A great debate is raging among conservatives these days. One camp argues the gang of eight immigration reform is amnesty, contrary to conservative principles, amnesty encourages more illegal immigration, and immigrants vote Democrat.

Marco Rubio

The other camp, led by Senator Marco Rubio and Grover Norquist, argues our legal immigration system has been broken for decades, and we effectively have de facto amnesty because it’s simply not practical, humane, nor economically wise to deport 11 million. They believe our present immigration system, with its arbitrary quotas and massive bureaucracy, is inconsistent with conservative free market principles. They reject the notion that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, and see opportunity to win more New American votes, as proven by Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and recently by Canada’s Conservative Party.

A May 2011 poll by Pew Research found staunch conservatives split 49%/49%. Three Republican groupings, staunch conservatives, main street Republicans, and libertarians split roughly 60/40% in favor of immigration reform including a path to citizenship.A recent poll found 60% of Republicans  support immigration reform, and after details of the gang of eight immigration reform plan were explained, support rose to 75% with just 10% strongly opposed. The perception fostered in the mainstream news media for years is that Republicans are monolithic and opposed to immigration reform, but clearly Republicans have been and still are divided. Before November, Republicans who were shrill about immigration were often quoted in the media, while most Republican leaders tended to avoid the topic or only talk about immigration enforcement, which is less divisive. Since the November election debacle, pro-reform Republicans are more vocal, pushing back against the shrill minority who for years have berated immigrants.

Grover Norquist has been staunchly pro-immigration reform for many years. He participated in a series of immigration reform conferences during 2012. Only the last conference, just weeks after the election, garnered any media attention at all, while Mitt Romney’s self-deportation rhetoric garnered constant media coverage. Most media coverage of conservatives who support immigration reform is recent.

Immigration Before the Progressive Era

Prior to the progressive era, American had no immigration quotas and a few common-sense restrictions, such as barring criminals, prostitutes, paupers, etc.

America’s first unauthorized immigrants were African slaves, imported after Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808. In the Southern states slavery was still legal, and more slaves needed, and so the importation continued despite the ban.

Later, many Irish immigrants bypassed legal ports of entry because they were simply too impoverished to pay the head tax. The federal government did not have immigration inspectors until 1890, though some states had immigration inspectors. Very few immigrants who arrived in America were turned away. Those who chide unauthorized immigrants with the claim their grandparents came legally would do well to compare today’s immigration laws with the past; the laws are vastly different now.

Immigration as a Tool of Progressive Social Engineering

Prior to the first quotas, Ellis Island admitted 98% of immigrants who arrived. There were no immigrant visas; those who wanted to immigrate simply arrived, and unless they were in an excluded class (i.e. criminal, prostitute, sick, etc.) they were admitted.

Madison Grant, progressive and author of “The Passing of the Great Race”

In 1921 and 1924 strict per-nation quotas were imposed, designed to bar non-Europeans altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Early modern progressives like Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, and Harry Laughlin argued Southern and Eastern Europeans were genetically inferior and lowered the intelligence of America’s people”, would never assimilate, came seeking charity, increased crime rates, etc, many of the same arguments we hear today.

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder

Harry Laughlin infamously testified in Congress that 82% of Jewish immigrants were feeble minded.” Madison Grant wrote the book “The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis of European History” (read here), which argued “Nordics” were superior, and greatly inflamed American public opinion against immigration. Hitler called Grant’s book his “Bible” and ordered it translated and published in Nazi Germany, and Nuremberg war crimes defendant Karl Brandt referred to Grant’s book. Not surprisingly Hitler praised the 1924 National Origins Act.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and an ardent supporter of eugenics, wrote of immigrants and blacks in Pivot of Civilization: 

“…’human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

Harry H. Laughlin, architect of 1924 immigration quotas

Later, Laughlin founded the Pioneer Fund, which later financed today’s leading anti-any-immigrant organizations with millions, and still funds academic “research” about “differences” between the races. Numerous Pioneer funded studies were referenced in the book “The Bell Curve“, which insinuates blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites for genetic reasons. The book has been widely debunked by other researchers, but the ideology keeps cropping up, most recently among the anti-any-immigrant lobby headed by FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies. FAIR grew with the help of millions in funding from the Pioneer Fund.

John Tanton – who founded FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS.

John Tanton, founder of the modern day anti-any-immigrant movement is very much like Madison Grant, except Tanton’s bigotry is much more subdued, since most modern day Americans won’t listen to bigots. Like Madison Grant, John Tanton is a liberal, conservationist, eugenics activist, and has held leadership positions in Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, etc. Most of the arguments Tanton and his disciples use to argue against immigration and for population reduction are identical to those of his ideological great-grandfathers Madison Grant, Harry Laughlin, Margaret Sanger, and Paul Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb).

Is the Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Amnesty?

Those who constantly throw out the term “amnesty” in describing the gang of eight immigration reform would do well to consult Webster’s dictionary:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

pardon: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.

With $2,000 in fines and a ten year wait to even apply for permanent resident status, clearly a stiff penalty is exacted, in addition to a tough set of requirements such as proof of payment of taxes, background check, etc. The 1986 immigration reform clearly was amnesty, as no fine or wait time was required. Those who met the requirements were simply granted permanent resident status.

Is “Amnesty” a Magnet for More Illegal Behavior?

Opponents of the gang of eight immigration reform argue amnesty is a magnet for more illegal immigration, and point to the increase in illegal immigration after 1986 as evidence that amnesty is a magnet.

Historically, what has been America’s experience with mass amnesty? Did past amnesties lead to more illegal behavior?

America’s first mass amnesty was Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation granting amnesty to confederates who would swear a loyalty oath to the United States. Lincoln didn’t live to see the end of the civil war, but President Andrew Johnson honored Lincoln’s amnesty, though he added exclusions, for example refusing amnesty to top confederate leaders. How many civil wars have we experienced since 1865? Zero!

If the U.S. had made a serious effort to prosecute confederates for treason during time of war, we could probably have denuded a number of forests building gallows for hanging hundreds of thousands. However, the nation saw the need to move on after a bloody civil war, and virtually all confederates were granted amnesty in exchange for regaining their loyalty to the U.S.

Immigration Amnesty

America’s first immigration mass amnesty came in the late 1920s. Early modern progressives saw immigration laws as a tool for social engineering. Immigrants from various nations were barred, starting with the Chinese in 1882.

In the early 20th century, 200,000 Italians immigrated to the U.S. each year, but in 1924 Italy’s immigration quota was set at under 4,000, a 98% reduction! Similar reductions were imposed on Russia and other Eastern and Southern European nations. Not surprisingly, within a few years the U.S. had several million unauthorized immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were “inspected” and allowed to stay. Then, as today, it was considered impractical to deport so many. Recently the New York Times opined that Hispanics are the New Italians, drawing parallels with 20th century immigration.

Did the late 1920s immigration amnesty lead to more illegal immigration? Clearly not, because the great depression soon followed and the economic forces that led so many to immigrate illegally vanished.

Critics of immigration reform argue the 1986 amnesty served as a magnet to more illegal immigration, but was this really the case? In statistics, there’s a term “correlation is not necessarily causation.” A doctor once pointed out in an op-ed the correlation between pantyhose usage and lung disease, but pantyhose clearly doesn’t cause lung disease!

There has indeed been more illegal immigration after 1986, but a review of the inflows of unauthorized immigrants reveals that inflows followed to the state of the economy, not policy. During the late 1990s illegal immigration inflows surged, while in recent years net illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped to zero, as the U.S. experienced a jobless recovery while Mexico’s economy has been strong, and Mexican birth rates have declined. AFTER a 1996 law that toughened immigration enforcement, there was a surge in illegal immigration. Clearly illegal immigration inflows have much more to do with economics than policy!

Is Today’s Immigration Policy “Conservative” or “Progressive”?

