
JERRY SEINFELD, 12:12 am, 8/16/7, Thursday God told me we should just invade Mexico and make it ours.
REPLY TO NORSKI:
I can’t say with conviction that you are wrong, but I can say with considerable conviction that I don’t completely follow your reasoning. I have already agreed with you that the problem with a pure Acts 4:32 economy in a godless society is that self-serving people don’t want to serve others without a guarantee that they will be compensated proportionately. But the thesis I asked you to consider is that Americans are not purely self-serving, but are fairly service-oriented, compared with the rest of the world
Another thing I still can’t follow is the absolute necessity of capital that you think any economy has, and the absolute inability of a purely service economy to exist.
Another marvel I have is that you see the amount of capital needed for X amount of new jobs as so easily quantifiable that you can look at a few indicators and declare with conviction that there is not enough capital to employ any more immigrants for awhile.
I submit a few examples. Prem Pradhan, founder of the modern Christian movement in Nepal, described Christians as the first with the crops in, the first with their thatched roofs finished, etc. Why? Because they helped each other. When the crops were ready, the non farmers helped the farmers. When a roof leaked, the others helped. In other words, instead of putting in their normal hours serving themselves, and going home to stare at a wall, they put in extra hours for each other, and all prospered. They created capital, with their labor.
Another example. In Reynoso, near McAllen, Texas, by a canal, people “squat” on worthless public land and build ramshackle huts out of a smattering of 2x4’s and old sheets of plywood that never quite cover the walls and ceilings. One family has dug a well. Not much; 20’ deep, 8’ wide. No lining, so the water is muddy. But it is wet. An example of service without capital would be neighbors helping each other dig several wells. Or neighbors sharing ingenuity enough to put up a plastic liner so the water will be clean.
Have you thought about the tremendous amount of capital destroyed because of crime? Shoplifting raises prices for everyone. Shoplifting has been controlled by new technology, but the new technology is expensive, again raising prices for everyone. Gamblers experience an average net loss, but not a predictable loss; rather, a roller coaster of losses, and they generally plan their budgets around the climbs and never the drops. So of course they push the level of bankruptcies, which means the stores they owe (like mine) suffer loss, and have to raise prices. Worse than the roller coaster budgets are the seared hearts. In order to even want to gamble, you have to want to take money from people to whom you provide no service. Would you take all the money of your wife and children, leaving them unable to pay their bills, making them homeless, and call yourself “lucky”? Of course not. You love them. How about the neighbor across the street? How about the kid at work that your daughter may marry? You have to dehumanize all of them, to want to take from them. Once your heart is hard enough for that, hating your creditors is an easy step.
Then there are taxes, raised beyond any reasonable purpose by bureaucrats who just like to spend other people’s money. Over half our incomes are eaten alive by taxes, a great deal of it corruption and waste. Then somewhere on the list we must include the violent criminals – the holdups, the rapes, the murders. What tragic loss of life and property, and most of it wasted – not even transfered to the criminal! To break into a store and steal $50, a thief breaks a $1,000 window. To take $30 from a man walking home, a thief kills a man who owns a company that hires 100 workers. Waste! Sin is wasteful! Shall we mention divorce? Divorce (or “living together” and “breaking up”) hits over half our population. Lovers turn into haters, family expenses double, and people who had great opportunities now live in poverty. We could mention the army of inspectors of homes and businesses who enforce vague and incomprehensible regulations with heavy fines for violations that are in the eye of the beholder. You are fortunate if you lose only your home or business, and not your child.
The point of bringing all this up? There is something we can do about the hard hearts of Americans that cause all this tragic waste of the capital with which God has blessed us. We can appeal to each other to stop dehumanizing each other. If your heart is hard enough to kill your own baby, how can it soften enough to respect the merchant who is trying to collect for the TV set you took from him?
Do you see how abortion directly destroys capital, by preparing hearts for every level of crime, by hardening hearts enough to see nothing wrong with taking from others without providing service? That is why the prolife movement is actually preserving our prosperity.
And how about the immigration issue? The Scriptures tell us that when nonviolent immigrants come, willing to obey the same laws by which we ourselves live by (as opposed to unconstitutional laws which restrict only them but not us), we had better let them remain with us, and we had better treat them as well as we treat each other. By the standard set by these verses, Americans’ hearts are exceedingly cold. That means, doesn’t it, that our immigration rhetoric is considerably destroying our own capital, through increasing every level of crime and greed.
So what is the solution? To call for hearts to return to God, to “love the stranger, for ye were strangers”. Can you see that a softening of hearts towards immigrants would reduce crime and corruption, freeing up capital? You have spoken as if you are able to quantify the amount of capital needed to employ additional immigrants. Are you able to quantify whether the capital freed from tragic destruction by a revival of American love for our neighbors would be adequate to employ all those who would like to come?
It seems simplistic to say the Biblical economy only worked with completely pure hearts, but for our hearts, we must have huge capital and expect no service without a price tag. It seems closer to reality to acknowledge that the purity of hearts is relative. Hearts get blacker, or cleaner, and our economic opportunities decrease or increase proportionately.
RESPONSE TO HIRAM:
Although my article, which gave birth to this stream, lists a few of those Scriptures, I can’t blame you for not finding them. They are so far removed from the end of this lengthy stream that I have almost forgotten them myself. I will list not only them, but the additional Scriptures which I had submitted to the Register, after I respond to some of your other points.
The Bible recognizes borders. Actually the cultural counterpart to our borders is probably the walls of cities back then. Walls kept out invading armies. However, any unarmed, or peaceful, stranger could enter at any time. (Except at night, they couldn’t come through the main gate, but had to enter a small door called the “eye of the needle”. It was designed so that mounted soldiers could not enter at night. A camel could walk through, but only after being relieved of his burdens, and then coming through on his knees.) Borders, used properly, are very useful. But the use of borders to keep out peaceful immigrants willing to live by the laws by which we live is a wicked misuse of borders, according to the verses below.
I share your concern about delaying reforms in Mexico, and separating immigrants from families. I see this as caused by quotas which do not allow most immigrants to come legally, and by taking 20 years to process the applications of those we accept. Thus it takes typically 15-35 years from initial application to citizenship, so that the families back home to whom immigrants send their money are all dead by the time the immigrant actually gets to vote and begin acquiring political experience. If we processed applications in a couple of years, so that immigrants could export political experience along with their cash, we would see huge reforms in their homelands! But quotas are the reason for the insufferable delays.
I also share your concern for border chaos that allows violent criminals a huge population to blend in with, both as they cross, and after they come here. Again, eliminating quotas, replacing them with reasonable criteria, would bring all of this border insecurity to a sudden end. Without quotas, and a chance to live here legally, who would prefer a dangerous crossing? Who would hide? Only the real criminals and drug runners, who would be way easier to catch, sticking out there all by themselves in the desert sun. A much cheaper fence would be adequate to stop such a small number.
I am grateful for your willingness to consider increasing the numbers of those we allow to come.
Here are the Scriptures I submitted to the Register, most of which they printed (a miracle proving the existence of God, by itself!):
"And if a stranger [immigrant] sojourn [come to live] with thee in your land, ye shall not vex [deport] him." Lev 19:33 (Also Ex 22:21. “Thrust out” is part of the Strong’s Concordance definition of the Hebrew word rendered “vex” in the KJV. For an exhaustive context study of the word, see www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-vex-a-stranger.htm)
“Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” Luke 11:46(Also Act 15:10, Mat 23:2-4, Gal 6:13)
“...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: ...for...I was a stranger [immigrant], and ye took me not in: ...” Mat 25:41, 43; (Other warnings of God's judgment for having no mercy for immigrants: De 10:17-19, 27:19, 28:15, 43-44, Jer 7:3-7, 22:3-9, Eze 22:29-31, Zec 7:9-14)
“One law [the same laws; equal rights; equal liberty] shall be to him that is homeborn, [natural born citizen] and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth [comes to live] among you.” Ex 12:49 ( also, 20:10, 23:12, Lev 16:29, 24:22, 25:6, 25:47, Num 15:16, 29, 35:15, De 1:16, 5:14, 24:17, 27:19, Ps 94:6, Jer 7:6, 22:3, Eze 22:7, 22:29, 47:23, Ob 1:12, Zec 7:10, Mal 3:5)
For many more verses and analysis, see www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/God-Plan.htm and www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-vex-a-stranger.htm.
REPLY TO JERRY SEINFELD: When you get your revelation posted in the Bible instead of just the Des Moines Register, you will have more credibility.
HIRAM, 8:14 am, Thursday 8/16/7 Let see God did not authorize boundaries apart from the walls of the towns.
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Command the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance will have these boundaries: 3 " 'Your southern side will include some of the Desert of Zin along the border of Edom. On the east, your southern boundary will start from the end of the Salt Sea, [a] 4 cross south of Scorpion [b] Pass, continue on to Zin and go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and over to Azmon, 5 where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Sea. [c]
6 " 'Your western boundary will be the coast of the Great Sea. This will be your boundary on the west.
7 " 'For your northern boundary, run a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor 8 and from Mount Hor to Lebo [d] Hamath. Then the boundary will go to Zedad, 9 continue to Ziphron and end at Hazar Enan. This will be your boundary on the north.
10 " 'For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11 The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Kinnereth. [e] 12 Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea. " 'This will be your land, with its boundaries on every side.' "
I wonder where these passages came from?
HIRAM 10:08 pm I'm also curious since the definition of alien is one from another country that is not recognized as a citizen if borders are not real then they would not be aliens. Have you read the passages where it talks about the aliens hauling your water etc. Obviously they were not considered full citizens, again hence the term alien, but were bound by the same laws including the ones of religious sacrifice, sabath, feasts etc. So they were not integrated as a culture within a culture speaking their own language, maintaining their own customs etc.
RESPONSE: Please notice I never denied Israel had borders, did I? I only said their walled cities were their cultural counterpart to our borders. Does that seem a controversial statement to you? We do not have guards around our cities, the way Israel's cities did. We have guards only at our borders, while there is no Biblical indication that Israel did. You speak of "hewers of wood and drawers of water". You refer to the Gibeonites, prisoners of war, the only nation subjected to that condition, that the Bible tells of, though Scripture provides for other prisoners of war to be given the same jobs. Yes, they were Israeli residents who did not receive the full rights of citizenship for many years. I can't tell how many. I think God meant for them to be released from servitude at the first Jubile, but Israel never observed a single Jubile. By the time of the return from Babylon they were listed as citizens. I can't tell how much before that they were. Before Israel absorbed them (nonviolently), they actually had a democracy. Although they were not free, they were the best treated slaves any slave could ask. God had so many laws against mistreatment of what translators call "slaves" that their service was more like that of Americans today with multi-year contracts, such as sports and movie stars, who sign away their freedom for several years in exchange for money. The 6-year limit on such service (except for prisoners of war) was actually followed in our initial terms of military service years ago. "Slaves" had the right to choose their career! If employers permanently injured them, they were set free. It was a capital offense to steal a man and make him a slave: the only source of such servants was their own debt, or being captured in war. (All wars of Israel were wars of self defense, except for the invasion of Palestine, and even many of those were defensive.) So what made their treatment special? They served the priests. Why is that important? Because the priests were the judiciary of Israel. They were the enforcers of the laws against cruelty to servants. Just as politicians today are held to a higher standard when they are caught violating the same laws they enforce against us, the priests' treatment of the Gibeonites was watched more than the treatment by common people. If you are interested in more information about the Gibeonites, email me and I will send you a couple of dozen pages about them from my book, "Hell Fire: Heaven's Loving Purpose". Or you can get the whole book from www.Saltshaker.US., which includes much more detail about God's restrictions on slavery. If you are curious about the circumstances in which God condoned war, ask. I conclude from all these passages that God's commandments that immigrants should be treated with the same rights as natural born citizens are not contradicted by any Biblical or other evidence.
Biblewizard - You make many very interesting points. But I think that you are over-analyzing the situation. An author I enjoy reading quoted a psychological postulate (I do not know the source) that the behavior of individuals is very unpredictable, but group behavior (group psychology) is very predictable. You can drive yourself nuts trying to figure out why your neighbor does what he or she does. But you can predict with reasonable accuracy the attitudes of an entire neighborhood based on observed behavior. By the way, the same postulate applies to economics. Or at least every Economics Professor I have had has said this. So how does this relate to the Illegal Immigrant debate, or for that matter a service based society?
If you want to build a close knit community of people who like to help each other, share what they have, and work together to achieve common goals all you have to do is get a bunch of people who share those ideals together and like magic you have a great sharing and caring society. Take the Amish as an example.
But I would refer you to psychological texts regarding dysfunctional behavior before you start believing that this type of cooperation can be achieved on a national level. As an example I would refer you to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and "Narcissistic Personality Syndrome". I am most familiar with this personality quirk which is why I will use it as an example.
During a person's childhood each individual goes through two periods of heightened Narcissism. If, during that time the child is not properly educated in dealing with the emotion of shame that person's brain does not become "hardwired" to deal with shame as an adult. Thus, as an adult, the person will do anything to resist admitting that they did anything wrong because it causes feelings of shame that cannot be dealt with. The person will go to great lengths to prove to anyone who will listen that they never do anything wrong even when caught red-handed breaking the law. Narcissistic personality disorder/syndrome is one of only two emotional problems that can actually drive a person to physically, verbally, or emotionally abuse others, especially Spouses.
Legal Immigrants have patience, work through the system, and do not let set-backs stop them. This diligent attitude is usually inconsistent with Narcissistic behavior. That is one reason why recent studies show that Legal Immigrants have a lower crime rate than do U.S. Citizens.
Meanwhile, Illegal Immigrants ignore the law, practice identity fraud, sneak across borders, try to use services that they should not be getting access to, and when caught cry "the law is unjust, I deserve to be here, you better change the law to accommodate me, your economic arguments do not hold water because you are really just a racist". A lot of people miss-label this as immaturity. But actually it is a classic example of Narcissistic Behavior. Good luck trying to build a sharing and caring and working together society if the group includes Narcissists. If you have ever spent time living with a Narcissist you will quickly learn three things. One, they really only care about themselves; two, no matter how hard you try you will never convince them that they are capable of hurting other people; and three, if they ever show any interest in a differing point of view it is usually done to influence others rather than to re-evaluate their own ideas.
Anyway, whether our immigration laws are designed that way intentionally or not, their complicated nature tends to identify those who would fit into your sharing and caring society (“laws and people are to be respected”) from those who would not (“laws are stupid and I do not have to obey them because they might keep me from getting what I want”). As I stated in earlier posts there are very strong reasons economically to limit immigration to the rate at which our capital can foster job growth. To exceed that rate is to risk having our economy devastated by unemployment. And I firmly believe that we should love our neighbors in spite of their psychological quirks. And that is also why I believe that Capitalism works so well, as it channels Narcissistic self-interest into a force for good. Adam Smith called it “the invisible hand”.
