Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[sprout]

I was commenting on the reference you gave in post #90 (which is the only one I saw). Since you quoted him extensively I assumed you looked at him as a credible source. I haven’t seen your reference to Professor Roett’s comments.

Apparently you only read bits and pieces of that post. I realize it was lengthy and I crammed as much info in there as I could. The references, quotes and links to Professor Roett’s comments are all here in post #90 as well as in my last reply to you.

You know nothing of the sort but if you can point to the pope’s comments on NAFTA I would be interested in reading them. Give me the links and I’ll review them. I might disagree with them but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss them; they are serious sources.

I’m specifically referring to comments you have made in the past regarding the Bishops and Papal Statements I’ve provided you previously on other threads i.e. the Minuteman thread.

You will find the quotes and links on the Pope Benedict’s statement regarding 3rd world debt and SA’s also in post #90.

Generally when people resort to insults it’s because they can’t make an intellectual argument. Stick to referrencing (serious) sources that support your position.

don’t know how else to respond to someone who says

“I would disagree with your conclusion even if you had quoted someone who’s opinion on the economic affects of NAFTA et al should be taken seriously.”

if you consider being closed-minded an insult then don’t make such “closed-minded” statements.

 

[sprout]

SPROUT,

You keep not answering questions that are essential in this debate, the first and most important one is this…DOES THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAVE A RIGHT AND A VESTED INTEREST IN KNOWING WHO IS ENTERING IT’S BORDERS?

it’s a redundant question. No one on this thread has even suggested otherwise.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Actually, you have supported the idea that the US does not have a right to know who enters the country by your support for illegal immigration. That’s the deal, if they are here ILLEGALLY, means the US government doesn’t know they’re here. It also means THEY BROKE THE LAW…yet you keep mumbling nonsense about NAFTA?CAFTA World Bank which is not the question here at all. We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about whether or not it’s a sin to violate the law. You’ve admited (in your last post) that the US has a RIGHT to know who is in the country. By definition illegal immigrants have circumvented that right…ergo…illegal immigration is a sin with varying degrees of culpability

 

[sprout]

I can speak as one - who is disappointed that he must do the work of 2 people and work like a dog for $8 an hour because there are stronger younger Mexicans here illegally who will do this gleefully because they know full well they are sending good money home and they will only be doing it for a few years anyway and then they will get to go back home and enjoy the nest egg they have saved. In three years, when they have gone back home, I am still here in America, still working like a dog, competing with the next wave of gleeful young Mexicans, here illegally on THEIR 3-year shift.

Do you see any injustice here? On which side?

This scenario would be true regardless of nationality or skin color. There will always be younger people entering the workforce. Stronger, younger teens, living with their parents, taking their first job, able to live on less income who are competing for jobs. This will always be.

 

[sprout]

Actually, you have supported the idea that the US does not have a right to know who enters the country by your support for illegal immigration.

The above is patently false.

Unless you can quote me “in context” what I have posted that specifically states that I “support the idea that the US does not have a right to know who enters” in spite of the fact I claim otherwise, then this is just a false mischaracterization on your part.

I have stated that a sin is an offense against God. I do not equate ALL violations of man’s laws as sins unless they are also violations against God’s laws. Again, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49

Here is a clear explanation given by Genesis315 in post #43 and followed up in post #44 with CCC quotes.
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=174727&page=3

There is a Catholic principle called the universal destination of goods. God created the world for all men, and therefore all men have a right to the necessities of life. If one nation were hording things in such a way that people of other nations could not have their basic needs met, and those needs could be met through immigration that violated the civil law of the hording state, then such “illegal” immigration would be justified.

Sorry you think NAFTA/CAFTA/IMF & SA’s is just “mumbling nonsense”, but it does speak exactly to this issue of culpability and sin by showing the ways the US is hording things in such a way that these immigrants aren’t able to meet basic needs.