The quota concept originated with early modern progressives, who were huge believers in racial eugenics and social Darwinism. The infamous Dillingham Commission (1907-1910) authorized by Congress devoted entire volumes of their report to immigrants as charity seekers, criminals, and predicted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe would never assimilate and become a vast underclass. Children of immigrants were often “retarded” according to the Dillingham Commission.

Dillingham Immigration Commission – Retarded Children of foreign-born non-English speaking fathers.

I have read through several volumes of the Dillingham Commission Report, and one thing stands out: Southern and Eastern Europeans were smeared in the same manner as Hispanic immigrants are today. A vast permanent underclass was predicted by early modern progressives, but for some reason I’m not able to find a vast underclass of Southern and Eastern European descendants in America today, nor am I able to locate a large population of feeble minded Jews as predicted by 1924 National Origins Act architect Harry Laughlin. In fact, Jews are among the most successful demographics.

The blatantly racist per nation immigration quotas and bars to non-European immigration were eliminated in 1965, but the quota concept remains with us to this day, for both immigrants and guest workers.

Do quotas make sense? I think not! Immigration is driven by economics, and inflows should be driven by labor markets, not arbitrary quotas influenced by special interest groups (i.e. big labor). Critics of immigration reform point to America’s immigrant quota as largest in the world. However, as a percentage of population U.S. immigration inflows are #22 of 34 OECD nations. Canada admits 2-1/2 times as many immigrants; Switzerland and Germany five times as many, and tiny Luxembourg ten times as many immigrants, as a percentage of population. For some strange reason our demise as a nation is predicted if we accept more immigrants, but 21 other nations already accept more immigrants and don’t experience the dire consequences predicted for America.

Similar arguments were made by slavery proponents, that freeing the slaves would bankrupt the U.S. We freed the slaves and paid for a long civil war, but didn’t go bankrupt in the process.

Conservative Principles in Immigration Reform

Conservatives believe in limited government in free markets and limited government, but are current immigration policies consistent with conservative principles? I say emphatically not! The main features of today’s immigration policy are arbitrary quotas with no basis in free market capitalism, with massive government bureaucracies telling employers how many immigrants they can hire, how to recruit them, and even how much to pay. Some employers, particularly farmers, must deal with several big bureaucracies, with no assurance their harvesters arrive in time for harvest, and big fines for honest paperwork mistakes. Not surprisingly, farmers bitterly complain how difficult the system is to use, and less than 10% of farm ‘guest workers’ have visas.

Conservatives also believe in the ‘rule of law’ and conservatives are against amnesty, as amnesty by itself is a temporary solution. As a conservative, I am opposed to amnesty in and of itself, as that doesn’t address the underlying problem. In 1986 Congress passed immigration amnesty with some enforcement provisions which proved largely ineffective. Congress failed to follow up for many years on border security, and never followed up on guest workers. In effect, in 1986 Congress ‘kicked the can down the road’, making three million immigrants legal, without addressing the root causes of the problem.

Current immigration and guest worker quotas have no rationale in economic need. Historically whenever economic demand for immigrants and guest worker labor exceeds quotas, the result has always been widespread illegal immigration. This happened in the 1929s, again in the 1950s when a resurgent post war economy required more guest workers than the quota. We’ve often experienced illegal immigration since the braceros program was eliminated during the 1960s at the behest of big labor unions. Big labor continues to be a major obstacle to guest worker programs. We presently have 9-9.5 ‘guest workers’ of which 1.8 million have a work authorized visa. The balance would no doubt be happy to obtain a visa if those were available to them, but they’re not.

Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law

As a conservative, I support the ‘rule of law’, but I also recognize that enforcement alone cannot turn bad policy into good policy. If we lowered superhighway speed limits to 20 MPH to conserve gasoline we’d surely have enforcement problems! Then would we pour massive enforcement resources to stop speeding, or step back and recognize that policy and enforcement are intertwined, and sensible policies result in manageable enforcement? Or would we take an ‘enforcement first’ stance and massively enforce a 20 MPH speed limit until everyone stops speeding, before setting rational speed limits?

When guest worker visas are limited by arbitrary quotas to less than 20% of demand, we should not be surprised that many come here illegally seeking work. Obviously we’d like for everyone to enter the U.S. through the front door, but when that door has been broken for decades we should not be surprised that our ‘hired help’ enters through the back door or windows. It’s obvious that the best way to divert migrant workers from illegal channels to legal channels is with sensible guest worker programs.

It’s Time to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

I’m not happy with all aspects of the gang of eight immigration reform. I’d rather see us get rid of quotas, perhaps implementing a tariff on guest worker wages payable by employers, to tile the table in favor of hiring Americans workers first. It’s easy to predict future waves of illegal immigration, when demand exceeds quota and Congress again fails to act, under pressure from big labor. Big labor has already been hard at work undermining guest worker reforms, for example limiting the number of guest worker visas in the construction industry. However, once housing rebounds, and the need for guest workers exceed quotas, we can expect unauthorized immigrants to fill that gap.

I’m also not keen about e-verify. The federal government has been trying to make e-verify work since 1996. E-Verify is a deeply flawed system. Unauthorized immigrants can readily circumvent e-verify by using a real person’s name and social security, with fake ID. As long as the name and social security number match, most will pass e-verify. U.S. citizens who are unlucky enough to be the subject of errors in government databases, and their employers, can expect to spend weeks dealing with mammoth bureaucracies to get errors fixed!

The gang of eight immigration reform plan calls for increased use of e-verify, and buried within the bill are provisions to incorporate biometrics into e-verify. Biometrics will make it much more difficult to circumvent e-verify, but many Americans will balk at providing biometric information such as fingerprints, DNA, etc., viewing it as the invasion of privacy it is. Another major annoyance will be exit controls for everyone leaving the country. Without capturing information about those leaving the U.S., the entry/exit tracking for visa overstayers cannot work. However, this will impose delays on all travelers exiting the U.S.

However, all-in-all, the gang of eight immigration reform plan would be a big improvement over the present situation. Eliminating quotas is not likely as long as progressives and their big labor backers are wedded to the notion of quotas, especially for guest workers. Guest worker programs would be streamlined, and guest worker visas would become portable. It may also be easier for Congress to act in the future with the most contentious issue – legalization – behind us. We should all back the gang of eight immigration reform plan, while also writing our elected representatives with suggestions for improvement.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link.

Freer Labor: A Biblical Concept for Immigrant Labor[1]

The Holy Bible

At first glance when reading through the Bible, one would think that the Bible does not directly address the concept of free labor – the concept that immigrants should legally be allowed to travel and be employed without any overly encumbering restrictions. However, if one takes a closer look, one will notice several key biblical principles that can support the idea behind a biblical policy for immigrant labor. Moreover, economic data also reveals that there is also a net benefit that is achieved from immigrant labor. In Romans 13, Paul is clear that God gave the sword to the government to punish those who do evil and God expects the government to reward good behavior. The United States government does much good and it gets many things right. Yet, one of its grave shortcomings has to do with the issue of immigration. The current immigration system in the US can even be considered unjust due to three inherent flaws: (1) its regulations infringe on the Christian individual/business owners’ rights to be able to carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrants, (2) its regulations are unrealistic towards immigrant laborers and employers, (3) and its regulations go against God’s command to do good for the nation’s people.

First, the scripture makes it clear that God expected His people to be hospitable towards immigrants. The Hebrew word used to refer to resident aliens or immigrants in the Old Testament is gēr. This term is used to refer to both Israel and any other people group residing in a foreign land (Ex 23:21). In a sense gēr is referring to an individual’s status or position in the foreign nation.[2]  The scriptures also makes mention of the verb gur, which means to “reside [as an alien].”[3] According to Rousas Rushdoony, the biblical laws dealing with hospitality towards aliens both “permanent and temporary” are dealing with those who resided in the land and not those foreigners who were just passing through.[4] This concept of hospitality was a personal, individual, or familial decision to take care of the immigrant.[5]

God called his chosen people to treat the resident immigrant justly. In fact, the Old Testament is very specific in requiring the people of God to treat the immigrant as a protected class (Ex 20:10, 23:12; Lev 16:29). This is most clearly shown in Exodus 22:21 which states, “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” and Deuteronomy 27:19, “‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” (NASB) In the book of Exodus, God reminds the nation of Israel that they were once resident aliens in Egypt. One can therefore infer that the reason God willed for them to remember this, was so they would make it a point to treat the immigrants in their land as they would have wished to be treated in Egypt.