And the real tragedy economically speaking is that because so many unskilled workers are sneaking across the border U.S. Immigration Authorities have had to set the quota of unskilled workers who can emigrate from Mexico to the U.S. legally at only 5,000 per year for fear of flooding out and tanking wages in the unskilled labor market.
REPLY TO NORSKI: Since you have not challenged my thesis that service orientation is relative, and can be increased in a nation by national revival, which among other things increases available capital, so that an appeal to the hearts of Americans to love their neighbors is the best hope of creating work for all who desire it, I will hang on to it for awhile longer.
I will need some real evidence before accepting a characterization of unauthorized immigrants as "narcissistic" (selfish) and criminal. I have met a few of them, and studied them. I have also spent time with Tancredo followers. I agree with you that one of the two groups is selfish.
Your belief that any given personality is so "hard wired" into a child that he cannot change it by mere action of will as an adult, regardless of whatever experience may encourage it, is completely counter to my experience living among human beings.
I am unimpressed by any findings based on psychology for three reasons: the Supreme Court says it is not a science, its own studies show psychiatrists have no ability to help anyone, and I have found at least seven areas of enormous incompatibility between the bedrock assumptions of psychiatry and the Bible. I explore these areas in articles at www.Saltshaker.US/AmericanIssues/ChildAbuse/Junk Science Case.htm, www.Saltshaker.US/AmericanIssues/ChildAbuse/Popper.htm, and www.Saltshaker.US/BibleStudies/PsychologyVBible.htm. However, the conversation has been invigorating for me, and should you accept the general invitation I have extended to every participant to be a guest on my show, you would make a most interesting guest!
My imagination struggles with the idea that government bureaucrats are able to quantify how many jobs are available here, and that measurement has been the only factor in determining how many workers are allowed to come legally! In my observation, even if there were in existence people with that much sense, they would be the last ones consulted by those making the decisions!
HIRAM 10:10 am 8/17/7 FridayIt's funny you mention the Gibeonites by your reasoning they should have been welcomed as full citizens in Israel.
Again different treatment Deuteronomy 23:20 "You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess."
All the Bible verses you cite indicate kindness to individual aliens not to millions. Like when the Gibeonites came they had to disguise their true intent and claim to be from afar. Your example of the cites where only one person could enter the walls at a time is another example.
Also was the same graciousness extended to the Edomites, Moabites and others?
I seem to recall their being excluded through the 10th generation.
God gave specific instructions to the Jews to not have their culture destroyed by being multicultural.
"Embracing the customs and religions of others" Yes we should have a reasoned immigration policy but not open borders. I don't see that as a Biblical policy.
RESPONSE WHY God ordered the invasion of Palestine is not directly stated in Scripture, that I can find, but we are given clues.
Genesis 15:16 says the time for Abraham and his descendants to possess Canaan is later because "the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the three races of Canaan] is not yet full." In other words, the iniquity of 2 of the population groups was full, and the iniquity of the 3rd was almost full, but God waited until the "iniquity" of every last occupant of Palestine was full.
A clue to the fulness of their iniquity is that archeologists have found sexually transmitted diseases even among the bones of animals in Jericho. In other words, sexual disease so plagued Jericho that even the animals were infected.
Yet even out of that physical and spiritual mess, with child sacrifices and all the other practices God warned Israel about avoiding, which were part of the culture of Canaan, (God also warned Israel that they too would be invaded if they did those things), God saved a few. Like Rahab the innkeeper (translated "harlot" in the KJV) who married into the line of Jesus Christ! Matthew 1:5. And the Gibeonites.
Yes, they were a democracy. Joshua 9:11. But they were surrounded by iniquity. Perhaps we can think of nations today so steeped in Barbarism that some national mentoring would benefit them. Perhaps our occupation of Japan after the war is similar. I can only guess what the facts might have been that justified the treatment they received. But because Israel refused to observe a single Jubile, their treatment of Gibeonites apparently was far harsher than God willed.
Even their initial treatment by Israel was the decision of Joshua, and not necessarily of God. God was not consulted when the Gibeonites first deceived Israel, Joshua 9:14, but neither is any consultation with God recorded when Joshua pronounced judgment on them.
True, the Moabites were cursed with no intermarriage with Israelites to the 10th generation, Deuteronomy 23:3. But have you noticed that Ruth was a Moabitess, and only 4 generations later God allowed her to marry into the line of Jesus Christ, and recorded a book about her romance in His Book? So yes, I would say graciousness was extended to them.
"Open borders" has been pretty undefined in the national debate, so I don't know what you mean by the phrase. I have never suggested there should be no borders, or no agents checking credentials at our borders, or that unmonitored crossings should be tolerated.
But if we repeal unbiblical and unconstitutional quotas (numerical limitations) and replace them with reasonable criteria, we will have secure borders. Only criminals, terrorists, and drug runners will be motivated to cross illegally, and they will be easy to find. As Sam Osborne put it in another stream: "Some people would like to come to America to be one of us; some others would like to come to blow us up. It makes little sense to group and treat all of these people as if they are our enemies—it produces one big haystack in which a needle can easily hide."
DAMAGED EAGLE 2:44 pm, 8/16/7 BibleWizard - Illegal foreign nationals will still attempt to gain access to the United States unless something more substantial is done. Setting criteria is a non-answer to the problem and allows the situation to continue as it has done since the last time amnesty was granted. If it takes building a fence, more border security guards, along with more raids on plants hiring illegals with large fines for doing so; then so be it. Otherwise all you are offering is the same deal congress provided last time and no action to rectify the problem.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
RESPONSE I don't know what you mean by "illegal foreign nationals". With no quotas, so that everyone willing to meet a few reasonable criteria, no one would be "illegal" anymore, except applicants with criminal records for "real" crimes (which I define as violations of laws which apply equally to everybody). But those with criminal records are such a small percentage of those trying to come! It's like one or two percent. We can't physically catch or process all that want to come, but we can easily catch only one or two percent of them.
Every single immigration reform proposal from 1986 through the present has left numerical limitations in place. That is what creates the 10-year backlogs, during which courts don't allow applicants to be deported since the USCIS won't decide whether applicants are here legally for several more years!
Some express readiness to raise quotas to a "reasonable level", but as long as they are not raised high enough to accomodate all who are trying to come, we will have to try to catch 100 times more (beyond whatever the quota level is) than we would have to if we eliminated quotas
HIRAM 4:18 pm, 8/16/7Biblewizard says: "Some express readiness to raise quotas to a "reasonable level", but as long as they are not raised high enough to accomodate all who are trying to come, we will have to try to catch 100 times more (beyond whatever the quota level is) than we would have to if we eliminated quotas."
Also that quotas are unconstitutional.
Where is the rational on a constitutional basis that quotas are illegal?
I have traveled in many countries I am convinced that about 1/3 of the worlds population would choose to live in the U.S. if given the chance.
Your idea of allowing all who are trying to come does not seem practical. Can we really accomodate 2 billion more people?
ALAN8228 4:54pm, 8/16/7 Congressman Tancredo has never supported any type of national ID card agenda. These disingenuous claims are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to discredit the Congressman, and proves that the only person spinning the, “unofficial moral compass” is the author of this piece. If you want to disagree with his positions, fine, but please do not make up such wild stories. Mr. Leach, please feel free to call me at the Virginia office if you would like for me to clarify his positions: 1-888-GOTOM08. _________________ Alan Moore Press Secretary Tancredo for President
RESPONSE TO HIRAM: I have given several hints about the unconstitutionality of quotas throughout these posts. The 14th Amendment plainly says laws must equally apply to all who are here, and Plyler v. Doe plainly said that includes illegals. Liberty is a fundamental right explicit in the Constitution's preamble, and in its 5th and 14th Amendments. It takes a specially hardened heart, or a mind intimidated by thick law books, to look at those plain words and think the denial of liberty for 12 million U.S. residents is constitutional. For such minds, I have written a legal argument at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Deportation-Brief.htm. I am working on getting this information to immigration attorneys who can use it to challenge the constitutionality of numerical limitations during any routine deportation hearing.
Yes, we can accommodate billions more people. I find it amazing that a prolifer like Tancredo would deny such an idea. Tancredo is a prolifer. Years ago, we prolifers countered the arguments of abortionists and population reductionists by pointing out that if the entire world's population were as densely packed as Chicago, they would take 10% of the U.S. land area, leaving the other 90% for farms, and the rest of the world for parks. Today's population seemed unsustainable to people two centuries ago, but to this day, who LIVES as if they believe population density is a curse? People are STILL leaving rural areas for cities! And when they leave, they stay in touch with the benefits of population density through TV, computers, cell phones, etc. Who wants to live with the technology that was available with the low populations of the past? Not many! Maybe for a hobby. I once gave guitar lessons to a doctor from Bangladesh, who gave his homeland as an example of unsustainable population, which he said was the reason for their grinding poverty. I got out my almanacs and found out Bangladesh has about the same population as Polk County. Does Polk County have an unsustainable population, I asked him? No. Then maybe it's not population density that causes poverty. Maybe it's things like government structure, freedom, and maybe religion. But although I have addressed this extreme concern in absolute terms, I do not foresee an unending flow of immigration if we lift the floodgates. There is a natural limit to the number of refugees that will flee any country: the more who flee, the more quickly that critical mass of people will be reached, of people so sick and tired of oppression that they will control their oppressors. Numerical limitations are preventing this from happening. If we processed citizenship applications in 3 years instead of 30, then when immigrants send their money back home, they will be able to export political experience with their money. What a powerful combination for change! But when we make them wait 30 years before they can vote, the people they have been sending their money to are all dead. Quotas are the reason we take decades to process forms. RESPONSE TO ALAN 8228: This opportunity to reason with someone on the Tancredo campaign is something I have waited for for months. I have requested such an opportunity from campaign staff without result. I would LOVE to believe Tancredo rejects a National ID. Any encouragement you can give me, I will soak up like a thirsty sponge. Tancredo is a fellow prolifer. It is disorienting to me to be on the opposite side of a Biblical issue from such a Moral Conservative leader. From my article, www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Moral-Conservative.htm: "In a June 30, 2007 candidate forum,
the candidates were asked if they supported the electronic employment verification system - where employers
will never be able to hire anybody without first checking the job applicant's name with a new national
database that combines the databases of the IRS, Social Security administration, and the drivers'
license databases of all 50 states - which is about 90% of the database which the Antichrist will
need for a Mark without which no man might buy or sell, Revelation 13-14. The six candidates present
are all Christians who believe the Revelation description of this Mark as the worst sin of all human history.
"Yet four of them pledged to bring 90% of this Mark upon America! The four were Senator Sam Brownback,
Congressman Duncan Hunter, Governor Mitt Romney, and Congressman Tom Tancredo who has been the Congressional
leader of this scheme. (The other two, Governors Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson, said they
would support a "tamper proof ID", a much less Biblically frightening measure.)" I didn't read this information somewhere. I was there. I was an eyewitness. I asked Steve Scheffler afterwards why he would ask such questions, pressuring candidates to deliver us 90% of the Mark of the Beast! Do you think the Electronic Employment Verification System is something less than a national ID card? Throughout the Immigration Compromise bill, where the EEVS was laid out in detail, the bill would assure us "this is not a national ID card"! That's like saying our engagement in Iraq is not a war! That's like saying unauthorized immigrants are citizens! Is that what you say too? At the time Tancredo joined that pledge, the primary definition of the EEVS known to the nation was that of the Immigration Compromise bill. Do you disagree the EEVS consists of databases that combine those of all 50 states' driver's license databases,and the Social Security Adminstration, with "information sharing" with the FBI and the IRS? Do you disagree the card used will include a "biometric measure"? Originally it was speculated the Real ID Card (the basis for EEVS) would include thumb prints or retina scans; but on March 1 Secretary Chertoff (Homeland Security) said there would only be a "digital photograph". Not the polaroid we used to have, but a digital photo, so that computers can keep in on file. The Department of Homeland Security says facial recognition software combined with hidden cameras can scan crowds and instantly identify everyone present whose images are stored in the computers! What a blessing this will be at the border, Chertoff says! How much faster people will be able to cross! If you do not agree that is a "national ID", tell me what more it would have to have before you would call it that? Tancredo's press release (on his website) about the 9/11 report called "timid at best" such recommendations as "Create a comprehensive, biometric-based,
automated system to screen everyone entering and departing from the
United States ..." He says "Congress enacted in 2002, and the President signed legislation requiring that visa waiver countries issue machine-readable, biometric passports. Unfortunately, Congress is poised - at the administrations request - to delay the implementation of this requirement." (My copy of the press release is at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Tancredo-Wants-Mark-of-Beast.htm) Does it trouble you at all that this biometric monitoring will not just be of noncitizens, but of citizens? The creepy thing about this technology at the border is that if the March 1 Homeland Security plans are any indication, which are fleshed out in the Immigration Compromise bill, "information sharing" with other countries is part of it, including even technical assistance to other countries (which are incidentally less free than we) in developing their OWN national tracking databases to monitor THEIR citizens! The Immigration Compromise bill would have authorized Homeland Security to begin "pilot projects", in these things, and would have encouraged DHS to expand these projects without limit, all the way to an international database of every man, woman, and child on earth, all without further authorization of Congress! If anyone wants to know where I found these provisions in the bill, ask, but I imagine I am putting readers to sleep. Tancredo's dream immigration bill, HR 3534 The Border Enforcement and Revolving Employment to Assist Laborers Act of 2003, introduced on November 19, imposes a mandatory employment verification system and stringent requirements on accepting ID's. But I haven't read it myself yet. What will I find when I do? Did Tancredo, then, propose less than a National ID? Of course the Real ID Act wasn't passed until 2005, so his bill couldn't have been quite that ambitious. Did Tancredo support the Real ID Act? I generally recall that it was the demands of Tancredo and others like him that led to the act, against which a majority of states are now rebelling, to varying degrees. On June 27, Iowa's Charles Grassley led a successful effort to strip the Immigration Compromise Bill of the Real ID Act, which is what killed the bill. Since then two more Senate votes have shown the Senate is firmly on the side of the rebelling states. Grassley thinks all the identity checking we need can be done without the EEVS or digital photos, and without turning over state driver's license databases to the fed. And without hiring more IRS auditors equipped with huge new fines to go after businesses. What do YOU think? What does Tancredo think? Thank you for your offer to talk to me by phone, which I have just now noticed, after writing the preceding. I assume Monday would be the time to call, rather than over the weekend. I will look forward to talking to you then.
