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

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 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).

By Thomas Martin Salazar (originally published at Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog)

Growing up my father (a Mexican national) taught me the importance of having three basic priorities that should govern my life. These priorities were to always place God first, family second, and work/school third above everything else. After the spanking the Republicans  received this last election day, it seems as if we as a party could benefit from considering these priorities, especially when it comes to the family.  I understand that not every Hispanic person is the same, nor is every Mexican American for that matter. But I do believe that these priorities are important and relatable to the Hispanic and Latino community. While the GOP tends to do a great job at defending religious liberty and is the most active in the defense of the unborn, it seems to neglect one of the most important priorities – family and fails miserably at communicating the third – work/education.

If Republicans wish to gain back the support of the Latino vote, especially that of the Mexican Americans in many southwestern states, then we need to end the rhetorical attacks on their families. Hispanics are not going to vote for any candidate whom they  think is going to deport their abuelita or go after their parents, husbands or wives.  They also will not support candidates of a party who want to end birthright citizenship. If we are to be the party of family values which I believe we are, then we must let go of our rhetoric and reach out in good faith to work towards some form of immigration reform just as George W. Bush tried to do. Conservatives seem to think and fear that Hispanics are inherently liberal. I disagree. The Democratic party does not hold our values; but neither do they pander to the immigration enforcement only crowd as republicans tend to do. I am not calling for open borders or lax enforcement. I am suggesting that we use our enforcement resources on the border and go after the criminals and the cartels, meanwhile, finding a humane way to keep families united and help build a better future for America and the Republican Party. When the Republicans finally embrace pro-family policies and cease the rhetoric that has been perceived as anti-Hispanic, then the door will be opened for further dialogue.

After we reach out in good faith, then we, as a party, must communicate better toward Hispanics and Latinos in general. We need candidates and organized groups to reach out and educate them on economic issues. Both employment and education are top priorities for many Hispanics, but if they do not see the connection from the policy played out in their daily lives, then we are failing to communicate.  Republicans must do a better job at explaining how raising tax rates and continued deficit spending will negatively impact them. While at the same time, Republicans need to articulately respond with fiscally sound economic policies that will lead to economic growth and rising incomes. Moreover, we need to defend the free market and explain how it is their inherent right as human beings, created by God, to choose how to spend and use their money. Republicans should also educate Hispanic voters on  the myriads of federal regulations and taxes that are inhibiting his or her ability to freely choose, by decreasing growth and upward mobility.

Furthermore,  we need to work harder at  defending educational choice for parents. We have an over regulated education system that sends billions of dollars to bureaucrats in the Department of Education, while spending on students and their classrooms  are both neglected. Moreover, Republicans can definitely win on the issue of school choice. School choice is not a federal program; it is the right for parents to have the choice whether to send their children to public, private or charter schools or even homeschool if they wish. Parents should be afforded all options because each child learns differently and no one size fits all federal education program will meet those needs. We must oppose federal one size fits all cookie cutter educational standards and move  towards state rights  and parental rights. Education is a pivotal issue for each and every Hispanic mother and father. This goal will be hindered if  we do not reach out and clearly articulate to Hispanic voters our educational polices.

Thus, we must do better at articulating our values to the Hispanic and in particular  the Mexican American community. I do believe this goal is attainable and I am optimistic.  Just recently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity, came out in favor for immigration reform and the Speaker of the House,  John Boehner, said he is “confident”  that the Republican congress can reach a deal on an immigration reform bill. Again, we are the ones who need to reach out in good faith and restart the dialogue. Therefore, I pray that the GOP will heed these words and consider the three top priorities of this frustrated Republican: God, family, and work/education. If we do anything less, failure is inevitable.

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 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).

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

“A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.” - George William Curtis, American Writer

Multiculturalism is the embodiment of many cultures or the love of two or more cultures. In the news recently, it was the reason cited by, Breivik, the Norweigan terror suspect who felt that his country’s culture was threatened by Muslims. According to news reports, Breikik held contempt for cultures that weakened his country. Hence, individuals who do not integrate or assimilate into the “new” country run the risk of arousing misunderstanding that leads to unintended hatred. In the U.S., immigrants bring their native born cultural DNA and adopt the American way of life. They learn to blend the two and hold on to their conservative values that most often comes from their religious affiliations. The children of these immigrants, and their offspring fully assimilate and prefer the Conservative American values and way of life as their new identity and choice of loyalty.

