Loving the Undocumented Immigrant
“When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34
What is a thoughtful, Christian approach to the immigration issue? The above text from Leviticus is a starting point, but it is hardly the final word. It is too simple to say that the instructions laid down by God thousands of years ago for the ancient Israelites is what should determine American public policy towards immigration in the 21st century. Yet it is a starting point, since it highlights the fact that immigrants—whether they came here legally or illegally—have a great human worth that has been given them by God as his image bearers, a human worth we and our policies ought to acknowledge and respect.
In keeping with this attitude and the very complex nature of the immigration issue I first list four basic facts that should be taken into account as we examine our nation’s immigration policies, facts that many radio and TV talking heads—not to mention many politicians—like to ignore. Next, I suggest three proposed changes in our immigration policies, especially as they relate to undocumented immigrants.
First four basic facts:
- Those immigrants who have come here illegally—who are undocumented—have broken the law. This is no light matter. A Christian view of justice and legal means to reach a more just society hold a high view of the law—and an equally high view of the seriousness of breaking it.
- Many American employers desire and need immigrants, including the undocumented. Most immigrants fill low-wage, low-skill jobs that employers otherwise have a hard time filling. There is a symbiotic relationship between immigrants seeking employment—even at wages that are low by American standards—and employers who need workers and are unwilling or unable to pay wages that would attract American workers. And all of us as consumers benefit from lower prices. We too are a part of the problem. Thus from the strawberry fields of California to the chicken processing plants of Iowa to the resorts of Florida employers do not check the official papers of their workers too carefully. With a wink and a nod they hire undocumented workers, while knowing many must indeed be undocumented. Undocumented immigrants are not the only ones breaking the law.
- The U.S. economy would suffer, even catastrophically, if all undocumented immigrants would magically disappear overnight. Crops would rot in the fields, meat processing plants would close, hotels and office buildings would not be cleaned, and the whole economy and the life styles most of us enjoy would suffer.
- Our current immigration laws are rife with injustices, often separating husband from wife or children from parents. If a young woman who is an American citizen marries a young man who is undocumented, and this couple have children, living model lives together for years, and then the man is found to be undocumented, the family can be split up as the man is sent back to his home country. Children who were brought to the United States as minors, have live here for years, and have been successful in school, can be and often are sent back to their original countries even though they had no say in coming here in an undocumented status.
In light of these facts what would more humane immigration policies look like, policies that uphold the law, treat undocumented immigrants with justice, and protect the American economy? I believe at a minimum three new policies are needed.
One is to establish a guest worker program. Many in nearby countries do not even want to come to the United States permanently. They only want to support themselves and families in a way that their own countries’ economies do not allow. Meanwhile, there are many American employers who need low-wage workers with the strong work ethic that many of these same persons have. A guest worker program that allows workers into the United States on a temporary basis would meet the needs of both the workers now living in poverty in their home countries and the employers in need of workers.
A second step is to create disincentives for employers to hire undocumented workers. All immigrants, whether permanent residents or temporary guest workers, should be issued a tamper-proof identity card, and severe penalties should be established for employers who hire workers who do not have such cards. The cards could be made tamper-proof by way of modern technology such as embedded microchips.
These first two steps together constitute a much better solution to the problem of undocumented immigrants than relying on stopping illegal immigrants at the borders. As long as there are persons in other countries eager to work in the United States and there are employers willing to hire them without asking too many questions, they will find a way to come.
But what about the undocumented immigrants who are already here? It is estimated there are 10 to 12 million such persons. And while they broke the law in coming, we as a society are also complicit as employers have looked the other way and consumers have benefited from the low wages they were willing to accept. A path to legalization and citizenship should be provided for those already here and who have not been convicted of crimes or in other ways have demonstrated unsocial behavior. This path to legalization and citizenship may be long and should involve some penalties for the undocumented persons who originally came here illegally, but the path should be there. And those who came here as minors, brought by their parents, and those who have been here for a long time and are married to an American citizen, the path should be shorter and easier.
These three proposals are not a complete answer, but they would set us on the path to an answer. And I believe they are in keeping with a biblical sense of justice and with biblical calls to love the alien as ourselves.
Stephen V. Monsma
As the facilitator/moderator of this “Alternative Political Conversation,” I will generally keep a low profile. But for the sake of further advancing our conversation on immigration, I will report on the results of my own involvement with the Hispanic community in Sioux County, Iowa over the past six or so months, which results bear some affinity with the proposals made by Steve Monsma.
An initiative for which I provided leadership at my church (American Reformed Church in Orange City) last fall was an eight week series on Immigration issues in which we talked with (not at or about) some of our new Hispanic neighbors, as well as with various community members who work intimately with our Hispanic neighbors, including clergy, employers, educators, social service providers, and law enforcement officers. Some of the stories we heard from our Hispanic neighbors were heart-warming; some broke our hearts and brought us to tears.
As a follow-up to this series, a group of those who attended developed a “petition” that we will soon circulate throughout our county, with the hope that we will obtain enough signatures to garner the attention of our elected political representatives. I present this petition below, with only one comment. The substance of this petition was not developed in the abstract. It reflects the conversations, mostly respectful, with people “in the trenches,” our Hispanic neighbors who face the daily challenges of being a distinct minority in a largely Anglo community, and those who have made a strong commitment to serving our new neighbors. It is my hope that the content of this petition advances our conversation on immigration. I welcome your comments.
FIXING OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM: A PROPOSAL FROM THE NW IOWA IMMIGRATION ACTION TEAM
The present political climate renders it unlikely that there will be comprehensive reform of immigration law in the near future. However, our experiences and conversations with many of our Anglo and Hispanic neighbors in northwest Iowa convince us that the current set of federal immigration laws is dysfunctional and incremental steps can taken immediately to improve our current laws, in the absence of comprehensive reform.
We affirm the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Statement of Principles which say:
• We believe all people, regardless of national origin or citizenship status, are made in the "image of God" and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).
• We believe there is an undeniable responsibility to love and show compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-46).
• We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25-37).
• We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God's image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7)
• We believe that biblical teachings relative to “justice” must be balanced by the biblical call to “show mercy” (Matthew 23:23)
Our conversations with our Hispanic neighbors in northwest Iowa revealed that the most negative effect of current immigration laws on Hispanic immigrants has been the destructive effects on the unity of their families. This leads us to affirm the central importance of the goal of fostering family unity and the flourishing of families as we seek reform in immigration laws, a goal that we believe can be embraced by persons of good will on both sides of the political aisle.
We support the following three goals:
• Protect Families and Children — Reform immigration law to be more “family friendly” – enabling immigrant families to stay together or reunite, and enabling immigrant families to flourish
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Eliminate the caps on visas for family members of legal immigrants to the US in order to facilitate the legal reunification of a husband and wife, or a parent and child
o Eliminate the problem of an immigrant who leaves the US to visit family having to wait an inordinate amount of time (sometimes 6 to 10 years) to be able to return to the US, with no guarantee of re-entry
o Revise immigration law to avoid the deportation of parents that effectively abandons their children who are U. S. citizens
o Reintroduce in Congress a revised version of the Dream Act that addresses some of the perceived deficiencies in the original legislative proposal, and provides the US citizen children of illegal immigrants the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as the children of legal US citizens
• Grow Small Town Economies — Expand legal avenues for workers to enter our country and work in a safe and legal manner with their rights and due process fully protected, and for workers who are already contributing to our economy though employment to continue to work while applying for legal status that reflects their contribution to our communities
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Provide a one-time opportunity for illegal immigrants to come forward and apply for legal status provided they can demonstrate that they have been employed, and have not broken the law before or since their illegal entry
o Reform the “guest worker” program in ways that will be fair to both American workers and immigrant workers
o Extend Worker visa programs beyond “temporary employees” (as in agriculture) to include “non-seasonal” employees (issuing visas for up to 3 years)
o Change the procedures by which illegal immigrants with American family members apply for legal status (obtaining a “green card”), allowing a crucial early step to take place in the United States rather than in the immigrant’s home country
o Institute sufficient punishments for employers who take advantage of the unprotected status of immigrant workers to violate laws regarding wages, benefits and working conditions
• Practice Smart Law Enforcement – Implement smart immigration law enforcement initiatives consistent with maintaining human dignity and respect that includes fostering positive relationships with all local residents while deterring and punishing criminal activity
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Consider ways in which law enforcement officers can engage members of the immigrant community in “non-official” capacities for the purpose of fostering trusting relationships
o Revise the Secure Communities Program to foster more effectively its purpose of capturing convicted criminals and persons deemed as security threats, without the present unintended consequence of driving immigrants “deeper into the shadows” and deterring them from helping law enforcement officers combat crime
o Improve the E-Verify system for insuring that immigrants have authorization to work in the US to eliminate existing problems (e.g., working with databases that that contain inaccurate or outdated information)
As the facilitator/moderator of this “Alternative Political Conversation,” I will generally keep a low profile. But for the sake of further advancing our conversation on immigration, I will report on the results of my own involvement with the Hispanic community in Sioux County, Iowa over the past six or so months, which results bear some affinity with the proposals made by Steve Monsma.