NORSKI: 10:33 am, Saturday, 8/18/7
Biblewizard – In response to you comment “Since you have not challenged my thesis that service orientation is relative, and can be increased in a nation by national revival, which among other things increases available capital, so that an appeal to the hearts of Americans to love their neighbors is the best hope of creating work for all who desire it, I will hang on to it for awhile longer” I would say that you chose not to hear my response. My response is that pooling the goodwill and cash of unskilled labor cannot generate enough capital to build a modern society. The best you can hope for by doing that is a poor agrarian society with few manufactured goods much like the third world is today. So you want to go chop down some trees to build houses. Who makes the ax? Who mines the steel for the ax? So you need to efficiently grow food. Who makes the plow? Who mines the fertilizer? We could not feed today’s population without inorganic fertilizer. You need to transport food from one place to another? Who makes the truck? Or if you need horses to move the goods who gives up their food so the horses can eat? Like it or not, our current population levels on earth cannot survive without a technological economy. That economy CANNOT BE BUILT without large amounts of capital. Capital that HAS TO BE CREATED before people can work in the technological economy. If you choose not to believe this that is your own choice and no one will be able to persuade you differently. But remember what I have said and if per chance we continue to ignore the flood of Illegal Immigrants and it causes unemployment to reach 32% like it did back in 1910, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
In response to your comments regarding “Narcissistic Personality Issues” I cannot do anything about your resistance to consulting psychological texts or whom you choose to classify as selfish. I can say that what you call selfishness in your response is truly in the eye of the beholder. I am talking about unhealthy self-interest. If you want to really understand Narcissism and how it works I would recommend books by Patricia Evens. Pay special attention to the 15 types of verbal abuse she cites in her book “The Verbally Abusive Relationship”. Talk with some people who have been verbally abused or physically abused. You will find that even though that book deals with verbal abuse in relationships it has a much broader application. You will begin to see how Narcissism and verbally abusive behavior characterizes a distressingly large amount of political discourse. And to clarify, I said that a person who tends to be Narcissistic cannot see that they are Narcissistic because to do so would require them to see that which is in themselves that they are trying so hard to not see – a fault. Yes, Narcissists can change, but it requires them to stop being a Narcissist long enough to see that they are Narcissists.
Overpopulation – The great surprise to me is that those who support liberal immigration policies also claim to support strict environmental policy. What happened to the great Environmentalists of the sixties who preached population control should go hand in hand with protecting the environment? U.S. Citizen born population growth has stabilized. Our population growth now comes from immigration, half of which is illegal. This illegal growth has driven development related destruction of our environment into high gear, yet today’s Environmentalists are supporting the Illegal Immigrants.
Population growth is causing land in the Western U.S. to become scarce, forcing people to build on marginal wild lands. The growing power needs of our cities are being met with proposals to run power lines across national forests, grasslands, and wilderness areas. Animals once common are disappearing due to habitat loss. Water levels in western reservoirs are falling, the land around Phoenix is sinking due to water table depletion, and the Colorado River almost disappears at the Mexican border. There is not a single major city in the Southwest that does not have water shortage problems. The west is running so low on water people are planning to divert water from the Great Lakes to fix the problem. Imagine the environmental damage across U.S. that would cause, all due to population growth. And when global warming eliminates our glaciers the loss of run-off means even less water.
Over the last twenty years we have lost an area of green space to urbanization greater than the size of Connecticut thanks to illegal immigration alone. Meanwhile, environmental groups laugh it off by blaming sprawl on rich homebuyers, conveniently forgetting that someone had to buy their old place or they would not have been able to move. And that does not count the conversion of wild lands into farms, clear cuts, strip mines, and such. Places I used to go as a child that were way out in the country are now part of the city. Camps where children used to go to learn about and appreciate nature are now surrounded by housing developments. Soon only the rich will be able to afford to visit the woods.
RESPONSE: Let's back up a notch. "my thesis: that service orientation is relative, and can be increased in a nation by national revival, which among other things increases available capital, so that an appeal to the hearts of Americans to love their neighbors is the best hope of creating work for all who desire it." You believe you have refuted my statement by saying "pooling the goodwill and cash of unskilled labor cannot generate enough capital to build a modern society. The best you can hope for by doing that is a poor agrarian society with few manufactured goods much like the third world is today." How does your statement even address mine, much less refute it? Did I deny your assumption of the need for capital? Did I talk about capital produced by pooling unskilled labor? I thought my vision was of capital recovered from being tragically wasted through every level of crime which is directly related to the hardness of hearts encouraged by issues like abortion and immigration. I can't remember you addressing that possibility, other than to call it "interesting". If I am right, then dubious rationales for exporting nonviolent immigrants, in violation of God's laws and the noblest phrases of our Constitution, are the direct cause of waste of capital, and refuting them is our best hope of increasing capital. A minor point about "unskilled labor": "pooling" it, the way God describes, in a spirit of helping one another, naturally causes labor to become more skilled. Likewise, when capital is shared, its usefulness multiplies. For example, normally I do not let others use my equipment. But when someone in need of it is trustworthy, I can lend it so that the same capital is practically doubled. If you learn from a psychology book that "abusive behavior characterizes a distressingly large amount of political discourse", then I will have to confess that good may sometimes be found in a psychology book. Since you find little hope in psychology books how people can dramatically change for the better, I will tell you my experience: it is when either of three things, or some combination of them, happens: (1) when one is loved more than he had expected, or (2) when one finds himself so much less deserving of the love he receives than he had expected, or (3) when he chooses to let down his walls (cynicism, grudges, etc) long enough to acknowledge it. Being brought to a point of despair by the challenges of life can facilitate #2. Some version of this formula is such common knowledge among authors, and especially among movie script writers, that they employ it as a literary device at will to get viewers to "cry". That helps explain why the Gospel of Jesus Christ is such a powerful agent of dramatic change. The news that God loves us so much that He came down among us, so close that He let Himself be vulnerable, able not only to literally feel our pain but able to be hurt, even to sacrifice life itself, is more than anyone could logically expect. The news that when He did that, our ancestors hated pure love so much that they killed it, is a wake-up call to the potential for wickedness within the human heart; and, once awakened, and especially once awakened by learning of God's Standards, we recognize tendencies farther in that direction than we had expected, that makes the persistence of God's love even more unexpected. That is why the message of how far immigration policy calls short of God's standards, and even of the standards set by noble phrases in our Constitution, is so crucial to the kind of national revival which will accomplish so much more than merely the restoration of squandered capital. I share your surprise that liberal Democrats, who used to be pro-abortion to the point of being population reductionists, for the sake of dear "Mother Earth", are the ones promoting huge immigration flow, while the "moral conservative" Republicans, who used to be pro-life to the point of saying God means for us to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and then go populate Mars, are the ones opposing any relaxation of immigration quotas for fear of "overpopulation"! Crazy! It sounds like we don't agree on the craziness of global warming and other environmental fears, however
Biblewizard - You said "Yes, we can accommodate billions more people... Years ago, we prolifers countered the arguments of abortionists and population reductionists by pointing out that if the entire world's population were as densely packed as Chicago, they would take 10% of the U.S. land area, leaving the other 90% for farms, and the rest of the world for parks. Today's population seemed unsustainable to people two centuries ago, but to this day, who LIVES as if they believe population density is a curse? People are STILL leaving rural areas for cities! And when they leave, they stay in touch with the benefits of population density through TV, computers, cell phones, etc. Who wants to live with the technology that was available with the low populations of the past? Not many!"
I would submit that this is only half the story. The other half the story is that it takes many acres of farmland, mines, manufacturing, forestry, roads, and other infrastructure to support one acre of city. So what if all the population can fit in 10% of the U.S. land area. That does not mean we would have enough land to feed everyone. Much less have room for parks and wild lands. If you want to impress me with this argument please also supply figures on how much of the land of the world cannot be farmed or lived on (like Mt. Everest), how many acres of farm it takes to feed each person, where all the water will come from to cultivate desert lands, etc. As an analytical person I have to be shown with numbers that the food currently grown worldwide actually can support our current worldwide population, considering the fact that so much of the worlds population is either starving or undernourished.
And most importantly, everything I have seen or read about the "Green Revolution" started back in the 60's states that if it were not for the new technology and new hybrid plants developed in the last fifty years we would not be able to sustain our current world population levels.
How many millions of people starved to death at the onset of the Little Ice Age back in the 1300's when a change in global climate changed the amount of food that would grow? You might want to look that up before further arguing the point above.
HIRAM, 4:58 pm, Sat 8/18/7
When I ask Biblewizard for a constitutional basis for the illegality of quotas he gives me a 5-4 descision by the Supreme Court. I have read language from the writers of the 14th amendment they specifically did not wish it to apply to illegal aliens. If we now are calling on a Supreme Court for our moral judgement then abortion is moral as well.
RESPONSE TO NORSKI: I freely concede that without the advances in agriculture over the past two centuries, we could probably not feed today's population, let alone tomorrow's. You say just the advances in the past 50 years were needed to keep up with the population growth of just the past 50 years. Perhaps.
The point is that with population growth, if there is also freedom and peace, there is also technological growth.
Will this remain true? I have FAITH that it will. That if we obey God, technology will continue to grow, just as it has for two centuries. You don't. You want to see numbers, based on current technology, proving that today's technology will feed tomorrow's population. I can SPECULATE about growing crops on rooftops - the entire world's population, stuffed into California, would give each man , woman, and child a standard 50'x130' house lot. Theoretically, if people lived under green roofs, and filled their land with crops, each could feed himself. Theoretically, land under the top layer of land could also be cultivated with crops requiring less sun. That wouldn't leave room for roads; transportation would have to be by subway or monorail. As you note, water would have to be solved, perhaps with more desalination of the Ocean. Israel was desert under the Arabs, but Israeli scientists figured out how to cover the ground with plastic, except for tiny holes for plants, and how to get one drop of water to each plant every minute or so, with the result that Israel is a major exporter of the most luscious, giant fruits and vegetables in the world, from those same useless deserts. I'm not saying the world should crowd into California, but you asked how it is POSSIBLE to feed future populations with today's technology. It certainly strikes me as miles more than POSSIBLE. When I ponder such possibilities, and such a long pattern of benefits from population growth, it is difficult for me to see population growth as a great threat for the future. The assumption that the future will not bring, with population growth, new technologies capable of feeding our children seems unfounded in human experience. However, the certainty of future upheaval, as hearts harden towards neighbors, I would think would be obvious to a child.
Just think of advances in narrow fields of research, from the development of heart pumps to the invention of flash drives; consider how many people must be employed in each narrow R&D area to create these benefits. Just from that, you can see that the technology we enjoy today simply wasn't possible with the population levels of two centuries ago. Well, two other things are needed: peace, and freedom. With no more peace, freedom, and population than existed 2 centuries ago, today's advances would have been impossible. Do you not see how continued peace, freedom, and population will bless our descendants even more? But do you not also see how hardness of hearts for our neighbors is a direct threat to our peace, freedom, and population? RESPONSE TO HIRAM: I obviously agree with you that the U.S. Supreme Court is not the "Highest Power" implied by Romans 13:1. Where it conflicts with God, such as on abortion, I obviously acknowledge the superior authority of God. But you say you honor the "rule of law" of Romans 13:1 yet reject the Supreme Court even when it agrees with God, in the case of the liberty rights of immigrants whom we will not legally admit but whom we have allowed to live among us! What is the "highest power" that trumps both the Court and God in your thinking? Your prejudices? Tom Tancredo? Congressman Steve King? Jan Mickelson alerted me to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment authors you mention. Jan allowed me to spar with him for an hour once. (The transcript is on my website. The index of all my articles is at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/HispanicHope.htm) My study began with the arguments Jan referred me to. I can't remember if they were in a 6/25/97 House subcommittee transcript, or if I found that later. In the transcript, Congressman Bilbray did his best to defend your view, against a U.S. attorney, other Congressmen, and expert witnesses. My copy, with comments, is at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Subcommittee.htm. It was before that, that I found the Supreme Court's 1982 take on those same statements by 14th Amendment authors. A short selection from that ruling:
Seems pretty clear to me. But that is not the Howard quote which interested Jan. In fact, I can't remember Jan bringing up this quote at all. The quote Jan likes is next. I really did spend hours staring at Jan's interpretations of Congressman Howard's statements to see if there was any possible way Jan's interpretation could make sense. Here is the critical paragraph and my analysis of the grammar:
"[E]very person born within the limits [borders] of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum [something needed and wanted] in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The issue is whether "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors" are three categories of the population, as you and Congressman Bilbray argue, or one. Bilbray and a whole national movement says babies born here are not citizens (according to this phrase) if they are foreigners, or if they are illegal aliens, or if they are in the families of ambassadors. The traditional interpretation is that "aliens" was not a separate category from "foreigners", since they meant the same thing. There was no such thing as "illegal aliens" during this debate, since the first law against anyone coming here was in 1882. Remember that these words are from a transcript, and that the transcriber added punctuation, not the speaker. Here is the phrase with punctuation that reflects the traditional interpretation: "... foreigners (aliens) who belong to the families of ambassadors..." The new Bilbray interpretation turns the first "category" into an absurdity: "this will not include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners."
What does it explain, to say the way to tell whom, of those born in the
U.S., are citizens and whom are foreigners, is that everyone born in the
U.S. is a citizen, except those who are foreigners?! What Howard must have
meant to say was "This will not...include persons born in the United
States TO foreigners; (or, in other words,) TO aliens who belong to the
families of ambassadors....." "Aliens" and "foreigners"
are not two separate categories. They meant the same thing. Howard is just
using the redundancy to underline his meaning, not to imply a second category
whose identity we are invited to guess. When the grammar of someone's oral
defense of his written statement invites any speculation at all, but the
grammar of the written statement does not, we should be content with the
plain meaning of the written statement: in this case, the 14th Amendment, without
looking in Mr. Howard's debate notes for excuses to change the plain grammar
of the Constitution.