God also had expectations of how the nation of Israel was to treat foreign laborers, in matters such as being given the right to glean for food and to be employed as residents if taken in by a family to work on their residence. Daniel Carrol states,

Without land and kin, many sojourners would be dependent on Israelites for work, provisions and protection. They could be day laborers (Deut. 24:14), and the Old Testament mentions that they were conscripted to do the labor in building the temple (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 2:17-18). [6]

In other words, God expected his people to treat the immigrant labor justly. Bernhard Asen even further bolsters this point by stating that Israel was not just to treat the ger as a protected class, but the people of Israel were to also incorporate or include them into their society. Asen States, “in addition to protection, inclusion of the gēr into the community to share privileges also is seen as important.”[7]  This incorporation according to Christopher Wright included the “feast of weeks and booths,” and a resident alien who happened to be a hired laborer could also be included at Passover.[8] Write argues the eligibility was based on the fact that they would have been included within an Israelite family with whom they were residing.[9] Therefore, the people of God in the Old Testament were to be hospitable toward the resident alien and include and protect them as a class, just as they would have wanted to have been treated when they were in slaves in the land of Egypt.

This concept is even more important if one looks at the teaching of Jesus. As he stated in Luke 6:31, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.”  Thus, just as Christians would want people from other nations to give them help and employment, so that they could take care of their families, so then should Christians help out those immigrants who wish to labor for their families. However, this has proven problematic in the United States since there are unrealistic worker visa programs that make it almost impossible for Christian business owners to be able to be hospitable and have the opportunity to hire immigrant laborers who are in need. The current federal caps on immigrant labor incentivize many immigrants to come here illegally and risk being caught. Many of these people, if they could, would have obtained a work visa or a legal means to come to the United States.

This becomes a problem, biblically, for Christians because as the chosen people of God they too should be hospitable towards aliens and any other class of people who should be protected. This is why the current immigration policy restrictions pose a dilemma for Christians, because while they are to be submissive and respectful to the government God has placed over them, they also have an obligation to protect and seek justice for those who are in classes that need to be protected, like the resident alien. Christian individuals/business owners should respect their government, while at the same time seek for a more biblical policy that will lead to a more realistic policy towards aliens seeking work, and continue to work to incorporate the alien into the community. This is all founded on the basic biblical concept of loving one’s neighbors and treating them, as the believer would want to be treated if he or she were in a similar situation.

The second problem with the immigration system is that it has unrealistic regulations on immigrant labor. As previously mentioned, the scriptures do not ban migrant or immigrant labor. Rather, it takes for granted that foreigners would be around and would need protection. Just as prohibition failed because it was an unrealistic regulation on human action; so too the current immigrant labor quota system is failing because it is unrealistically regulating labor. There is not a biblical mandate on the total number of immigrants a nation should allow to enter its borders; rather, the Scriptures simply presuppose that resident aliens will be around.  The guest worker program in the United States is broken down into three major sections H-1b[10](skilled labor) which is capped at 65,000 persons and the  H-2a(agricultural) and H-2b[11] (non agricultural) visas – both capped at 66,000. These all do not even come close to meeting the demand for labor that many American industries need.

In addition to these quotas, the Federal government, under the current administration, has made it harder on farmers to legally higher immigrant labor. According to an Immigration Works policy brief, the Obama administration’s new regulations eliminated “the streamline application process for employers” implemented by the Bush administration and instead in required employers to “submit to a lengthy DOL(Department of Labor) review,” to apply for immigrant laborers.[12] The Obama administration also has raised the federal minimum wage on foreign workers to $9.48, and increased fines to $1,500 per employee for farmers who are missing even one piece of paper work.[13] This is on top of that fact that it costs farmers thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to help them file all the legal paper work with the department of labor. Another added cost for farmers created by new regulations is the increased risk for being sued. David Bier explains,

Labor Department requirements mandate U.S. employees be treated similarly to migrants, but Obama officials created a new definition of ‘corresponding’ treatment that could be interpreted by courts to include the housing, transportation, and in some instances, meals that H-2A regulations require employers to supply to migrants. Disgruntled employees who are citizens or permanent residents could sue under the ambiguous definition and potentially collect damages.[14]

The current administration has also passed new regulations on highly skilled laborers with H-1b visas that are adding cost to businesses that would keep their business here in America if it were not for these added costs. One such regulation dictated that no company who had employees with H-1b visas could be eligible to partake in federal bailouts through the Trouble Asset Relief program known as TARP.[15] There has also been an increase in the processing fees of business with more than 50 employees who wish to higher immigrants with H-1b visas “from $325 to as much as $2,300.”[16] These are all added cost that do harm to business and ultimately the nation’s economy.

All of these added costs and legal liabilities incentivize farmers to hire illegal immigrants. The caps on legal immigration also incentivize immigrant workers to come work in the United States illegally, even with increased federal enforcement.  The fact is, “if the extra cost of such enforcement[along with these new regulations] is larger than the net fiscal cost of illegal immigration, then driving illegal immigration to zero would fail a cost benefit test.”[17] Current federal enforcement for hiring legal immigrants may cost more than to take a risk to higher immigrants who are not authorized to be here. A perfect example of this risk taking by business owners can be found in Arizona, since it passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). LAWA required Arizona employers to use E-verify to ensure the legal status of their employees. In response to this law, employers and immigrants responded differently. First, there was an increase in self employment by 73%, of which, “about 25,000 Arizona Hispanic noncitizens dropped out of the formal wage market and became self-employed.”[18] Moreover, employers responded with only a “72 percent” participation rate in 2010, and a “67 percent in 2011.”[19]  The reality is that this is a Genesis 3 world; unrealistic laws like prohibition and immigration labor regulations are unjust because they do not coincide with basic human nature. The government should seek to do good for its citizens (Rom 13:4), and placing unrealistic labor restrictions that incentivize individuals to sin by breaking laws is not good. This is why Christians should seek to reform immigrant labor laws to be more free and open by removing these unrealistic restrictions.

Thirdly, the current immigration policies inhibit economic growth and reduce national productivity. This is counter to the idea that, “one of the primary responsibilities of government is to act as God’s servant to ‘do good’ for the citizens of a nation (see Rom. 13:4).”[20]  The reality is that immigration will increase the nation’s ability to produce and therefore increase economic growth. Yet, there are some detractors who disagree with this position like Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), and possibly the most academic detractor when it comes to low skilled immigrant labor is Economist George Borjas.

For example CAPS runs sensational TV ads, insinuating that Americans are unemployed, because immigrants are “taking American jobs.”[21] This is clearly Malthusian’s thinking that there are only a set number of jobs. There are not a set number of jobs. Jobs are created and lost every day; there is no set labor force. Since the 1950s, there has been an increase of about 90 million new workers in the labor force including women, and baby boomers.[22] This has not resulted in any “long term increase” in unemployment rates.[23]  Many activists who support immigration and immigrant labor argue that immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t do,  at least for the wages being offered, but if the wages were increased then Americans would apply for those jobs. In some cases this may be true, but it does not ring true in all situations. The problem is that higher wages would mean that many of those jobs would no longer be there.[24]  Benjamin Powell explains,

Approximately one third of all garment workers in the United States are immigrants. If wages needed to be higher to get Americans to take the jobs, many of these jobs would have gone overseas. .. In Arizona, for example, only 30 percent of the 2004 lettuce crop was harvested; the rest was left in the ground to rot. Losses were nearly $1 billion. Farmers certainly could have paid higher wages to get the crop harvested, but losses would presumably have been even greater.[25]

In the end, an increase in wages could result in a loss of productivity and economic growth.

