Immigration and the Church as an Alternative Polis
Each Sunday at my Baptist congregation the tradition of the invitation is renewed. The pastor invites anyone and everyone to come down the aisle and respond to the message as they feel led by God.
Often when people stream down the aisle what they come seeking is membership. They communicate this to the pastor in a whispered conversation during the invitation hymn. When their information has been gathered, the pastor introduces the person to the rest of the community, along with the request to join our congregation. In our particular congregation, our pastor asks us to respond to this request by simply saying, together, “Welcome!” Invariably, everyone says welcome. It isn’t long before the aisle-walker is an official member of the congregation, with voting privileges and committee assignments and offering envelopes and all the rest of it.
Harold Heie has named this series of discussions as “alternative political conversations.” Thinking about immigration this time around reminded me of a meaning of that phrase that perhaps Dr. Heie was not thinking of: the church as an “alternative polis” to such polities as nation-states. This theme, so important in recent Christian ethics, resonates perhaps nowhere more profoundly than with regard to this issue of (illegal) immigration.
In the church (at least, in my tradition), the proper response to the stranger is the one we offer: welcome! If the stranger wants to visit, we say welcome. If the stranger wants to make her home with us as a church member, we say welcome!
So for Christians, welcome is our default setting. We can ground this welcome-default in many different texts of scripture, such as: “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me” (Mt 10:40). This makes for a pretty good place to start. Here the disciples are sent out into the mission fields, and are taught a kind of hospitality transitive principle: anyone who welcomes one of us welcomes Jesus; anyone who welcomes Jesus welcomes God; ergo, anyone who welcomes one of us welcomes God. And we know the same principle applies to our own meeting of the stranger: “As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40). Anyone who welcomes and cares for one of the least of these welcomes and cares for Jesus himself. And of course any Christian ought to be able to remember quite easily that through Christ’s sacrificial love and atoning death on the Cross, we have been welcomed into God’s family. The very identity “child of God” is the result of an act of divine welcome.
But nations don’t welcome in this way. The default setting of the nation state is to say not welcome but stop! Show us your papers! Show us why we should let you come within our borders even temporarily! Show us what extraordinary reasons you can give for why we should let you become a member of this polity, a fellow citizen with us of this great community!
The contrast could not be greater. Nation-states treat border-crossing as exceptional and transferred citizenship as dubious. Christians treat border-crossing as normal and transferred citizenship as joyous.
For the serious biblical Christian, every fiber of our Christian identity should yearn for a world in which everyone (at least, everyone who poses no real threat to anyone else) is welcomed anywhere they want or need to go—a world in which welcome is the default setting and rejection is the exception. We cannot rest easy with a world of passports and border fences and armed guards with dogs. This is where we must start, even if it is agonizingly difficult at times to discern how to advance such core Christian commitments in the public policy of particular nations in particular circumstances.
And so we turn to the situation in our own nation.
It has been five years since the last serious push for immigration reform failed unexpectedly in Congress. President Obama at least nodded in the direction of the problem in his recent State of the Union address. But it is hard to imagine any serious progress being made this year in our gridlocked federal government. And because the problem is a national one, it requires a national solution. State measures are not enough, and so far they are trending draconian.
Our current system is broken. At least twelve million illegal/undocumented immigrants are already here, having come across our borders over several decades, mainly looking for hope and a future. Though enhanced border enforcement, stern state laws, and our economic slowdown here have reduced the flow of illegal immigrants to a trickle recently, the problem certainly is not resolved. The failure to make enforceable federal immigration law undercuts respect for the rule of law, leaves illegal immigrants and their families in cruel limbo, distorts our labor markets, and creates perfect conditions for eruptions of nativism and xenophobia.
Federal immigration law enforcement officials face an impossible situation. They do not have adequate budgets to even begin to try to find, incarcerate, and deport large numbers of illegal immigrants. President Obama has recently adopted a stopgap strategy of focusing mainly on those who have actually broken the law while living here. This is emergency triage, not an immigration policy.
Some loud voices brashly call for just shipping all the illegal immigrants “back where they came from.” This is inconceivable and impossible. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin forcibly deported over six million people during his reign of terror. Deportation advocates are asking the United States government to find and deport nearly twice as many. Any serious effort to do this would be outrageously expensive, a public relations disaster, and a serious violation of even our cramped national moral values.