DAMAGED EAGLE, 6:37 pm, Saturday:
Biblewizard - I think you understand very well what I mean by 'illegal foreign nationals.' I find your response of allowing uncontrolled immigration to take place unacceptable and unconscionable. From my studies of the Great Depression and what indicators there are, that I've been watching, unleashing such a flood of people within the borders of the United States today may make the that depression look like a recession. Only a couple of weeks ago the Des Moines Register ran an article that stated that there are 5000 homeless in Polk county. That is just the homeless figure it does not state what the unemployment rate was or those that live with relatives that can not find a job. Even the CEO of Wal-Mart recently stated that their sales are down because people have less to spend and things have to change - a shocking statement from a company that pays minimum wage and provides little to no benefits to most of their employees (Last statement dripping in sarcasm). Where are the jobs that the people you wish to 'open the floodgates for'? They've all moved out of the United States to increase economic developement in other countries. Should we throw the lawbooks out as you suggest? Have your children or grandchildren received any Fisher price toys recently? How about fish packaged overseas and shipped for sale in the United States? If you have a pet; did it get sick on any prepackaged food lately? Should the lawsuits against these companies be dropped all in the name of economic developement? Do you know when the anti-trust laws that control such things as work enviornment were created and why? Do you know how many people were without jobs and homeless during the Great Depression? Allowing uncontrolled and unlimited numbers to immigrate leaves the people of the United States heading towards a depression that may be epoch in the history of the United States. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." H. G. Wells
RESPONSE TO DAMAGED EAGLE: Most of what you say, Norski said before you, so my response to him as as much response as I have for you. You mention the exportation of jobs. Why do you think that happens? If you say "because labor is cheaper overseas", that is true, but only one part of the picture. If you say "because they have better education", that would be an interesting theory consistent with the fact that our graduates rank 10th or so in math, but inconsistent with the fact that our engineering and medical schools are still the schools that attract the brightest students from all over the world. Why does innovation usually begin here? Much of our overseas competition is because we have taken our technology and tools there and shown them how to compete with us. The bright side of this is that should we become dependant upon an item which we no longer produce here, and the foreign producer stops selling to us, it will be a small matter to resume production of it here.
The impression I get is that what the U.S. work force lacks in willingness to work cheap, it makes up for in creativity. That is what continues to make us winners in world competition.
You say it is immigration that takes away our jobs. That seems not only a reactionary thing to say, but an odd thing to say, since immigration - to the extent it supplies cheap labor - keeps our jobs here. You say "what have we gained by keeping our jobs here if we just give them to immigrants"? What we gain is the portion of the exported business or factory which requires skilled, expensive labor. When we export a factory, almost all the jobs go to foreigners. When we keep a factory here, and man it with cheap immigrant labor, we get to keep the good jobs in it for ourselves. I'm not making these arguments because I am personally motivated by keeping top salaries for me and mine. If money were my life's motivation, I would have spent my decades doing far different things. I am making these arguments now to show that even for people motivated by greed, immigrant hatred makes no sense. You are shooting yourself in the foot. There are other important reasons we export jobs. At least five of them: T, A, X, E, and S. That, and red tape requiring expensive staff to fill out government forms. These burden$ which we impose on businesses here but which we of course do not impose on our businesses which we export, are like a tariff against ourselves. Replacing these IR$ burden$ with a National Sales Tax, called the "Fair Tax" by Republican candidates, will eliminate the tax advantage which we give foreign producers.
COMMONSENSE INDSM: 12:14 pm, Sunday, 8/19/7
bw - you should really try to make your posts more concise. i don't think anyone is reading your very, very long ones.
RESPONSE TO COMMON SENSE INDSM: Normally I would have to agree that what you say is just common sense. I have been astonished that in this stream, despite the length of my responses, people have been reading them enough to respond point by laborious point, and this stream has remained the most read opinion pages stream (standing now over 600 views) for about a week. I can't explain it. I am grateful for the interest.
It's not that I don't want to explain everything in 50 words or less. I just don't understand how it can be done.
DAMAGED EAGLE 4:48 pm sunday 8/19/7
BibleWizard - So what you're really saying is, that what you want in the United States is cheap labor and giving big businesses as many breaks as the government can afford? Or that appears to be what you are saying by stating that 'the US work force lacks the willingness to work cheap' and the part you mentioned about T A X E S and peronnel to fill out government red tape. Oh and we should also throw out things like the anti-trust laws, the OSHA manual, enviornmental controls, etc... so big business can afford to produce in the United States because they don't require most of these silly things when those companies work overseas. Am I reading you right so far?
"The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism." George Jean Nathan
HIRAM 5:14 pm, 8/19/7Sunday
Quote from Plyer Vs Doe
"While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens."
I do not see this decision as offering citizenship rights to illegal aliens.
It only says that children of illegal aliens can not be denied public education as they are not responsible for the actions of their parents.
Funny it specifically says that the State might have an interest in mitigating effects from an influx of illegal immigrants.
It also proposes prohibiting employment of illegal aliens.
So this falls far short of the claims of BibleWizard.
In all of his long diatribes I still have not seen a Biblical justification for mass immigration against the will of the country involved.
I agree that aliens should be treated humanely but not that borders should be opened.
Christ urges us to "go forth to all nations" not for all nations to immigrate to the United States.
I support efforts to encourage freedom which leads to prosperity in other nations. I do not support the effort to let them export their problems to the United States.
I certainly do not see this as an immoral position.
RESPONSE TO DAMAGED EAGLE: You take from what I wrote that I care about cheap labor for busiiness? Did you read the part where I said why I am raising economic arguments? I'm not your enemy, if cheap labor seems a great travesty to you. Reality is. Cheap labor is going to compete with us, whether we hire cheap here or export our factories overseas. The reason I propose NOT exporting jobs, but hiring cheap here, is because then at least the good high paying jobs that go with the factory, which would leave the states if the factory leaves, would stay here. Not that I personally care. I care about obeying God, and stopping the hatred, and the lame excuses for it. I offer you the way to stop shooting yourself in the foot, in case you are greedy. I don't care if you get paid more, but I care if you tempt God, and appeal to your greed to get you to back away from God's judgment. But if you are so angry with God and your neighbors that you are determined to keep shooting yourself in the foot, pressing for an economic policy that achieves the opposite of what you say it does, I can't stop you, and God may see no reason to. I wonder how far your admiration of red tape extends? My experience of bureaucracy is a mixture of good, good intentions, absurdity, vague undefined law that inspectors don't define for you until you are in court, and plain corruption. As bad as it gets here, though, it's nothing like in Mexico. Have you had better experience with bureaucrats than I have? I suppose bureaucracy could be trimmed of its cruel edges so that it is first educational, and punitive only with repeated violations; and if somehow regulations were written clearly so that ordinary people could anticipate, from them, how a judge will interpret them; and if paperwork requirements were reduced to a reasonable level so that extra employees need not be hired just to fill them out, then I think far fewer jobs would be exported. But perhaps you prefer exporting jobs. Norski does. He says it is more merciful to immigrants to employ them in their home countries. But as long as people think every last millimeter of red tape is the Gift of God, we won't see it reduced. Bureaucrats will continue roaming, and occasionally seizing, our businesses, our homes, our pets, and our children.
RESPONSE TO HIRAM: So you have actually read Plyler v. Doe? I really appreciate the educated challenges I am receiving through this stream. Are you a lawyer? Few non-lawyers snuggle up with Supreme Court cases to read themselves to sleep. My Deportation Brief agrees with you that Plyler does not rule against numerical limitations. I would love to get your feedback after reading it. Courts don't rule on issues not raised by the parties, or at least they say they aren't supposed to. It is true that Plyler distinguishes between "illegal" adults and children who lack any possibility for "criminal intent" (although the case doesn't use that phrase). So my brief focuses most on unauthorized children facing deportation. But notice that Plyler dicta denies illegal adults rights for two reasons: they do not qualify as a "suspect class" (a class being discriminated against) because they broke a law to get in the class where they are; and the right to education is not a "fundamental right". However, notice Plyler's acknowledgment that were a "fundamental right" at issue, the fact that they broke the law would not slow down the Court in jumping to their aid.
My brief cites other cases, as if conmmon sense were not enough, to establish that "liberty" is one of those "fundamental rights", so that "strict scrutiny" should evaluate whether Numerical Limitations may legally deny liberty to at least 12 million U.S. residents. Numerical Limitations cannot survive a "strict scrutiny" review. You say you are still waiting for "Biblical justification for mass immigration against the will of the country involved.
" What part of "And if a stranger [immigrant] sojourn [come to live] with thee in your land, ye shall not vex [deport] him" don't you understand? Do you think "the will of a country" trumps the will of almighty God? I have no problem with red tape. I've had to work with it most of my adult life so am used to it. After all it's supposed to prevent things like lead paint on toys, contaminated food, poisoned meds, etc... As for lower wages they can't get much lower than this acoording to what the federal government has as a minimum standard. So why should I care what the min wage is? Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people and need to move to New York City. Aren't they the ones that set up their children and grandchildren in condos that cost millions of dollars and a allowance that provides for them for life? Or perhaps the CEO's that require millions in bonuses every year? Perhaps you mean the CEO of K-Mart who took away the dollar an hour on Sunday from the employees across the county then took a three million dollar bonus for the money he saved the company only a couple of months later? I really think your arguments might have merit but it seems that instead of the prices of products and services going down, they go up and the people at the top only continue to grow fatter. Perhaps if the rich expected less pie the world would be a better place however as I see it I have to provide security of some form for my own and that means if there are less people at the bottom the pay will be higher. Their loss is my gain and that is how capitalism works.
"Cui bono?
To whose profit."
Cicero HIRAM 11:01 pm Sunday 8/19/7 BibleWizard says "What part of "And if a stranger [immigrant] sojourn [come to live] with thee in your land, ye shall not vex [deport] him" don't you understand?"
My argument was that while we can abide "a" immigrant we can not necessarily abide 20 milllion or 2 billion.
Again the Gibeonites were not welcomed as full citizens. Your statment that Aaron did not consult God on his judgement does not prove whether God approved or disaproved. Certainly if he disaproved there could be a clear indication of that disapproval.
When Aashan disobeyed there was a pretty clear indication.
When I asked for a constitutional justification for quotas being unconstitutional you specifically cited Plyer Vs Doe but it does not make the case against quotas. Your proposition was that by the Constitution immigration shoulde unlimited. But Plyer Vs Doe specifically speaks of effective means of stemming the tide of illegal immigration.
Your argument that Ruth being a Moabite rescinded the ban against Moabites being welcomed in again takes one case and makes it a general rule.
Ruth was granted grace but not all Moabites.
I went ahead and looked up vex in the Strong concordance. Specifically in regard to the passage you cited. It does not even list deport or expel as one of it's definitions.
"1) to oppress, suppress, treat violently, maltreat, vex, do wrong
a) (Qal) to oppress, suppress
b) (Hiphil) to treat violently, maltreat"
So you are adding your personal intrepretation to the Bible passage not the commonly accepted Biblical scholars position.
You have done one of the most basic misuses of the Bible you have started with your own personal view that immigrants should be welcomed en masse then attempted to fit scripture to that view.
You reject or try to explain away scripture that does not suit your purpose.
You have not made your case very persuasively. RESPONSE TO DAMAGEDEAGLE: You say: "if there are less people at the bottom the pay will be higher." I think you mean "the fewer people in my company making low wages, the more money there will be to pay me." But on the other hand you said the CEO of K-Mart, by paying the same number of employees less, found $3 million more to pay himself.
I don't pretend to understand million dollar salaries. Although I own my own business, (no employees), my wife and I would qualify for food stamps if we were interested. But I understand that my income might as well be a million dollars, compared with that of people I have met south of the border. And the salaries of friends south of the border might as well be thousands of dollars, compared with the income which my friends from Sudan used to experience. I think of that, when I am tempted to feel contempt for someone making millions a year. As I think of that, I just hope the people whom God has given all that money will use it wisely, and I pray I will do the same with what God has provided me. RESPONSE TO HIRAM: The concordance you are using is not the Strong's Concordance. I think it is a kind of updated Strong's Concordance used in many computer programs, such as in my free Online Bible, which defines the word exactly as you have laid it out. These common computer concordances are easily mistaken for the original "strong's" because they are advertised as using Strong's numbers to look up words (as opposed to having to read the Hebrew characters to look up words). If you look up "vex" in a genuine Strong's Concordance you will find "[Heb. 3238] yanah (yaw-naw')
a primitive root; to rage or be violent: by implication, to suppress, to maltreat:--destroy, (thrust out by) oppress(-ing, -ion, -or), proud, vex, do violence." As I wrote, "(thrust out by) oppression" is part of the Strong's definition. I wasn't ready to go public with my discovery until I had done a context study of the Hebrew yawNAW to see if, in the other contexts where the word appears, "thrust out" is a meaning which the context supports. That study is posted at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-vex-a-stranger.htm. Perhaps you did not read my earlier link to it in this stream. I would post the whole study here, but have recently been chastised for long posts, so perhaps you can check it out there. . If you can see where God commands us not to deport "a stranger" who comes to you, then can you not see that God 's command is to not to deport "any" stranger, even if 20 million come? I can't figure out what point you are making about the Gibeonites and about Plyler v. Doe that I didn't make, yet you say it as if you are arguing with me. I do appreciate your point about Moabites. Your original point in bring up the fellowship ban against Moabites was, I think, to suggest that second class citizenship for some groups is consistent with God's mindset. I replied that despite that ban, God let Ruth the Moabitess marry into the line of Jesus Christ after only 4 generations. Now you rightly point out the exception does not make the rule. I think the Biblical application of the issue to immigration is that (1) God doesn't limit rights without cause. The Moabites were judged because they sent prostitutes to tempt Israel in order to get them to disobey God and thus lose God's protection. Numbers 25:1, 31:16. (2) This is a Biblical precedent for "profiling" of Arabs, many of whom are devoted to our destruction, and yet also a precedent against such strict profiling that individuals meriting exceptions cannot be discerned. (3) The exception made for Ruth is a Biblical precedent for criteria-based immigration: Ruth met God's criteria, so she was accepted into God's family. To imagine there is a place in God's Heart for consigning population groups into second class citizenship is contrary to such great passages as " Ac 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: " " Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." "Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." " Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. " " Ac 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." NORSKI 1:17 am Monday 8/20/7 Biblewizard - You have obviously spent a significant amount of time studying the bible. And the bible says a lot about how to live a good life. But remember, if you truly believe God created the Heaven and the Earth, you should also understand that God also created the rules governing nature and mankind. The study of Science, Economics, and Psychology is the study of those rules. And there are those of us who have spent as much time studying those rules as you have spent studying the Bible. My Bible is 1,085 pages long. Far too short to contain all the rules of the Universe that God has created. He left it to us to discover those rules. And I would submit that to ignore those rules is to ignore the beauty of God’s handiwork.