Another proponent of the idea that immigrants are taking “American jobs” is Harvard Economist George Borjas.  In 2010 he coauthored an article arguing that African American incarceration rates were on the rise because low skilled immigrants were taking their jobs.[26] Diana Furchotgott-Roth explains the flaws in Borjas’s study. First, African American men started to “withdraw from the labor force in the 1960s,” when immigrants made up “less than 1 percent” of the labor force.[27]Moreover,  “The percentage of black men between ages 16 and 24 who were not in school, not working, and not looking for work rose to 18 percent in 1982 from 9 percent in 1964. It then reached 23 percent in 1997 and remained at that level as of 2011.”[28] Finally, Borjas does not even mention in his study the changes in laws and policies, nor does he consider how both have been enforced. Therefore, immigration is not the reason for the rise in African American unemployment or the direct reason for the increase in their incarceration rates.

Another problem with this argument that immigrants take American jobs is the fact that, many more families are moving towards both parents working outside of the household. Hanson found that this, “often requires hiring outside labor to care for children, clean the home, launder clothes, and tend to the yard.”[29] He also found that the in cities where immigrant labor was prevalent that these services were more affordable.[30]

Borjas in several of his studies showed that cheap immigrant labor harms the high school dropouts by reducing their wages. In 2003 he claimed wages dropped by 9%, in 2004 by 7%, and in 2006 by 5%.[31] There are two other studies worth noting.  One is by David Card which showed that low skilled immigrant labor reduced low skilled workers wages by 3 percent in cities where the population of immigrants was higher. The second study was done by Giovanni Peri, who found that immigrants only cause 0.7 percent decrease in low skilled workers’ wages.[32] In other words, even though wages are depressed for high school drop outs, there is not enough decisive evidence to point out how much wages are lowered, nor is there enough negative evidence to call for a reduction in low skilled immigrant labor compared to its benefits.

There any many benefits to having affordable labor. As previously mentioned, in cities that boast a high percentage of low skilled immigrant labor, goods and services are provided at a more affordable rate. This translates into cost savings for the population as a whole.  It is imperative to understand that the total national income is not lost from these savings; rather it is redistributed by creating employer gains and savings for consumers.[33]  The savings for the consumer will allow them to later choose where they would like to spend the extra cash, which would in turn help another business, consequently, helping the employees of that business. In the end, the wealth is not lost.  In addition, high skilled laborers who are paid less than native born employees actually add to economic growth and job creation. Economist Peri explains that “firms pay immigrants less than their marginal productivity, increasing the firms’ profits. Such cost savings on immigrants act as an increase in productivity for firms…[T]his allows firms to expand production and employ more people in complementary task many of which are supplied by natives.”[34] Therefore, immigrant labor helps to creates more affordable goods and services by increasing profits to businesses and helps them to employ more Americans, which are net benefits, instead of a net loss.

In conclusion, a biblical policy towards immigrant labor would be to allow for a freer more open system, because it fulfils God’s command that the government do good to the people, and it allows Christian individuals/business owners to legally carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrant laborers. This should include the removal of federal caps on labor and a shift towards a system where the free market decides the number of laborers that are needed.  There should also be a removal of unrealistic federal mandates and regulations that make it harder for business owners to legally hire immigrant labor. A policy based off the free market would not just benefit the United States, but it would also benefit the immigrant who comes to the United States to make several times more than he or she could have earned in their home nation. In many cases, this move would also improve the immigrant’s standard of living. Some may argue that these immigrants harm low skilled native born workers; but the reality is that these people already have protections which come in the form of unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and so on. Ultimately, the government’s job should not be one of creating jobs, but one of being just. A just society creates the ideal framework for economic growth and prosperity – for both the citizen and the immigrant.

[1] The term freer labor is used instead of Free Labor because, the author does not believe in open boarders, but does believe that the free flow should be allowed by the Government who should screen and have limited regulations, but not cap allowing people to freely and legally come to work in the United States.

[2] Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

[3] Baker, Tight Fist Open Hands, 178.  This verb “gur” (1481a.גּוּר)has been translated by the NASB several ways which many can convey the idea of residing, or dwelling: “abide*(1), alien(1), aliens(1), assemble(1), colonize(1), dwell(3), dwells(1), habitation(1), live(4), live as aliens(2), lives(1), reside(13), resided(1), resides(3), sojourn(11), sojourned(9), sojourning(1), sojourns(13), stay(6), staying(4), stays(1), strangers(3).” Robert L. Thomas, ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

[4] Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. (Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.):199.

[5] M.  Daniel Carrol R., Christians at the Boarder: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008): 95.

[6] Carrol, Christians at the Boarder, 103.

[7] Bernhard Asen, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. (ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995): 16-35.

[8] Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.): 101.

[9] Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 101-102.

[10] United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

[11] Andorra Bruno, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services. (2012): 9.

[12] Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

[13] David Beir, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012,  (16 April  2013).

[14]Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012.

[15] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012; & Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access,” 2009, 3.

[16] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012

[17]Gordon H. Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

[18] Alex Nowrasteh, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).9.

[19] Nowrasteh, The Economic Case, 9.

[20] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010), 269.

[21] Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

[22] Benjamin Powell, An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

[23] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[24] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[25] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[26] Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

[27] Diana Furchotgott-Roth, “The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

[28] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 12.

[29] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[30] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[31] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[32] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[33] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[34] Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Bibliography

Asen, Bernhard, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995.

Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

Beir, David, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012, (16 April  2013).

Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

Bruno, Andorra, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services.2012.

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

Carroll R., M. Daniel. Christians at the Border Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008.

Furchotgott-Roth, Diana ,“The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

Grudem, Wayne, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010.

Harrison, Gordon H.,  Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

Nowrasteh, Alex, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).1-20.

Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Powell, Benjamin , An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. [Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.

Thomas, Robert L.  ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition,Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998.

United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

Wright, Christopher J. H. God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.

This was originally published on Thomas’s personal Blog Arizona Seminarian, and the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog 

####

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and     raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Nativists quickly label any legalization plan as immigration amnesty and a magnet for more illegal immigration, but is that true? America’s Nativist lobby, led by the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA went into hyper-drive when the ‘gang of eight’ U.S. Senators announced plans for sweeping immigration reforms.

Net illegal immigration from Mexico recently dropped to zero, reflecting Mexico’s healthy economy and jobless U.S. economic recovery. Cartoonist Michael Ramirez offers his own perspective:

Copyright Michael Ramirez – re-posted with permission

America’s Mass Amnesty Experience

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued his The Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction giving amnesty to all confederates who swore a loyalty oath. Andrew Johnson continued Lincoln’s policy but added 14 exceptions.

Progressive era liberals were avid supporters of racial eugenics and passed very restrictive immigration laws to ban Chinese in 1882, all Asians in 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act). Strict strict quotas followed in 1921 and 1924, with 85% of immigrant visas reserved for Nordic Northern/Western Europe, banning non-European immigration.

Early 20th century immigration shifted to Southern/Eastern Europe. Italy furnished 200,000 per year, but Italy’s quota was set at just 3,845! By the late 20s several million immigrants from Southern/Eastern Europe were here illegally, and granted immigration amnesty. In the 30s, “Mexicans” were blamed for depression era joblessness. One half million were deported; 60% of the “Mexicans” were citizens, and the rest mostly legal guest workers.

1965 immigration reforms removed nation quotas, and remains the policy foundation today. The “braceros” guest worker program implemented during wartime labor shortages was eliminated in 1960s due to pressure from big labor, laying the groundwork for future illegal immigration. Historically, whenever demand for immigrant labor far exceeds quotas, mass illegal immigration results.

During the Vietnam War, 100,000 Americans fled to avoid military service. In 1977, Jimmy Carter granted pardons to draft evaders, who by then had already lived at least several years in exile.