An initiative for which I provided leadership at my church (American Reformed Church in Orange City) last fall was an eight week series on Immigration issues in which we talked with (not at or about) some of our new Hispanic neighbors, as well as with various community members who work intimately with our Hispanic neighbors, including clergy, employers, educators, social service providers, and law enforcement officers. Some of the stories we heard from our Hispanic neighbors were heart-warming; some broke our hearts and brought us to tears.
As a follow-up to this series, a group of those who attended developed a “petition” that we will soon circulate throughout our county, with the hope that we will obtain enough signatures to garner the attention of our elected political representatives. I present this petition below, with only one comment. The substance of this petition was not developed in the abstract. It reflects the conversations, mostly respectful, with people “in the trenches,” our Hispanic neighbors who face the daily challenges of being a distinct minority in a largely Anglo community, and those who have made a strong commitment to serving our new neighbors. It is my hope that the content of this petition advances our conversation on immigration. I welcome your comments.
FIXING OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM: A PROPOSAL FROM THE NW IOWA IMMIGRATION ACTION TEAM
The present political climate renders it unlikely that there will be comprehensive reform of immigration law in the near future. However, our experiences and conversations with many of our Anglo and Hispanic neighbors in northwest Iowa convince us that the current set of federal immigration laws is dysfunctional and incremental steps can taken immediately to improve our current laws, in the absence of comprehensive reform.
We affirm the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Statement of Principles which say:
• We believe all people, regardless of national origin or citizenship status, are made in the "image of God" and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).
• We believe there is an undeniable responsibility to love and show compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-46).
• We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25-37).
• We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God's image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7)
• We believe that biblical teachings relative to “justice” must be balanced by the biblical call to “show mercy” (Matthew 23:23)
Our conversations with our Hispanic neighbors in northwest Iowa revealed that the most negative effect of current immigration laws on Hispanic immigrants has been the destructive effects on the unity of their families. This leads us to affirm the central importance of the goal of fostering family unity and the flourishing of families as we seek reform in immigration laws, a goal that we believe can be embraced by persons of good will on both sides of the political aisle.
We support the following three goals:
• Protect Families and Children — Reform immigration law to be more “family friendly” – enabling immigrant families to stay together or reunite, and enabling immigrant families to flourish
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Eliminate the caps on visas for family members of legal immigrants to the US in order to facilitate the legal reunification of a husband and wife, or a parent and child
o Eliminate the problem of an immigrant who leaves the US to visit family having to wait an inordinate amount of time (sometimes 6 to 10 years) to be able to return to the US, with no guarantee of re-entry
o Revise immigration law to avoid the deportation of parents that effectively abandons their children who are U. S. citizens
o Reintroduce in Congress a revised version of the Dream Act that addresses some of the perceived deficiencies in the original legislative proposal, and provides the US citizen children of illegal immigrants the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as the children of legal US citizens
• Grow Small Town Economies — Expand legal avenues for workers to enter our country and work in a safe and legal manner with their rights and due process fully protected, and for workers who are already contributing to our economy though employment to continue to work while applying for legal status that reflects their contribution to our communities
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Provide a one-time opportunity for illegal immigrants to come forward and apply for legal status provided they can demonstrate that they have been employed, and have not broken the law before or since their illegal entry
o Reform the “guest worker” program in ways that will be fair to both American workers and immigrant workers
o Extend Worker visa programs beyond “temporary employees” (as in agriculture) to include “non-seasonal” employees (issuing visas for up to 3 years)
o Change the procedures by which illegal immigrants with American family members apply for legal status (obtaining a “green card”), allowing a crucial early step to take place in the United States rather than in the immigrant’s home country
o Institute sufficient punishments for employers who take advantage of the unprotected status of immigrant workers to violate laws regarding wages, benefits and working conditions
• Practice Smart Law Enforcement – Implement smart immigration law enforcement initiatives consistent with maintaining human dignity and respect that includes fostering positive relationships with all local residents while deterring and punishing criminal activity
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Consider ways in which law enforcement officers can engage members of the immigrant community in “non-official” capacities for the purpose of fostering trusting relationships
o Revise the Secure Communities Program to foster more effectively its purpose of capturing convicted criminals and persons deemed as security threats, without the present unintended consequence of driving immigrants “deeper into the shadows” and deterring them from helping law enforcement officers combat crime
o Improve the E-Verify system for insuring that immigrants have authorization to work in the US to eliminate existing problems (e.g., working with databases that that contain inaccurate or outdated information)
As the facilitator/moderator of this “Alternative Political Conversation,” I will generally keep a low profile. But for the sake of further advancing our conversation on immigration, I will report on the results of my own involvement with the Hispanic community in Sioux County, Iowa over the past six or so months, which results bear some affinity with the proposals made by Steve Monsma.
An initiative for which I provided leadership at my church (American Reformed Church in Orange City) last fall was an eight week series on Immigration issues in which we talked with (not at or about) some of our new Hispanic neighbors, as well as with various community members who work intimately with our Hispanic neighbors, including clergy, employers, educators, social service providers, and law enforcement officers. Some of the stories we heard from our Hispanic neighbors were heart-warming; some broke our hearts and brought us to tears.
As a follow-up to this series, a group of those who attended developed a “petition” that we will soon circulate throughout our county, with the hope that we will obtain enough signatures to garner the attention of our elected political representatives. I present this petition below, with only one comment. The substance of this petition was not developed in the abstract. It reflects the conversations, mostly respectful, with people “in the trenches,” our Hispanic neighbors who face the daily challenges of being a distinct minority in a largely Anglo community, and those who have made a strong commitment to serving our new neighbors. It is my hope that the content of this petition advances our conversation on immigration. I welcome your comments.
FIXING OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM: A PROPOSAL FROM THE NW IOWA IMMIGRATION ACTION TEAM
The present political climate renders it unlikely that there will be comprehensive reform of immigration law in the near future. However, our experiences and conversations with many of our Anglo and Hispanic neighbors in northwest Iowa convince us that the current set of federal immigration laws is dysfunctional and incremental steps can taken immediately to improve our current laws, in the absence of comprehensive reform.
We affirm the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Statement of Principles which say:
• We believe all people, regardless of national origin or citizenship status, are made in the "image of God" and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).
• We believe there is an undeniable responsibility to love and show compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-46).
• We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25-37).
• We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God's image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7)
• We believe that biblical teachings relative to “justice” must be balanced by the biblical call to “show mercy” (Matthew 23:23)
Our conversations with our Hispanic neighbors in northwest Iowa revealed that the most negative effect of current immigration laws on Hispanic immigrants has been the destructive effects on the unity of their families. This leads us to affirm the central importance of the goal of fostering family unity and the flourishing of families as we seek reform in immigration laws, a goal that we believe can be embraced by persons of good will on both sides of the political aisle.
