“Fiscal Responsibility” at work, cont.

The Alabama Homeland Security Department expects massive budget cuts this upcoming year due to a reduction in flow of federal dollars.

“It will be about a 40 to 50 percent cut in the state’s homeland security budget,” says John Scripture, spokesperson for the head of the Alabama Department of Homeland Security Spencer Collier (ADHS).

Accordingly, DHS expects to greatly reduce its programs and projects:

These cuts and reduction in funds for functioning programs will be a blow to the ADHS. However, the ADHS will require more funds from the state’s general fund to fulfill its newly bestowed duties. According to the Alabama’s new immigration law, the state’s homeland security department is responsible for maintaining the E-Verify system. This will require a 25 percent increase in general funding for the department to run the citizenship authentication system.

For an already cash-strapped state budget, this could pose a problem. Nevertheless, Scripture is assured the funding will be there. “Until the legislature changes its mind, we will require an increase in funding from the general fund.”

For you see, DHS had a fairly large responsibility placed upon it by the Alabama Legislature. In an effort to be sly, the Legislature converted DHS into the Human Resources/Personnel department of every small business in Alabama: all 80,000 of them. (See here and here)

 

State Sen. Gerald Dial interviewed on CNN about HB56

Here is the transcript from ALGOP State Senator Gerald Dial’s interview by Brooke Baldwin on CNN:

BALDWIN: In Alabama, you have got supporters of the state’s new illegal immigration law expressing some buyer’s remorse. It recently came to a head after police arrested a German who ended later turned out to be a Mercedes-Benz executive, Mercedes-Benz, a major employer in the state of Alabama.

Also then, a Japanese man was detained, and he turned out to work for Honda, another big employer. That prompted a paper in Missouri to invite foreign carmakers to relocate there. Take a look at the quote: “We are the Show Me State, not the show me your papers state” — “Saint Louis Post-Dispatch.”

Joining me now from Montgomery, State Senator Gerald Dial. He is Alabama’s Republican whip.

And, Senator Dial, thanks for coming on.

I know you supported this law, parts of which took effect back in September. It’s considered now — and I have talked to your governor, he agrees — the nation’s toughest. Are you, sir, having some second thoughts?

GERALD DIAL (R), ALABAMA STATE SENATOR: We certainly are. And we’re also looking at making some changes in this law.

We probably overreached. I think most people in Alabama agree that we overreached on this law. And we have met with Attorney General Luther Strange and look at some change that needs to be made to this law. And that’s the good thing about the legislature. The bill we passed last year, we can start in this legislative session and make some changes.

BALDWIN: We will talk about some of that overreaching and maybe potential changes in a minute.

But in terms of I guess the image, are you worried at all that your state is being branded as being hostile to overseas businesses, some surrounding states, i.e. Missouri, clearly eager to push that idea?

DIAL: Well, I certainly am.

And, you know, recruiting industry is one of the most competitive things in America. It’s worse than recruiting quarterbacks for your high school or college football team. And so we’re certainly concerned about this. And we have worked diligently in this state for 40 years to overcome some of the images that we have had.

And to see it certainly regress back to those images that are certainly not Alabama, that don’t portray the true and real Alabama certainly bothers all of us. So, we’re committed to making some changes so we can help to overcome those images.

BALDWIN: And just so I’m clear, sir, when you say make changes, we’re not talking repeal the law. You’re making tweaks. Is that correct?

DIAL: Well, we’re talking about some tweaks, but some major tweaks that we think will make this law more amenable to people of this state.

What we did, we overreached, and we — not only in trying to make sure we didn’t have illegal immigrants in this state. We also have penalized our own citizens who have lived here all their lives. All the hardships we placed on them are also hardships that we tried to place on illegal immigrants. And this was not the intention of this bill. It was not my intention.

And I made a mistake in voting on this bill as it is today, and I’m a person that will admit I made a mistake, and I’m committed to trying to correct those mistakes. And we’re working on those as you speak.

