Wittenberg Gate

Immigrant Exploitation

Whenever people exist in an underground culture, they are vulnerable to exploitation. We see this among teen runaways, the homeless, or those who participate in illegal industries, such as prostitution, drug trafficking, and pornography. Wherever the law cannot be brought in to hold people accountable, abusers, criminals and exploiters will flourish.

So why are so many people working so hard to perpetuate a situation in which illegal immigrants exist in just such an environment? Why do they claim that as they do so, they are working for the immigrants? What are illegals to do when their employer doesn't pay, they fall victim to domestic violence, their kids are molested, their landlord doesn't provide running water, or their home is burglarized? They can't risk exposure by calling in the appropriate authorities, and their exploiters know it.

My regular readers know that I don't get political very often on this site, but as we seek a Christian response to the recent debates about U.S. immigration, I find myself frustrated that this point is not being clearly made. The case has been well made that illegals are exploiting our system and our generosity, but little has been said about how they are themselves exploited by an underground culture we allow to exist by failing to prevent illegal entry into this country.

I keep hearing that immigrants are taking jobs Americans won't take. Is it that Americans won't do the work, or is it that they won't do it at wages below the minimum wage and under conditions that OSHA and labor unions would never allow? It seems to me that the same people who argue for minimum wage laws, claiming any less pay would be exploitative, are also arguing for letting undocumented workers work here for less than minimum wage. Where are the labor unions protesting the working conditions of migrant farm workers? Why is it okay with these folks that immigrants are coming here illegally and becoming a part of a permanent, exploited underclass they have little chance of escaping?

Those who want immigration reform or enforcement of current law are being accused of being anti-immigration, racist, and worse. Three of my four grandparents were immigrants to the United States. I think our ethnic richness is one of the strengths of America. But when my grandparents came here, poor as they were, they supported themselves, came here under the law, and they were protected by the law. Through honest hard work they bettered their lives and gave their children opportunities  they never would have had in their homelands. I don't want less for immigrants coming here today. As long as we perpetuate an environment in which becoming a part of an underground immigrant culture is fairly easy, millions of people will come here and become vulnerable to exploiters and criminals.

Recently I heard someone making the argument that we need these undocumented workers because so many of them are paying social security taxes, that if we lost their contributions, the Social Security system would collapse. I am skeptical of that claim, but whatever the case, it is unlikely these people will ever be able to collect Social Security. So are we saying it is a good thing that we are taking this money from them and giving it to others, using it to prop up a failing Social Security system? Is this justice?

I have also heard it said that if migrant farm workers were paid legal wages and worked under lawful conditions, we would all have to pay more for food. So is the argument that it is okay for us rich folk to have artificially low food prices supported on the backs of exploited workers? Is this justice?

Some may say that these people are better off being exploited here than they were living in their homelands, and after all, they chose to come here. The same thing can be said of the fifteen year-old runaway that escapes an abusive home and ends up living with a forty-five year-old pedophile. Yet the guy's still a creep, isn't he? It would be better if the law protected her, wouldn't it? We should arrest the man if we can, shouldn't we? We should place the girl in state custody for her own protection if we can, shouldn't we?

Like the young girl, many immigrants leave home with visions of a better life. And many, like the young girl, find themselves trapped in a harsher reality. They labor here and pay taxes without a vote or representation. They are victims of abusers and criminals and have no protection. They grow old here and have no access to health care and no retirement or Social Security. Yet many claim it is justice to perpetuate this situation. It is kind to go on this way. Charitable, even. I say this "kindness" is cruel.

By not enforcing current laws, and not securing our borders, not only are we making Americans vulnerable to foreign enemies and to those who would exploit our system, we are also creating and perpetuating an environment in which the exploitation of illegal immigrants is rampant. If we decide we want foreign workers, let's set up a program that makes it legal. Let it be a program that assures that they will be fairly treated, and yet make fair contributions to the American economy from which they benefit. Until then, let's enforce the laws we have and stop the flood of illegals entering our country in pursuit of a false "American dream." What we have now benefits neither Americans nor her illegal immigrants.