We support the following three goals:
• Protect Families and Children — Reform immigration law to be more “family friendly” – enabling immigrant families to stay together or reunite, and enabling immigrant families to flourish
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Eliminate the caps on visas for family members of legal immigrants to the US in order to facilitate the legal reunification of a husband and wife, or a parent and child
o Eliminate the problem of an immigrant who leaves the US to visit family having to wait an inordinate amount of time (sometimes 6 to 10 years) to be able to return to the US, with no guarantee of re-entry
o Revise immigration law to avoid the deportation of parents that effectively abandons their children who are U. S. citizens
o Reintroduce in Congress a revised version of the Dream Act that addresses some of the perceived deficiencies in the original legislative proposal, and provides the US citizen children of illegal immigrants the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as the children of legal US citizens
• Grow Small Town Economies — Expand legal avenues for workers to enter our country and work in a safe and legal manner with their rights and due process fully protected, and for workers who are already contributing to our economy though employment to continue to work while applying for legal status that reflects their contribution to our communities
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Provide a one-time opportunity for illegal immigrants to come forward and apply for legal status provided they can demonstrate that they have been employed, and have not broken the law before or since their illegal entry
o Reform the “guest worker” program in ways that will be fair to both American workers and immigrant workers
o Extend Worker visa programs beyond “temporary employees” (as in agriculture) to include “non-seasonal” employees (issuing visas for up to 3 years)
o Change the procedures by which illegal immigrants with American family members apply for legal status (obtaining a “green card”), allowing a crucial early step to take place in the United States rather than in the immigrant’s home country
o Institute sufficient punishments for employers who take advantage of the unprotected status of immigrant workers to violate laws regarding wages, benefits and working conditions
• Practice Smart Law Enforcement – Implement smart immigration law enforcement initiatives consistent with maintaining human dignity and respect that includes fostering positive relationships with all local residents while deterring and punishing criminal activity
Possible steps to consider for accomplishing this goal include:
o Consider ways in which law enforcement officers can engage members of the immigrant community in “non-official” capacities for the purpose of fostering trusting relationships
o Revise the Secure Communities Program to foster more effectively its purpose of capturing convicted criminals and persons deemed as security threats, without the present unintended consequence of driving immigrants “deeper into the shadows” and deterring them from helping law enforcement officers combat crime
o Improve the E-Verify system for insuring that immigrants have authorization to work in the US to eliminate existing problems (e.g., working with databases that that contain inaccurate or outdated information)
Thank you, Mr. Monsma, for the first salvo. Please let me propose that we not adopt your ideas.
It is no light matter that governments and Christians declare this unpopular group guilty without due process of law. The Due Process Clause of our Constitution “protect[s] the invaluable guarantee afforded by the presumption of innocence” [US v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 763 (1987)]. Immigration law is too complex to declare offhandedly such findings of guilt. However, to avoid ten million hearings, lawmakers find it convenient simply to declare undocumented persons worthy of punishment and impose sanctions. Such laws are bills of attainder banned by the U.S. Constitution in Art. 1, Sec. 9.
So let’s drop the penalties in Mr. Monsma’s proposed legalization process. New penalties added on top of those already called for by law would be ex post facto, proscribed in the same section of the Constitution.
Let’s not have another guest worker program. The WWII Bracero program was not a moral success. I find no expression of love in creating a subclass of disposable workers. Guest worker proposals fall far short of the verse Mr. Monsma used to open his article.
Mr. Monsma’s call for harsher sanctions on employers is my least favorite. This continues the strategy of calling on U.S. citizens, including Christian, to disadvantage undocumented people so they will go away. Christians, with shoulder shrugging resignation and little training in constitutional protections, have been imposing these sanctions. When such sanctions are unsuccessful, governments create ever harsher penalties. “If only you would just go home,” the argument goes, “I wouldn’t have to hit you so hard.” In contract, Proverb 14:31 says, “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker.”
Thank you, Mr. Monsma, for the first salvo. Please let me propose that we not adopt your ideas.
It is no light matter that governments and Christians declare this unpopular group guilty without due process of law. The Due Process Clause of our Constitution “protect[s] the invaluable guarantee afforded by the presumption of innocence” [US v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 763 (1987)]. Immigration law is too complex to declare offhandedly such findings of guilt. However, to avoid ten million hearings, lawmakers find it convenient simply to declare undocumented persons worthy of punishment and impose sanctions. Such laws are bills of attainder banned by the U.S. Constitution in Art. 1, Sec. 9.
So let’s drop the penalties in Mr. Monsma’s proposed legalization process. New penalties added on top of those already called for by law would be ex post facto, proscribed in the same section of the Constitution.
Let’s not have another guest worker program. The WWII Bracero program was not a moral success. I find no expression of love in creating a subclass of disposable workers. Guest worker proposals fall far short of the verse Mr. Monsma used to open his article.
Mr. Monsma’s call for harsher sanctions on employers is my least favorite. This continues the strategy of calling on U.S. citizens, including Christian, to disadvantage undocumented people so they will go away. Christians, with shoulder shrugging resignation and little training in constitutional protections, have been imposing these sanctions. When such sanctions are unsuccessful, governments create ever harsher penalties. “If only you would just go home,” the argument goes, “I wouldn’t have to hit you so hard.” In contract, Proverb 14:31 says, “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker.”
Thank you, Mr. Monsma, for the first salvo. Please let me propose that we not adopt your ideas.
It is no light matter that governments and Christians declare this unpopular group guilty without due process of law. The Due Process Clause of our Constitution “protect[s] the invaluable guarantee afforded by the presumption of innocence” [US v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 763 (1987)]. Immigration law is too complex to declare offhandedly such findings of guilt. However, to avoid ten million hearings, lawmakers find it convenient simply to declare undocumented persons worthy of punishment and impose sanctions. Such laws are bills of attainder banned by the U.S. Constitution in Art. 1, Sec. 9.
So let’s drop the penalties in Mr. Monsma’s proposed legalization process. New penalties added on top of those already called for by law would be ex post facto, proscribed in the same section of the Constitution.
Let’s not have another guest worker program. The WWII Bracero program was not a moral success. I find no expression of love in creating a subclass of disposable workers. Guest worker proposals fall far short of the verse Mr. Monsma used to open his article.
Mr. Monsma’s call for harsher sanctions on employers is my least favorite. This continues the strategy of calling on U.S. citizens, including Christian, to disadvantage undocumented people so they will go away. Christians, with shoulder shrugging resignation and little training in constitutional protections, have been imposing these sanctions. When such sanctions are unsuccessful, governments create ever harsher penalties. “If only you would just go home,” the argument goes, “I wouldn’t have to hit you so hard.” In contract, Proverb 14:31 says, “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker.”
Dr. Monsma,
Based on your Christian commitment to public justice and your observations of four basic facts about the current state of immigration in the U.S., you offer three policy proposals: 1. Establish a guest worker program; 2. Discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants by distributing tamper-proof identity cards to permanent residents and guest workers, and increase penalties on employers if they continue to hire illegal workers; and 3. A path to citizenship should be provided for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country and should include penalties for breaking the law and criteria for eligibility (no criminal convictions, etc.).
With Mr. Balls, I very much agree with your policy framework and think it does an excellent job of accounting for the many, overlapping Christian moral concerns pertinent to this debate. But I wanted to add proposal based on an article I read from one of your neighbors in Grand Rapids, the Acton Institute. If I were to add a fourth item to your policy framework it would be that we consider ways in which U.S. trade policies increase the economic disparity between the U.S. and Mexico; thereby, making the arduous journey north appear so compelling to so many in the first place. In his article, “Corn Subsidies at Root of U.S.-Mexico Immigration Problems” (2/29/12), Anthony Bradley writes, “….since NAFTA’s initial implementation in 1994, the United States has raised farm subsidies by 300 percent. As a result, Mexican corn farmers, who comprise the majority of the country’s agricultural sector, experienced drastic declines in the domestic price of their product. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States began to experience an influx of Mexicans looking for employment in the latter half of the 1990s.” Bradley then asks, “Can you imagine what would happen if the United States had no farm subsidies, Mexican farms were flourishing, and $22.7 billion was generated within Mexico’s economy to catalyze more wealth creating opportunities?” So, I would argue, let’s advocate for the three policies you proposed but put our weight behind a reduction or elimination of U.S. farm subsidies as another piece to this puzzle of seeking public justice in comprehensive immigration reform. I think it would complement well each of your proposals in multiple ways.