But every time someone tries to explain a portion of those rules you retreat into a dissertation of how things should work in the ideal world. But most Human Beings do not exist in the ideal world. We exist in a real world of human frailties. Of people who refuse to admit that they have a problem until they hit rock bottom. Of people who cannot see that their own greed hurts other people because they are too busy seeing how they themselves are better off. Of a world filled with mistakes waiting for us to discover what happened so we do not have to repeat those mistakes. To quote Toynbee "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It is up to us to find all new mistakes to make. To make the same old mistakes as others have made in the past is to waste what God lies before us. And that is why the study of economics is so important in the Illegal Immigration situation that currently troubles us in the U.S.
There are many examples in history that show uncontrolled immigration causes unemployment, uneven economic development, and yes, unhealthy cultural upheaval. I have discussed the unemployment factor in earlier posts. How it resulted in the Chinese Exclusion act and of how it blighted the U.S. with high unemployment 100 years ago. If you are a fan of the History Channel you would also have seen that uncontrolled immigration and poor assimilation of unskilled people caused the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the onset of a thousand year long Dark Age. I do not expect you to believe this without independent verification. But I would hope that I do not have to misquote Thomas Payne by saying “To argue with a person whom has renounced the use of real world reasoning is like administering medicine to the dead” RESPONSE TO NORSKI: How can you think I have no appreciation of economics, after I have spent hours discussing economics with you? Isn't your complaint more honestly expressed by saying I have posited economic principles which you find "interesting" but which you do not want to, or perhaps cannot, address directly? I love science. I hate to see it misused. The Bible has a wonderful phrase "science falsely so called". 1 Tim 6:20. Psychology is not science, according to the Supreme Court, as eloquently explained by Karl Popper in the link I gave. What is impractical about the economic principles I posited? Refute the specific points I made. Don't hide from that duty by accusing me of being unconcerned with reality. If you can prove your case that immigration causes unemployment, unmitigated by the factors I enumerated, do it.
UPDATE POSTED 2:15 PM, mONDAY 8/20/7: Tom Tancredo’s press secretary does not know that Tancredo supports the Electronic Employment Verification System, (as understood by the Senate and the Department of Homeland Security), was one of the loudest voices calling for the Real ID Act, and issued a press release commenting upon the 9/11 Commission report, calling for biometric scanning of citizens as well as noncitizens at our borders!
If Tancredo’s own press secretary does not know these things about him, it is very likely that many of his followers also do not know. Since Tancredo’s extreme deportation goals are impossible without the degree of national tracking which he indeed supports, it may be that making Tancredo supporters aware of what they are trying to do to themselves will not only soften their support for Big Brother government tracking, but for Tancredo’s extreme deportation goals.
He will check on these things and get back to me. I was relieved to see that as I talked to him, he was neither defensive nor confrontational, so I look forward to further exchange with him. I would love to be proved wrong about these facts. I would love to be assured that Moral Conservatives are not heading up the Paving Crew for the Road to Hell, after all.
THE DETAILS: On Friday, 8/17/7, at 4:54 pm, Republican Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo’s press secretary, Alan Moore, responded to the comment stream after my 8/10/7 Op-Ed article in the Des Moines Register:
“ALAN8228 4:54pm, 8/16/7 Congressman Tancredo has never supported any type of national ID card agenda. These disingenuous claims are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to discredit the Congressman, and proves that the only person spinning the, ‘unofficial moral compass’ is the author of this piece.
“If you want to disagree with his positions, fine, but please do not make up such wild stories. Mr. Leach, please feel free to call me at the Virginia office if you would like for me to clarify his positions: 1-888-GOTOM08.
“Alan Moore, Press Secretary, Tancredo for President”
On Monday, 8/20/7, I called him about 11:30 am (Central). I began “your statement was that Congressman Tancredo does not support a National ID card.”
“That’s right. Where did you get the idea he did?”
“I was present at the presidential candidate forum co-hosted by the Christian Coalition, which asked the candidates if they supported an Electronic Employment Verification System. Tancredo said he did. What is your understanding of that system?”
“That’s where an employer checks online with the Social Security Administration to see if a social security number is valid.”
“Can you tell me where I can find an official definition of the EEVS that supports that understanding?”
“Let me check.” (He apparently went online and did a search.) “There are many websites that discuss it.” (Pause)
“Are you aware of the definition in the Compromise Immigration bill [which the Department of Homeland security badly wants]?”
“No.”
“It’s where the Real ID card – do you know if Congressman Tancredo supported the Real ID Act?”
“No.”
“As I recall, Tancredo’s was one of the loudest voices demanding it. Do you know what it is?”
“No.”
“It combines the driver’s license databases into one huge database, and requires states to collect uniform data for it, including a biometric measure.”
[I didn’t mention that without the enhanced driver’s license, the old driver’s license will no longer satisfy federal ID purposes, such as boarding a plane, opening a bank account, or entering a federal building; and that once your state switches, anyone who rebels against getting one will have no driver’s license for non-federal purposes, such as driving, riding a bus, cashing a check, getting a job, etc. Nor did I mention that the deadline for states to comply, unless they apply for an extension, is May 11, 2008, and that Iowa has already complied.]
“The EEVS as understood by the Senate immigration bill [and by the Department of Homeland Security] would combine the Real ID database with that of the Social Security administration, with ‘information sharing’ with the FBI and the IRS; the FBI’s involvement would be to check names against its fingerprint database, and the IRS would equip a new army of auditors with huge new fines to check on businesses, looking for employers who fail to examine each employee’s Real ID card before hiring anybody.”
[Quotes from the Senate bill spelling out these features, and from letters from DHS head Michael Chertoff, submitted to the Senate June 27 by Senator Grassley of Iowa, are in parts 2, 3, and 4 of a series beginning at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Mark-Beast.htm]
“I’ll have to check that and get back to you.”
“Are you aware of Tancredo’s support for biometrically scanning citizens as well as others, who cross our borders?”
“He’s against that.”
“Do you know about his press release commenting on the 9/11 Commission report, where he calls for that?”
“No. A press release? When?”
“Unfortunately it was undated. But since it was commenting on the 9/11 Commission report, it would have been right after that.”
“Was it on the campaign website or the congressional website?”
(I answered carelessly, which may mislead him; actually I didn’t even know the websites were separate.)
“I’ll check on it and get back to you.”
“I will very much appreciate that.” NORSKI 11:58 am, 8/20/7, Monday: Biblewizard - It is not that I think that you have no appreciation of economics; it is that I think that you choose not to recognize and understand how real world economics works. Here is an example.
You earlier stated "If you think immigration causes unemployment, (more commonly it is alleged that immigration “drives down wages”), then which do you think would cause unemployment most: the present system where an illegal works for $4 an hour; President Bush’s system where he becomes legal and works for $10 an hour; or Tom Tancredo’s system where he is deported and works in Mexico for an American auto parts manufacturer for $5 a day?" This statement is a political statement, not an economic statement.
First, Per Capita GDP in Mexico is over $19,000 which points to an average wage of more than $5.00 per hour, not $5.00 per day. In fact, reports on the Maqilladora program place factory wages in Mexico to be above the average wage. Which means such a worker would be in the top half of income earners in Mexico. And as was stated earlier, the value of a wage is not in the amount paid, but in what that amount will buy in the place where you live.
Second, people here in the U.S. Illegally are competing for jobs against Legal Immigrants and Citizens. But so are people who come into the U.S. Legally under the current H1B, H2A, and other guest worker programs. All immigration causes lower wages by increasing the supply of Labor. But the trick is to limit the flow of labor so that there is not a huge oversupply of that labor. Because a huge oversupply of labor crashes wages and causes increasingly bad unemployment. Illegal Immigration by-passes that control. Too many workers, too few jobs. And note that the U.S. currently receives more Legal Immigrants than the rest of the world combined. The only surprise so far is that unemployment is not worse than it already is.
Third, if President Bush waved a magic wand tomorrow and made every illegal immigrant legal it would cause two things. Initially, Illegal Workers would become Legal Workers, which would force companies to pay a fair wage. But that would follow with many of the newly legalized Illegal Workers headed for the unemployment line. Companies hire Illegal Immigrants because they are cheap. Not because we are really that short of Labor. Not with current statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center and the U.S. Government showing that there are more unemployed Americans than there are working Illegal Immigrants. Tempting an Illegal Immigrant to come from Mexico and settle in a place like Dodge City, KS to work in a meat-packing plant is a lot easier that hiring people from New Bedford, MA where unemployment is 14% to relocate. If you make Illegal Immigrants more expensive to hire as Legal Residents by the law of supply and demand companies would need less of them. But in reality, Companies would simply hire a new crop of Illegal Immigrants.
That leaves the U.S. Government with two bad choices. Choice one is to let everyone who wants to come to the U.S. to come and thus face a repeat of the high unemployment of 1910. Once unemployment reaches 20-30% people will stop coming but by then the social costs would be enormous. The second choice is to deport those who are not authorized to come to the U.S. That keeps our economy on an even keel but it hurts some people’s feelings because it makes them feel unwanted. That is real life. That is real history.
But your response to this to bring up what you call a “service economy” where people pool their resources and hire each other. And you state your expectations this will solve everything. But the closest anyone has come to achieving this on a countrywide scale is the attempt to make Communism work. And when I point out the obvious reasons why such a system has never worked, instead of citing examples of where you think it might have worked in real life you simply state that I have not addressed your points on economics. But since American is a place where we each have the right to live in a world of our own contrivance I respect your right to choose not to understand what I have said.
With regards to your comments on psychology and your personal experience with people with emotional problems, I would say that you have been extremely lucky. Having had person experience with people who have problems ranging from Alcoholism to Narcissism I know from first hand experience much of the psychological literature has many good and helpful things to say. But if you choose to dismiss this field of study as unworthy of your attention I can only say that it is your loss. But many who have seen the movie “Fatal Attraction” thought “how could anyone come up with garbage like that”? I actually made the acquaintance of someone who committed acts that were very much in tune with the acts of the Glen Close character in that movie. And that character’s behavior was based on real disorder called Borderline Personality Disorder. Now, 25 years later, knowing what I have learned about people prone to abusive personalities I wonder if I could have made some difference back then if only I had bothered to learn more about Human Behavior when I was young. RESPONSE TO NORSKY (posted 10pm, Monday) I see I will have to revise my little illustration, to account for the Maquiladora program, of which I had not heard. I read at http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/nao/maquilad.htm that it is a Mexican program in which American factories must participate, and that workers must be paid the Mexican minimum wage plus a small amount of profit sharing, and 25% overtime for working on Sunday.
However, what I read indicates factory workers may make $10,000 a year, not $19,000. I would be interested in a source for the higher figures.
And that doesn’t mean such wages are available outside the Maquiladora Program. The Mexico City journalist with whom I have been corresponding, Gabriela Buenrostro, used to make the wage you mention. But that was an exceptional wage. I think she told me that $5 an hour is, by a law not taken seriously, a “minimum wage” in Mexico. But in reality what actually is a minimum wage here is a rare wage in Mexico. Often such jobs are available not based on merit but by inheriting it, or by purchasing it for thousands of dollars, from the previous job holder.
Even if $19,000 is an “average” wage in Mexico, that doesn’t mean the vast majority of workers in Mexico are anywhere close to it. As Hiram pointed out, “in Mexico the top 10 percent of wage earners earn some 36 times what the lowest 10 percent earn. In the United States the richest 10 percent earn only 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent, said Pipitone. In addition, the wealthiest 20 percent of the population in Mexico controls 65.5 percent of the capital while the bottom 20 percent share 2.4 percent, according to a study on income distribution by political analyst Miguel Basanez.”
My earlier figure of $5 a day comes from a couple of missionaries in Reynoso and Nueva Progresso, who tell me unskilled labor works for $3 a day and skilled labor for $5 a day. They didn’t tell me about the Maquiladora Program. They did say the American factories provide, in addition to the wage, a small concrete block home, my guess (I saw hundreds of them) maybe 700 square feet. If they work 20 years they get to keep the home. If they are fired after 19 years, they lose it.
You continue to allege an increased supply of workers means a diminished supply of wages as if there are no mitigating factors, such as the fact I have cited that each new worker is also a new consumer, creating a new job for each one he takes. Do you think correct economic thinking must ignore that factor? Your reasoning would make sense only in a laboratory where a fixed amount of work is to be done. Then, indeed, the fixed amount of work would have to be spread among additional workers, among whom the fixed amount of salary available to pay for that fixed amount of work would be spread thinner. Also, of course, the workers would either have shorter hours or would have to work more slowly, or additional workers for the same amount of work would cause the work to be done to run out.
But workers are also consumers. Am I out of touch with reality to notice that? Is it because I “choose not to recognize and understand how real world economics works” that I keep bothering you with that observation?
You do know, don’t you, that I never said revival will “solve everything”? That’s just your frustration speaking, isn’t it? By declining my several invitations to address whether it will solve ANYTHING, you seem to be saying it cannot; that revival, or service orientation, or charity, can never be the slightest economic factor; nor is there anything we can do to enhance it, even if it were.
That seems a really odd thing for an economist to say, since the charity of Americans is so high compared with the rest of the world, and nonprofits are such a significant part of the U.S. economy. Indeed, much of the world benefits hugely, economically, from American largess. How can any economist say this plays NO role? That, indeed, anyone who suggests that it might, obviously does not “understand how real world economics works”?!
I have been in the mode of asking you to consider these factors, since I am not the economist here; I am not the one with facts and figures at hand. But since Communism is the closest thing that comes to your mind when I mention “service” (which is the last place in the world I would look for voluntary service), and since you say it is time for me to be “citing examples of where you think it might have worked in real life”, I will mention an example from America’s last great revival, 90 years ago, over the moral issue of drinking. Similar economic statements would be just as true today regarding drinking, gambling, divorce, pornography, or abortion. These economic facts were part of one of Billy Sunday’s most popular sermons:
“And say, my friends, New York City’s annual drink bill is $365 million a year, $1 million a day. Listen a minute. That is four times the annual output of gold, and six times the value of all the silver mined in the United States. And in New York there is one saloon for every thirty families. The money spent in New York by the working people for drink in ten years would buy every working man in New York a home, allowing $3,500 for house and lot...That is what the peope in New York dump into the whiskey hole in one year. And then you wonder why there is poverty and crime, and that the country is not more prosperous....
“Kansas City is a town of 100,000 population, and temperance went into effect July 1, 1905. Then they had 250 saloons, 200 gambling hells and 60 houses of ill fame. The population was largely foreign, and inquiries have come from Germany, Sweden and Norway, asking the influence of the enforcement of the prohibitory law.