If Stalinesque deportations are not an option, and doing nothing is not an option, we really have no choice but to undertake some kind of comprehensive immigration reform along the lines proposed by President George W. Bush and under consideration in Congress for at least five years. It would invite those hiding uneasily in the shadows of America to come out and register their presence. Criminal background checks would weed out those whose behavior demonstrates that they should not stay here. Legalization could include some kind of requirement not just of paying taxes going forward but also a requirement to pay extra taxes for a period of time to help communicate the gravity of having broken immigration law in the first place.
It is reasonable for such legislation to impose an English language proficiency requirement for anyone seeking to become an American citizen. Proficiency in the basics of American constitutionalism is already required. Surely one of the contributions that the churches should make in such a situation will be to offer our massive resources for free English language instruction, as well as doing whatever else we can to meet the basic human needs of this generally impoverished population.
The problem of illegal immigration tests both our government and our churches. The government must demonstrate the ability to resolve a complex public policy challenge. The churches must demonstrate the ability to exercise a leavening cultural influence that elevates respect for the human dignity of all persons. We must clearly signal the ultimate insignificance of immigration status in the sight both of God and of the church, while providing practical aid to help resolve this problem for the sake of both our nation and those who are here illegally.
The latest entry from David Gushee raises many questions regarding exegetics, logical fallacies and what constitues the rule of law. However, rather than 'fisking' his entry I shall examine some relevant omissions. Some of what I have written could have been addressed to Mr. Teetsel, but I did not want to create two posts.
We know that those who come here are almost certainly the most enterprising, hard-working and courageous people from their home countries. However, their presence here deprives their country of origin of those most likely to improve the conditions for their home nation. When they are here it is true that they remit large quantities of money to families they have left behind, which is undoubtedly some help. But that cannot compare to what they could do with a pro-growth economic climate and an honest government at home.
One of Harold’s exhortations is to “promot[e] justice for both those who have been denied opportunities to be what God wants them to be as His image bearers and those whose enjoyment of the fruits of their labors are threatened.” These outcomes are undermined for the most vulnerable workers in America by the dramatic expansion of the unskilled labor pool. Recent illegal immigration effectively has denied Americans without and with only high school diplomas either higher wage rates or opportunities for work. For example, according to http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, roughly 36% of the new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Many of those unable to find employment are members of the very groups that have experienced invidious discrimination in the past. Once again their legitimate aspirations for the dignity of work, the satisfaction of self-reliance and a better life are thwarted. And again, the legal system is not working for them, but against them.
Another of Harold’s counsels is to ensure that “civil society institutions and structures are a part of God’s ordering of society, and therefore governments and their public policies ought to protect their appropriate freedoms, avoid weakening and undercutting them, and work with them and strengthen them as appropriate.” However, according to Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam, (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/results3.html) “The more diverse a community in our study, the less likely its residents are (1) to trust other people, (2) to connect with other people, (3) to participate in politics, [and] (4) to connect across class lines.” Moreover, this occurs not only between groups, but within groups. Increased immigration weakens and undercuts civic engagement and reduces our social capital.
It is impossible to condone, much less advocate, lawless behavior without eroding the rule of law. This precludes the amnesty that resides at the core of comprehensive immigration reform.
The latest entry from David Gushee raises many questions regarding exegetics, logical fallacies and what constitues the rule of law. However, rather than 'fisking' his entry I shall examine some relevant omissions. Some of what I have written could have been addressed to Mr. Teetsel, but I did not want to create two posts.
We know that those who come here are almost certainly the most enterprising, hard-working and courageous people from their home countries. However, their presence here deprives their country of origin of those most likely to improve the conditions for their home nation. When they are here it is true that they remit large quantities of money to families they have left behind, which is undoubtedly some help. But that cannot compare to what they could do with a pro-growth economic climate and an honest government at home.
One of Harold’s exhortations is to “promot[e] justice for both those who have been denied opportunities to be what God wants them to be as His image bearers and those whose enjoyment of the fruits of their labors are threatened.” These outcomes are undermined for the most vulnerable workers in America by the dramatic expansion of the unskilled labor pool. Recent illegal immigration effectively has denied Americans without and with only high school diplomas either higher wage rates or opportunities for work. For example, according to http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, roughly 36% of the new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Many of those unable to find employment are members of the very groups that have experienced invidious discrimination in the past. Once again their legitimate aspirations for the dignity of work, the satisfaction of self-reliance and a better life are thwarted. And again, the legal system is not working for them, but against them.