Dr. Monsma,
Based on your Christian commitment to public justice and your observations of four basic facts about the current state of immigration in the U.S., you offer three policy proposals: 1. Establish a guest worker program; 2. Discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants by distributing tamper-proof identity cards to permanent residents and guest workers, and increase penalties on employers if they continue to hire illegal workers; and 3. A path to citizenship should be provided for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country and should include penalties for breaking the law and criteria for eligibility (no criminal convictions, etc.).
With Mr. Balls, I very much agree with your policy framework and think it does an excellent job of accounting for the many, overlapping Christian moral concerns pertinent to this debate. But I wanted to add proposal based on an article I read from one of your neighbors in Grand Rapids, the Acton Institute. If I were to add a fourth item to your policy framework it would be that we consider ways in which U.S. trade policies increase the economic disparity between the U.S. and Mexico; thereby, making the arduous journey north appear so compelling to so many in the first place. In his article, “Corn Subsidies at Root of U.S.-Mexico Immigration Problems” (2/29/12), Anthony Bradley writes, “….since NAFTA’s initial implementation in 1994, the United States has raised farm subsidies by 300 percent. As a result, Mexican corn farmers, who comprise the majority of the country’s agricultural sector, experienced drastic declines in the domestic price of their product. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States began to experience an influx of Mexicans looking for employment in the latter half of the 1990s.” Bradley then asks, “Can you imagine what would happen if the United States had no farm subsidies, Mexican farms were flourishing, and $22.7 billion was generated within Mexico’s economy to catalyze more wealth creating opportunities?” So, I would argue, let’s advocate for the three policies you proposed but put our weight behind a reduction or elimination of U.S. farm subsidies as another piece to this puzzle of seeking public justice in comprehensive immigration reform. I think it would complement well each of your proposals in multiple ways.
Dr. Monsma,
Based on your Christian commitment to public justice and your observations of four basic facts about the current state of immigration in the U.S., you offer three policy proposals: 1. Establish a guest worker program; 2. Discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants by distributing tamper-proof identity cards to permanent residents and guest workers, and increase penalties on employers if they continue to hire illegal workers; and 3. A path to citizenship should be provided for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country and should include penalties for breaking the law and criteria for eligibility (no criminal convictions, etc.).
With Mr. Balls, I very much agree with your policy framework and think it does an excellent job of accounting for the many, overlapping Christian moral concerns pertinent to this debate. But I wanted to add proposal based on an article I read from one of your neighbors in Grand Rapids, the Acton Institute. If I were to add a fourth item to your policy framework it would be that we consider ways in which U.S. trade policies increase the economic disparity between the U.S. and Mexico; thereby, making the arduous journey north appear so compelling to so many in the first place. In his article, “Corn Subsidies at Root of U.S.-Mexico Immigration Problems” (2/29/12), Anthony Bradley writes, “….since NAFTA’s initial implementation in 1994, the United States has raised farm subsidies by 300 percent. As a result, Mexican corn farmers, who comprise the majority of the country’s agricultural sector, experienced drastic declines in the domestic price of their product. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States began to experience an influx of Mexicans looking for employment in the latter half of the 1990s.” Bradley then asks, “Can you imagine what would happen if the United States had no farm subsidies, Mexican farms were flourishing, and $22.7 billion was generated within Mexico’s economy to catalyze more wealth creating opportunities?” So, I would argue, let’s advocate for the three policies you proposed but put our weight behind a reduction or elimination of U.S. farm subsidies as another piece to this puzzle of seeking public justice in comprehensive immigration reform. I think it would complement well each of your proposals in multiple ways.
Mr. Ball,
Thank you for your comments. I am very compelled by Dr. Monsma’s essay, which drew me to respond to three of your claims.
You write: “It is no light matter that governments and Christians declare this unpopular group guilty without due process of law.”
Even if some Christians, politicians, and government officials are doing what you’re suggesting, overall, I don’t think this characterization is accurate. I have not heard people on this blog say they want to declare anyone guilty without due process of law. When participants have talked about “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” they’ve been simply referring to those who are here in violation of U.S. immigration law. Christians, of course, should be against any punitive government action against a person without due process, but asserting that illegal immigrants should face some sort of penalty for having broken the law, as Dr. Monsma does, has nothing to do with circumventing due process. Furthermore, the U.S. government isn’t doing what you’re suggesting, at least not as a matter of official policy. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not remove illegal immigrants from the U.S. until they have been “determined deportable” by an immigration court. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) facilitates the processing of illegal aliens through the immigration court system. Border enforcement is a different thing (because no one has the same constitutional protections at or near a border as they do elsewhere), but when it comes to interior immigration enforcement, immigration violations are adjudicated in a court of law. And your comment about political resistance to the impracticality of holding some 10 million immigration hearings is one reason why ICE focuses its efforts so heavily on immigration violators who have also been convicted of other crimes.
You write: “….let’s drop the penalties in Mr. Monsma’s proposed legalization process. New penalties added on top of those already called for by law would be ex post facto, proscribed in the same section of the Constitution.”
The penalty for violating U.S. immigration law, whether based on illegal entry or overstaying a visa, is punishable by arrest and deportation unless there are other intervening factors. Dr. Monsma’s path to “legalization and citizenship” would be a reduction in the penalty due to those illegal immigrants who, of their own volition, come forward. Implicit in Dr. Monsma’s proposal is the idea that illegals would have to make an admission of guilt at a particular point in time after the legislation that contains his proposal is signed into law; therefore, ex post facto would not apply. Illegal immigrants would be in violation of the law at the time of their admission. I believe Dr. Monsma strikes a proper balance among three moral values: 1. We should strongly support the rule of law (illegals broke the law and must pay a penalty); 2. U.S. businesses, consumers, and government are culpable in this situation and a sort of public “mercy” toward illegal immigrants is right and just as a result; and 3. Legal pathways into the U.S. are not at all in line with the practical realities surrounding immigration demand, and so long as the status quo continues, we can only expect substantial non-compliance.
You write: “Mr. Monsma’s call for harsher sanctions on employers is my least favorite. This continues the strategy of calling on U.S. citizens, including Christian, to disadvantage undocumented people so they will go away.”
As I understood his essay, each of Dr. Monsma’s policy proposals build upon the others. Essentially, once the U.S. establishes a viable guest worker program as well as a program for providing legal permanent residence, the U.S. should impose stricter penalties on businesses that still engage in unlawful hiring. Rather than disadvantaging them, this would likely protect “undocumented workers” because they would no longer have to work for businesses without protection of U.S. labor laws. The whole point is (I think) that the U.S. government should significantly ramp up its enforcement efforts on businesses once undocumented workers have had ample opportunity to convert to guest worker or legal permanent resident status.
Mr. Ball,
Thank you for your comments. I am very compelled by Dr. Monsma’s essay, which drew me to respond to three of your claims.
You write: “It is no light matter that governments and Christians declare this unpopular group guilty without due process of law.”
Even if some Christians, politicians, and government officials are doing what you’re suggesting, overall, I don’t think this characterization is accurate. I have not heard people on this blog say they want to declare anyone guilty without due process of law. When participants have talked about “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” they’ve been simply referring to those who are here in violation of U.S. immigration law. Christians, of course, should be against any punitive government action against a person without due process, but asserting that illegal immigrants should face some sort of penalty for having broken the law, as Dr. Monsma does, has nothing to do with circumventing due process. Furthermore, the U.S. government isn’t doing what you’re suggesting, at least not as a matter of official policy. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not remove illegal immigrants from the U.S. until they have been “determined deportable” by an immigration court. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) facilitates the processing of illegal aliens through the immigration court system. Border enforcement is a different thing (because no one has the same constitutional protections at or near a border as they do elsewhere), but when it comes to interior immigration enforcement, immigration violations are adjudicated in a court of law. And your comment about political resistance to the impracticality of holding some 10 million immigration hearings is one reason why ICE focuses its efforts so heavily on immigration violators who have also been convicted of other crimes.
