Keating's Desk

The conservative Mobile Press-Register calls for the repeal of the Alabama Anti-Immigrant law, HB56.

But we’d like to hear from Gov. Robert Bentley — and other corporate executives and officials, all of whom surely must see the folly in trying to enforce this radical law.

The more that supporters defend Alabama’s extremist stance, the more they sound like throwbacks to another era — one known for its poor treatment of people of a different color.

It’s time to call an end to the madness.

Alabama legislators will have to swallow their pride as they repeal the act they once touted as “the nation’s toughest immigration law.” But that’s a far better choice than ignoring the serious consequences that continue to unfold.

I am still waiting for Mike Hubbard and Mike Rogers to call Mitt Romney a socialist for his “push toward a socialistic-leaning government in this country” with RomneyCare and its “socialist” mandates . But I also now expect them to call Newt one as well.

If I see somebody who’s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I’m looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anyone who was ever on welfare. Because what they’ve said is, A, I’m gambling that I won’t get sick, and B, I’m gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors. Now, when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectibles are people who have money, but have calculated it’s not worth the cost to pay. And so I’m actually in favor of finding a way to say, whatever the appropriate level of income is, you ought to have either health insurance, or you ought to post a bond. But we have no right in this society to have a free rider approach, if we’re well off economically, to cheat our neighbors.

Alabama should consider some of these arguments:

Virginia has become one of the few true swing states in presidential elections and, in recent years, has experienced divided partisan control of its state legislature. You’d think that this would have prompted hotly contested state legislative races on Election Day, but in fact only 52 of 140 races had candidates from both major parties – including just 27 percent of elections for the House of Delegates.

Another round of largely uncontested races is just the latest evidence of the failure of winner-take-all, single-member district elections.

Winner-take-all inherently represents voters poorly and tempts partisans to gerrymander outcomes. Although we need other changes like independent redistricting, it’s time to look for a better way grounded in our electoral traditions: fair voting, which is an American form of proportional representation in elections taking place in larger “superdistricts.”

Fair voting may seem new to many readers, but it is used in many national elections and in a growing number of American cities as an alternative to winner-take-all rules.

Fair voting systems allow like-minded voters to pool their votes in multi-seat superdistricts to elect representatives in numbers that reflect the level of public support. It puts voters in charge of their representation in every election, rather than leaving it to redistricting mapmakers once a decade.

Several candidate-based forms of fair voting have been upheld by our courts and fit well with American traditions. Choice voting, in which voters rank candidates in order of choice in at-large elections, helped break the power of urban political machines in New York and Cincinnati. It’s used currently in Cambridge, Mass., and in Minneapolis for their citywide elections.

Used in dozens of U.S. cities today, cumulative voting provides another alternative. From 1870 to 1980, members of the Illinois House of Representatives were elected this way, with voters able to allocate three votes however they wished, with the option to give three to one candidate. Nearly every district elected both Democrats and Republicans.

We created examples of fair voting proposals for Virginia’s congressional elections and state legislative elections by combining single-member districts in proposed plans. For the House of Delegates, for example, Virginia would have 20 superdistricts, each with five members.

Using a fair voting method, winning in a five-seat superdistrict would take about 17 percent of the vote. Winning two seats would take just over a third of the vote, and winning three would require more than 50 percent.

No party would have the votes to shut out the other party from representation, meaning every voter in the state would have real general-election choices and representatives from both major parties.

Voters also would have far more choice in picking which major party candidate would get elected.

Minor parties and independents would also gain a greater chance to hold the major parties accountable and win a seat. Far more African American and Latino voters would have the power to elect preferred candidates, and women candidates would have more chances to increase their representation in the state’s congressional delegation.

Our plans for the Senate and House of Representatives provide similar outcomes. While a fair voting plan for congressional elections would require Congress to repeal a 1967 law mandating one-seat districts, Virginia can act on its own in order to take power away from the political cartographers in state legislative races and give it to voters.

With our government founded on upholding the consent of the governed, it’s time to reject winner-take-all and put voters in charge.

From the Small Wars Journal:

Drug-cartel violence in Mexico escalated dramatically in 2010, with the violence reaching the highest levels since it broke out in 2006; as many as 15,000 people were killed as a result during the year. In 2010, northern states bordering the United States, where trafficking routes were concentrated, were most affected. While the violence has caused forced displacement, the government has not systematically collected figures to indicate its scale.

In 2010, most IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) originated from the states most affected by violence, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. Surveys conducted by a research centre in Ciudad Juárez in Chihuahua estimated that around 230,000 people had fled their homes. According to the survey’s findings, roughly half of them had crossed the border into the United States, with an estimated 115,000 people left internally displaced, predominantly in the states of Chihuahua, Durango, Coahuila and Veracruz.