Another of Harold’s counsels is to ensure that “civil society institutions and structures are a part of God’s ordering of society, and therefore governments and their public policies ought to protect their appropriate freedoms, avoid weakening and undercutting them, and work with them and strengthen them as appropriate.” However, according to Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam, (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/results3.html) “The more diverse a community in our study, the less likely its residents are (1) to trust other people, (2) to connect with other people, (3) to participate in politics, [and] (4) to connect across class lines.” Moreover, this occurs not only between groups, but within groups. Increased immigration weakens and undercuts civic engagement and reduces our social capital.
It is impossible to condone, much less advocate, lawless behavior without eroding the rule of law. This precludes the amnesty that resides at the core of comprehensive immigration reform.
The latest entry from David Gushee raises many questions regarding exegetics, logical fallacies and what constitues the rule of law. However, rather than 'fisking' his entry I shall examine some relevant omissions. Some of what I have written could have been addressed to Mr. Teetsel, but I did not want to create two posts.
We know that those who come here are almost certainly the most enterprising, hard-working and courageous people from their home countries. However, their presence here deprives their country of origin of those most likely to improve the conditions for their home nation. When they are here it is true that they remit large quantities of money to families they have left behind, which is undoubtedly some help. But that cannot compare to what they could do with a pro-growth economic climate and an honest government at home.
One of Harold’s exhortations is to “promot[e] justice for both those who have been denied opportunities to be what God wants them to be as His image bearers and those whose enjoyment of the fruits of their labors are threatened.” These outcomes are undermined for the most vulnerable workers in America by the dramatic expansion of the unskilled labor pool. Recent illegal immigration effectively has denied Americans without and with only high school diplomas either higher wage rates or opportunities for work. For example, according to http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, roughly 36% of the new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Many of those unable to find employment are members of the very groups that have experienced invidious discrimination in the past. Once again their legitimate aspirations for the dignity of work, the satisfaction of self-reliance and a better life are thwarted. And again, the legal system is not working for them, but against them.
Another of Harold’s counsels is to ensure that “civil society institutions and structures are a part of God’s ordering of society, and therefore governments and their public policies ought to protect their appropriate freedoms, avoid weakening and undercutting them, and work with them and strengthen them as appropriate.” However, according to Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam, (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/results3.html) “The more diverse a community in our study, the less likely its residents are (1) to trust other people, (2) to connect with other people, (3) to participate in politics, [and] (4) to connect across class lines.” Moreover, this occurs not only between groups, but within groups. Increased immigration weakens and undercuts civic engagement and reduces our social capital.
It is impossible to condone, much less advocate, lawless behavior without eroding the rule of law. This precludes the amnesty that resides at the core of comprehensive immigration reform.
The latest entry from David Gushee raises many questions regarding Biblical exegetics, logical fallacies and what constitutes the rule of law. However, rather than Fisking his entry I shall examine some relevant omissions. Some of what I have written could have been addressed to Mr. Teetsel’s mistaken notions about immigration, but I did not want to create two posts.
We know that those who come here are almost certainly the most enterprising, hard-working and courageous people from their home countries. However, their presence here deprives their country-of-origin of those most likely to improve the conditions for their home nation. When they are here it is true that they remit large quantities of money to families they have left behind, which is undoubtedly some help. But that cannot compare to what they could do by transforming their homelands into a pro-growth economic climate with an honest government.
One of the Basic Principles listed on the Respectful Conversations entry page is to
These outcomes are undermined for the most vulnerable workers in America by the dramatic expansion of the unskilled labor pool. Recent illegal immigration effectively has denied Americans without and with only high school diplomas either higher wage rates or opportunities for work. For example, according to the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly 36% of the new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Many of those unable to find employment are members of the very groups that have experienced invidious discrimination in the past. Once again their legitimate aspirations to experience the dignity of work, the satisfaction of self-reliance and a better life are thwarted. And again, the U.S. legal system is not working for them, but against them.
Another of the Basic Principles listed on the Respectful Conversations entry page is to ensure that
However, according to Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam,
Moreover, this occurs not only between groups, but within groups. Increased immigration weakens and undercuts civic engagement and reduces our social capital.
It is impossible to condone, much less advocate, lawless behavior without eroding the rule of law. This precludes the amnesty that resides at the core of comprehensive immigration reform.
The latest entry from David Gushee raises many questions regarding Biblical exegetics, logical fallacies and what constitutes the rule of law. However, rather than Fisking his entry I shall examine some relevant omissions. Some of what I have written could have been addressed to Mr. Teetsel’s mistaken notions about immigration, but I did not want to create two posts.
