JUNE 2013



A WORD TO SHARE WITH OUR PASTORS ABOUT IMMIGRATION

The news media have been full of reports of national religious leaders urging American Christians to support S. 744, a bill that would give lifetime work permits to 11 million foreign citizens who are in this country illegally and that would also bring in another 22 million immigrant workers and dependents in the next decade.

These leaders are also working to have their denominations' spring regional and national assemblies support S. 744 in some way as Congress begins to vote on it.

These religious voices have been virtually the only ones quoted in the national debate, arguing that Christians who oppose S. 744 are being disobedient to Christ's commands for compassion and justice. These leaders have suggested that opposition to S. 744 is being negligent of the biblical witness of hospitality toward the sojourner, stranger and alien. And a major TV ad campaign suggested that opposition to S. 744 is like being guilty of failing to welcome Christ in his parable of the Last Judgment.

Yet, many of the Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic leaders in the campaign for the S. 744 "comprehensive immigration reform" bill have indicated that most members of their churches have yet to come to the same biblical and theological conclusions about immigration issues.

Polling confirms that most Christians discern immigration issues differently than the religious leaders quoted in the media. Those of us who are circulating this letter feel certain that large numbers of clergy have an appreciation of -- and even agreement with -- members in the pews who feel that our call to Christian discipleship leads us to oppose this bill precisely because we ARE committed to the biblical commands for justice, welcome and compassion.

This letter is intended to highlight some of the ethical challenges involved in current immigration policy discussions, as well as of key factual information, that may not previously have been made available to clergy and lay leaders.

CARING FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY:

In a national economy with a long-term, persistent surplus of workers, a decision to add millions more workers from other countries carries important ethical considerations, particularly about priorities.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau found 20 million Americans in the first quarter of 2013 who want a full-time job but can't find one. About half of them have college education of some kind and about half of them are less educated.

There are many Americans at every educational and skill level who find it difficult in the job market today. But the greatest struggles, poverty and hopelessness fall on the less-educated members of our society. Around 42 million Americans with no college education are lucky enough to have jobs. But during three decades of too many workers chasing too few jobs, the real wages for their jobs have fallen by nearly 20%. As long as the country is awash with too many workers, the trend is likely to continue and more and more people who work 40 hours a week will fall out of the middle class.

The present is even more bleak for around 22 million less-educated Americans between 18 and 65 who are not in the work force at all anymore. Many of them left for legitimate reasons but most out of discouragement and despair.

We do not believe these less-educated Americans and their families are in any way failing to show Christian virtue by opposing Congress adding tens of millions of competitors for their jobs and wages. Most of the attention on S. 744 has been on its offering a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million unlawfully present aliens. But besides giving those 11 million work permits, the bill also would offer additional work permits to bring 22 million more immigrants from other countries in the first decade.

In all, the bill offers 33 million new lifetime work permits to foreign citizens in the first decade after passage of the bill and offers between 16 and 25 million each decade after that. (That is in contrast to the 11 million per decade recently and to the only 3-4 million per decade that was the average before corporate lobbyists persuaded Congress to adopt an Immigration Surge in 1990 to combat fears of a coming labor shortage.)

Every one of these new foreign workers under this bill would be competing in the job search with the 20 million Americans already in line.

This line of 20 million contains a large portion of the most vulnerable members of our national community -- disproportionately, they are Black and Hispanic Americans, or are disabled, or veterans, or former prisoners, or young adults.

We believe these are The Forgotten in all the public discussion about setting responsible immigration policies. It is particularly incumbent on those of us Christians who are financially on more solid footing to be a voice for the concerns of these people who are rarely referenced by media, religious or political leaders in the immigration debates.

WHAT AMERICAN CHRISTIANS THINK ABOUT ADDING COMPETITION FOR UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS:

The bulk of S. 744 is about addressing industry lobbyists' claims of impending labor shortages for both low and high skilled workers. The sponsors of the bill repeatedly argue the need for more workers. Although parts of the bill deal with specific kinds of workers, most people getting green cards will do so without any regard for their skills or education, meaning they would be expected to compete throughout the job market.

Pulse Opinion Research conducted a national poll on May 20. Its findings were consistent with nearly 30 other polls it had conducted in the previous two months.

Its findings may be helpful in seeing how American Christians set their moral priorities.