For more information on the immigration debate:

'Answering 13 Frequently Asked Questions About Illegal Immigration' from Right Wing News.
(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Illegal Ingrates by LaShawn Barber.

A Political Savior

Yesterday my husband and I were discussing with our Sunday School class (8th and 9th graders) that many people were expecting a political Messiah, and were disappointed that Christ came to save them from their sins instead of saving them from Rome. What is ironic is that eventually Christianity was a major factor (some historians argue the major factor) in the fall of the Roman Empire. It didn't happen, though, because Christ rode in with a sword and conquered the Romans. It happened because Christ rode in with the sword of His Word, conquered the hearts of men, and consequently a culture. (Rev. 19:13-16)

At La Shawn Barber's Corner, I just read the results of a fascinating analysis of data from the last election, and La Shawn's thoughtful comments, from her Christian worldview. (They were published in The American Conservative, by author Steve Sailer) I hope you will all go read La Shawn's post, but the data in a nutshell is this: An analysis of white families in red vs. blue states shows that red state families are producing more children than blue state families.

Mere numbers alone, then, might give conservatives reason for optimism for the political future of our culture. I think, though, that the picture is really rosier than these numbers alone would indicate.

Palestinian George Washington?

As Fox News was covering Arafat's burial this morning, a guest commentator began to compare the Palestinian view of Arafat to how Americans view George Washington. Many British called him a terrorist, he said. Then he began to bring in the name of Ronald Reagan. That's when E. D. Hill pounced, and firmly and passionately rejected any such comparisons.

As I reflected on this incident--and we have heard many other similar attempts to compare terrorists to Patriots--I have to wonder, does the Islamic worldview actually permit someone to, with sincerity, compare the life of George Washington to that of Yassar Arafat? In Islamic ethics do uniformed soldiers engaging in warfare exist on the same moral plane with those who order the strapping of explosives onto brainwashed teenagers and exploding them into a crowd of old men, women, children, and babies?

I don't think so. I think there may be another explanation. I think our enemies are attempting to exploit our own moral weakness, namely, our rejection of an absolute standard of truth and justice, and our willingness to see truth, including ethical truth, as a relative thing. Each woman is able to choose if killing her unborn baby is "right for her." Unmarried, unrelated people living together are called "roommates" if that is what they prefer, or a "family" if that is what they call themselves.

So why not call people who blow up busloads of school children, "Freedom fighters" and American soldiers, "Terrorists?" On what grounds can a moral relativist object?

Check the Box that Best Describes....

Our presidential election was expected to be a close one; perhaps so close that the outcome would be decided by the courts or the House of Representatives. As it turned out, President Bush was reelected rather handily and it really wasn't all that close (as elections go) after all.

Now the speculators are pouring over the poll data and trying to figure out why the Democrats lost the election for the presidency as well as for several Senate and House seats. The thing that is jumping out at the analysts is when asked what motivated their vote, and given a list of broad choices, such as, "Iraq," "Terrorism," or "Health Care," Bush supporters chose "Moral Issues" in overwhelming numbers. Many have concluded that issues regarding homosexual marriage (so-called) motivated a bigoted right-wing response from the heartland of America. Although recent court decisions that have attempted to force "gay marriage" on an unwilling populace has certainly been a factor, I think the pundits are failing to see another factor at work in our culture.

Many within the church have taken on the task of addressing worldview issues. In recent decades, the church has absorbed a lot of the prevailing cultural philosophies so that humanism, existentialism and moral relativity have crept into the average Christian's thinking. Folks such as Gary DeMar, James Boice, R.C. Sproul, our friend Kenneth Gentry, and many others have been hard at work, ministering to the Church by instructing us on how to conform our thoughts to the Scriptures and "take every thought captive," to Christ.