Our country has attracted waves of immigrants who come from various cultures worldwide. Each has contributed to the creation of our nation in her strength and vitality. This pluralism of cultures has given us an enriched language, art, foods, music, and technological advantage to become a Superpower in one of the shortest periods of recorded time. Studies also show that these immigrants hold the strongest Conservative values equal to that of the Republican Party.

Some in the U.S. cling to a fear that America is losing its identity and becoming vulnerable to foreigners who have no love for our country. Yet others have gone on record to say that foreigners come to the U.S. to infiltrate our land with U.S. haters. These individuals and groups take some isolated person or action and magnify it and repeat it over and over till it becomes an unquestioned truth. In my opinion, “What we got here is a failure to communicate,” as was expressed in the movie, “Cool Hand Luke.”

As it was true in the 1700s, people from all over the world continue to come to America seeking freedom from oppressive governments while also looking for economic prosperity. Their work ethic speaks for their drive to better themselves and their family, gladly working in some of the most dangerous and physically demanding menial jobs. Many immigrants risk everything including their family, material possessions, and oftentimes their lives to come to America. They love their culture but they love the country that embraces them and affords them a better way of life beyond abject poverty. The Love for this country is magnified as the generations reach a level of a middle class that was not available to them in their country. While many independents are born in the U.S., those with high concentration of conservative values are immigrants who have naturalized into the U.S.

Our founding fathers were men of a great vision who formed America as a predominantly white European protestant nation, but the ideology on which it was built was consistent: freedom from tyranny and a free market. These beliefs would eventually become coined as American values that allow anyone with a great work ethic to reach the American dream and rise from rags to riches. In the next part of this series you will read about how a founding father, born in the West Indies, eloquently described his naturalized citizenship.

So what does love have to do with it? Plenty. Those who forget to honor this nation also forget that the Love for this country is the essence of our democracy.

Marshall, MN – National pro-immigrant Republican group Cafe Con Leche Republicans, today reacted to Vice-President Joe Biden’s latest claim about immigration reform. Biden is quoted by Politico:

Right now, you’ve got the president and I and a lot of Democrats out there breaking our neck trying to get a real immigration law that takes millions of people out of the shadows, making sure that ‘Dreamers’ don’t have to go back in many cases to countries they’ve never been,

If the Latino vote comes out, the Hispanic vote comes out and changes the election, all of a sudden those guys who paid no attention to you, no attention to the Hispanic community, no attention to the Latino community. All of a sudden they’re going to say, ‘Oh my Lord I guess we better get in line with the president. I guess we better start moving in the direction of paying attention to this incredible, this incredible pool of talent we have out there. So this is a chance to gain influence that’s almost disproportionate to the impact that you may have directly in the election.

Bob Quasius, president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, taken aback by Biden’s statements, reacted:

Earlier this week we blasted Obama for his long record of ‘immigration fakery‘, making promises at election time, then once elected putting nothing on the table, and blaming Republicans for his own lack of leadership on immigration reform. Obama ignored the Hispanic community until it was time to fire up his campaign and discovered enthusiasm among Hispanics was lacking.

Incredibly, now Biden claims the Obama administration has been ‘breaking their necks’ on immigration reform. The Obama administration has deported record numbers of immigrants, not just “gang bangers” as Obama claimed, but DREAM eligible youth, and many long term residents who did not have criminal records. During the first six months of 2011, our “Deporter-in-Chief” deported 46,686 parents who had at least one U.S. citizen child, while more than 5,100 children of immigrants have ended up in foster care because their parents had either been detained or deported, according to ICE.

Obama has aggressively rolled out secure communities nationwide despite widespread complaints the program fuels racial profiling, and a recent study found 3,600 Latino citizens were falsely arrested! Thousands of Latino citizens born in South Texas have also been denied U.S. passports, and as reported by CNN, some were deported, based merely on Hispanic surname and midwife birth.

Obama failed to exercise leadership with Congress on immigration reform and put nothing on the table during his first two years, even when Democrats enjoyed super-majorities in both Houses of Congress. Instead, in June of 2011 Obama offered a ‘deferred action’ plan (“Morton Memo“) for long term residents with family ties, DREAM eligible youth, etc., presenting as “new policy” existing DHS policy for deferred action,  that had existed since 2000 (“Meisner memo“).