You write: “….let’s drop the penalties in Mr. Monsma’s proposed legalization process. New penalties added on top of those already called for by law would be ex post facto, proscribed in the same section of the Constitution.”
The penalty for violating U.S. immigration law, whether based on illegal entry or overstaying a visa, is punishable by arrest and deportation unless there are other intervening factors. Dr. Monsma’s path to “legalization and citizenship” would be a reduction in the penalty due to those illegal immigrants who, of their own volition, come forward. Implicit in Dr. Monsma’s proposal is the idea that illegals would have to make an admission of guilt at a particular point in time after the legislation that contains his proposal is signed into law; therefore, ex post facto would not apply. Illegal immigrants would be in violation of the law at the time of their admission. I believe Dr. Monsma strikes a proper balance among three moral values: 1. We should strongly support the rule of law (illegals broke the law and must pay a penalty); 2. U.S. businesses, consumers, and government are culpable in this situation and a sort of public “mercy” toward illegal immigrants is right and just as a result; and 3. Legal pathways into the U.S. are not at all in line with the practical realities surrounding immigration demand, and so long as the status quo continues, we can only expect substantial non-compliance.
You write: “Mr. Monsma’s call for harsher sanctions on employers is my least favorite. This continues the strategy of calling on U.S. citizens, including Christian, to disadvantage undocumented people so they will go away.”
As I understood his essay, each of Dr. Monsma’s policy proposals build upon the others. Essentially, once the U.S. establishes a viable guest worker program as well as a program for providing legal permanent residence, the U.S. should impose stricter penalties on businesses that still engage in unlawful hiring. Rather than disadvantaging them, this would likely protect “undocumented workers” because they would no longer have to work for businesses without protection of U.S. labor laws. The whole point is (I think) that the U.S. government should significantly ramp up its enforcement efforts on businesses once undocumented workers have had ample opportunity to convert to guest worker or legal permanent resident status.
Mr. Ball,
Thank you for your comments. I am very compelled by Dr. Monsma’s essay, which drew me to respond to three of your claims.
You write: “It is no light matter that governments and Christians declare this unpopular group guilty without due process of law.”
Even if some Christians, politicians, and government officials are doing what you’re suggesting, overall, I don’t think this characterization is accurate. I have not heard people on this blog say they want to declare anyone guilty without due process of law. When participants have talked about “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” they’ve been simply referring to those who are here in violation of U.S. immigration law. Christians, of course, should be against any punitive government action against a person without due process, but asserting that illegal immigrants should face some sort of penalty for having broken the law, as Dr. Monsma does, has nothing to do with circumventing due process. Furthermore, the U.S. government isn’t doing what you’re suggesting, at least not as a matter of official policy. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not remove illegal immigrants from the U.S. until they have been “determined deportable” by an immigration court. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) facilitates the processing of illegal aliens through the immigration court system. Border enforcement is a different thing (because no one has the same constitutional protections at or near a border as they do elsewhere), but when it comes to interior immigration enforcement, immigration violations are adjudicated in a court of law. And your comment about political resistance to the impracticality of holding some 10 million immigration hearings is one reason why ICE focuses its efforts so heavily on immigration violators who have also been convicted of other crimes.
You write: “….let’s drop the penalties in Mr. Monsma’s proposed legalization process. New penalties added on top of those already called for by law would be ex post facto, proscribed in the same section of the Constitution.”
The penalty for violating U.S. immigration law, whether based on illegal entry or overstaying a visa, is punishable by arrest and deportation unless there are other intervening factors. Dr. Monsma’s path to “legalization and citizenship” would be a reduction in the penalty due to those illegal immigrants who, of their own volition, come forward. Implicit in Dr. Monsma’s proposal is the idea that illegals would have to make an admission of guilt at a particular point in time after the legislation that contains his proposal is signed into law; therefore, ex post facto would not apply. Illegal immigrants would be in violation of the law at the time of their admission. I believe Dr. Monsma strikes a proper balance among three moral values: 1. We should strongly support the rule of law (illegals broke the law and must pay a penalty); 2. U.S. businesses, consumers, and government are culpable in this situation and a sort of public “mercy” toward illegal immigrants is right and just as a result; and 3. Legal pathways into the U.S. are not at all in line with the practical realities surrounding immigration demand, and so long as the status quo continues, we can only expect substantial non-compliance.
You write: “Mr. Monsma’s call for harsher sanctions on employers is my least favorite. This continues the strategy of calling on U.S. citizens, including Christian, to disadvantage undocumented people so they will go away.”
As I understood his essay, each of Dr. Monsma’s policy proposals build upon the others. Essentially, once the U.S. establishes a viable guest worker program as well as a program for providing legal permanent residence, the U.S. should impose stricter penalties on businesses that still engage in unlawful hiring. Rather than disadvantaging them, this would likely protect “undocumented workers” because they would no longer have to work for businesses without protection of U.S. labor laws. The whole point is (I think) that the U.S. government should significantly ramp up its enforcement efforts on businesses once undocumented workers have had ample opportunity to convert to guest worker or legal permanent resident status.
I thank Donald Balla and Nathan Berkeley for their comments. They are a good reminder that policy questions surrounding the issue of undocumented immigrants are anything but simple. They are complex and attempts to apply biblical principles to them are filled with pitfalls. But let me attempt to clarify my three points that trouble Mr. Balla and then comment on Mr. Berkeley's suggestion in regard to U.S. trade policy.
First, Mr. Balla agrees with my proposal that those who came to the United States illegally should have a path to legalization and eventual citizenship, but he questions my belief that part of that process should involve some penalty. I believe a Christian understanding of law and of governments as instituted by God for society’s good (Ro. 13: 1-5) mean that those who have broken the law ought to suffer some penalty. Normally, I see these as taking the form of a fine, and these fines should vary with the nature of the legal violation. For those who were inadvertently caught in the web of our overly complex, sometimes unjust immigration laws those fines could be minimal.
Mr. Balla objects to my suggestion of a guest worker program and cites the Bracero program of the 1940s and 1950s as a failed program we do not want to repeat. But I do not believe the problems in the old Bracero program mean a guest worker program cannot be made to work in a just, fair manner. Minimum wage, health and safety standards and basic housing provisions would need to be in place. With modern technology it will be easier to enforce such provisions than they were 60 to 70 years ago. Unions should have the right to organize guest workers, which could also help prevent abuses.
Mr. Balla is most critical of my suggestion that employers who persist in hiring undocumented workers should face severe penalties. But this proposal must be seen in the context of my other proposals. Its goal is not to force undocumented persons to return to their country of origin. That would be unjust to those already here and would not solve the underlying problems. Employers who flout the law and hire undocumented workers, often at substandard wages and under brutal working conditions (knowing the workers have no legal recourse), are a part of the problem. My proposals, taken together, seek to make use of both carrots and sticks. The guest worker program would help assure employers would have legal workers available and the path to legalization and citizenship would assure today’s undocumented workers would not have to stay undocumented.
In regard to Mr. Berkeley's suggestion I add a fourth point in regard to American trade policies, I largely agree. As he points out, American farm subsidies drive down the price of American farm products and make it more difficult for Mexican and other nations' farmers to compete with U.S. farmers. This leads to unememployment and economic pressures to seek work in the U.S. This is another way that we as Americans are complicit in the problem of undocumented workers.
I am sure my proposals need more elaboration and refinements than I can express in a brief posting. This is indeed a complex area. But I still believe they point in a direction of public policies that can be the starting point for further discussion and give-and-take, which in turn can lead to new policies that are rooted in a respect for law and treat workers and employers justly and as God’s precious children.
Stephen V. Monsma
I thank Donald Balla and Nathan Berkeley for their comments. They are a good reminder that policy questions surrounding the issue of undocumented immigrants are anything but simple. They are complex and attempts to apply biblical principles to them are filled with pitfalls. But let me attempt to clarify my three points that trouble Mr. Balla and then comment on Mr. Berkeley's suggestion in regard to U.S. trade policy.
