Category Archives: IMMIGRATION

‘Foreigners’ 101 for the Faithful

Christianity, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Nationhood, Uncategorized

“I’m often surprised by how many Christians and Jews are confused about what the Bible tells us about national borders, foreigners, citizenship and the law,” writes Joseph Farah. In “What the Bible says about illegal immigration,” Mr. Farah teases out the differences between the “stranger” of the bible and the “illegal alien” who has usurped him in the mind of many a “bad theologist”:

“Countless Bible studies have been conducted in America in recent years using some familiar citations about ‘strangers’ and ‘aliens’ and applying them to our current controversy. Let’s take a look at those – in context.”

* Leviticus 19:33-34: And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
* Exodus 22:21: Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
* Exodus 23:9: Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
* Deuteronomy 10:19: Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
…

“You can develop some really bad theology – not to mention politics and morality – by reading the Bible out of context, by not fully understanding what is being said to whom and about whom.”

Strangers that sojourn with you or live with you do not equate with illegal aliens. In fact, the corollary here, in each and every case, is that the children of Israel were “strangers” in Egypt. That’s why they were to treat their own “strangers” well, because they knew what it is like to be “strangers” in a foreign land.

Clearly, then, what it means to be a “stranger” is to be a foreigner. In the case of the children of Israel in Egypt, they were invited and, at first anyway, were honored guests. Later, they would be oppressed by a generation who “knew not Joseph.” But they were certainly not trespassers. They were certainly not in Egypt illegally. They were certainly not breaking the laws of the land by being in Egypt. In fact, they were commanded not to offend their hosts in any way (Genesis 46:28-34).

So, we must conclude that “stranger” does not equal “illegal alien.” Even when the term “alien” is used in the Bible, it seems to have the exact same meaning as “stranger.”

MORE.

UPDATED: Fiscal Deficit Attributable To Immigration (Ad Hominen Fallacy)

Debt, Economy, IMMIGRATION

According to Edwin Rubenstein, President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis, the average immigrant household generates a deficit of about $17,000 per immigrant household. This figure is a function of the difference between federal benefits received and federal taxes paid. Whereas it used to be “that native-born households generated a federal fiscal surplus—paying more taxes than they received in benefits,” this is no longer the case. “Today’s deficit,” Rubenstein acknowledges, “is too large to be ascribed to any narrowly defined group.” Everyone is in hock. “Food Stamp Nation,” as Pat Buchanan puts it in his latest, admirable book.

Nevertheless, as I’ve previously argued, “from the fact that taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals is morally wrong … it does not follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is economically and morally negligible. Or that such immigration remotely comports with the libertarian goal of curtailing government growth.” It’s like saying that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits (welfare-dependent nationals), repelling the next lot (welfare-dependent non-nationals) is unnecessary given that the damage has already been done.

Rubenstein:

There are about 13 million such households in the U.S. Well, when you do the math—13 million times $17,000—you get a federal “immigration deficit” of $220 billion.
That is the fiscal deficit attributable to immigration. It equals about 17% of the entire federal deficit.
That is a big chunk. It’s roughly equal the annual interest now paid on the national debt.

UPDATE (Oct. 20): To James below, I’m glad you wrote: Subscribe to my newsletter, James. In my next WND column, I give you the tools to counter the false argument your kids ought to have been taught at school not to make. Against your numbers, your kids have advanced the ad hominen fallacy. Read tonight’s WND column and join us here.

Was Ronald Reagan An Immigrant?

Ann Coulter, Elections, Founding Fathers, History, IMMIGRATION, Propaganda, Pseudo-history

Gov. Chris Christie’s address on Tuesday, at the Reagan Library, was more rambling than Reaganesque. It was also a little baffling. In the second paragraph, Christie says,

“Ronald Reagan believed in this country. He embodied the strength, perseverance and faith that has propelled immigrants for centuries to embark on dangerous journeys to come here, to give up all that was familiar for all that was possible.”

What’s up with this? Was Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, an immigrant? And why mention immigrants at the onset of your coming-out-as-presidential-candidate address? By so doing, Ann Coulter’s crush is probably attempting to convey that to speak of America is to speak of immigrants.

America=immigration.

John Jay had a different take. He conceived of Americans as “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and custom.” The very opposite of what his descendants are taught.