The truth is often more difficult to swallow than is blaming others.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Sorry you think NAFTA/CAFTA/IMF & SA’s is just “mumbling nonsense”, but it does speak exactly to this issue of culpability and sin by showing the ways the US is hording things in such a way that these immigrants aren’t able to meet basic needs.

This is more of a political discussion…but once again, a basic question…who is responsible for the ills of the Mexican Economy? Is it the US, or is it the corrupt Mexican system? We had an illegal alien problem LONG before NAFTA/CAFTA.

So, IF the US has a right to know who is entering it’s borders and illegal immigrants are flagrantly violating that right, they have commited a sin…again, we can discuss CUPABILITY all you want, but, none the less, it is a sin.

As for citing the “Universal Destination And The Private Ownership of Goods” this addresses property ownership and it’s use more than anything, and the last sentence promotes the fact that political authorities…governments…have the right to regulate this. From the CCC

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.[188]

A sin is an offense against God, and God has mandated that we follow the laws of our governments, the laws of the US government are the most HUMAN FRIENDLY laws in the world, there IS a legal way to immigrate into the country…so all your arguements fade because of the fact that you admit the US has the right to know who is entering it’s borders,…the US has ratified that right in Law…a violation of that right is a violation of the law, and therefore a sin (with varying degrees of mitigation).

Your problem is with the corrupt economic and political system in Mexico…but you seem to be of the “Blame America First” crowd.

 

[sprout]

A sin is an offense against God, and God has mandated that we follow the laws of our governments…the US has ratified that right in Law…a violation of that right is a violation of the law, and therefore a sin (with varying degrees of mitigation).

Ah! I see your error. You make a false conclusion above.

You say sin is an offense against God. (True)
God mandates we follow the laws of our government. (This is not entirely true, which I will show.)
and then you come to the false conclusion that to disobey or violate any law a country makes is therefore a sin. (False)

This simply is not true nor logical.

The United States Government can not tell me I am sinning. Only God & Church can tell me I am sinning.

Nations can & do make “unjust” and “immoral laws”. We are not to blindly follow our Nations or their laws. If God wanted us to blindly follow all laws that Nations make then He wouldn’t have said:

**“We must obey God rather than men”:49 **

Here’s what the CCC says about the Duties of civil authorities

2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” 41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. **No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.
**

Furthermore,

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. ** Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community.** “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 48 “We must obey God rather than men”: *49 (ACTS 5:29)

ACTS 5:27-29

27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

According to your false conclusion of blind obediance to any & all laws of man the apostles in the story would be guilty of sin for their “disobedience” of the orders of the Sanhedrin “not to teach in his name”. You are failing to make the “distinction between serving God and serving the political community.”

So you see, the entire discussion of the issue of NAFTA’s effects on the common good or universal good is entirely relevant when discussing the “morality” of the law and it’s application and ESPECIALLY when trying to understand whether it meets GOD’s criteria for whether or not it is a sin.

 

[sprout]

Oh, and to add to my previous post:

Since NAFTA resulted in the loss of 1.5 Million jobs in Mexico, and the US has continued to restrict “legal” immigrantion to 5,000 “unskilled workers” this leaves at least 1,499,500 Mexicans without work to provide for their families and the legal means to migrate to the US for work.

The US is directly involved in the loss of these jobs. The US has profited from of NAFTA. The US has profited from the World Bank loans to 3rd world countries. The US has profited from the Structural Adjustments in Mexico so they can pay these loans.

Therefore, the immigration laws restricting legal access for these people does not serve the Universal good. It serves profits at the expense of human rights.