BALDWIN: All right. So, as you — you admit this mistake, how, then, do you craft legislation that would ensure your police officers don’t arrest more foreign executives whose firms provide jobs to the people of your state?

DIAL: Well, you know, that was a unique case and certainly one that probably could have been handled with a lot more compassion. But, you know, when with I go to Europe I have to have my passport to even check in a hotel.

So the individual should have certainly should have had identification with him. He made a mistake. I don’t know all the details, but he could have been a little more compassionate, say, send somebody to the room and get your passport and identify yourself.

We’ve put our law enforcement people in an awkward position of trying to enforce a law that’s not really that clear. I’ve met with the attorney general of this state, Luther Strange, last week. He has come forward with some suggestions in changing the bill, and some of these we’re going to encompass into a bill that we’re going to introduce early on in the session.

BALDWIN: So perhaps the toughest immigration law in the land may no longer be that way if you have a little something to do with it. We’ll stay on this, Alabama state senator Gerald Dial. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

DIAL: Thank you very much.

 

Attorney General Strange admits ulterior motive of Section 28 of HB56

Scott Beason always defended Section 28, the “your paper’s, please” for school enrollment provision of HB56, as quite benign:

According to Beason and other supporters of the law, Alabama taxpayers deserve an accurate assessment of how much they pay to educate the children of illegal immigrants.

I disputed this claim and suggested that the purpose was much for ambitious.

So it is not really just about statistics and when AG Luther Strange argued before a federal court that: “No child will be denied an education based on unlawful status,” he should have added “not yet.

The real purpose of Section 28 was to enable “a fresh challenge to Plyler v. Doe, and the idea that schools are obligated to provide a free education to illegal immigrants.”

Well, Luther Strange, the ALGOP Alabama Attorney General, admitted as much yesterday in his belated call to significantly revise HB56.

Section 28, which has also been blocked by the Eleventh Circuit, allows collection of data about the number of undocumented immigrants or their children in Alabama schools and requires a report of the costs of educating those students — both in fiscal terms and the effect on the quality of education on other students — to the Legislature, but makes it clear that those students cannot be denied a public education. Some have speculated that the purpose of this endless data collection was to eventually mount a legal challenge to various federal government requirements regarding who deserves a public school education, and the attorney general’s letter lends some credence to that argument.

“It is my understanding that the purpose of Section 28 was to collect data for future litigation involving the State,” Strange wrote. “As chief law officer for the State, my judgment is that the costs of gathering this data at this point in time, in terms of diversion of resources and the effect this section has had on the current litigation, far outweigh any need to gather data for future litigation.

Strange suggested that section should be repealed.

 

Alabama lost 7% of construction jobs after HB56 went in effect (Facetiousness alert)

Remember when the ALGOP touted the October drop in unemployment as evidence that HB56 was working. I questioned then (1) could we extrapolate anything from a single metric and (2) if it proved that HB56 worked, then a lot more undocumented immigrants were employed in government and professional services than we thought.

If you listen to talk-radio, one sector which is evidently overrun with undocumented immigrants and should be impacted by HB56 is the construction. industry.  I am looking forward to Rep. Hammon, Sens. Beason and Sens. Taylor tout this report. According to the Birmingham Business Journal:

The Birmingham metro area was one of the 146 U.S. metros that lost construction jobs in October, according to a new report. . .

Statewide, Alabama lost 6,100 jobs in that same period, bringing construction employment down 7 percent to 81,900, AGCA said.

(Wink, wink: I am being a little facetious here. An isolated metric does not reveal much by itself and certainly does show a causal relationship. I still think cherry-picking a few metrics is poor economic analysis; however, if the GOP wants to play the game, so can I.)

 

Mobile Press-Register says Repeal HB56

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.

 

Why they come, cont.

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.

 

What part of Legal Immigration Don’t you understand?

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.”

 

Better Quote of the Day

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.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. He proposed a path to legality a few weeks ago.

 

Quote of the Day

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.

 

Thinking Christianly about Immigration, Part 1

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?