“At the end of one year the president of one of the largest banks in that city, a man who protested against the enforcement of the prohibitory law on the ground that it would hurt business, found that his bank deposits had increased $1.7 million, and 72% of the deposits were from men who had never saved a cent before, and 42% came from men who never had a dollar in the bank, but because the saloons were driven out they had a chance to save, and the people who objected on the grounds that it would injure business found an increase of 209% in building operations; and, furthermore, there were 3 times as many more people seeking investment, and court expenses decreased $25,000 in one year.
“Who pays to feed and keep the gang you have in jail? Why, you go down in your sock and pay for what the saloon has dumped in there. They don’t do it. Mr. Whisky Man, why don’t you go down and take a picture of wrecked and blighted homes, and of insane asylums, with gibbering idiots. Why don’t you take a picture of that?
“At Kansas City, Kansas, before the saloons were closed, they were getting ready to build an addition to the jail. Now the doors swing idly on the hinges and there is nobody to lock in the jails. And the commissioner of the Poor Farm says there is a wonderful falling off of old men and women coming to the Poor House, because their sons and daughters are saving their money and have quit spending it for drink. And they had to employ eighteen new school teachers for 600 boys and girls, between the ages of 12 and 18, that had never gone to school before because they had to help a drunken father support the family. And they have just set aside $200,000 to build a new school house, and the bonded indebtedness was reduced $245,000 in one year without the saloon revenue. And don’t you know another thing? In 1906, when they had the saloon, the population, according to the directory, was 89,655. According to the census of 1907 the population was 100,835, or an increase of 12% in one year, without the grog shop. In two years the bank deposits increased $3,930,000.
“You say, drive out the saloon and you kill business – Ha! Ha! ‘Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.’
“The saloon comes as near being a rat hole for a wage-earner to dump his wages in as anything you can find. The only interest it pays is red eyes and foul breath, and the loss of health. you can go in with money and you come out with empty pockets. you go in with character and you come out ruined. you go in with a good position and you ose it. you lose your position in the bank, or in the cab of the locomotive. And it pays nothing back but disease and damnation and gives an extra dividend in delirium tremens and a free pass to Hell. And then it will let your wife be buried in the potter’s field, and your children go to the asylum, and yet you walk out and say the saloon is a good institution, when it is the dirtiest thing on earth. It hasn’t one leg to stand on and has nothing to commend it to a decent man, not one thing.”
Just a little glimpse of the economic link between morality and prosperity. Biblewizard - Again I talk Apples, you talk oranges. I agree with you that the wages of sin can exact a terrible price from the economy. The resources wasted on strong drink prior to the temperance movement were really bad. And after the start of prohibition the problem was reduced, but a lot of it just went underground. And today we have the same problem with drugs. In case you have not noticed, 65 U.S. Citizens have gone missing in Nuevo Laredo Mexico in the past few years thanks to the drug war down there. And drug problems cost the American Economy billions of Dollars every year. That is what I was trying to refer to in my discussion of psychology. About the weakness and frailty of human beings and how some just feel that they are entitled to break whatever law they like, such as consuming excessive amounts of strong drink, illegal drugs, or the violation of immigration laws. That psychologically speaking, if someone sees nothing wrong with breaking some laws they are more prone to have the same attitude against other laws, and thus make poor citizens of the community. Especially if you are trying to build the service community of which you speak.
With regards to workers also being consumers, remember what Henry Ford had to teach us on the issue. He lived by the philosophy that an economy could not function well if Business did not pay its workers enough money to afford to buy its products. You state "You continue to allege an increased supply of workers means a diminished supply of wages as if there are no mitigating factors, such as the fact I have cited that each new worker is also a new consumer, creating a new job for each one he takes. Do you think correct economic thinking must ignore that factor?" Economic thinking does not ignore that factor. It embraces that factor. But as Henry Ford said, those workers have to be paid enough for that factor to have any significance. You see, it all has to do with disposable income. Disposable income is that income that is made in excess of the cost of food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. If a person lives in Mexico or the U.S. it does not matter when it comes to food. Since we are a net food exporter and all the food of the world is consumed each year there is no economic gain by the person coming to the U.S. Clothing is relatively irrelevant since most of our clothing is made overseas. Immigration actually hurts our balance of trade in this area. Shelter is the largest moneymaker but that is transitory as there is a one time expenditure to build a shelter, buy appliances, and so forth. From then on it is simply payments to a creditor or landlord. Transportation and the consumption of consumer goods is the only real source of economic activity that fuels growth. But with unskilled workers earning low wages expenditures in these areas are very small. And it is in the area of consumer goods that disposable income rules.
Now let’s take the real world example of Real Construction Wages being down by 11% (from U.S. Government Statistics) because of the influx of Illegal Immigrants. If disposable income was about a third of a Construction Worker’s wage before the 11% drop the decrease is magnified to a 33% drop in disposable income. Per the Pew Hispanic Center 14% of Construction Workers are estimated to be Illegal Immigrants. Now let’s take a very dangerous and not true guess and say for the sake of argument that the jobs held by Illegal Immigrants in this area were not obtained at the expense of Citizen Workers. In that case the Illegal Immigrants represent a 16% increase in disposable income for Construction Workers as a whole. But because they have dragged wages down due to the oversupply of workers, they have caused a 33% drop in disposable wages. The net result of more workers is a 17% loss in economic activity (+16%-33%) in the area that counts most in our economy. Now granted, I have oversimplified the analysis but the concept holds true. And it amply demonstrates the effect of excess workers hurting the economy. And it also supports the saying that has been flying around in the media lately “if unskilled workers could build a thriving economy how come the poorest countries on earth are the ones with the most unskilled labor?” The answer is that the oversupply of unskilled labor has bid down the wages to the point where there is no disposable income left. There is only enough income to buy food, shelter, and clothing. And uncontrolled immigration to the U.S. will in the long run have the same effect. People will come until unskilled wages fall to the point where there is little disposable income left. And the U.S. economy would look just like any third world economy – a few Rich and a lot of Poor. Against a flood like that raising the minimum wage would do nothing but devalue the U.S. Dollar.
I am surprised that you have not heard of the Maqilladora program. It is a program set up by Mexico and the U.S. designed to attract and support American Businesses that want to locate some of their operations in Mexico. A large share of the American Businesses that set up operations in Mexico do so under that program. Per the CIA World Fact Book the 2006 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of Mexico was $741.5 billion and the Labor Force numbered 38 million. That means that the average GDP per working person was $19,513 per year. The amount of GDP based on U.S. government statistics that is wages runs about 57%. So the average pay is about $11,122 per year. Since there are a base of 2,080 hours in a working year and assuming some overtime that works out to be about $5.00 per hour for the average wage in Mexico. Simple math. Note that the 57% rate does not include investment income. Wages only. You should be aware that most of the Rich of Mexico earn their riches through investment income just as do the Rich of the U.S. So there is not the skewing of the average wage due to Rich in Mexico that you would like to believe. Just the skewing of owned wealth. RESPONSE TO NORSKI, POSTED 2:30 AM, Tuesday My article, and more than one of my posts afterwards, has described the “rule of law” as defined by our Founders, which makes a distinction between laws in agreement with all authorities, and laws in conflict. Do you think the abolitionists were lawless? How about participants in Operation Rescue 15 years ago? How about Iowans who set off fireworks on the Fourth of July?
You say only disposable income contributes to our economy, not purchases of food, shelter, and transportation. Surely you do not mean this in absolute terms? Surely you only mean that in some relative sense disposable income contributes more to a certain quality of economic growth? Surely you do not mean that buying a house or car does not help our economy?
When you describe shelter as both “the largest moneymaker” and as “transitory” I can’t figure out from that what effect you think it has on our economy.
It is hard for me to follow your thinking when you say both that immigrant labor can’t contribute much to our economy because it is unskilled, and that immigrant labor is the reason construction wages are down. Are you saying construction labor is unskilled? It would seem to me that if immigrants are able to become skillful enough in construction to be the reason wages are down 11%, they are pretty skilled, and therefore talented enough to acquire skills in other fields, and should not be characterized as unskilled.
In what period of time have construction wages dropped 11%? Just wondering.
Immigrants apparently have an excessive amount of disposable income, because so many people are complaining how they send so much of it to their families back home.
When you look at the poorest countries of the world, don’t you see other reasons besides a lack of skills? Like a lack of freedom, peace, or religions like witchcraft (an example upon which we may agree) built upon ruining others rather than serving others? It seems to me that in an environment where there is freedom, peace, and religious influences generating qualities like mutual respect, compassion, love, service, and cooperation, people who do not have the skills they want can acquire them. We are truly a “land of opportunity”. People come from Sudan, from an economy where spoons are made of clam shells twined to sticks, and houses are made of grass twined to sticks, and learn how to repair cars and do medical surgery.
For these reasons, I still struggle with the concept of “oversupply of unskilled labor”. If an immigrant comes, his limited skills are temporary. He learns, and earns.
But to whatever extent immigrants truly lack skills, it seems to me they are not competing with Americans who are skilled, but only with Americans who are as lacking in skills. And it seems to me that this competition us unchanged whether the unskilled foreigners competing with unskilled Americans are living among us or living on the other side of the world. But having them here is better for us in this respect: it saves exporting whole factories abroad, which keeps the skilled jobs that go with them, here.
There are several things you say which I can’t quite understand, but where I do not consider myself right and you wrong. I’m not dismissing what you say. I appreciate it, I am keeping all this dialog, and I will continue to ponder it. I realize how many hours you have invested in trying to educate me, because I know how many hours I have spent responding to you. I am humbled that you have taken this time. Thank you.
PS what are you saying about Mexico? Were the missionaries wrong who told me unskilled labor goes for $3 a day, and skilled labor for $5 a day? Was Gabriela wrong in telling me minimum wage is officially $5 an hour, but very few ever see that much, and many good jobs are purchased for thousands of dollars or inherited? NORSKI 9:31 am Wednesday, 8/22/7 Biblewizard - With regard to Mexico you put too much stock in anecdotal evidence. Think of it this way. By talking to someone in Seattle can they tell you what is happening in Miami? National statistics published by a reputable source cannot be impugned, only spin doctored. Numbers do not lie, only the people who misuse them do.
With regards to income, disposable income, and economic development these are the terms that describe that which God has wrought. Whether you agree with them or not, that is the way economics works. I have heard it said that the Law of Supply and Demand is as immutable as the Laws of Physics. Yet you would say that as the supply of labor increases the wages paid to that labor would not fall. That is a violation of this, the most fundamental law of economics. It is like saying that if I hold out a hammer and let go of it, it will not fall to the ground.
Regarding Food, Housing, and Cloths, everyone has them to one extent or another if they have a job. Whether it is the shell spoons of Somalia or the gleaming silver of Beverly Hills. Without them life would end. In every nation on earth a job buys some form of food, shelter, and clothing. Even if the shelter is just a grass shack. And even if the person earns only $240 per month as in some African countries. (Refugees are people who have had their jobs, food, and shelter forcibly taken away.) Since life could not continue without food, shelter, and clothing these three items constitute a relatively fixed part of the global economy and of national economies. The only difference between nations is what each one regards and minimum acceptable food, shelter, and clothing. What that means is that wealth is defined as what you have beyond food, shelter, and clothing and whether your food shelter and clothing has embellishments not commonly found in the area where it is located. Would you build a wood frame house with eight inches of R-36 insulation in a termite infested rain forest? So yes, economic wealth is much more heavily dependant on consumer goods and such and whether the supply of labor is such that disposable income is not bid away by an oversupply of labor.
But what really is interesting in the U.S. is that we have somehow come to the conclusion that food, shelter, and clothing does not need to be worked for. That everyone should get it for free. Else wise why do we have food stamps, government assisted housing, and welfare? So if you live in a part of the world where work buys you food, clothing, and shelter and little else and you heard of a place that the government buys that for you would you not do everything you can to get there? All of your precepts on Illegal Immigrants are based on the assumption that they are hardworking, neighbor loving saints. But if you crack open an economics book and read it you will find that the economic incentives are such that Illegal Immigration is as much about getting a free lunch.
At this juncture I would expect you to list a whole bunch of reasons from the bible and your own experience to put a different light on what I have just said. Please be aware that I find what you have said to be interesting with some new aspects I have not considered but fundamentally I have heard most of it before. I have spend so much time responding to you posts because I had hoped to inspire within you a sense of the true wonder and majesty of how economics can be complicated and simple, both at the same time. And to dispel some of the myths that you have apparently bought into. Like for instance, businesses compete, economies cooperate. American and Chinese businesses may compete for the American Consumer Dollar and the Chinese Consumer RMB and some American and some Chinese businesses my loose, but both America and China get richer economies as a result. So if we export excess jobs rather than import people we make other countries' economies richer and we thus make ourselves richer.
I thank you for you time. I like to respond to teachable situations and if there is anything else you are curious about in this area please let me know. NORSKI, 10:38 am, Wednesday, 8/22/7 Biblewizard - Please also note that if you have a manufacturing company and you cannot find enough workers to expand so you build your next plant out of the country - let's say Mexico - then many things happen. First, you do not hurt the U.S. economy because the U.S. already has a great economy and enough jobs to go around. Second, you help the community in Mexico where you open your plant with the wages you pay. Third, the people in the community where you open your plant buy more goods with their new disposable income, some of them from American companies. Fourth, American companies that sell those goods expand, run out of labor in the U.S. also and locate more plants in Mexico, also causing no problems to the U.S. economy because it is at full employment. Fifth, Mexicans get richer and buy more of your products so you expand. Sixth, your operations in Mexico are profitable and you bring the profit back to the U.S. and put it into the bank for future expansion. By doing so you make the U.S. economy expand. Without you creating a single job in the U.S. both Mexico and the U.S. economies get richer.
This economic model was proven several years ago. A noted Economist decided to include the flow of Capital in the Balance of Trade figures. He found out that the flow of Capital into the U.S. balanced the net flow of Goods into the U.S. And of course the analysis got hushed up. Because sometimes when a company expands overseas U.S. jobs are lost and people have to find new careers. The "retraining" that you expressed the opinion that should be easy to do becomes necessary. Since people become set in their ways and view the need to retrain as an unnecessary chore forced on them by mean and insensitive corporate types, or because workers want to hold a company captive so that they can force wages up to be exorbitantly high, foreign expansion has acquired a dirty name and is politically unpopular. So now we import millions of workers and leave their home countries with little economic opportunity to land business. How fair is that? RETNAV, Wednesday, 8/22/7 IF YOU WILLFULLY KILL SOMEONE,,YOU ARE A MURDERER
IF YOU STEAL FROM SOMEONE..YOU ARE A THIEF
IF YOU STEAL FROM THE TAXPAYER..YOU ARE A POLITICIAN [COULDN'T HELP THAT ONE!!]