 

[Ender]

NAFTA resulted in the loss of 1.5 Million jobs in Mexico

Henry Ford was responsible for the loss of tons of jobs in the US but no one thought that this was a bad thing. It’s important to know whether your source was claiming a net loss of 1.5 million jobs throughout Mexico or saying that industry X (e.g. agriculture) lost 1.5 million jobs … and negleted to mention the offsetting jobs created in other industries. Mexican agriculture is extremely inefficient, as was US agriculture a century ago, and as it becomes more efficient more workers will be displaced from agricultural jobs - and freed up for more productive work. “About 22 percent of Mexico’s labor force works in agriculture, which generates only 4.4 percent of GDP.” - (USDA report 2004) fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/2004/January/pgs%2014-15.pdf

The US is directly involved in the loss of these jobs. The US has profited from of NAFTA.

Mexico signed on to NAFTA so they apparently thought it was going to be beneficial to them. Assuming things didn’t work out as they planned, why is this our fault? Besides, why should I accept your contention that it hasn’t been beneficial to Mexico? “NAFTA has been so good for Mexico that fully 20 percent of its GDP is now attributable to trade made possible by NAFTA provisions. NAFTA has benefited the Mexican rural as well as urban workforce by creating thousands of new, higher paying export manufacturing jobs.” (same report as above)

Therefore, the immigration laws restricting legal access for these people does not serve the Universal good. It serves profits at the expense of human rights.

The immigration laws I see most people support are directed at controlling who comes across our borders without regard for who profits or loses. Our interests are not financial, they are based on our perception of what is needed for the security of our nation. For me this objective is non-negotiable.

Ender

 

[sprout]

Thank you for a thoughtful, rational, logical response. I appreciate it, but certainly don’t deserve it after the snarkiness of my last response to you for which I apologize.

QUOTE=Ender
Henry Ford was responsible for the loss of tons of jobs in the US but no one thought that this was a bad thing.

I highly doubt “no one thought this a bad thing” but that aside…Ford Motors was a US Company. A more fitting analogy would be if China were to strong-arm the US into a trade agreement that resulted in the loss of jobs for 1.5 million US workers.

QUOTE=Ender
It’s important to know whether your source was claiming a net loss of 1.5 million jobs throughout Mexico or saying that industry X (e.g. agriculture) lost 1.5 million jobs … and negleted to mention the offsetting jobs created in other industries.

Offsetting jobs created? 1.5 million peasant farmers heading into towns to compete for unskilled jobs in manufacturing? What jobs are being created?

Quote:
“NAFTA displaced 1.5 million Mexican peasant farmers. Many of these displaced farmers sought industrial jobs, causing Mexican wages to drop by 20 percent. Communities and families were torn asunder as those who lost their livelihoods undertook the perilous journey to the United States in hopes of finding some way to support their family.” Bishop Álvaro Ramazzini of San Marcos, Guatemala
ncronline.org/NCR_Online/arch…05/111105w.php

QUOTE=Ender;2679456
Mexican agriculture is extremely inefficient, as was US agriculture a century ago, and as it becomes more efficient more workers will be displaced from agricultural jobs - and freed up for more productive work.

maybe inefficient for global exporting, but certainly not inefficient to enjoy a healthly and stable growth rate.

Latin America once enjoyed a healthy growth rate, with per capita income rising by about 80 percent from 1960 to 1979. …Mexico, for example, enjoyed growth rates in the pre-1980 era three times higher than those in the post-NAFTA period (since 1994).

freed up for more productive work? Where? How? What programs were in place for retraining since “Money formally spent on social programs goes to financing the debt, thus relocating large amounts of capital outside the country.”. Even the US with a robust economy and welfare, unemployment and social services would have difficulty “retraining” 1.5 million workers.

QUOTE=Ender
Mexico signed on to NAFTA so they apparently thought it was going to be beneficial to them. Assuming things didn’t work out as they planned, why is this our fault?