First, Mr. Balla agrees with my proposal that those who came to the United States illegally should have a path to legalization and eventual citizenship, but he questions my belief that part of that process should involve some penalty. I believe a Christian understanding of law and of governments as instituted by God for society’s good (Ro. 13: 1-5) mean that those who have broken the law ought to suffer some penalty. Normally, I see these as taking the form of a fine, and these fines should vary with the nature of the legal violation. For those who were inadvertently caught in the web of our overly complex, sometimes unjust immigration laws those fines could be minimal.
Mr. Balla objects to my suggestion of a guest worker program and cites the Bracero program of the 1940s and 1950s as a failed program we do not want to repeat. But I do not believe the problems in the old Bracero program mean a guest worker program cannot be made to work in a just, fair manner. Minimum wage, health and safety standards and basic housing provisions would need to be in place. With modern technology it will be easier to enforce such provisions than they were 60 to 70 years ago. Unions should have the right to organize guest workers, which could also help prevent abuses.
Mr. Balla is most critical of my suggestion that employers who persist in hiring undocumented workers should face severe penalties. But this proposal must be seen in the context of my other proposals. Its goal is not to force undocumented persons to return to their country of origin. That would be unjust to those already here and would not solve the underlying problems. Employers who flout the law and hire undocumented workers, often at substandard wages and under brutal working conditions (knowing the workers have no legal recourse), are a part of the problem. My proposals, taken together, seek to make use of both carrots and sticks. The guest worker program would help assure employers would have legal workers available and the path to legalization and citizenship would assure today’s undocumented workers would not have to stay undocumented.
In regard to Mr. Berkeley's suggestion I add a fourth point in regard to American trade policies, I largely agree. As he points out, American farm subsidies drive down the price of American farm products and make it more difficult for Mexican and other nations' farmers to compete with U.S. farmers. This leads to unememployment and economic pressures to seek work in the U.S. This is another way that we as Americans are complicit in the problem of undocumented workers.
I am sure my proposals need more elaboration and refinements than I can express in a brief posting. This is indeed a complex area. But I still believe they point in a direction of public policies that can be the starting point for further discussion and give-and-take, which in turn can lead to new policies that are rooted in a respect for law and treat workers and employers justly and as God’s precious children.
Stephen V. Monsma
I thank Donald Balla and Nathan Berkeley for their comments. They are a good reminder that policy questions surrounding the issue of undocumented immigrants are anything but simple. They are complex and attempts to apply biblical principles to them are filled with pitfalls. But let me attempt to clarify my three points that trouble Mr. Balla and then comment on Mr. Berkeley's suggestion in regard to U.S. trade policy.
First, Mr. Balla agrees with my proposal that those who came to the United States illegally should have a path to legalization and eventual citizenship, but he questions my belief that part of that process should involve some penalty. I believe a Christian understanding of law and of governments as instituted by God for society’s good (Ro. 13: 1-5) mean that those who have broken the law ought to suffer some penalty. Normally, I see these as taking the form of a fine, and these fines should vary with the nature of the legal violation. For those who were inadvertently caught in the web of our overly complex, sometimes unjust immigration laws those fines could be minimal.
Mr. Balla objects to my suggestion of a guest worker program and cites the Bracero program of the 1940s and 1950s as a failed program we do not want to repeat. But I do not believe the problems in the old Bracero program mean a guest worker program cannot be made to work in a just, fair manner. Minimum wage, health and safety standards and basic housing provisions would need to be in place. With modern technology it will be easier to enforce such provisions than they were 60 to 70 years ago. Unions should have the right to organize guest workers, which could also help prevent abuses.
Mr. Balla is most critical of my suggestion that employers who persist in hiring undocumented workers should face severe penalties. But this proposal must be seen in the context of my other proposals. Its goal is not to force undocumented persons to return to their country of origin. That would be unjust to those already here and would not solve the underlying problems. Employers who flout the law and hire undocumented workers, often at substandard wages and under brutal working conditions (knowing the workers have no legal recourse), are a part of the problem. My proposals, taken together, seek to make use of both carrots and sticks. The guest worker program would help assure employers would have legal workers available and the path to legalization and citizenship would assure today’s undocumented workers would not have to stay undocumented.
In regard to Mr. Berkeley's suggestion I add a fourth point in regard to American trade policies, I largely agree. As he points out, American farm subsidies drive down the price of American farm products and make it more difficult for Mexican and other nations' farmers to compete with U.S. farmers. This leads to unememployment and economic pressures to seek work in the U.S. This is another way that we as Americans are complicit in the problem of undocumented workers.
I am sure my proposals need more elaboration and refinements than I can express in a brief posting. This is indeed a complex area. But I still believe they point in a direction of public policies that can be the starting point for further discussion and give-and-take, which in turn can lead to new policies that are rooted in a respect for law and treat workers and employers justly and as God’s precious children.
Stephen V. Monsma
Wow, both Nathan Berkeley and Stephen Monsma made excellent responses to my comments! I find no fault in anything they wrote. I can only add this clarification.
About penalties:
Visa overstayers and children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents (unlike unauthorized border crossers) may have committed no crimes. Declaring them to be criminals and imposing a penalty would be criminalizing behavior that was not a crime when it happened. Deportation is not a penalty but a civil procedure and as such requires no due process [Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.] Accordingly, it is inappropriate to exchange penalties for deportation.
My objection to penalties without due process is not with federal immigration laws, but state laws. Alabama ex post facto has increased penalties on all persons without documents (criminals or not) via loss of work, contract rights, and housing [Ala. H.B. 56], despite the fact that a missing document alone is insufficient due process to impose punishment [Wong Wing v. U.S.].
I fear that the legal status carrot will cause immigrants undeserving of punishment to “confess” and pay a penalty, and that we Christians will tolerate this overinclusive harm as a necessary evil.
About guest worker program:
A guest worker program is better than nothing, and less than the recognition of equality found in the Bible.
About citizen sanctions:
There is a mistaken notion that, because undocumented people “shouldn’t be here,” governments may harm them in unlimited ways. I cringe when governments take the additional step of ordering citizens to impose these sanctions. I believe it likely that citizen employers, landlords and business people, in order to avoid the risk of severe criminal penalties, will play it safe and impose sanctions indiscriminately.
As a Christian with the job of treating the least person like I would treat Jesus, I cannot obey laws that order me to treat immigrants badly. Someday Jesus may say to me, “I am a stranger. Will you welcome me?” I don’t want to reply, “Sorry, my government has ordered me not to.”
Wow, both Nathan Berkeley and Stephen Monsma made excellent responses to my comments! I find no fault in anything they wrote. I can only add this clarification.
About penalties:
Visa overstayers and children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents (unlike unauthorized border crossers) may have committed no crimes. Declaring them to be criminals and imposing a penalty would be criminalizing behavior that was not a crime when it happened. Deportation is not a penalty but a civil procedure and as such requires no due process [Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.] Accordingly, it is inappropriate to exchange penalties for deportation.
My objection to penalties without due process is not with federal immigration laws, but state laws. Alabama ex post facto has increased penalties on all persons without documents (criminals or not) via loss of work, contract rights, and housing [Ala. H.B. 56], despite the fact that a missing document alone is insufficient due process to impose punishment [Wong Wing v. U.S.].
I fear that the legal status carrot will cause immigrants undeserving of punishment to “confess” and pay a penalty, and that we Christians will tolerate this overinclusive harm as a necessary evil.
About guest worker program:
A guest worker program is better than nothing, and less than the recognition of equality found in the Bible.
About citizen sanctions:
There is a mistaken notion that, because undocumented people “shouldn’t be here,” governments may harm them in unlimited ways. I cringe when governments take the additional step of ordering citizens to impose these sanctions. I believe it likely that citizen employers, landlords and business people, in order to avoid the risk of severe criminal penalties, will play it safe and impose sanctions indiscriminately.
As a Christian with the job of treating the least person like I would treat Jesus, I cannot obey laws that order me to treat immigrants badly. Someday Jesus may say to me, “I am a stranger. Will you welcome me?” I don’t want to reply, “Sorry, my government has ordered me not to.”