In 1986, Congress granted amnesty to most unauthorized immigrants, and 3 million received green cards. None of the dire consequences predicted by Nativists occurred. It’s no surprise we hear the same arguments today.

Is Immigration Amnesty a Magnet?

Opponents of immigration reform insist amnesty is a “magnet” for more law breaking, but what does history say?

In the civil war, millions of Americans committed treason, punishable by death, and yet despite Lincoln’s mass amnesty we have not experienced another civil war.

Did mass immigration amnesty to 1920s immigrants spark more illegal immigration? No. The great depression and massive unemployment deterred immigration in general. The next wave of mass illegal immigration came in the 1950s, when labor needs of a resurgent post-war economy far outstripped braceros quotas.

There’s no evidence amnesty for draft evasion led to more draft evasion. The Vietnam war was hugely unpopular among young Americans at the time. Many believed they would be denied conscientious objector status.

Did the 1986 Immigration Amnesty Increase Illegal Immigration? What is Amnesty?

Immigration restrictionists quickly label any immigration reform leading to legal status as immigration amnesty. However, amnesty is akin to a pardon, forgiveness without punishment for a wrong. All proposals in recent years required stiff fines, and long waits for permanent resident status behind those already ‘in line.’ Some plans barred citizenship forever. Nativists intentionally conflate “amnesty”  with “path to legalization” despite a range of solutions between mass deportations and mass immigration amnesty.

Congress promised to follow up with guest worker reforms and border security. Guest worker reforms still haven’t happened to this day, due to Big Labor opposition. Congress did follow-up with more border security, but slowly.

Is Immigration Amnesty the Answer?

Immigration amnesty by itself will not fix our broken immigration system, and is unfair to legal immigrants who waited a long time, some since 1989. Problems are solved by addressing root causes, not ‘band aids.’ We admit 1.8 million guest workers each year, while another 7.5 million ‘guest workers’ lack legal status, filling jobs not enough Americans want. Robust guest worker programs that flex with our economy are urgently needed, and would enhance border security by diverting migrant workers to legal channels.

Nativists claim we are overrun with immigrants and our economy will collapse due to immigration reform, but as a percentage of population the U.S. ranks #22 among 34 OECD nations. Our legal immigration level is just 0.334% of population. Tiny Luxembourg ranks #1, accepting 3.116%, while affluent Switzerland accepts 1.751%. Canada accepts 0.825%, 2-1/2 times that of the U.S. The Nativist lobby wants draconian cuts to ‘traditional’ 1956 levels, or 0.084%, #32 of 34 OECD nations. No, we are not overrun with immigrants!

The lesson of 1986 is piecemeal solutions and ‘ band aids’  don’t work. If Congress followed up with robust guest worker programs, we wouldn’t have 10 million immigrants here illegally! True, we have more than in 1986, but illegal immigration waxes and wanes with our economy. The magnet is jobs, not future amnesty that is far from certain.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

In her latest insult to Latinos, Ann Coulter claims Latinos don’t have the family values which long have been part of Latin American culture.

The “facts” Ann Coulter cites are either blatantly untrue, or she cherry picks facts in isolation of other relevant factors, favorite tactics of her accomplices Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald. Murray is also the author of the book “The Bell Curve”, which claims whites have higher IQs than minorities and will remain that way, which has attracted criticism from other researchers and others who claim Murray massaged his data, just as he massaged the statistics Ann Coulter now uses!

Lie #1 – Ann Coulter Claims Immigrants Don’t Assimilate

Through out her op-eds, Coulter emphasizes Nativist claims that immigrants, especially from third world nations, don’t assimilate, drop out of high school, become dependent upon welfare, commit crime, vote Democrat, etc. Nativists always bitterly complain about the 1965 immigration reforms, which eliminated blatantly racist per-country quotas dating from the 1920s that were intended to bar non-European immigration altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Not surprisingly, eliminating the 1920s immigration quotas has allowed many more non-Europeans to immigrate legally to the U.S. This chart, from a scholarly paper, compares immigrants in 1980 and children of immigrants in 2005 to native born whites in: high school completion (HS+), college completion (BA+), high earning occupation, above poverty level, and lastly home ownership.

In every single category, Latinos show dramatic improvement from the first generation in 1980 to the second generation in 2005! Over 85% of the children of immigrants live above the poverty line, almost equal to white native-born Americans, hardly evidence of a permanent underclass that Ann Coulter and her fellow Nativists constantly whine about.

Lie #2 -Hispanics Don’t Work Harder

Ann Coulter wrote: “Hispanics actually work about the same as others, or, in the case of Hispanic women, less.” Charles Murray selected the 30-44 age group to make this claim, but the median age for Hispanics is 27. Raoul Lowery Contreras debunked that in his recent op-ed “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 2012 Labor Participation Rates for men 20 and over are—Hispanics 81.7% and non-Hispanic Whites only 73.9%. Murray purposefully excludes a huge working cohort of the 18-29 age group to make Hispanics look bad.”

Lie #3 – “Hispanics are less likely to be married.”

47.8% of Hispanics are married versus 51.4% in general, a 3.6% difference. 56.2% of Hispanic immigrants are married , and 38.8% for native born Hispanics. What Murray and Ann Coulter don’t tell you is that Hispanics, especially native-born Hispanics, are much younger than our general population. The median age for Hispanics is 27, versus 42 for whites, 32 for blacks, and 35 for Asians. Hispanic couples are also more likely to marry after having an illegitimate child, and fewer Hispanics are divorced (8.9%) than for whites (12.2%), or blacks (12.9%).

Lie #4 – Hispanics are “less likely to go to church.”

According to Pew Research, 68% of Hispanics say religion is important in their lives (60% for whites), and 44% attend church weekly (40% for whites). Among evangelical Hispanics, the fastest growing religious grouping among Hispanics, the same statistics are 85% and 70%.

Lie #5 – Hispanics are “less likely to call themselves “conservative” than other Americans. “

According to Pew Research, 34% of the general population describe themselves as “conservative” versus 32% of Hispanics, but 35% of Hispanic immigrants describe themselves as “conservative.” Young adults usually are more liberal in their views, and since Hispanics are a young demographic with a median age of 27, we can expect Hispanics to trend conservative in their views. Technically she’s right about Hispanic self-identification as conservatives, but 2% is not significant. These small gaps in self-identification don’t explain the 50% or so margin of victory for Obama this election, as Ann Coulter would have us believe!

Lie #6 – “In 1980, Hispanics were only 2 percent of the population,…”

As Raoul Lowery Contreras pointed out, “According to the Census, 6.4% of the 1980 American population was Hispanic“, not 2%. Anybody who can Google can find that statistic in seconds. Another lie!

Lie #7 – “More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate.”

Ann Coulter then adds insult to injury with her most egregious lies “More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks. That’s a lot of government dependents coming down the pike.”

Unwed birthrates for all native born are 41.4%. According to Pew Research, Hispanic unwed birthrates are 45.1%, and the rate for blacks is 71.4%. Ann Coulter claimed the Hispanic unwed birthrate is over half, and the unwed birth rate for Hispanics is 1-1/2 times that of blacks. CDC says 53% preliminary data for 2011, somewhat higher than Pew’s stats based on 2009 data, but even 53% is barely half, and far less than CDC’s 72.5% unwed birthrate for blacks.

Nativists like to pick on Mexican immigrants, but their unwed birthrate of 36.3% is 5% less than native born Americans (41.4%).

Pew Research reports that 8.1% of Hispanic women gave birth in the past year, as compared to 6.5% overall, 5.9% for women, 7.0% for blacks, and 6.4% for Asians. Birth rates for Hispanics nowhere near twice as Ann Coulter claims. Another lie!