This raises a future political a foreign policy problem:

Since 2006, when Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared war on the drug cartels, there has been a rise in the number of Mexican nationals seeking political asylum in the United States to escape the ongoing drug cartel violence in their home country. Political asylum cases in general are claimed by those who are targeted for their political beliefs or ethnicity in countries that are repressive or are failing. Mexico is neither. Nonetheless, if the health of the Mexican state declines because criminal violence continues, increases, or spreads, U.S. communities will feel an even greater burden on their systems of public safety and public health from “narco-refugees.” Given the ever increasing cruelty of the cartels, the question is whether and how the U.S. Government should begin to prepare for what could be a new wave of migrants coming from Mexico.

Allowing Mexicans to claim asylum could potentially open a flood gate of migrants to the United States during a time when there is a very contentious national debate over U.S. immigration laws pertaining to illegal immigrants. On the other hand, to deny the claims of asylum seekers and return them to Mexico where they might very well be killed, strikes at the heart of American values of justice and humanitarianism.

What is the extent of this displacement?

Census taken in mid-2010 revealed that two-thirds of the homes in Praxedis G. Guerrero, a town east of Ciudad Juarez, have been abandoned, most likely due to the violence created from the wars between the Sinoloa and Juarez cartels in the area.

That’s about 116,000 homes.

Note to policy makers. Let’s crack down on real criminals, the cartels, and not good people who only want to live peaceably, raise their families, and worship freely.

h/t Helen Rivas.

As I discussed here and here:

“You can wait six years, 15 years or 20 years to come on a family visa,” said Tamar Jaco­by, president of Immigration­Works USA, a coalition of pro-immigration business groups. “For a young, able-bodied man to look for work, he’d apply when he’s 18, and come when he’s 40.”

Newt on the GOP and Immigration:

The party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt a policy that destroys families that have been here a quarter century … finding a way to create legality so they are not separated from their families.

UPDATE: Or try this:

I do not believe that the people of America will expel people who have been here 25 years.

Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.

Gerald Dial on HB56:

And we were kind of caught in a box. We either vote for it or we vote against it. If we voted against it, it looked like we were supporting illegal immigrants into our state. So we voted for it. I made some mistakes and I’m going to try to correct those.

No public policy issue evokes as much emotion today more than immigration; it may have actually eclipsed abortion. Nor may any policy issue be as politically toxic; the “wrong” answer on this single issue may have brought down a GOP presidential front-runner. Debate concerning immigration policy rages from city councils to state legislatures and all the way to the US Supreme Court.

In my home state, the Alabama legislature passed what is touted as the toughest anti-immigration law in the nation, HB56. The GOP-led Legislature’s intent was clear and express. The chief sponsor and GOP House Majority Leader said that HB56 “attacks every aspect of an illegal alien’s life” and “is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport themselves.”

In other policy areas, many of the supporters of HB56 frequently cite Biblical bases to support their respective policy positions (i.e abortion, capital punishment, homosexual marriage, and support of Israel). In fact, many critics derisively refer to these elected-officials and policy-makers as “Bible-thumpers.” But, while many reasons have been offered to justify the present set of anti-immigrant laws, very little reference to the Bible has been made. I am afraid there may be a reason for this silence.

What does the Bible teach us today about immigration? I have always argued that our Christian principles should have a vastly broader application than a few narrow social issues. Are there any principles found in the Scriptures which might inform our policy on immigration? I think so.

At a very general level, the Bible teaches us that we must be careful that our laws relating to immigrants are just. The Bible teaches that all civil rulers are “ministers” of justice. (Rom. 13:4) Whether kings, presidents, judges or any other official, all those in “authority” will be held accountable for their leadership, their actions and their enactments. (Jer. 23:1, Heb. 13:17, Jam. 3:1)

Justice is the standard by which every governing authority will be judged. The Lord commands: “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow. .. ” (Deut. 16:20) Contrariwise, the prophet in Isaiah 10 warns: “[w]oe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions, So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights, So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans.” Similarly, the Psalmist decries those that “frame injustice by statute” (Psalm 94:20)

Correspondingly, civil leaders are exhorted to seek from the Scriptures principles to rightly discern between justice and injustice. Proverbs 2:2-9 teaches: “My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path”

So, should legislation like HB56 be considered an “evil statute” as defined by biblical standards? Does it frame justice or injustice toward the immigrant?

Since all Scripture is profitable for instruction and correction, the commandments and rightly-derived principles therefrom must form the foundation in formulating a Christian ethic of justice. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

For Old Testament believers, the Pentateuch and the Prophets provided very specific and express commands concerning the treatment of immigrants. The treatment of immigrants was literally addressed hundreds of times. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word mostly used for immigrant is ger.  This word is variably translated “resident alien,” “sojourner,” “alien,” “foreigner” and “stranger.”  You can see in Genesis 15:13 the common use of the word wherein the Hebrews were described as ger in Egypt.