As with all polls, the answers can tell one only so much about the complex opinions that people hold, and the answers are shaped by the wording of questions and the context in which they are asked. The Pulse Opinion polling set a context by asking U.S. likely voters about their optimism concerning the near-term job prospects of the 20 million Americans who can't find a full-time job.

================================================== ===============

Respondents were then asked: "Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the United States is faced with labor shortages and needs more immigrant workers?"

CATHOLICS: Agree (25%), Disagree (65%), Not sure (15%)

EVANGELICALS: Agree (22%), Disagree (63%), Not sure (15%)

PROTESTANTS: Agree (17%), Disagree (75%), Not sure (8%)

The intensity of opinions was even more pronounced:

CATHOLICS: 10% vs. 35% (STRONGLY Agree vs. STRONGLY Disagree)
EVANGELICALS: 7% vs. 42%
PROTESTANTS: 6% vs. 32%

================================================== ==============

The poll did find many Christians responding to a moral appeal for leniency to current residents who have broken immigration laws;

They were asked: "How much moral responsibility do you feel Congress has to help protect the ability of current illegal immigrants to hold a job and support their families without fear of deportation: a lot, some, very little or none?"

CATHOLICS: 24% (A lot), 30% (Some), 22% (Very little), 22% (None), 5% (not sure)

EVANGELICALS: 11% (A lot), 23% (Some), 29% (Very little), 26% (None), 10% (not sure)

PROTESTANTS: 17% (A lot), 27% (Some), 30% (Very little), 23% (None), 3% (not sure)

Given three choices for dealing with the illegal population, two-thirds or more of each group rejected deportation. But around two-thirds overall also rejected letting them have work permits.

CHOICE 1: Deport most -- 24% (Cath.), 39% (Evan.), 29% (Prot.)

CHOICE 2: Don't deport but no work permits -- 29% (Cath.), 33% (Evan.), 22% (Prot)

CHOICE 3: Give work permits & legalization -- 39% (Cath.), 13% (Evan.), 39% (Prot)

================================================== ==============

Respondents were asked: "How much moral responsibility do you feel Congress has to help protect unemployed or low-wage Americans from having to compete with foreign workers for U.S. jobs: A lot, some, very little or none?"

CATHOLICS: 58% (A lot), 23% (Some), 13% (Very little), 6% (None), 0% (not sure)

EVANGELICALS: 48% (A lot), 17% (Some), 17% (Very little), 9% (None), 9% (not sure)

PROTESTANTS: 45% (A lot), 34% (Some), 14% (Very little), 5% (None), 2% (not sure)

================================================== ================

Respondents were asked: "Do you believe less-educated illegal immigrants compete with less-educated Americans for construction, manufacturing, hospitality and other service jobs?"

CATHOLICS: 67% (YES), 20% (NO), 13% (not sure)
EVANGELICALS: 66% (YES), 17% (NO), 17% (not sure)
PROTESTANTS: 65% (YES), 23% (NO), 12% (not sure)

================================================== ================

MERCY FOR THE LAWBREAKERS:

At the heart of the religious-leader support for "comprehensive immigration reform" is a great compassion for the foreign citizens in our congregations or communities who live and work outside the law.

More than anything, those leaders want to see these millions of fellow human beings given full legal status to live as equals among the American people. There are hundreds of heart-warming stories of the hard-working, family-loving, God-fearing qualities of illegal immigrants known by these religious leaders.

Many of these illegal immigrants have been in the United States for years and are interwoven in families that include U.S. citizens. The religious leaders want mercy for them so that they do not have to go back home as the law requires.

The leaders say the lawbreakers have to pay for their transgressions. The payment is to be a fine and an admission of guilt of the "mistake" they have made in entering the country illegally or in violating the terms of their visitor visa.

DOES HOSPITALITY MEAN NO IMMIGRATION LAWS?

The claim of the supporters of "comprehensive immigration reform" is that to forgive the illegal immigrants their lawbreaking is consistent -- maybe even demanded -- by the multitude of verses in the Bible about treatment of aliens (people from any country who are in a country where they are not a citizen).

But what do these scriptures mean in terms of immigration laws? Certainly, all of us can agree that the biblical witness is that our government treat aliens in our midst -- whether permanent immigrants, legal visitors or illegal visitors -- humanely and that we individually treat them with Christian love. It gets a little more complicated in any country in the area of equal treatment under the law (because citizens usually are accorded some rights not given to non-citizens), but most of us can probably agree on most details there, as well.