IF YOU WRECK SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY,... YOU ARE A VANDEL
IF YOU COME TO THIS COUNTRY, WITHOUT PROPER PAPERS, GAIN EMLOYMENT WITH SOMEONE ELSES SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DRIVE A VEHICLE THAT IS NOT REGISTERED OR COVERED WITH INSURANCE, OBTAIN SERVICES OF WHICH YOU ARE NOT ENTILTED TO, THEN YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, AND SHOULD BE DEALT WITH WITH THE FULL RULE OF LAW.
IF THE STATE, COUNTY OR CITY THIS OCCURS IN DOES NOTHING, THEN THE INDIVIDUALS IN CHARGE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN STEM THIS FLOW, AND START TO GAIN CONTROL IS TO HAMMER THE EMPLOYERS, LANDLORDS, CAR SALESMEN, AND OTHERS THAT EXPLOIT THESE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS FOR PROFIT.
LEGAL IMMIGRATION, YES.
ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS, NO
SANCTUARY CITIES, NO
POLITICAL PING PONG,... JUST CONSIDER THE SOURCE. IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO ELECTIONS, AND THEM CLOWNS WILL JUMP RING TO RING FOR A VOTE. IF YOU TAKE THE TIME, DO A LITTLE RESEARCH, AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY IN OTHER STATES, CITIES, NONE OF THEM WOULD GET ANY VOTES. NORSKI, 1:58 pm, Wednesday, 8/22/7 Biblewizard - You said "My article, and more than one of my posts afterwards, has described the “rule of law” as defined by our Founders, which makes a distinction between laws in agreement with all authorities, and laws in conflict. Do you think the abolitionists were lawless? How about participants in Operation Rescue 15 years ago? How about Iowans who set off fireworks on the Fourth of July?"
I had an ancestor who was a famous Abolitionist. So far as I know he never broke the law. But he did lead the charge in his community to end slavery. So far as I know Illegal Immigrants have never met the definition of Slaves.
A few times in my youth I lit off illegal fireworks. Then I grew up and realized that if I do not respect the laws other people want (no dangerous fireworks) then I was in a bad moral position to expect others to obey the laws I liked (Endangered Species Act). So I quit shooting off illegal fireworks. IMC 2:02 pm, Wednesday, 8/22/7 Mr. Leach likes to quote Bible scripture and that makes me wonder why he has not quoted this verse: Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
Now it seems to me that this is telling us to obey the laws our government has put in place because the authoritative figures within that government were put in place by God. Kind of refutes all the other scripture quotes that Mr. Leach has presented us with don’t you think?
And I would like to personally thank you for the publicity you are giving to Tom Tancredo. Although you put much spin on his views you are still giving him some fine publicity. But by saying that Tancredo supports a tamper proof bio ID card is not spin but an outright lie. I work as a volunteer for Tancredo and have attended many events when he spoke and I have heard him many times say that he is NOT in favor of such a thing. My suggestion to you would be to stay off the Tancredo hate sites. And also remember what the Bible says about lying about others.
RESPONSE TO NORSKI posted 3:10 pm, Wednesday, 8/22/7 You write, “Numbers do not lie, only the people who misuse them do.” I remember it as “Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure.”
I don’t question your figure of average Mexican income, because I don’t see how they challenge what I have heard from missionaries and from Gabriela. You now advise me to question my sources, because statistics say they are generally untrue, but without saying what statistics address them. The only statistics you offer, that I remember, are an “average” Mexican wage, and something about wages under the Maquiladora (which you spell Maqilladora - are both spellings used?) program. How do either of those figures address whether or not the great majority of skilled workers outside the Maquiladora program earn little more than $5 a day, and whether incentives to acquire skills in order to merit job advancement are frustrated by a system in which many top paying jobs are inherited or purchased?
My missionary source serves in Reynoso, across from the southern tip of Texas, paying prevailing wages to workers to build structures serving those in need while teaching them construction skills allowing them to almost double their incomes. He serves native Mexican missionaries farther into the interior by helping them with the expensive, hair-whitening, legal red tape a Christian must pass through in Mexico in order to acquire a government license to preach. So his $3-5 a day figure is based on a wider than usual slice of the economy, for the usual anecdotal perspective. Gabriela’s perspective, from Mexico City, is that of a journalist who hosted a coast-to-coast radio program and once wrote for aviation and chemical engineering journals. (See her resume at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/HispanicHope.htm)
Of course neither of us has yet discussed the economy for the self employed; we’ve just been talking about employees. Owning your own business puts you under different rules. A missionary living here in Des Moines, Dick White, once drove a Nueva Progresso resident to Monteray, where silver jewelry sells on the street at wholesale, to buy him a small nest egg of merchandise to start his own street vending business in Nueva Progresso, a tourist town. Juan now sits by three card tables full of merchandise and supports his family. One hurdle Mexicans must endure is the license fee collector who perpetually walks the streets, collecting money under a system not sufficiently transparent to assure missionaries that what is collected correlates to anything written in any evenly enforced law, or even how much of it passes from the collector’s pocket to the government. Even the beggars have expensive licenses. The old woman who sits forlorn with her outstretched cup uses borrowed toddlers to suggest who the money is for. She has one of the nicest homes in town. The real beggars cannot afford to enter the tourist area, but live beyond.
Nevertheless, for all these obstacles and different rules, the self employed, while sometimes poorer than the employed, sometimes do very well, in either country.
I understand and respect the concept of “supply and demand”. I understand the greater demand for labor which has become skilled. Even Proverbs, much of it written by apparently the richest man of all human history (relative to the economy of his time), spoke much of economy, and the prosperity associated with “wisdom”, which in those days meant skills ranging from music to construction as well as Bible understanding and discernment of human nature. For example, Proverbs 10:21 “The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.”
But you write of supply and demand, “Yet you would say that as the supply of labor increases the wages paid to that labor would not fall. That is a violation of this, the most fundamental law of economics. It is like saying that if I hold out a hammer and let go of it, it will not fall to the ground.” Denying that increased population always lowers wages is as foolish as denying gravity, you say. Categorically, inexorably, increased population causes wages to fall.
Please explain why there is so much more prosperity, in every country across the world, now, than there was 200 years ago when world population was so much smaller? Even to countries without freedom, peace, or commerce-friendly religions, luxuries have trickled down.
You should not trust the objectivity of any economics books that suggests “illegal immigrants” get a “free lunch” here. The most thorough study I have found that supports that view was published by the Center for Immigration Studies in 2004. ("The High Cost of Cheap Labor", August 24, 2004.) It alleged that while the average illegal pays about $4,000 a year in taxes, (based on the assumption that about half turn in phony ID’s and have their taxes withheld), they receive about $6,000 in government “services”, which many have erroneously reported as “welfare”. But I analyzed the report, and discovered that in order to say “illegals are on welfare”, you either have to redefine “illegals” to mean babies born here, who are U.S. citizens according to U.S. laws, or you have to redefine “welfare” to mean “services” like emergency hospital care, public education, or even jail time! OR EVEN GOVERNMENT WASTE!
When I recalculated their own numbers without counting citizens as “illegals”, I found that the average illegal who pays $4,000 in taxes receives about $4,000 in services. But to reach that $4,000, CIS actually includes $3,115 for a very strange entry as a “service”: the total budget of our federal government, divided by our population. It is called “infrastructure”. So that means when Congressman Fatbelly gets a federal study on the mating habits of chalkboard maggots in his district, that is put down as one of the costs to our government of illegal immigration!
Even the CIS report acknowledges illegals are not drawn here by welfare. "Although many Americans are upset about their use of public services, there is little evidence that illegals come to America to take advantage of benefits. Most illegal aliens come for jobs, and the vast majority are in fact employed." (p. 37) (For more information, see www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Illegals-Welfare-Myth.htm and www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/QuickFacts.htm)
Studies more current than the CIS report, and as carefully down, reach conclusions closer to what I have drawn, although I have not yet studied them.
Your last paragraph totally confuses me. You speak of “myths that you [I] have apparently bought into. Like for instance, businesses compete, economies cooperate.” Do you actually mean it is a myth, that businesses compete? That is what you just said, but right after that you acknowledge that American and Chinese businesses compete with one another, and mutually benefit. So I can’t tell what you mean.
As for the concept that “economies cooperate”, I’m not sure what you mean by that, it being a phrase I have not used and whose grammar I cannot parse, but a similar concept was the theme of my first book, which is still unpublished. The introduction stated “Civilization is the personification of cooperation, and it can only exist to the extent that we share our talents with one another.” If no one helps anyone else, we have a caveman economy. The more we help each other, the richer we become. Is this as self evident to you as it is to me?
I will even use a psychological study to buttress my point! Yes, it is true. Sometimes I even read psychological studies, and find them so interesting that I quote them. Like the studies that conclude that patients treated by psychiatrists improve at roughly the same rate as untreated patients (some get better, some worse) and that’s not as evaluated by some conservative Christian but by psychiatrists themselves! But that when a 2nd control group is introduced: patients communicating with some other group besides psychiatrists, those patients do best. In a book reporting on 100 studies, only 8 had this second control group, and in each of the 8 studies, the 2nd group did better than the patients treated by psychiatrists.
Those are the psychological studies I cite most often. (I’ll look up the name of the book if you are interested.) The thing I like about studies is that they tell you their limits. They tell you what was said, and who was involved, unlike the psychiatrist in court telling the judge whether a parent is fit, when the psychiatrist might have had an hour with the child, but the judge is supposed to believe him because he is an “expert”. Here’s one relevant to economics: Holloway, S.M. and H.A. How good news makes us good. Psychology Today, Dec. 1976; 76-78, 106, 108
In this amazing study, wallets were dropped in New York City to see how many were returned! From prejudices about New Yorkers, I would have expected “zero”, but about half were returned with the money still in them! Until one day when suddenly none were returned. Gradually the rate of return resumed normalcy in succeeding weeks.
Researchers wondered if that zero day had anything to do with the fact Robert Kennedy’s (brother of the president) assassination was the news that day. So they followed up with studies where subjects were in a waiting room for an experiment (I guess subjects get paid to participate). They didn’t know that part of the experiment was the fictitious news broadcast in the waiting room. Two stories were used: one of some trusted artist in the community who raped a grandmother (that detail is a wild guess to fill in memory gaps) and the other was of some unlikely Good Samaritan.
After listening to the story, the subjects came into the experiment room. They were paired with each other and had to decide whether to trust, and cooperate, with their partner, or distrust, and not cooperate. They were paid according to their choices. I don’t remember the details, but it was something like, the most pay is if you cooperate and it turns out the other cooperated; not quite as much pay if you distrusted and did not cooperate; and no pay if you cooperated but the other wouldn’t.
Very true to life! In my business, if I want business, I have to trust that the customers who rent our instruments will pay for them or return them. Not all do. The decision to trust, enough to cooperate, with our customers, has no science about it. Collection agencies don’t have any higher success rate than we do with bad accounts. Legal action has limited benefit with small accounts, although sometimes it is helpful. But I choose to trust, cooperate, and serve, rather than sell everything and apply for Social Security Disability (I could tell them I believe the Bible).
Naturally, the researchers found that those hearing the bad news story were distrustful, and those hearing the good news story were very trusting.
Since civilization is the personification of cooperation, this study shows that the spin on our news is a very important influence on our economy.
The application to immigration? There are wonderful events and statements in our history which inspire Americans to pride, patriotism, and cooperation even more than current news stories: things like “all men are created equal”, or the Equal Protection Clause, or the majestic poem by Emma Lazarus now on the base of the Statue of Liberty (there is actually a movement to remove it)! Then there is the Bible. Then of course there are many inspiring current missionary stories that inspire American generosity. The “save a child” ads are a small example.
These things inspire the noblest part of us, positively impacting our economy. Immigration paranoia, and the “figures” of “liars” that justify it, dredge out the basest part of us, negatively impacting our economy.
I marvel at this thesis which you have now stated a second time: “So if we export excess jobs rather than import people we make other countries' economies richer and we thus make ourselves richer.” I marvel at its originality, and smile at the screaming my imagination hears of readers who regard as blasphemy any suggestion that exporting jobs provides us any benefit! Is it a thesis you have heard anywhere else, or is it entirely original?
The older I get, the more foolish it seems to me to care deeply how much money I and mine get to keep for ourselves. So my only objection to your thesis is that it allows no consideration of the freedom of choice of immigrants, a right I find so sacred as to be even in the Bible.
RESPONSE TO NORSKI, IMC, and RETNAV:
All three of you share the theme of “rule of law”. I can’t blame IMC for not finding my quote of Romans 13:1, since it was posted clear back on 8/14/7, in my reply to CommonSenseINDSM. After all, this entire stream has now reached 40,000 words! And not many of them are short! I marvel at and deeply appreciate the interest in this lengthy exchange, since all my writing life people have told me not to write anything longer than a page or it won’t get read! (Well, actually that specific length was the mantra when I began lobbying lawmakers.)
As I explained over a week ago, the Des Moines Register has a 600 word limit. Not knowing that, I sent them almost 900 words. So one of the things they cut was my analysis of Romans 13:1. Here is got published:
“Rule of law” is another hot-tempered appeal to reason, but it is defined upside down from the way our Founders meant it. They defined “law” as applied equally to everybody, so that majorities are not “above the law” which they impose on minorities. But we draw a line around the rights of others where God has not. We apply harsh laws and insufferable bureaucracy upon those born on the other side of our line, which we would never tolerate upon ourselves. We call “rule of law” what our founders called “rule of tyrants”.
Here are the following sentences which they cut:
“They understood that the “higher authorities”, plural, which Romans 13:1 tells us to obey, presumes higher authorities in agreement; so when they conflict, we are to obey the highest authority: “we ought to obey God rather than men”, Acts 5:29.
“One law [the same laws; equal rights; equal liberty] shall be to him that is homeborn, [natural born citizen] and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth [comes to live] among you.” Ex 12:49 ( also, 20:10, 23:12, Lev 16:29, 24:22, 25:6, 25:47, Num 15:16, 29, 35:15, De 1:16, 5:14, 24:17, 27:19, Ps 94:6, Jer 7:6, 22:3, Eze 22:7, 22:29, 47:23, Ob 1:12, Zec 7:10, Mal 3:5)
Norski raised the issue by saying if someone breaks our border laws, he will break our criminal laws. That is not my observation, nor do I recognize any legal philosophy that would predict it. I don’t think that just because someone sets off fireworks they are likely to rob a bank. I don’t think that just because someone sits in front of an abortion door he is likely to commit murder: I expect the opposite. I expect that someone who risks his life to prevent murder is the least likely to commit it. I participated in Operation Rescue. I was dragged away using what police affectionately called “pain compliance”, where they drag you away by fingers dug under your ears and jaw. The jury found 155 of us innocent, because they were allowed to hear our “Necessity Defense”, (Iowa Code 704:10), which basically says an action that saves a life isn’t a public offense. In later trials, judges didn’t allow juries to hear that defense, so we were convicted.