• “Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners (gerim, plural for ger) in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.”

Then when the Israelites sojourned in Egypt for 400 years and after taking possession of the Promised Land, they were commanded specifically to treat the immigrant (ger) in Isreal especially well.

• Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a stranger (ger) sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger (ger) who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers (gerim) in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
• Exodus 23:9 “You shall not oppress a sojourner (ger). You know the heart of a sojourner (ger), for you were sojourners (gerim) in the land of Egypt.

In very particular ways, the manner this love for the immigrant should appear in public was actually prescribed. Immigrants in Israel were to enjoy all the protections of the Law.

• Numbers 15:15-16: “For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger (ger) who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner (ger) shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger (ger) who sojourns with you.”

For instance, the immigrants were allowed rest on the Sabbath, the same as the native Hebrew.

• Exo. 20:10 “but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.”

Probably because of the easy temptation to exploit the ger, the Hebrews were expressly commanded to treat the immigrant fairly and equitably at the workplace,

• Deut. 24:14: “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners (gerim) who are in your land within your towns.”

In addition to general hospitality and equity, the ger was to be treated fairly in the courts:

• Deut 1:16: And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien (ger) who is with him.

And, although excluded from some religious ceremonial rites, immigrants were allowed access to all the other privileges and immunities of the Law, the same as a native Hebrew. For instance, the Cities of Refuge were open to the immigrant, (Josh. 20:9) and immigrants enjoyed the privilege to own land. (Eze. 47:21-23)

In spite of all these specific provisions, God still saw fit to set the immigrant within a privileged category in ancient Israel. In fact, the ger is included alongside widows and orphans within a legally protected class. Like Deuteronomy 27:19, this triad-motif is continually employed by the writers of the Scriptures throughout. For instance, Psalm 146:9 declares:

• The LORD watches over the sojourners (gerim); he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

And in the Prophets, Jer 22:3 states:

• Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien (ger), the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

While many today complain that modern-day immigrants consume welfare benefits, attend “our” schools, and clog up hospitals, we learn from Deuteronomy 10 of God’s especial care for members of this triad:

• He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner (ger), giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners (gerim) in the land of Egypt.

To substantiate this promise and love for the ger, God actually demanded and specified special financial provision and assistance for the ger in the Hebrew Republic. The Hebrews were always to leave the edges of their field unharvested for immigrants for gleaning. Deuteronomy 24:17-22 commands:

• “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner (ger), the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over them again. It shall be for the sojourner (ger), the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not strip it afterward. It shall be for the sojourner (ger), the fatherless, and the widow.  You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

The same command is repeated at Leviticus 19:9-10 and Leviticus 23:22. By way of example of this command, Ruth (a Moabite immigrant herself) gleaned from the fields of Boaz. (Ruth 2) The immigrant also shared with the Levites, the widows, and orphans in the annual celebratory offerings in the Feast of Weeks (Deut. 16:11) and the Feast of Booths (Deut. 16:14).  In addition, immigrants (gerim) were to “eat and be filled” in the triennial poor tithe offerings. (Deut 14:28-29, 26:12)

The Hebrews were not to grumble about this financial sharing either, but instead rejoice.

• Deut 26:5-11 “And you shall make response before the LORD your God, ‘A wandering Aramean was my father. And he went down into Egypt and sojourned (ger) there, few in number, and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians treated us harshly and humiliated us and laid on us hard labor. Then we cried to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. And the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great deeds of terror, with signs and wonders. And he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And behold, now I bring the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, O LORD, have given me.’ And you shall set it down before the LORD your God and worship before the LORD your God. And you shall rejoice in all the good that the LORD your God has given to you and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the sojourner (ger) who is among you.”

On top of this, special curses awaited those that mistreated immigrants.  A specific curse was reserved for those depriving the immigrant (ger) of justice.

• “Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner (ger), the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” Deut. 27:19

As another instance, in Zech 7:8-14

• “And the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner (ger), or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.” But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the LORD of hosts. “As I called, and they would not hear, so they called, and I would not hear,” says the LORD of hosts, “and I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations that they had not known. Thus the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and the pleasant land was made desolate.”

This brief survey only represents a sampling on the commands specifically related to immigrants.

Repeatedly, the reasons provided for this special treatment are: (1) God’s love for the immigrant (ger) and (2) the Hebrews were once ger themselves in Egypt. Accordingly, the immigrant was to be highly regarded in Isreal, yet because of human flesh and jealousy, a legal hedge of protection was erected around the immigrant.

So what does all this mean for modern times?  Without a doubt, the proper exposition of Old Testament law itself is hard. Making modern application of its principles for the Church is hard enough; further still, rightly applying those principles to the City takes, not dogmatism, but great circumspection, prudence, and humbleness.