Wow, both Nathan Berkeley and Stephen Monsma made excellent responses to my comments! I find no fault in anything they wrote. I can only add this clarification.
About penalties:
Visa overstayers and children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents (unlike unauthorized border crossers) may have committed no crimes. Declaring them to be criminals and imposing a penalty would be criminalizing behavior that was not a crime when it happened. Deportation is not a penalty but a civil procedure and as such requires no due process [Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.] Accordingly, it is inappropriate to exchange penalties for deportation.
My objection to penalties without due process is not with federal immigration laws, but state laws. Alabama ex post facto has increased penalties on all persons without documents (criminals or not) via loss of work, contract rights, and housing [Ala. H.B. 56], despite the fact that a missing document alone is insufficient due process to impose punishment [Wong Wing v. U.S.].
I fear that the legal status carrot will cause immigrants undeserving of punishment to “confess” and pay a penalty, and that we Christians will tolerate this overinclusive harm as a necessary evil.
About guest worker program:
A guest worker program is better than nothing, and less than the recognition of equality found in the Bible.
About citizen sanctions:
There is a mistaken notion that, because undocumented people “shouldn’t be here,” governments may harm them in unlimited ways. I cringe when governments take the additional step of ordering citizens to impose these sanctions. I believe it likely that citizen employers, landlords and business people, in order to avoid the risk of severe criminal penalties, will play it safe and impose sanctions indiscriminately.
As a Christian with the job of treating the least person like I would treat Jesus, I cannot obey laws that order me to treat immigrants badly. Someday Jesus may say to me, “I am a stranger. Will you welcome me?” I don’t want to reply, “Sorry, my government has ordered me not to.”
Mr. Balla,
As before, your comments really challenge me to think carefully about these issues; thank you.
You state, “Visa overstayers and children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents (unlike unauthorized border crossers) may have committed no crimes.” I would be in favor of giving significant leniency for children (or young adults) placed in this situation, but great care would have to be taken to avoid creating more incentives for illegally bringing children into the U.S. in order to establish their residency. I don’t know how visa over-stayers are not in violation of the law, but if those instances occur on the margins, they must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Maybe I’m somewhat missing your point on “declaring them criminals and imposing a penalty” for behavior that “was not a crime,” but I’m in favor of imposing a penalty on immigration violators in exchange for their willing entry into some form of legal status (as described by Dr. Monsma). Again, for children and young adults brought here illegally by adults, the situation is more complex and probably requires certain kinds of exemptions and reductions regarding penalties.
Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the legal competency to engage you at the level of analysis necessary to address the cases and concepts you mention. But I will say that with all the resources required of so many immigrants to get into the U.S., it seems unimaginable that deportation should be not be considered a penalty (at least morally), by those for whom it is applied. Furthermore, there are all kinds of penalties at all levels of government exacted against people for violations of laws that are not criminal laws. If I were to build a deck on my house without acquiring a city permit, I would face stiff monetary penalties, but such a violation falls nowhere within the municipal, state, or federal criminal codes applicable where I have residence.
The other question underlying your argument is to what extent U.S. Constitutional protections should (admittedly this is a legal and moral question) be applied to illegal immigrants. I certainly agree that some Constitutional protections should apply to persons here illegally but not all of them (I haven’t given this sufficient thought to elaborate). This would, I think, address, at least in part, the legality (and morality) of Alabama’s state laws that you described.
You state, “a missing document alone is insufficient due process to impose punishment.” Even if I accept your argument that persons in the U.S. should receive all due process rights, a critical ingredient of Dr. Monsma’s proposed framework for reform is providing illegal immigrants who are already here with a legitimate path to legal status, i.e., they would gain access to the “missing documents” that they need to avoid the problems you decry in your reference to Ala. H.B. 56.
You state, “I fear that the legal status carrot will cause immigrants undeserving of punishment to “confess” and pay a penalty, and that we Christians will tolerate this overinclusive harm as a necessary evil.” Let us not forget that the culpability for our current situation extends to the U.S. Government, U.S. businesses, U.S. consumers, and illegal immigrants. For each illegal immigrant, the distribution of culpability across these four categories is different, and I see no way of remedying this because a separate policy cannot be instituted for each illegal immigrant. So, I think justice points us toward a proper distribution of “penalties” as we attempt to account for this distribution of culpability. 1. U.S. Government should provide a legitimate path to legal status that properly accounts for the reason the illegal immigrant came in the first place and does not demand deportation; 2. U.S. businesses should face stiffer penalties for illegal hiring once appropriate paths for legal status are provided to working illegal immigrants; 3. U.S. consumers, the least culpable group, should pay higher prices for certain goods and services once formerly illegal immigrant workers assume the protections of legal status; and 4. illegal immigrants should pay some kind of penalty for violating U.S. immigration law instead of being given blanket amnesty for such a violation. I do not view such a scenario as a “necessary evil” at all but rather a necessary good.
You state, “A guest worker program is better than nothing, and less than the recognition of equality found in the Bible.” I disagree with your premise here. If, by equality, you mean the full measure of U.S. citizenship, then you’re right, guest worker status is not equality. However, there is nothing necessarily unjust with treating different things differently. Maybe some seasonal workers and many others have no intention of permanently staying in the U.S. And even if all of them did have this intention, justice does not require granting citizenship status to all immigrants seeking entry. Nevertheless, for these people, a guest worker program is morally valid. Just because someone is a guest worker does not mean that they would be denied justice while they’re here.
You state, “I cringe when governments take the additional step of ordering citizens to impose these sanctions.” If you’re referring to laws requiring businesses to actively avoid hiring illegal immigrants once secure ID cards are issued to guest workers, as Dr. Monsma suggested, I would re-characterize this situation as demanding citizens follow the law and making it clear that non-compliance will result in stiffer penalties than before since the “reasons” for such non-compliance so prevalent in the past have been drastically reduced.
You state, “As a Christian with the job of treating the least person like I would treat Jesus, I cannot obey laws that order me to treat immigrants badly.” I agree, and we should disobey such laws. History is full of examples of Christians violating unjust laws to pursue biblical justice on behalf of the poor and oppressed. I simply don’t think the general sketch provided by Dr. Monsma promotes the kinds of laws that “treat immigrants badly” or that would require conscientious objections by Christians.
To pose a genuine question, what kinds of immigration laws would you support? Blanket amnesty for a period of time, indefinitely? Exclusion in inescapable at some point, unless a political community is supposed to cease to exist in its territorial dimension. How that exclusion is implemented is where justice is achieved or denied.
Mr. Balla,
As before, your comments really challenge me to think carefully about these issues; thank you.
You state, “Visa overstayers and children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents (unlike unauthorized border crossers) may have committed no crimes.” I would be in favor of giving significant leniency for children (or young adults) placed in this situation, but great care would have to be taken to avoid creating more incentives for illegally bringing children into the U.S. in order to establish their residency. I don’t know how visa over-stayers are not in violation of the law, but if those instances occur on the margins, they must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Maybe I’m somewhat missing your point on “declaring them criminals and imposing a penalty” for behavior that “was not a crime,” but I’m in favor of imposing a penalty on immigration violators in exchange for their willing entry into some form of legal status (as described by Dr. Monsma). Again, for children and young adults brought here illegally by adults, the situation is more complex and probably requires certain kinds of exemptions and reductions regarding penalties.
Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the legal competency to engage you at the level of analysis necessary to address the cases and concepts you mention. But I will say that with all the resources required of so many immigrants to get into the U.S., it seems unimaginable that deportation should be not be considered a penalty (at least morally), by those for whom it is applied. Furthermore, there are all kinds of penalties at all levels of government exacted against people for violations of laws that are not criminal laws. If I were to build a deck on my house without acquiring a city permit, I would face stiff monetary penalties, but such a violation falls nowhere within the municipal, state, or federal criminal codes applicable where I have residence.
The other question underlying your argument is to what extent U.S. Constitutional protections should (admittedly this is a legal and moral question) be applied to illegal immigrants. I certainly agree that some Constitutional protections should apply to persons here illegally but not all of them (I haven’t given this sufficient thought to elaborate). This would, I think, address, at least in part, the legality (and morality) of Alabama’s state laws that you described.