We know that those who come here are almost certainly the most enterprising, hard-working and courageous people from their home countries. However, their presence here deprives their country-of-origin of those most likely to improve the conditions for their home nation. When they are here it is true that they remit large quantities of money to families they have left behind, which is undoubtedly some help. But that cannot compare to what they could do by transforming their homelands into a pro-growth economic climate with an honest government.
One of the Basic Principles listed on the Respectful Conversations entry page is to
These outcomes are undermined for the most vulnerable workers in America by the dramatic expansion of the unskilled labor pool. Recent illegal immigration effectively has denied Americans without and with only high school diplomas either higher wage rates or opportunities for work. For example, according to the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly 36% of the new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Many of those unable to find employment are members of the very groups that have experienced invidious discrimination in the past. Once again their legitimate aspirations to experience the dignity of work, the satisfaction of self-reliance and a better life are thwarted. And again, the U.S. legal system is not working for them, but against them.
Another of the Basic Principles listed on the Respectful Conversations entry page is to ensure that
However, according to Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam,
Moreover, this occurs not only between groups, but within groups. Increased immigration weakens and undercuts civic engagement and reduces our social capital.
It is impossible to condone, much less advocate, lawless behavior without eroding the rule of law. This precludes the amnesty that resides at the core of comprehensive immigration reform.
The latest entry from David Gushee raises many questions regarding Biblical exegetics, logical fallacies and what constitutes the rule of law. However, rather than Fisking his entry I shall examine some relevant omissions. Some of what I have written could have been addressed to Mr. Teetsel’s mistaken notions about immigration, but I did not want to create two posts.
We know that those who come here are almost certainly the most enterprising, hard-working and courageous people from their home countries. However, their presence here deprives their country-of-origin of those most likely to improve the conditions for their home nation. When they are here it is true that they remit large quantities of money to families they have left behind, which is undoubtedly some help. But that cannot compare to what they could do by transforming their homelands into a pro-growth economic climate with an honest government.
One of the Basic Principles listed on the Respectful Conversations entry page is to
These outcomes are undermined for the most vulnerable workers in America by the dramatic expansion of the unskilled labor pool. Recent illegal immigration effectively has denied Americans without and with only high school diplomas either higher wage rates or opportunities for work. For example, according to the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly 36% of the new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Many of those unable to find employment are members of the very groups that have experienced invidious discrimination in the past. Once again their legitimate aspirations to experience the dignity of work, the satisfaction of self-reliance and a better life are thwarted. And again, the U.S. legal system is not working for them, but against them.
Another of the Basic Principles listed on the Respectful Conversations entry page is to ensure that
However, according to Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam,
Moreover, this occurs not only between groups, but within groups. Increased immigration weakens and undercuts civic engagement and reduces our social capital.
It is impossible to condone, much less advocate, lawless behavior without eroding the rule of law. This precludes the amnesty that resides at the core of comprehensive immigration reform.
Statistics check:
I checked the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ News Release—The Unemployment Situation—January 2012, USDL 12-0163 that Thomas Tiahrt cited and cannot find his statistic that 36% of new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Table A-7 is the only table with foreign-born statistics. It shows the decrease in the unemployed labor force. Of that decrease, 16.9% went to foreign born workers and 83.1% went to native born workers. In January 2012, foreign born workers were 16.4% of the labor force.
Table A-4 shows unemployment by education. From January 2011 to January 2012, the unemployment rate of workers without high school diplomas dropped by 1.5 percentage points (16.5% to 15%) compared to a 1.2 percentage point drop by foreign-born workers.
This BLS report offers no statistics about illegal immigration.
Drawing conclusions from percentages is tricky.
Thomas’ other cite to Robert Putnam is appropriate as Putnam is a leading researcher in social capital theory with several books under his belt. On the other hand, different researchers believe that social integration is a better source of social capital than social homogeneity. See Arturo Vega, “Does Diversity Negate Social Capital and What Difference Does Social Capital Really Make?: The Case of San Antonio, Texas.” All Academic Research. http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/8/4/9/pages238493/p238493-1.php
Statistics check:
I checked the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ News Release—The Unemployment Situation—January 2012, USDL 12-0163 that Thomas Tiahrt cited and cannot find his statistic that 36% of new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Table A-7 is the only table with foreign-born statistics. It shows the decrease in the unemployed labor force. Of that decrease, 16.9% went to foreign born workers and 83.1% went to native born workers. In January 2012, foreign born workers were 16.4% of the labor force.