However, for New Testament believers, the Mosaic Law is a formulation of the moral law, the higher law if you will, that is known to all people (Rom. 1-2) and which binds all people. While the specific formulation of the higher law found in the Mosaic commandments is limited to a “peculiar” people during a particular period of redemptive history, the moral principles found therein are still binding on all peoples today, although the ceremonial aspects have certainly been abrogated. (By way of example, see apostle Paul derived a principle for the New Covenant church from an obscure Mosaic law prohibiting the muzzling an ox in I Timothy 5:18.) Rightly dividing the moral principles and general equity away from the ceremonial, the judicial, and the Isrealitish-special-holiness aspects continues to be our task. So while a lot of the specific laws of the Old Testament are no longer binding, the moral principles, which can be found, certainly are.

So what principles might be gleaned from all these passages above concerning the ger?

(1) The overwhelming counsel and testimony is clear: treat the immigrant well by practice and by law. (2) Any modern law, which affects the modern day ger, immigrants, better be narrowly and circumspectly drafted. Does the law, on it face or by application, single out immigrants for greater suspicion or humiliation? Is the immigrant treated more harshly than the native by the enforcement of the law? Is exploitation of the immigrant encouraged, explicitly or implicitly? (3) We must always consider the heart of the immigrant and put ourselves in their shoes. (4)  Jealousy, resentment, and suspicion of the immigrant should be foreign to our mindset and words.  (5) A nation or state governed by these principles will be viewed by the nations as hospitable to immigrants by word, deed, and law.

In the coming posts, I hope to further attempt some modern applications of these principles and answer some other issues:

• What inalienable rights have immigrants been endowed with by their Creator?
• What justice is “due” the immigrant at the borders of our country (or the “gates” of our cities)?
• Do immigrants at the border have rights? For instance, is it a just to cause an immigrant to wait twenty years after application before he can lawfully enter our borders?
• What is a just criteria for screening immigrants at the border?
• Does the principles hereinabove require an open-borders policy?
• Do our policies implicitly allow or encourage the maltreatment and exploitation of immigrants in the workplace or on the farm?
• Should we be a “sanctuary” for immigrants?
• What justice is due “illegal” immigrants?”
• What would a federal immigration policy look like that was informed by these principles?

The October 2011 Alabama unemployment numbers are out; thankfully, the rate did fall by .5%.  Desperate for any semblance of good news, the ALGOP is hailing this as vindication for HB56.

Rep. Mickey Hammon declared

Despite how desperately illegal immigrant sympathizers have tried to portray this law as somehow harmful to our state’s economy, the truth is more Alabamians are working today thanks in part to our decision to crackdown on illegal immigration . . . The evidence is clear: this law is helping put more Alabamians back to work, and that’s why such a strong majority of Alabamians support it.

Scott Beason tweeted:

AL unemployment rate down 0.5% in Oct. An “intended consequence” of the anti-ILLEGAL immigration law. Nation down 0.1, TN down 0.1, GA n/c

Are they correct? Is this a counter-factual to all prior economic research?

Figures from the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations show that the state created 9,700 jobs in October. Most of the gains were in the trade, transportation and utilities sector, the government sector, and the professional and business services sector.

That HB56 caused gains in these sectors  makes perfect sense.  I mean, we all know that the trade (i.e. exporting and/or importing trade services) , transportation (i.e. airlines with E-verify), utilities sectors (i.e. Alabama Power with E-verify) are just overflowing with undocumented immigrants. And all those illegal immigrants in the “professional and business services sector” just hiked right back across the desert after  HB56. And of course, thank goodness all those government agencies (which already used E-verify)  got rid of their illegal immigrants, too.

In fact, according to Hammon/Beason logic, HB56 is so powerful and effective that it caused the unemployment rates in other states to fall as well: Florida (fell .3% in October..4% since June) and Tennessee (fell .2% in October, .6% since June).  And the law’s impact reaches all the way to Louisiana which unemployment rate fell to the lowest point in April 2010. And even Georgia’s rate fell this past month after increases in unemployment every month since the passage of their anti-immigrant law.

All facetiousness aside, I don’t think much can be gleaned from an isolated month of macroeconomic figures.

Ahmad Ijaz, a University of Alabama economist, said he believes it is a stretch to credit the immigration law for Alabama’s declining unemployment numbers. He said it is too soon to tell whether the law is actually creating jobs for state residents.

“The decline in unemployment is mostly because of seasonal hiring and fewer workers in the labor force,” he said.

The Anniston Star nails it:

Unfortunately, what Dial supports will not be enough. Making the law less of a burden on Alabamians can’t make up for the damage done to the state’s economy and reputation. The best thing the GOP can do is admit it was a bad idea, apologize for problems the law caused and repeal it. Anything less will do little to undo the real damage.