Ann Coulter would like you to think birthrates among Hispanics are due to their third world origin, but in truth the reason birthrates among Hispanics are higher is simply that Hispanics are much younger, and younger women are more fertile. This chart shows the population distribution by age, and clearly Hispanics, especially native born Hispanics, are a very young demographic.

Summary

Ann Coulter, with help from her accomplices Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald, has libeled Latinos, the large majority of whom are immigrants or 1-2 generations removed. Republicans should receive many more votes from Latinos, but rhetoric from conservatives like Ann Coulter are alienating many Latinos from the Republican Party. Ann Coulter’s ignorance on Latinos and her insulting, inflammatory rhetoric, are a prime example why many conservative Latinos hold their nose and vote Democrat. President George W. Bush proved that Latinos will vote for GOP candidates with engagement and a positive message. This chart from Resurgent Republic proves the value of outreach, and also proves what happens after several years of shrill rhetoric about immigration and Hispanics.

Conclusion

The Republican Party needs to change course or we shall go the way of the Whig Party. Ann Coulter and other Navists who hold themselves out as Republicans even as they ignore the values of the Party of Lincoln, are a huge liability. We will continue to call out Ann Coulter and anyone else who trashes Hispanics or other New Americans in such a shameful manner.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.   Original link

Now that President Obama has been reelected, likely 2016 candidates are emerging, especially Marco Rubio, and undoubtedly the birther movement will question: is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen? Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president? The alternative media started raising doubts when speculation began about Marco Rubio as a potential presidential candidate or VP running mate in 2012, and for sure birther speculation will increase as Marco Rubio is in the limelight as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.

Birthers will also likely ask the same questions about another potential presidential contender, Bobby Jindal, whose parents weren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents when Jindal was born.

Sadly, one likely reason Marco Rubio was passed over as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick was the likelihood that Marco Rubio would have been constantly dogged by birthers. In my opinion, Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney immensely with Latino voters once they got to know him better, and low support among Latino voters likely cost Mitt Romney the election, along with his unfortunate self-deportation comment.

No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists. If you disagree with them or confront them with hard evidence to disprove their theory, the immediately accuse you propagating disinformation as part of the conspiracy, almost a ‘no win’ proposition.

Anonymous e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, igniting the birther movement when conspiracy theorists picked up on the issue. Most prominent among birthers is author Jerome Corsi, who makes a living creating conspiracy theories to sell books. Who can ever forget the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed President Bush would merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico without the approval of Congress? Corsi even claimed there was a new currency, the Amero, but just try to find one. You can buy Corsi’s book “The Late Great USA: NAFTA, the North American Union, and the Threat of a Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” for a penny from Amazon.com. Corsi’s North American Union is so lacking in facts and ridiculous that Corsi shouldn’t be taken seriously, but he continues to be a popular author. The more outrageous his conspiracy theories, the more books he sells!

Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly a natural born citizen. So is Bobby Jindal, and so is John McCain, though John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama. All three were U.S. citizens at birth and therefore are natural born citizens.

At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law. Birthright citizenship was part of English Common Law, except for children born of slaves, who were considered slaves rather than subjects.

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years. The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a non-citizen throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If children born of non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc. The legal status of their parents is irrelevant.

The only exception to birthright citizenship are children born on U.S. soil to foreign leaders, diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity under treaty and international law, and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a U.S. born child of a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket him for littering, they can claim diplomatic immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants. Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race forever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding! Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. The most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century was William Blackstone. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base, and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction when he was born.

Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born. No doubt birthers will seek to delegitimize Marco Rubio’s citizenship by claiming one or both parents weren’t here legally, but it’s clear the legal status of one’s parents isn’t relevant to the child’s legal status. Ditto for Bobby Jindal, whose parents were not yet permanent residents when Bobby Jindal was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship. Most Hispanics are either immigrants themselves, or 1-2 generations removed, and sadly many Americans view all Hispanics as either unauthorized immigrants or ‘fake citizens’ who are citizens due to ‘misinterpretation’ of that pesky 14th amendment.

####

by Bob Quasius, founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans (original link)

For Immediate Release – An Open Letter to Ann Coulter – Original Link

Marshall, MN – We demand an immediate apology for your latest anti-Latino and anti-immigrant rant titled “America Nears el Tipping Pointo.”

Also please stop referring to yourself as a conservative and an expert on liberals. Hatred of minorities and immigrants is not a conservative value, and you apparently get most of your facts about Latinos and immigration from organizations founded and led by population control liberals like John Tanton. Tanton founded or co-founded the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), US English, Pro English, etc. Although you’ve made a career as an ‘expert’ on liberals, apparently you’re not always able to recognize liberals like Tanton and Roy Beck, especially when they appeal to your ‘dark side’ on Latinos and immigrants.

If Abe Lincoln or Ronald Reagan could read your latest column, they would turn over in their graves. You obviously know nothing about the Latino vote, and your repeated and shrill rhetoric against Latinos are a major reason that so many conservative Latinos hold their nose and vote Democrat.

Reagan famously told Lionel Sosa “Latinos are Republican. They just don’t know it yet.” He’s right, and whenever Republicans have engaged in constructive outreach to Latinos, Latino support for the GOP has improved, while harsh rhetoric such as in recent years has depressed GOP support among Latinos. As Marco Rubio pointed out recently “It’s very hard to make the economic argument to people who think you want to deport their grandmother.”

Abraham Lincoln had issues with Nativists too. Fragments of the vehemently anti-immigrant “know nothing” party joined the Republican party when the “know nothing” party disintegrated. Instead of allowing himself to be bullied by Nativists, Lincoln reached out to German-Americans, a major group of New Americans of the era, who had voted Democrat because Whigs and Republicans had never bothered to ask them for their vote. Lincoln even bought a German language newspaper to help with outreach, and Lincoln’s two presidential campaigns were successful in large part due to outreach to German-Americans.

According to Pew Research, 62% of Latinos are ideologically conservative or moderate, and yet just 27% of Latinos voted for Mitt Romney. Before Mitt Romney softened his tone after the primaries, some polls found Mitt Romney’s Latino support among likely Hispanic voters in the 14% range.

In 2004, following years of sensible Latino engagement by forward thinking Republican leaders, George Bush won 40% of the Latino vote. If not for the shrill anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric from people like you, that trend would have continued and Mitt Romney would have won the election.

You conveniently never mention in your columns that the GOP was competitive in California until the harsh rhetoric surrounding proposition 187 caused Latinos to leave the GOP in droves. Since proposition 187, the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races. This phenomenon has followed the rhetoric and spread from California to the rest of the nation. The GOP is now often perceived by many Latinos as hostile to Latinos.

There’s a common thread in your rantings… you parrot talking points from John Tanton and his motley alliance of population control liberals and bigots. For example, in a 2001 memo to a supporter, Tanton bragged about hiring a lobbyist to manipulate Republicans:

“The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

“Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.”

Apparently you’re not as adept in detecting liberals as you would have us believe!

The real reason why Republicans did so poorly among Latinos is due to manipulation by anti-immigrant groups, and shrill rhetoric by yourself and a small minority of Republican politicians which provides ample ammunition for liberals to frame the Republican Party as anti-Latino and anti-immigrant. The Republican Party is neither anti-Latino or anti-immigrant. In fact, a May 2011 poll by Pew Research found a majority of Republicans favor comprehensive immigration reform, including a 49%/49% split of “staunch conservatives.”

We won’t allow extremists like you to hijack this issue anymore! The future of the Republican Party depends upon dispelling the perception among many New Americans that the GOP is hostile on immigration.

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

by Bob Quasius

The short answer is yes, there are non-citizens voting, but in very small numbers, and less of a problem than other forms of voter fraud. In researching voter photo ID, which Cafe Con Leche Republicans supports, I also researched illegal voter registration and voting by non-citizens. Here I will attempt to put the problem into perspective.

Last night an Irish Central blog posting claiming massive problems with illegal voting by non-citizens caught my attention, prompting me to dig deeper. Similar claims usually turn out to be baseless or wildly overblown.