Table A-4 shows unemployment by education. From January 2011 to January 2012, the unemployment rate of workers without high school diplomas dropped by 1.5 percentage points (16.5% to 15%) compared to a 1.2 percentage point drop by foreign-born workers.
This BLS report offers no statistics about illegal immigration.
Drawing conclusions from percentages is tricky.
Thomas’ other cite to Robert Putnam is appropriate as Putnam is a leading researcher in social capital theory with several books under his belt. On the other hand, different researchers believe that social integration is a better source of social capital than social homogeneity. See Arturo Vega, “Does Diversity Negate Social Capital and What Difference Does Social Capital Really Make?: The Case of San Antonio, Texas.” All Academic Research. http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/8/4/9/pages238493/p238493-1.php
Statistics check:
I checked the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ News Release—The Unemployment Situation—January 2012, USDL 12-0163 that Thomas Tiahrt cited and cannot find his statistic that 36% of new jobs from January 2011 to January 2012 went to foreign-born labor force participants. Table A-7 is the only table with foreign-born statistics. It shows the decrease in the unemployed labor force. Of that decrease, 16.9% went to foreign born workers and 83.1% went to native born workers. In January 2012, foreign born workers were 16.4% of the labor force.
Table A-4 shows unemployment by education. From January 2011 to January 2012, the unemployment rate of workers without high school diplomas dropped by 1.5 percentage points (16.5% to 15%) compared to a 1.2 percentage point drop by foreign-born workers.
This BLS report offers no statistics about illegal immigration.
Drawing conclusions from percentages is tricky.
Thomas’ other cite to Robert Putnam is appropriate as Putnam is a leading researcher in social capital theory with several books under his belt. On the other hand, different researchers believe that social integration is a better source of social capital than social homogeneity. See Arturo Vega, “Does Diversity Negate Social Capital and What Difference Does Social Capital Really Make?: The Case of San Antonio, Texas.” All Academic Research. http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/8/4/9/pages238493/p238493-1.php
The table I referred to, (Table A-7, Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted), has the following data (I am appending the three zeroes so that the numbers need not be qualified by [Numbers in thousands]):
From January 2011 to January 2012 the foreign-born civilian labor force went from 24,517,000 to 25,156,000 for an increase of 880,000. The native-born civilian labor force for the same time period went from 128,019,000 to 128,329,000 for an increase of 310,000. Of the growth in additional jobs almost three times as many jobs went to foreign-born labor force participants even though there are more than five times as many native-born labor force participants as foreign-born labor force participants. No percentages are necessary to see that the bulk of the new jobs went to immigrants. It seems to me that it is fair to conclude that my point about the most vulnerable is supported.
Vega et al. sound an encouraging note, though projecting results from San Antonio to the rest of the nation is unlikely to accurately represent the situation elsewhere. San Antonio has had an integrated population for over a century and a half. Like the authors I share their expectation:
This matches my experience living next door to Mexican-Americans from originally from Texas (they moved from Wichita to San Antonio). They matched the ‘e.g.’ characteristics cited above. The problem is that the current influx is so great that isolated enclaves prevent assimilation. Social integration cannot take place where Balkanization is the rule.
However, the literature survey was consistent with the findings of Putnam. All of this, including Vega et al., supports a moratorium on the kind of immigration we have today. None of it supports the amnesty that comes with comprehensive immigration reform.
The table I referred to, (Table A-7, Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted), has the following data (I am appending the three zeroes so that the numbers need not be qualified by [Numbers in thousands]):
From January 2011 to January 2012 the foreign-born civilian labor force went from 24,517,000 to 25,156,000 for an increase of 880,000. The native-born civilian labor force for the same time period went from 128,019,000 to 128,329,000 for an increase of 310,000. Of the growth in additional jobs almost three times as many jobs went to foreign-born labor force participants even though there are more than five times as many native-born labor force participants as foreign-born labor force participants. No percentages are necessary to see that the bulk of the new jobs went to immigrants. It seems to me that it is fair to conclude that my point about the most vulnerable is supported.
Vega et al. sound an encouraging note, though projecting results from San Antonio to the rest of the nation is unlikely to accurately represent the situation elsewhere. San Antonio has had an integrated population for over a century and a half. Like the authors I share their expectation:
This matches my experience living next door to Mexican-Americans from originally from Texas (they moved from Wichita to San Antonio). They matched the ‘e.g.’ characteristics cited above. The problem is that the current influx is so great that isolated enclaves prevent assimilation. Social integration cannot take place where Balkanization is the rule.