You state, “a missing document alone is insufficient due process to impose punishment.” Even if I accept your argument that persons in the U.S. should receive all due process rights, a critical ingredient of Dr. Monsma’s proposed framework for reform is providing illegal immigrants who are already here with a legitimate path to legal status, i.e., they would gain access to the “missing documents” that they need to avoid the problems you decry in your reference to Ala. H.B. 56.
You state, “I fear that the legal status carrot will cause immigrants undeserving of punishment to “confess” and pay a penalty, and that we Christians will tolerate this overinclusive harm as a necessary evil.” Let us not forget that the culpability for our current situation extends to the U.S. Government, U.S. businesses, U.S. consumers, and illegal immigrants. For each illegal immigrant, the distribution of culpability across these four categories is different, and I see no way of remedying this because a separate policy cannot be instituted for each illegal immigrant. So, I think justice points us toward a proper distribution of “penalties” as we attempt to account for this distribution of culpability. 1. U.S. Government should provide a legitimate path to legal status that properly accounts for the reason the illegal immigrant came in the first place and does not demand deportation; 2. U.S. businesses should face stiffer penalties for illegal hiring once appropriate paths for legal status are provided to working illegal immigrants; 3. U.S. consumers, the least culpable group, should pay higher prices for certain goods and services once formerly illegal immigrant workers assume the protections of legal status; and 4. illegal immigrants should pay some kind of penalty for violating U.S. immigration law instead of being given blanket amnesty for such a violation. I do not view such a scenario as a “necessary evil” at all but rather a necessary good.
You state, “A guest worker program is better than nothing, and less than the recognition of equality found in the Bible.” I disagree with your premise here. If, by equality, you mean the full measure of U.S. citizenship, then you’re right, guest worker status is not equality. However, there is nothing necessarily unjust with treating different things differently. Maybe some seasonal workers and many others have no intention of permanently staying in the U.S. And even if all of them did have this intention, justice does not require granting citizenship status to all immigrants seeking entry. Nevertheless, for these people, a guest worker program is morally valid. Just because someone is a guest worker does not mean that they would be denied justice while they’re here.
You state, “I cringe when governments take the additional step of ordering citizens to impose these sanctions.” If you’re referring to laws requiring businesses to actively avoid hiring illegal immigrants once secure ID cards are issued to guest workers, as Dr. Monsma suggested, I would re-characterize this situation as demanding citizens follow the law and making it clear that non-compliance will result in stiffer penalties than before since the “reasons” for such non-compliance so prevalent in the past have been drastically reduced.
You state, “As a Christian with the job of treating the least person like I would treat Jesus, I cannot obey laws that order me to treat immigrants badly.” I agree, and we should disobey such laws. History is full of examples of Christians violating unjust laws to pursue biblical justice on behalf of the poor and oppressed. I simply don’t think the general sketch provided by Dr. Monsma promotes the kinds of laws that “treat immigrants badly” or that would require conscientious objections by Christians.
To pose a genuine question, what kinds of immigration laws would you support? Blanket amnesty for a period of time, indefinitely? Exclusion in inescapable at some point, unless a political community is supposed to cease to exist in its territorial dimension. How that exclusion is implemented is where justice is achieved or denied.
Mr. Balla,
As before, your comments really challenge me to think carefully about these issues; thank you.
You state, “Visa overstayers and children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents (unlike unauthorized border crossers) may have committed no crimes.” I would be in favor of giving significant leniency for children (or young adults) placed in this situation, but great care would have to be taken to avoid creating more incentives for illegally bringing children into the U.S. in order to establish their residency. I don’t know how visa over-stayers are not in violation of the law, but if those instances occur on the margins, they must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Maybe I’m somewhat missing your point on “declaring them criminals and imposing a penalty” for behavior that “was not a crime,” but I’m in favor of imposing a penalty on immigration violators in exchange for their willing entry into some form of legal status (as described by Dr. Monsma). Again, for children and young adults brought here illegally by adults, the situation is more complex and probably requires certain kinds of exemptions and reductions regarding penalties.
Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the legal competency to engage you at the level of analysis necessary to address the cases and concepts you mention. But I will say that with all the resources required of so many immigrants to get into the U.S., it seems unimaginable that deportation should be not be considered a penalty (at least morally), by those for whom it is applied. Furthermore, there are all kinds of penalties at all levels of government exacted against people for violations of laws that are not criminal laws. If I were to build a deck on my house without acquiring a city permit, I would face stiff monetary penalties, but such a violation falls nowhere within the municipal, state, or federal criminal codes applicable where I have residence.
The other question underlying your argument is to what extent U.S. Constitutional protections should (admittedly this is a legal and moral question) be applied to illegal immigrants. I certainly agree that some Constitutional protections should apply to persons here illegally but not all of them (I haven’t given this sufficient thought to elaborate). This would, I think, address, at least in part, the legality (and morality) of Alabama’s state laws that you described.
You state, “a missing document alone is insufficient due process to impose punishment.” Even if I accept your argument that persons in the U.S. should receive all due process rights, a critical ingredient of Dr. Monsma’s proposed framework for reform is providing illegal immigrants who are already here with a legitimate path to legal status, i.e., they would gain access to the “missing documents” that they need to avoid the problems you decry in your reference to Ala. H.B. 56.
You state, “I fear that the legal status carrot will cause immigrants undeserving of punishment to “confess” and pay a penalty, and that we Christians will tolerate this overinclusive harm as a necessary evil.” Let us not forget that the culpability for our current situation extends to the U.S. Government, U.S. businesses, U.S. consumers, and illegal immigrants. For each illegal immigrant, the distribution of culpability across these four categories is different, and I see no way of remedying this because a separate policy cannot be instituted for each illegal immigrant. So, I think justice points us toward a proper distribution of “penalties” as we attempt to account for this distribution of culpability. 1. U.S. Government should provide a legitimate path to legal status that properly accounts for the reason the illegal immigrant came in the first place and does not demand deportation; 2. U.S. businesses should face stiffer penalties for illegal hiring once appropriate paths for legal status are provided to working illegal immigrants; 3. U.S. consumers, the least culpable group, should pay higher prices for certain goods and services once formerly illegal immigrant workers assume the protections of legal status; and 4. illegal immigrants should pay some kind of penalty for violating U.S. immigration law instead of being given blanket amnesty for such a violation. I do not view such a scenario as a “necessary evil” at all but rather a necessary good.
You state, “A guest worker program is better than nothing, and less than the recognition of equality found in the Bible.” I disagree with your premise here. If, by equality, you mean the full measure of U.S. citizenship, then you’re right, guest worker status is not equality. However, there is nothing necessarily unjust with treating different things differently. Maybe some seasonal workers and many others have no intention of permanently staying in the U.S. And even if all of them did have this intention, justice does not require granting citizenship status to all immigrants seeking entry. Nevertheless, for these people, a guest worker program is morally valid. Just because someone is a guest worker does not mean that they would be denied justice while they’re here.
You state, “I cringe when governments take the additional step of ordering citizens to impose these sanctions.” If you’re referring to laws requiring businesses to actively avoid hiring illegal immigrants once secure ID cards are issued to guest workers, as Dr. Monsma suggested, I would re-characterize this situation as demanding citizens follow the law and making it clear that non-compliance will result in stiffer penalties than before since the “reasons” for such non-compliance so prevalent in the past have been drastically reduced.
You state, “As a Christian with the job of treating the least person like I would treat Jesus, I cannot obey laws that order me to treat immigrants badly.” I agree, and we should disobey such laws. History is full of examples of Christians violating unjust laws to pursue biblical justice on behalf of the poor and oppressed. I simply don’t think the general sketch provided by Dr. Monsma promotes the kinds of laws that “treat immigrants badly” or that would require conscientious objections by Christians.
To pose a genuine question, what kinds of immigration laws would you support? Blanket amnesty for a period of time, indefinitely? Exclusion in inescapable at some point, unless a political community is supposed to cease to exist in its territorial dimension. How that exclusion is implemented is where justice is achieved or denied.