Under DHS policy that has existed since 2000, the Obama administration could have curbed deportations of DREAM eligible youth and long term residents without criminal records, but failed to act until it was time to launch his reelection campaign.

One year after the Morton memo was released, ICE had ‘reviewed’ 411,000 cases for deferred action, and closed just 2%. Recent numbers for Obama’s latest deferred action plan showed that just 2% of those who applied had been granted relief. The program is a ‘band aid’ that offers two years of relief from deportation, with no guarantee applicants will be spared deportation after two years.

Biden’s choice of words was in poor taste, though not surprising given Biden’s long history of gaffes. This reminds us that Joe Biden is just a heartbeat away from the presidency, and his selection as Obama’s running mate a second time highlights another Obama bad hiring decision.

####

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 Thomas Martin Salazar, (content originally Published through Cafe con Leche Republicans)

In 2008 President Obama made a promise to many Hispanics and Latinos that said he would make immigration reform priority. He promised that immigration reform was an important issue that should not wait to be addressed down the road, but during his first term.

Here we are four years later and in an interview with Univision, Obama tells the American people that his greatest failure was not passing comprehensive immigration reform.  This would be ironic if it was not such a tragic understatement. In fact, President Obama and his administration are aggressively  enforcing  immigration laws.

In the last four years President Obama rounded up and deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Moreover, he masqueraded as an immigration reformer – working to seduce the Latino community, by suing Arizona all the way up to the Supreme Court for passing SB 1070 and by opposing Maricopa county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Yes Obama and his campaign surrogates boast with pride about how Obama is the immigrant’s champion, but they neglect to tell the truth about Obama’s own immigration policies.

They conveniently ignore the fact that Obama has pioneered the Secure Communities program. According to a Research Report by Aarti Kohli, Peter Markowitz, and Lisa Chavez, President Obama took this pilot program, which was started under President Bush, from 14 jurisdictions to 1,595. This program empowers state and local police all throughout the United States, to do the very exact things for which his administration sued Arizona and Maricopa county Sheriff Joe Arpaio. More revealing statistics from the same research study states,

“Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States;”

And

“Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge as compared to 14% of all immigration court respondents who are granted relief”

This is unequivocally a disproportionate assault on Latinos. But the facts do not stop here.  The President has deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants, which averages to just below 400,000 people a year. Furthermore, Obama’s immigration policies have left more than 5,000 American citizens in foster care because their parents were rounded up and deported. His administration in the name of national security continues to deny passports to United States citizens whose birth certificates came from midwife and not through a hospital. This has disproportionately affected Latinos. This new policy of no longer accepting midwife birth certificates as an acceptable form of Identification goes far beyond just impacting Latinos who are seeking to obtain passports; in fact, there are even incidents where Federal immigration officials coerced United States citizens into signing away their citizenship. These are not the actions of a man who cares about immigrants and their families nor is it the actions of an immigration reformer.

Recently Obama has again been making his rounds – reaching out to Latinos with his promise and message of reform. Ironically, Obama and his campaign want Americans to believe that immigration reform will become a reality within the next four years. Indeed, it is such an important issue to our President that he failed to even reference immigration in his new glossy pamphlet. Thus it seems that immigration reform is not as important as the President claims.  Then again, in the first four years immigration reform was supposedly a high priority.

While the President plays the victim, blaming lack of bipartisanship for why he has failed to pass immigration reform, I would ask you to look at his real record on immigration. Look at the millions of people he has rounded up and deported. Moreover, how debased it is that our government would see fit to seize children from their own parents, and place them in the foster care system. What type of nation have we become, when basic parental rights and child rights are neglected? Sadly, under President Obama this is a reality. Obama needs to be held accountable for his deception. In the end, Latinos have a choice of either voting for the deporter-in-chief or they can vote for a new direction.

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 is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. 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).

by Bob Quasius

Ann Coulter has made a fortune writing and selling books excoriating liberals, also called progressives, for a range of offenses, often mocking liberals in the process.