A network of organizations founded by population control progressive John Tanton often makes baseless claims about immigrants. Tanton founded or led more than 20 organizations that seek to reduce population growth from immigration. Tanton is the founder of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA (with Roy Beck), Center for Immigration Studies, and held leadership positions in groups such as Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, and environmental grouips. Tanton’s organizations have a long history of making wildly inflated and false claims about immigration, in promoting their agenda.

Tanton is known to manipulate Republicans, stoking fears that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, which is nonsense. From a Tanton letter to a supporter:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

From the Irish Central blog:

Colorado IDENTIFIED 12,000 illegal voters on its rolls and ascertained that 5,000 of them voted in the last election. The Republican Senate candidate was narrowly defeated by the Democrat….But how many illegal voters didn’t they identify?

The Colorado connection immediately caught my attention. In 2006, Governor Bill Owens called a special session of the legislature to pass laws to prevent 50,000 unauthorized immigrants from receiving tens of billions of dollars in welfare benefits. There was huge fanfare in the news media, and the legislature passed a tough set of laws to stop all those dastardly immigrants from sucking Colorado dry. Millions of dollars were spent auditing Colorado welfare rolls and licensing and not a single unauthorized immigrant was found receiving welfare benefits or licenses! There has hardly been any media coverage of the failure to find any unauthorized immigrants collecting welfare. No doubt many remember the initial hysteria, special session, etc. Numerous other states have audited their welfare rolls and found just a handful of unauthorized immigrants, if any.

Colorado has a long history of immigration hysteria, led by one of America’s leading xenophobes, Tom Tancredo. Not surprisingly, the claims of massive illegal voting by non-citizens proved to be vastly overblown as well. From the Denver Post:

At least 88 percent of the approximately 1,400 suspected non-citizens run through a federal database by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office were determined to be U.S. citizens, and are therefore eligible to vote.

The office is looking further at the remaining roughly 168 people, but that list may also include people who are citizens, said Michael Hagihara of the state’s elections division.

[...] the number of voters still in question equals less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of Colorado’s approximately 3.5 million registered voters.

Last May, the Miami Herald reported:

Nearly 2,700 potential non-U.S. citizens are registered to vote in Florida and some could have been unlawfully casting ballots for years, according to a Miami Herald-CBS4 analysis of elections data.

Earlier this month, the Tampa Bay Times reported:

U.S. District Judge Willam J. Zloch denied a request from a coalition of voting-rights groups to halt the purge of 198 potential non-citizens.

The Irish Central Blog claims that Loretta Sanchez was elected due to illegal non-citizen votes, when incumbent Bob Dornan lost by just 984 votes:

California lost a conservative congressman when his district was flooded with illegal alien votes. He was replaced with liberal Democrat, Loretta Sanchez.

However, a congressional panel soon whittled a list of 7,841 alleged illegal voters down to 624 after reviewing immigration records, then discontinued the probe since even if all 624 were indeed illegal voters that voted for Sanchez, that would not be enough to change the outcome. As explained later, it’s likely that at least some of the 624 voters were citizens but were flagged as non-citizens due to errors in immigration records, name confusion, etc.

From these and other stories, we can draw several conclusions:

• When politicians make claims of massive voting by non-citizens, it usually turns out to be wildly exaggerated. In all three cases mentioned, the actual numbers of illegal voters after a first pass review turned out to be around 10%, before delving deeper into individual cases.
• Politicians making these claims are usually relying on driving records, when a person may have been a non-citizen when they obtained their license, but later became a naturalized citizen and registered to vote. Drivers records aren’t automatically updated reflect their new citizenship until the driver renews, so without further review politicians often are misled and exaggerate the actual numbers.
• Their first reaction is often to demand access to DHS databases. However, DHS databases only contain records of persons who were in the immigration system at some point, and to search a DHS immigration database one needs an alien “A” number. Native born citizens and unauthorized immigrants with and previous contact with DHS won’t be found in DHS immigration databases either.
• Other times, DHS databases are simply in error. A recent study of Secure Communities found 3,600 U.S. Citizens who had been arrested and held as unauthorized immigrants, despite the use of fingerprints for accuracy.
• There is no question that there are non-citizens who register and vote, either because they are confused about their lack of voting right or they simply break the law. As with any other illegal voters, they should certainly be held accountable. The numbers of non-citizens voting are very small, but there are always close races where even a handful of illegitimate votes can throw an election.

I am more concerned about voting by dead people, fraudulent voter registrations by non-existent persons, absentee ballot fraud, and multiple registrations, though all sources of vote fraud need to be addressed.

Election officials certainly should review records and purge voters who appear to be ineligible, and public confidence in our elections needs to be restored. Recent scandals have shaken the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections.

However, because of strong possibility that a supposed non-citizen may in fact be a citizen, it is essential that voter purges follow a meticulous process, with adequate time for voters to contest purge decisions. No one should be denied their vote without due process.

by Bob Quasius (re-posted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

This myth has been around for a long time and often leads to bad immigration policy based on deeply flawed data. It’s worthwhile to look at today’s myths in a historical context, as the same cycle of anti-immigrant propaganda, public hysteria, and the enactment of bad policy repeats itself.

The Dillingham Commission reported in the early 20th century that “new” immigrants (i.e. those from Southern and Eastern Europe) were draining society, lowering wages, increasing crime rates, etc. A few years later in 1916, the book “The Passing of the Great Race; or, The racial basis of European history” was published by early modern progressive Madison Grant, which argued Europeans from Southern and Eastern Europe were inferior to “Nordics.” This book is one of the most infamous works on scientific racism, and Madison Grant played an active role in crafting anti-immigrant and anti-miscegenation legislation.

Grant was also a Vice-President of the Immigration Restriction League that led the drive to severely limit immigration, particularly from Southern and Easter Europe, leading to the 1921 Emergency Quota Law and Immigration Act of 1924, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act, which extended prohibitions against immigration from China and India to all Asians. Within several years of these acts, illegal immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe totaled several million, who then were “inspected” (given amnesty) and naturalized. None of the dire consequences warned by the Dillingham Commission ever materialized, but the now familiar claims that ‘today’s’ immigrants are different than our parents and grandparents is a cycle.

The Immigration Restriction League, which was at the forefront of imposing severe restrictions on non-desirable immigration was heavily funded by the Pioneer Fund, which funds “scientific study of heredity and human differences”, in other words race and ethnicity. The Pioneer Fund also heavily funded the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, the flagship of a network of organizations founded by eugenicist John Tanton, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, U.S. English, Pro English, and NumbersUSA.

Tanton, like his ideological grandfather Madison Grant, is a conservationist, a big believer in the long discredited psuedo-science known as eugenics, and a progressive who believes government should be heavily involved in population control through abortion, immigration restriction, etc. Progressives are ‘spot on’ about Tanton’s bigotry, but they usually fail to mention that Tanton is a progressive, not a conservative, as shown by his resume emphasizing environmental and conservation causes, as well as leadership positions in Planned Parenthood and Zero Population Growth, hardly conservative causes.

Part of Tanton’s messaging resonates with many conservatives, the part calling for strict enforcement of immigration laws. However, few conservatives are calling for drastic reductions in legal immigration, or a ten year timeout on all immigration. ‘Personal responsibility’ and the ‘rule of law’ are core conservative values, which is why immigration enforcement has resonated with conservatives so much in recent years.

Tanton first sought to co-opt Planned Parenthood and Sierra Club with his immigration reduction agenda, before turning to co-opting conservatives, because Tanton ideologically is a progressive in the tradition of Madison Grant. The Tanton network is an unholy alliance of population control progressives and white nationalists. As with Tanton’s ideological grandfather, Madison Grant, the weapons in Tanton’s arsenal include propaganda against immigrants based largely on jazzed up statistics, constant repetition of age-old myths about immigrants, fear mongering, and outright lies.