However, the literature survey was consistent with the findings of Putnam. All of this, including Vega et al., supports a moratorium on the kind of immigration we have today. None of it supports the amnesty that comes with comprehensive immigration reform.
The table I referred to, (Table A-7, Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted), has the following data (I am appending the three zeroes so that the numbers need not be qualified by [Numbers in thousands]):
From January 2011 to January 2012 the foreign-born civilian labor force went from 24,517,000 to 25,156,000 for an increase of 880,000. The native-born civilian labor force for the same time period went from 128,019,000 to 128,329,000 for an increase of 310,000. Of the growth in additional jobs almost three times as many jobs went to foreign-born labor force participants even though there are more than five times as many native-born labor force participants as foreign-born labor force participants. No percentages are necessary to see that the bulk of the new jobs went to immigrants. It seems to me that it is fair to conclude that my point about the most vulnerable is supported.
Vega et al. sound an encouraging note, though projecting results from San Antonio to the rest of the nation is unlikely to accurately represent the situation elsewhere. San Antonio has had an integrated population for over a century and a half. Like the authors I share their expectation:
This matches my experience living next door to Mexican-Americans from originally from Texas (they moved from Wichita to San Antonio). They matched the ‘e.g.’ characteristics cited above. The problem is that the current influx is so great that isolated enclaves prevent assimilation. Social integration cannot take place where Balkanization is the rule.
However, the literature survey was consistent with the findings of Putnam. All of this, including Vega et al., supports a moratorium on the kind of immigration we have today. None of it supports the amnesty that comes with comprehensive immigration reform.
Thomas’ response to my comment about Vega et al. is excellent.
Thomas’ claim that illegal immigration harms U.S. unskilled workers seems intuitive and has found research support [see the many Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies reports]. However, the BLS report that Thomas cites does not support a conclusion that “the bulk of the new jobs went to immigrants.”
First, the labor force includes all ready and willing workers, whether employed or not [BLS Glossary]. It appears that Thomas took the “labor force” to mean employed workers (an easy mistake to make.) Thomas’ reliance on changes in the labor force from Jan 2011 to Jan 2012, then, is inappropriate for drawing conclusions about new jobs.
Second, as mentioned in my comments above, the larger drop in unemployed high school dropouts compared to the drop in unemployed foreign-born workers cannot support a claim that that low-skilled native-born workers are vulnerable to recent illegal immigration.
Third, although the BLS monthly survey probably includes some respondents who are undocumented immigrants (p. 6), the report offers no conclusions about this group, and therefore cannot support any claim about “recent illegal immigration.”
Thomas’ response to my comment about Vega et al. is excellent.
Thomas’ claim that illegal immigration harms U.S. unskilled workers seems intuitive and has found research support [see the many Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies reports]. However, the BLS report that Thomas cites does not support a conclusion that “the bulk of the new jobs went to immigrants.”
First, the labor force includes all ready and willing workers, whether employed or not [BLS Glossary]. It appears that Thomas took the “labor force” to mean employed workers (an easy mistake to make.) Thomas’ reliance on changes in the labor force from Jan 2011 to Jan 2012, then, is inappropriate for drawing conclusions about new jobs.
Second, as mentioned in my comments above, the larger drop in unemployed high school dropouts compared to the drop in unemployed foreign-born workers cannot support a claim that that low-skilled native-born workers are vulnerable to recent illegal immigration.
Third, although the BLS monthly survey probably includes some respondents who are undocumented immigrants (p. 6), the report offers no conclusions about this group, and therefore cannot support any claim about “recent illegal immigration.”
Thomas’ response to my comment about Vega et al. is excellent.
Thomas’ claim that illegal immigration harms U.S. unskilled workers seems intuitive and has found research support [see the many Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies reports]. However, the BLS report that Thomas cites does not support a conclusion that “the bulk of the new jobs went to immigrants.”
First, the labor force includes all ready and willing workers, whether employed or not [BLS Glossary]. It appears that Thomas took the “labor force” to mean employed workers (an easy mistake to make.) Thomas’ reliance on changes in the labor force from Jan 2011 to Jan 2012, then, is inappropriate for drawing conclusions about new jobs.
Second, as mentioned in my comments above, the larger drop in unemployed high school dropouts compared to the drop in unemployed foreign-born workers cannot support a claim that that low-skilled native-born workers are vulnerable to recent illegal immigration.
Third, although the BLS monthly survey probably includes some respondents who are undocumented immigrants (p. 6), the report offers no conclusions about this group, and therefore cannot support any claim about “recent illegal immigration.”