Unfortunately, despite extensive research and writing on the subject of liberalism, Coulter is not always able to spot a liberal. In the blog Only One Candidate Is Right on The Two Most Important Issues posted December 28 on Townhall.com, Ann Coulter proved she can be hoodwinked by liberals. Coulter claims:

In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.

She’s right about ObamaCare, which would unquestionably lead to a complete government takeover of health care. However, Coulter then goes on a diatribe about illegal immigration:

But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.

and

Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.

Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.

A short history lesson of California for Ann Coulter is in order. The GOP used to be competitive in California. Then, incumbent Republican governor Pete Wilson, trailing far behind in the polls, jumped on the Proposition 187 anti-immigrant bandwagon to revive his lagging campaign and win reelection. Once elected, proposition 187 was quickly overturned by the courts, to no one’s surprise since immigration is a federal power. Wilson won reelection playing the race card, but once prop. 187 enthusiasm passed the GOP lost legions of conservative Hispanic voters who were appalled at proposition 187 and became Independents or Democrats. The Field Institute analysis of the 1994 California elections found:

An analysis of Republican Governor Pete Wilson’s 55% to 41% reelection victory over Democrat Kathleen Brown shows that Wilson ran strongest among these voter subgroups: those living in San Diego/Orange, the Inland Empire, and the North Coast/Sierra regions, Republicans, conservatives, white non-Hispanics (especially white men), older voters, those with incomes of $60,000 or more, Protestants, and supporters of Prop. 187, the illegal alien initiative.

and

Proposition 187, the illegal alien initiative, which passed statewide by a 59% to 41% margin, carried in all major regions of the state except the San Francisco Bay Area. Support for Prop. 187 was extremely high in the Inland Empire (+40 points), the North Coast/Sierras (+36 points), San Diego/Orange (+34 points) and the Central Valley (+32 points).

Proposition 187 was spearheaded by John Tanton and the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, and bankrolled with millions in financing from the Pioneer Fund, whose purpose is “to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences“, in other words scientific racism. John Tanton’s own writings show he’s an ardent eugenics supporter, an environut, and population control enthusiast with deep ties to planned parenthood. Tanton’s resume shows he’s not conservative at all but an ardent liberal, the kind that Coulter regularly bashes in her books and columns!

Amazingly, Coulter relies on NumbersUSA, founded by uberliberals John Tanton and Roy Beck, for her source of information on immigration, grading of candidates, etc. Roy Beck is the current leader of NumbersUSA, who was previously publisher of The Social Contract, infamous for publishing racist books and publications such as The Camp of the Saints, among others. For decades Beck has warned of us of the dire consequences of overpopulation of the U.S. If we took his rantings seriously, the world would have starved to death several times over by now!

Tanton, Beck, and their allies have been manipulating both liberals and conservatives for decades. A great example is this “smoking gun” letter from John Tanton’s own papers, donated to the University of Michigan library, in which Tanton brags:

Roy Beck and I think we have come up with an idea that can actually move the battle lines on the immigration question in our favor. While we are working on other ideas to move Democrats, this one involves using the recently released census data to show Republican members of Congress, the Administration, and the party’s leadership how massive immigration imperils their political future. The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

and

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.

Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, there’s no reason why the GOP cannot be competitive among Hispanics. According to PEW Research:

Among Latino registered voters, 35% describe their political views as conservative, 32% describe them as moderate and 28% describe their political views as liberal.

67% of Hispanics are center-right ideologically, which is a complete disconnect from recent voting trends, which show Hispanics voting Democrat by nearly a two to one margin, yet President Bush was able to gain over 40% of the Hispanic vote! Note the trend:
Year Democrats Republicans Gap
1999 58 25 33
2002 56 25 31
2004 55 28 27
2006 49 28 21
2007 57 23 34
2008 67 31 36
2010 65 22 43

Each year, as Bush engaged Hispanics and made a serious effort to reform immigration, self-identified Hispanic voters increased. With the failure of immigration reform and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric from some conservative Republicans, no doubt influenced by John Tanton and Roy Beck, starting in 2007 the trend quickly reversed. A recent poll by Latino Decisions shows GOP support among Latinos at 18%, with 31% of Latinos perceiving the GOP as hostile. 14% of Latinos support deportation of all unauthorized immigrants, so a support level of 18% for the GOP shows just how polarizing the immigration issue is to Latinos. If you’re Latino and don’t support a “deport them all” strategy, you’re unlikely to vote Republican!