Alex Nowrasteh of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute debunked much of FAIR’s recent propaganda in a recent Huffington Post op-ed. FAIR’s statistics are deeply flawed, and never include contributions from immigrants and their U.S. born children. This excerpt says it all:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a stridently anti-immigration organization that wants to substantially decrease legal and unauthorized immigration to the United States. It frequently makes inaccurate claims about immigrants. Its most egregious economic claim is that unauthorized immigrants cost American state, local, and federal governments about $113 billion a year. This is pure bunk that I take to task here.

FAIR’s evidence is detailed in its report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers” by Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark. Quite frankly, it is one of the most amateurish and error filled reports I’ve ever read. It ignores the fiscal benefits of unauthorized immigration and uses dubious numbers and poor methodology to reach its conclusions.

Every human activity has both costs and benefits. People constantly weigh costs and benefits. If a given action’s benefits outweigh its costs, that action is worth taking – but you have to analyze both the costs and benefits first before you can come to that conclusion. The FAIR report counts the costs alone.

FAIR estimates that it costs states and the federal governments $52 billion a year to educate unauthorized immigrants and their American-born children. FAIR doesn’t compare that figure with the increase in income that people experience after earning a high school degree or GED, about $7,208 over non-high school graduates. That’s $7,208 more of taxable income. On top of that, between half and three-fourths of all undocumented immigrants file tax returns. The tax revenue gained from increasing education must be compared against the increased cost of public education when determining the net fiscal costs.

FAIR doesn’t consider this because it stops counting the tax payments of the children of unauthorized immigrants by the time they graduate high school. Most children cost the government before the age of 18 because of our insanely expensive and ineffective public education system, so if you stop counting the costs and benefits of students by the time they reach 18, you’ll reach the conclusion that children are always a fiscal loss for the government. If FAIR’s reasoning were applied to the rest of society, it would never make fiscal sense to have children, and the quicker we stopped the better for the government’s fiscal balance.

Full Article here.

Now, the next time you hear lawmakers quote statistics in justifying laws to crack down on illegal immigration, check the source of their statistics, as most of the time you’ll find the source is an organization founded or nurtured by John Tanton.

by Bob Quasius

Since 2006, the article “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States“ by Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. of the Violent Crimes Institute has been cited endlessly to justify harsh measures against illegal immigration. The article is sensational in its claims but falls far short on credible facts.

It is not a myth that a small minority off unauthorized immigrants are sex criminals or other serious offenders, but Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s analysis is badly flawed and her estimates of sex criminals among the unauthorized immigrant population are wildly exaggerated.

Anyone with a good knowledge of statistics will tell you that samples from a target group must be selected randomly. In order to believe this study, one must believe that incarcerated prisoners are statistically representative of a much larger group. From the study:

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

According to the DHS 2006 annual report of Immigration Enforcement Actions, 272,389 non-citizens were removed (deported) from the U.S. in 2006, and 1.9% of those removed were indeed sex criminals. The unauthorized immigrant population in 2006 was estimated at  11.6 million. These removals represent 2.35% off the estimated unauthorized population. However, authorized immigrants are also removed if convicted of a felony, as mandated under a 1996 federal law, so removals of unauthorized immigrants are a portion of the total.

The author incorrectly assumes that those arrested by ICE are representative samples of the total unauthorized immigrant population of the U.S., when in fact ICE has long prioritized immigration enforcement, and dangerous criminals, such as sex criminals, are one of ICE’s top priorities.

The “Morton Memo dated March 11, 2011, which replicates long standing policy regarding prioritization of immigration enforcement, prioritizes as follows:

Priority l.  Aliens who pose a danger to  national security or a risk to  public safety

Priority 2.  Recent illegal entrants

Priority 3.  Aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration controls

With total removals each year a just 2% or so of the total unauthorized population, the need to prioritize dangerous criminals for apprehension and removal is obvious. Resources expended chasing non-criminal unauthorized immigrants means less resources available to pursue violent criminals.

Due to this prioritization and the fact that criminals are much more likely to come to the attention of law enforcement, due to their crimes and victims, its simply not logical to believe prison inmates are representative samples of the community at large.

Now let’s apply Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s methodology to the U.S. prison population. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report “Prisoners in 2009“, 7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes, and 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes. From the 2002 BJS report “Profile of Jail Inmates” 25.4% of inmates in jails in 2002 were convicted or held for violent crimes. Applying these percentages to mid-2006 inmate populations, there were 819,202 inmates incarcerated or jailed for violent crimes in the U.S., or 41.4% off the U.S. prison and jail population.

Applying Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s same methodology to the current U.S. population of 314 million, we would conclude that 130 million (41.4%) of our total population are violent criminals, which would seem an outlandish number. Is our prison population representative of Americans in general? Clearly not, but that is what Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s would have us believe in her claim there are 240,000 unauthorized immigrant sex offenders in the U.S.!

But what about the high percentage of young males among the unauthorized immigrant population mentioned in her study? It turns out the unauthorized immigrants are not that representative of their home nations due to the self-selection process.

In the scholarly research paper “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men“, the authors, Rubén G. Rumbaut, PhD and Walter A. Ewing, PhD note that young male unauthorized immigrants are actually less likely to engage in criminal activity than citizens:

Because many immigrants to the United States, especially Mexicans and Central Americans, are young men who arrive with very low levels of formal education, popular stereotypes tend to associate them with higher rates of crime and incarceration. The fact that many of these immigrants enter the country through unauthorized channels or overstay their visas often is framed as an assault against the “rule of law,” thereby reinforcing the impression that immigration and criminality are linked. This association has flourished in a post-9/11 climate of fear and ignorance where terrorism and undocumented immigration often are mentioned in the same breath.

But anecdotal impression cannot substitute for scientific evidence. In fact, data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population. What is more, these patterns have been observed consistently over the last three decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of mass immigration, and recall similar national-level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th century. The problem of crime in the United States is not “caused” or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. But the misperception that the opposite is true persists among policymakers, the media, and the general public, thereby undermining the development of reasoned public responses to both crime and immigration

Dr. Schurman-Kauflin, based her interviews with prisoners and mostly anecdotal media sources, claimed the highest numbers of sex offenders came from Mexico and El Salvador. However Dr. Rumbaut and Dr. Ewing, citing credible sources, note common assumptions about youth, education level, etc. do not fit the data for immigrants:

• Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born.
• The foreign-born incarceration rate in 2000 was nearly two-and-a-half times less than the 1.7 percent rate for native born non-Hispanic white men and almost 17 times less than the 11.6 percent rate for native-born black men.
• Native-born Hispanic men were nearly 7 times more likely to be in prison than foreign-born Hispanic men in 2000, while the incarceration rate of native-born nonHispanic white men was almost 3 times higher than that of foreign-born white men.
• Foreign-born Mexicans had an incarceration rate of only 0.7 percent in 2000—more than 8 times lower than the 5.9 percent rate of native-born males of Mexican descent. Foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men had an incarceration rate of 0.5 percent, compared to 3.0 percent of native-born males of Salvadoran and Guatemalan descent.

One explanation can be found in “Why Are Immigrants’ Incarceration Rates So Low? Evidence On Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation“,  by Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl of the National Bureau of Economic Research conclude:

There is evidence that the process of migration selects individuals who have lower criminal propensity or are more responsive to deterrent effects than  the average native. Similar to the foreign born, the native born who live outside their state of birth also reduced their relative institutionalization rates over time.

In other words, the same higher level of ambition that leads people to immigrate or move to another state also makes them less likely to commit crimes.

It’s time to stop the ‘unjust enrichment’ and fear mongering of unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for problems that the vast majority of them do not cause. Certainly, unauthorized immigrants who engage in crime, particularly violent crime, need to be punished and leave the U.S., but those who come here to work, be with family, and stay out of trouble should be treated with more respect and much less hostility. I don’t condone illegal immigration, neither do I demonize those who come here illegally to support themselves and their families.

(Original Posting)