But here is where the present debate divides us deeply: If the law requires that foreign citizens without permission to be present have to leave the country (a condition of immigration laws in nearly all countries), how does "do not mistreat the alien" get interpreted?

Are the religious leaders pushing legalization arguing that the alien/sojourner scriptures create a requirement that the United States give work permits or citizenship to virtually anybody who violates immigration laws? In other words, is it a mistreatment of the stranger to make him go home after flying his family for a vacation at Disney World on a tourist visa? Is it a mistreatment of the stranger to make him go home if he is a young single man working here without a family for two years after paying his way across the border by smuggling drugs or sex slaves? These and many other troubling descriptions are valid because the legalization being demanded within S. 744 is for virtually all unlawfully present foreign citizens other than those convicted of major crimes.

Even when using the most benign of descriptions of immigration law violators, do these religious leaders really believe that a nation is mistreating strangers if it doesn't give permanent work permits, residency and a path to citizenship to every foreign citizen who violates immigration laws for the purpose of becoming a hard-working, church-going, family-providing, all-around good person? Many of the arguments of national religious leaders for legalization are now based on them having so many people in their churches who have broken immigration laws and who they have found to otherwise be good people that they can't imagine forcing to go back to their home country.

It is easy to see why this is a poor basis for policy because it would basically lead to a new standard for all nations that it is okay to break immigration laws if you join a church and demonstrate that you are a good person.

A SPECIAL CASE FOR MERCY THAT DOESN'T CREATE INJUSTICE:

So, what are the pro-legalization religious leaders really talking about?

I think most of them are asking for a special case of mercy -- not justice -- for the immigration lawbreakers. Several of the national religious leaders have touched on the best rationale for giving foreign citizens the residency and jobs they broke the law to get. The rationale is that the anti-enforcement lobby has been successful so long in blocking workplace verification programs that citizens from other countries were enticed to break the law, to take jobs here and become rooted in our national community. They are now embedded in families of mixed status, and there isn't a good option that makes it easy to keep the families together while carrying out the justice provided by the full enforcement of just laws.

Here's the big moral dilemma for the pro-amnesty people, though: Making the immigration lawbreakers pay a fine and jump through a few other hoops doesn't keep their presence in the labor market from hurting innocent people. When a government shows mercy, it is forgiving the harm done by the breaking of a law. But the forgiveness does not erase the harm, in this case the depression of wages or the inability to even obtain a job by a citizen of this national community.

Every nation has immigration laws to protect the most vulnerable workers of their national community. Surely the religious advocates of S. 744 are not saying that a nation's immigration laws are unjust in this protective purpose. If they are just, then allowing a person to keep a job that was obtained unlawfully creates injustice for the 20 million American workers who want a full-time job and can't find one. More than 7 million of the illegal foreign workers are not in agriculture but in the construction, manufacturing and service occupations where a disproportionate share of the unemployed Americans are seeking jobs.

I do not doubt the sincere concern of the pro-legalization religious leaders for illegal foreign workers they know and I do not doubt that a moral case can be made for mercy for at least some of these foreign workers. But Christian justice demands at least an equal amount of concern to be shown to the most vulnerable members of our own national community. If you are going to back legislation to add millions of illegal foreign workers to the legal job market, what are you proposing to soften the harm to our vulnerable neighbors?

An answer can be found in the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan. As a matter of economic justice, it called for cutting legal immigration in half and stopping most illegal immigration through mandatory workplace verification. By failing to pass those reforms, Congress has allowed millions more foreign citizens to illegally take U.S. jobs and has contributed to stagnant and falling real wages for large segments of our population.

Christian principles would seem to demand a more just immigration system that better protects the most vulnerable among us.

Sadly, comprehensive immigration reform in every form proposed to date does the opposite of softening the blow and includes entries of huge new waves of legal foreign workers in the future, greatly exacerbating the suffering of America's unemployed and impoverished. Christians seeking governmental mercy for the current immigration lawbreakers in our country need to seek it in legislation that also provides justice for the most vulnerable of our national community. S. 744 does not even attempt to meet that standard.

Sincerely,

ROY BECK

P.S. Although I am President of the non-partisan NumbersUSA and am sending this through our email system, this letter does not represent the organization, which has no religious identity or affiliation. I send this as an individual on the basis of my own Christian commitment and life-long involvement in the church, including six years as Associate Editor of the national-circulation United Methodist Reporter.