UPDATE II: Republican Thrust And ‘Perry’ (Perry Feels Your Pain, NOT)

IMMIGRATION, Outsourcing, Politics, Regulation, Republicans, Ron Paul, Taxation, The State

I thought the CNN/Tea Party Debate in Tampa, Florida, was far and away better than the Republican spat in Des Moines, Iowa, last month. Perhaps the network is desperate for the ratings Tea Party sponsorship affords because Wolf Blitzer worked it—even if the focus was placed on the Big Two, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Michelle Bachmann showed that, like her or not, she’s a force of nature. Would that the woman’s eloquence, attractiveness, and the fact that she is seldom fazed could be harnessed in the service of liberty. Like a bulldog, Bachmann latched onto Perry and refused to let go over the governor’s Body Snatcher Program—the forcible invasion of the bodies of little Texan girls. Perry was man enough to apologize for requiring the vaccination of girls as young as 12 against cervical cancer. But a man who would mandate such a thing should never be trusted. Perry is almost as shifty as Bush, although more intelligent than The Shrub.

Jon Huntsman generally came over as the most statist among the Republican contenders. A young man asked him poignantly, “How much of what I earn do you believe I should be able to keep?” Rep. Paul would have replied, “All of it.” Huntsman belabored an incoherent tax plot.

Huntsman managed, however, to brilliantly commandeer Ron Paul’s argument for divesting from Afghanistan. This in response to a question about what he intended to do, as president, for the women and girls of Afghanistan. Nothing, basically, was Huntsman’s retort. Unlike Fox News on whose website there are more images than words, CNN is sure to post debate transcripts by tomorrow, at which time I’ll excerpt Huntsman’s excellent thrust and parry over the need to bring the troops home, look after the homeland, and act as an example to the world by, once again, shining.

However, Huntsman, like most Americans (except for us immigrants), proved that he knows close to nothing about America’s labyrinthine visa programs. He advocated for fixing the immigration system so that the US could import many more brilliant, highly skilled individuals, as if there was a limit on, or an impediment to, such immigration.

THERE are no limits on the number of geniuses American companies can import.

America already has an “Extraordinary Ability” Visa. In exchange for my spouse’s exceptional abilities and qualifications, he was awarded the O-1 visa. And we, in short order, gained green cards.

The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. But, in reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

I believe that before “Why Aren’t The H-1B Hogs Satisfied With The O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa?” was written, no immigration expert had made the simple point above.

That’s right: The O-1 visa program enables the importation of as many geniuses as a company can find, from every corner of the world. Yet, not even Ron Hira (Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Research & Development Policy Committee The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – United States of America), advocate for local talent, bothers to point this out in the course of his many media appearances.

UPDATE I (Sept. 13): Tom, the criteria for Sean were quite rigorous. As I mentioned in the article, the authorities do make it even easier for guys who’re more gifted than my guy; they are given green cards on the spot. “A one-of-a-kind Afrikaner RF engineer we know, who possesses a PhD, publications galore, patented software programs and products, and a company, was told to hop on a plane, family in tow.” He came and left; he and the family didn’t like the USA.

Super models can also get the O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa, I believe. And if they are wealthy and beautiful, why not? Heidi Klum has a unique talent or two—and has generated an industry for the locals.

UPDATE II: PERRY FEELS YOUR PAIN, NOT. JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: “Rick Perry, the anointed front-runner at least at this hour, would have us believe he is a country boy at heart, a down home country cornpone that can relate to the plight of the ordinary American. There’s another side to the Texas governor. ‘Politico’ reports that for years, Perry, who makes $150,000 a year as governor, has enjoyed additional lavish perks and travel mostly funded by wealthy supporters. Imagine that.”

“Texas donors have paid for the governor and his family to travel around the world sometimes on private jets, paid for them to stay at luxury hotels, resorts, vacation in Colorado ski towns, and attend tons of sporting events and concerts. Rick Perry has also accepted a wide range of very expensive gifts, including 22 pairs of cowboy boots, some of them costing $500 a pair. Somebody else even pays his cable TV Bill. Taxpayers pay his rent, $8,500 a month for Perry’s 4,600 square foot mansion in Austin. The governor and his family have been living in the five bedroom seven bath mansion since 2007 while the governor’s mansion undergoes repair. Four years? What sort of repairs are those, do you imagine?”

“It’s all copacetic down there in the lone star state which has some of the loosest ethics and campaign rules in the country. Nonetheless, it is tough to imagine supporters aren’t buying influence when they lavish those perks on the governor. Of course they are. Some donors have wound up with appointments to state commissions, million dollar state grants to businesses they are involved in.”

Perry’s camp insists it is all on the up and up. A spokeswoman told ‘Politico’ the governor fully discloses all gifts and travel in his financial disclosure statements. But that don’t make it cricket.”

Here’s the question — does Rick Perry’s lavish lifestyle, mostly paid for mostly by taxpayers and wealthy friends and donors, match his downhome, awe shucks country boy image?”