Assuming Latinos invariably vote Democrat is a self-fulfilling prophecy, with many Republicans failing to make a serious outreach effort, and don’t pause to think how their rhetoric alienates Hispanic voters. However, Bush proved Hispanics can be wooed, a process started by Ronald Reagan, who quipped “Latinos are Republican. They just don’t know it yet.” No wonder John Tanton and Roy Beck have gone to such lengths to convince many Republicans that Latinos invariably vote Democrat!

Original

By Robert S. Nix

My favorite commercial is the one where the spokesman tries to apologize over dinner in a posh restaurant to two cavemen whom he has inadvertently insulted while touting how easy it is to use his company’s website. Says the contrite spokesman, “seriously, we apologize – we had no idea you guys were still around.”

“Yeah, next time, maybe do a little research,” the first caveman snorts back sarcastically. The other caveman, sunglasses perched atop his head, wearing a white Miami Vice sports coat with white shirt, orders the roast duck with the mango salsa. But the first caveman hands his menu back to the waiter, adding curtly: “I don’t have much of an appetite, thank you.” He glares across the table at his host with an insolent smirk.

I love the GEICO cavemen; they portray perfectly the quintessential modern, civilized man-about-cave. But, then again, I can relate because I’m something of a modern caveman myself. We all are, actually. And, like it or not, we all possess some residual caveman mentality, too.

It’s the only thing that adequately explains the predictability of our gut level, xenophobic reaction –unsupported by meaningful economic or social data — to any notable wave of immigration into our midst. As a species, we’ve always been like that.

We originally developed the reaction as a survival mechanism back when we really were cavemen. Of course, we no longer need that instinct to survive, but it hasn’t completely evolved away yet either. Still residing somewhere deep in the most primitive part of the brain is this ancient instinct that helped our species survive.

You see, a million years ago, cavemen almost didn’t survive. Scientists say that primitive man nearly starved to extinction, basically because life was too hard – what with all the ice ages, and not yet having made it to the top of the food chain, and all.

No doubt, you’ve heard someone say before, “I can’t eat that – it’ll go straight to my thighs.” The cliché originates from another survival mechanism. Scientists say that the caveman’s metabolism specialized in converting almost anything it could eat into body fat, to efficiently stash away sustenance for lean times. Sadly, it seems we haven’t been able to lose that particular trait to evolution either.

The xenophobic instinct is a response to competition over scarce resources. In an already adverse environment of a million years ago, if different groups of primitive hominoids had found themselves competing with each other over the same food supply, it might have been disastrous. Reflexive xenophobia kept the groups far enough apart from each other for each group to have a better chance of survival. Evolving from hunter-gatherers to farmers who settled the land, we retained an instinctual fear of foreigners, creating nation-states and defending from outsiders the lands upon which we were dependent to survive.

That primordial distrust of foreigners still surfaces occasionally today as anti-immigrant sentiment in an interconnected world of nations, mega-corporations, and a global economy, where the scarce resources might be jobs, government services, or economic opportunity.

Right now, in this country, we’re experiencing a nativist backlash against a large immigrant wave of Hispanics, primarily from Mexico. Prior to that, in the early 1900’s, the same sentiments were directed against large immigrant waves of Poles and Italians. In the mid 1800’s, the same sentiment greeted the waves of Irish immigrants fleeing the great famine in their own country.

Thus the current highly emotional debate over immigration reform, giving rise to anti-Hispanic sentiment and English-only movements, is only the most recent manifestation of a behavior we’ve been exhibiting since we were cavemen.

But that doesn’t justify or excuse xenophobic behavior. If anything, it suggests that, perhaps, we haven’t evolved as much as we’d like to think. But at least if we can recognize our anti-immigrant sentiment for what it really is, a caveman reaction, then maybe we can begin to address immigration reform issues at a more evolved intellectual level rather than as a base primitive reflex.

In the meantime, before boasting that your website is “so easy, even a caveman can use it” – try doing a little research first – because you just may find that we’re all still around.

Robert S. Nix is a government relations consultant and lobbyist who can be reached in Philadelphia at robertnix(at)phoenixstrategiesllc(dot)com.

original