I think about the definition of Rule of Law by our Founders which they developed during their rebellion against the laws of King George. What freedom would have been left to us today had they thought Romans 13:1 supported the Divine Right of Kings to enact cruel laws that defy the Lawgiver?
I think about the same definition by God every time an issue of “Voice of the Martyrs” arrives, which tells of Christian witness in lands where witness is illegal. The horrible tortures, the discrimination, the murders of family members, the church bombings and burnings, which they endure, just for sharing the Love of God. Roe v. Wade wasn’t the first time in human history when a Supreme Court has executed the innocent. Our Court did it before the Civil War in the Dred Scott case, precipitating our Civil War, (by the way, has Dred Scott ever been overturned?) and the Sanhedrin did it to Jesus. What would there be of Christianity today if Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, and the first generation of Christians behaved as if Romans 13:1 supported the Divine Right of Kings to enact any Hellish law they pleased, and to expect slavish obedience from God-fearing citizens?
Norski, the abolitionists I was thinking of, though I did not say it clearly, were those who “broke the law” operating the Underground Railroad (which protected fleeing slaves from their pursuing masters). The Jordan House in West Des Moines used to be a station. It is a museum now. Do you think of such people as “lawbreakers”, or as committed to restoring the Rule of Law from lawless abuse?
IMC, your statement is pretty definite, that my “saying that Tancredo supports a tamper proof bio ID card is not spin but an outright lie. I work as a volunteer for Tancredo and have attended many events when he spoke and I have heard him many times say that he is NOT in favor of such a thing.” It is certainly a stronger statement than Tancredo’s press secretary, Alan Moore, gave me Monday morning, which I reported on this stream then.
You can go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00418:@@@P and learn that he was one of 140 cosponsors of HR418, the Real ID Act, which creates a national driver’s license with a biometric measure. At the time, he wasn’t just one of 140, but was one of the loudest voices calling for it. How he could now say he opposes a “tamper proof bio ID card” is a mystery to me, but I will sure appreciate any help anyone can give me in getting to the bottom of it. Moore has not gotten back to me since our contact Monday morning. I left a message for him today. (Other evidence of Tancredo’s support for biometric ID’s are in my post Friday evening after Moore posted in this stream.)
If I can find that somehow Tancredo doesn’t really want all this national tracking which the evidence says he does, or that maybe he didn’t understand it, or in any case that he is now an ally in stopping it, I will be very, very grateful. His support of national tracking is about half my concern with where he is taking our country. There can be no greater threat to the Rule of Law than to not only support laws that violate our Constitution and the Laws of God, but to support laws that bring upon our nation 99% of what Revelation 13 calls the greatest crime of all human history, and which George Orwell calls “Big Brother”. NORSKI 6:44pm, Wednesday, 8/22/7 Biblewizard - Much as I would like to claim originality for my statements regarding the export of jobs and it's non-effect on U.S. jobs and the economy when we are at full employment I must thank three sources. Walter Heller, Head of the Council of Economic Advisors under John F. Kennedy, the University of Washington, Department of Business and Economics, and a voracious apatite for reading economic stories in the professional literature. The sad part of it is, the U.S. could be making the rest of the world very well off if only people weren't so obsessed with keeping everything in their own back yard. I guess it comes from the age old fear that "if someone else does better then that must come at my expense" which is not true in economics. Or maybe obsessed with the cries of "Yankee Imperialism" that always comes with American Business making money in a foreign land.
With regards to the Law of Supply and Demand when you say "Please explain why there is so much more prosperity, in every country across the world, now, than there was 200 years ago when world population was so much smaller? Even to countries without freedom, peace, or commerce-friendly religions, luxuries have trickled down." You make me believe that you have purposefully misunderstood what I have said. Here is approximately what I said "If the amount of labor increases faster than Business utilizing Capital can increase the supply of jobs, the result is a falling wages." Or if you prefer the short version "In the short run if labor increases faster than job growth wages go down.” By no stretch of the imagination is 200 years "In the short run". History has proven this to be as immutable as gravity many times. Again, I would challenge you to check it out yourself rather than argue with me.
The Greatest example is the massive wave of immigrants coming to America in the latter part of the 1800's and early 1900's causing low wages and 32% unemployment for manufacturing, mining, and transportation workers by 1910. People came to the U.S. faster than jobs could be created. People can spin doctor this all they want but that is the reality of what actually happened. And the events leading up to the Chinese Exclusion Act are equally educational if someone were to look past the racism part of it and look at the economics that drove the situation. And I would also say that in the long run you are correct when you say that a hard working people will work themselves out of such a hole, but what constitutes the "long run"? To fix the 1910 unemployment problem it took World War I. To fix the problems from the Chinese Exclusion Act period it took 27 years and World War I. The unemployment resulting from the Stock Market Crash of 1929 took World War II to get things back in balance. So if the flood of Illegal Immigrants triggers unemployment and falling wages do we have to start World War III to fix it? I hope not!
I had a wonderful teacher who taught me the difference between opinion (normative argument) and fact (appeal to the facts argument). Current immigration law is based on factual economics rather than the normative reasoning that many would have us believe.
Much as I may find normative arguments enticing I was taught at a young age that acting on opinions rather than facts is comparable to building a house on quicksand. I was also thought that the Bible says that the compassionate choice is the easy choice but it is not always the righteous or correct choice. Sometimes the hard choice is the right choice if the facts say so. Most Alcoholics will not admit that they have a problem until they hit rock bottom. The right choice is to give them the tough love of not tolerating their behavior until they see the light. So the right choice is the hard choice, not the compassionate choice of giving them unconditional love and accepting their behavior. The compassionate choice only enables their bad behavior to continue.
Thanks for the great debate! I have to go and I will not be back for some time. I hope my humble analysis is of some help. MY POST : Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:18 pm Jan Mickelson has scheduled me to spar with him again on his show tomorrow (Friday) at 10-11am. WHO radio, 1040 AM.
MY RESPONSE TO NORSKI: This is a post on behalf of Missionary Mel Leslie, in Reynoso, Mexico. Here is his answer to my question about Norski's statements about Mexico wages:
First of all if they where making $5 in hour here, they would not leave. The reason they go across is to make a liveing. Start out wages in the American factories has gone up some. They get around $10 a day now. If they are skilled they may make $20 0r $25 per day. The Mexicans that have money do not want to leave. and the one that are going is only the ones that want a better life, You will never win with the people that hate people coming to our country. My dad was a jew and he came to America and I was born here. I'm happy they let my dad in. The truth is Mexicans do not take jobs away from Americans, they do job that the Americans don't want to do for less money. There is no jobs here like that man talks about, Let me see his prof or let him come here and I will show him mine. Love Pastor Mel
Here are some of my own thoughts summarizing my conversation with Norski as I prepare for the Jan Mickelson show at 10am:
Here’s how denial of opportunity to selected immigrants directly undermines our economy:
America is not free and prosperous by accident. Our founders made a conscious decision to found our government on Biblical principles, and to this day that Judeo-Christian influence has elevated “service” as a goal of business. Christianity, alone among world religions, defines love as self sacrificial service, owed to the very least of human beings. You don’t find that in Hinduism, and certainly not in Islam. But in America, through Christian influence, even unbelievers honor businessmen, not for their wealth or power over others, but for their service given beyond what the mere pursuit of money would account for, and provided equally, and fairly, to all customers alike.
This spirit of service is what lifts an economy up beyond the potential of mere skills, resources, and cash. Civilization is the personification of cooperation. It exists to the extent we share our talents with each other. To the extent citizens are motivated by greed, they stop helping each other when they stop getting paid, and their economy comes to a halt. To the extent citizens are inspired to serve, their economy thrives even during the bumps of our cash flow.
The proportion of greed to service is relative and varies, and our economy rises or falls in consequence. Every way we find to dehumanize each other hurts us.
How can the hardness of heart we need to dehumanize our own babies to the extent we justify aborting them, not creep into our decisions whether to be honest with a customer, or to take all we can get?
A man dehumanizes a woman on a date, deceiving her for pleasure, in the name of love, and then that man goes back to his job as a government inspector of businesses who wonder why they feel ravaged.
A man and woman who picked each other as the easiest to love of anyone on the whole planet, but now they hate each other and are divorced, and they go to their jobs as judges with a cynicism that struggles not to see evil in good.
Whether we dehumanize another for his darker skin, or for not being born, or for being born on the other side of the line we have drawn with our immigration quotas, the harm to our economy is the least of the harms we cause. But when we say we do it in order to save our economy, God laughs.
NORSKI
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:04 pm
Biblewizard – You have learned well from the Clintons. You cite a Missionary from an area that contains barely 3% or 4% (depending on the state he lives in) of the Mexican population. And you quote him as if he had personally toured all of Mexico and asked everyone his or her wage rate. And you even leave in his quote about how he knows that Illegal Immigrants do not take jobs from U.S. Citizens, even though he lives in Mexico!
So, would you believe me if I told you that I have seen South Central L.A., The Projects in Chicago, Inner City Washington D.C., and Queens N.Y. and therefore I claim that the U.S. is really a poor country without much wealth? And if I claim that places like The Hamptons, Beverly Hills, and other enclaves of riches are just a figment of our imaginations because I have only seen them on T.V. and T.V. is fake anyway would you say that you agree? How would you prove that I am wrong? Maybe point to Des Moines as an example of what America is really like? Remember, Iowa contains only 1% of the U.S. population. Anecdotes do not constitute facts. They are only opinions derived because of insufficient data.
And speaking of dehumanizing people, Meat Packers used to have many of their plants in Chicago. The majority of their Chicago workforce was made up Black Americans earning very good wages - as much as $19.00 per hour. Once they found out that they could hire Illegal Immigrants for $13.00 per hour and less they moved their plants to small towns where they could get away with hiring the Illegal Immigrants and fired all their Black American workers. So who has dehumanized whom?
And how about some personal history. Years ago in my father’s hometown there was an auto plant. It was staffed by proud, hardworking German Americans and Italian Americans. One day the Owner decided that he had to make more money and so he fired all those workers and hired a bunch of workers he had recruited and imported from Denmark. His Danish workers were so unskilled quality suffered, and as a result, his customers received a poorer product for the same price, while he happily added to his personal fortune.
His move not only hurt his ex-workers who did nothing more than ask for a fair days wage, it hurt the community by reducing the amount of money workers had to spend at local businesses. It also caused a great deal of hatred toward the Danish workers. The Danes saw no reason why they shouldn’t come to town and take everyone’s jobs since they needed them, while the German American and Italian American workers saw the Danes as foreign “scab labor”. Who was right? If you are one of the fired workers you know that a gross injustice was just done to you. If you were one of the imported workers, you know that you were just granted a tremendous opportunity. Who was wrong? How can you tell somebody that just lost their job that they should welcome the person who took it from them into their community? Shouldn’t we all be mad at the businessman? After all, look at all the heartache he caused in his community.
And per the above, in order to solve this dilemma we have decided as a society that U.S. jobs are for U.S. Citizens and Legal Residents. By extension, we have decided to put an end to allowing employers to replace employees with lower paid Illegal Immigrant labor. If a job cannot be filled with a U.S. Citizen or Legal Resident, then there is a process by which somebody from outside the U.S. can be brought in to fill that position legally and at a fair wage. Unfortunately, few people are bothering to enforce or abide by these laws. They would rather dehumanize the American Worker by hiring foreign nationals at lower wages.
HIRAM
Urbandale IA
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:50 pm Norski: I can add to your point about meat packing jobs. My father in law worked in a meat packing plant in Iowa for 20 years but lost his job as illegals came in and they undercut the pay. It used to be a high paying job as it is difficult, messy and really takes a toll in repetitive motion injuries.
I second the missionaries point that people would not leave Mexico if they could earn a good wage there.
I think we need to put more pressure on them to reform their government so that good jobs will gain there.
There is a lot of wealth in Mexico but most of the wealthy invest outside of their own country as investments are not safe due to corruption.
Again my point is that we do not help the Mexicans by letting them export their most ambitious people to our country.
MY RESPONSE Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:05 pm
Norski, glad to hear from you again!
Remember my mention of Gabriela, the reporter, and her broad contacts across Mexico? As for Mel's experience stateside, he owns a home and warehouse on the U.S. side, as well as his properties in Mexico, and travels back and forth frequently. Before becoming a missionary, he owned an auto electric and air conditioning shop in Missouri, and in another Midwestern state farther north which I can't remember.
I'm still trying to figure out how you get, from a raw average wage figure, that what they say about wages for most workers is too low.
How can I disagree with you that only jerks fire friends in order to hire cheaper labor that will produce inferior products for the same price? That's a no-brainer, to the extent those are the facts. And I'm certainly in no position to say you have exaggerated anything.
Hiram, I am sympathetic to anyone working for a meat packer. Forget motion injuries - how about severed fingers? That's dangerous work!
I think the best thing we can do to reform Mexico into a government that stops driving out its citizens, is to process citizenship applications in 2 years rather than 20 or 30 years, so that when immigrants send their money back home they will be able to export political experience with their cash, which is a powerful combination for political change! The way it is now, by the time immigrants qualify for political experience (by being allowed to vote) the families they were sending their money back home to are all dead!
You mention investments. I get emails from a couple of investment companies - a hilarious waste of their money - and am struck at how shamelessly they counsel pulling investment dollars out of the U.S. and putting them in China because our dollar is falling and theirs is being subsidized! It's not just jobs and factories we export! Our savings accounts too! This really is a global economy. No government can control it. We can't control it. The unchangeable fact is that we are already competing with labor all over the world. It is useless to sit here and think that by restricting a flow of people across our border we can give ourselves less competition. If you could drive every immigrant meat packing employee into Mexico, would that bring back the 1950's? No. Transportation efficiency which we have now, that we didn't have then, will bring Mexican beef here, and your neighbor will buy it, leaving both our citizen meat packers, and our citizen farmers, unemployed.
I propose that we keep doing what Americans are best at: such high quality work that even with our high wages, our work remains in demand.
Dave Leach
Family Music Center
4110 SW 9th St
Des Moines 50315
music@saltshaker.us
Other Fantastic Articles, Books, Movies, Music:
Moral Conservatives, on Immigration, lost their way