1. becaue the US and World Bank are the ones profiting. 2) extravagant promises made by proponents of the model, strong arming by the US:

“…the Bush administration’s threats to cut off our existing trade preferences so as to force Central American approval of this trade agreement.” Bishop Álvaro Ramazzini of San Marcos, Guatemala
ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/111105/111105w.php

So if it was anything like what the Bush Admin has done with the signing of CAFTA I highly doubt they had much choice in the matter. one need only follow the money to see who is really profiting.

continued…

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=Ender
Besides, why should I accept your contention that it hasn’t been beneficial to Mexico? “NAFTA has been so good for Mexico that fully 20 percent of its GDP is now attributable to trade made possible by NAFTA provisions. NAFTA has benefited the Mexican rural as well as urban workforce by creating thousands of new, higher paying export manufacturing jobs.” (same report as above)

According to the article by Christopher Zehnder the increase in exports “do not enrich the debtor country but go to owners and stockholders in the US and other first world countries.”

To encourage exports, “structural adjustment” programs have benefited industries owned either by wealthy natives or by first world corporations. Profits made by the latter do not enrich the debtor country but go to owners and stockholders in the US and other first world countries. Money formally spent on social programs goes to financing the debt, thus relocating large amounts of capital outside the country…Because governments under a structural adjustment plan have to favor large businesses for their export potential, they remove protections for competing small business. Many small proprietors cannot compete and are forced to join the ranks of the underpaid workers

this article is also backed up by By Professor Riordan Roett of Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies in the same artilce I linked quoted ealier globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/3218.html

While trade has increased in volume, the standard of living for most individuals in the region has declined. During the height of the neoliberal reform model (1980s and '90s), labor-intensive sectors lost ground to capital-intensive sectors and wages in manufacturing, for example, fell in most countries studied. Mexican workers under NAFTA lost precipitously through the 1990s, despite the extravagant promises made by proponents of the model on which CAFTA is based. That is not all. At least 1.5 million Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods under NAFTA. According to a 2004 report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Agricultural trade liberalization linked to NAFTA is the single most significant factor in the loss of agricultural jobs in Mexico.” Thus far, limited employment growth in Mexico’s manufacturing sector has failed to absorb displaced rural workers.

QUOTE=Ender
Our interests are not financial, they are based on our perception of what is needed for the security of our nation.

Obviously the US Government isn’t all that concerned about who is or is not crossing our border due to “Security” reasons. It’s been, what? almost 6 years to the day of 9-11. I would think that if they were truly concerned a much more concerted effort at border control would have been made by now.

I, as well, support laws controlling our border. I just differ in that I think we need to provide substantially more legal avenues for unskilled workers and family reunification thus allowing us to focus our efforts on those with malicious intents.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Sprout,

You keep NOT addressing key issues here…where is the culpability in the corrupt Mexican system here? If NAFTA?CAFTA are the problem, why did we have a problem with illegal immigration BEFORE that?

Explain to me, oh wise one, how it is possible that the US has the right to know who comes into the country (which you admit we do), but to attempt to enforce that right somehow makes the laws supporting that right unjust?

Unjust and immoral laws are to be devoutly disobeyed, we can agree on that. How is the US asserting it’s right to know who crosses it’s borders unjust or immoral?

 

[sprout]

Sprout,

You keep NOT addressing key issues here

 

[Yerusalyim]

It’s not a “straw man” question at all. You correctly state we should obey God rather than man. You also state that it’s not a sin for illegal immigrants to cross the US border, although the US has laws mandating this not happen. Ergo, by your reasoning, the laws against illegal immigration must be unjust. Yet, you’ve stated that the US has the right to know who’s entering it’s borders so this can not be an unjust or immoral law that must be disobeyed. All this can’t be true, either the immigration laws are just and there are varying degrees of culpability for those who break this law or the laws against illegal immigration are unjust and are to be devoutly ignored. Which is it?

When I asked: “where is the culpability of the corrupt mexican system…” you responded:

I don’t know. I’m a US Citizen, I’m not a Mexican national.

If you don’t know then perhaps you should stop passing judgement on the US Government and businesses…Canada doesn’t seem to be hurt by NAFTA…so I propose to you that the Mexican government is corrupt, and that by allowing countless illegals in the US to send money back to Mexico rather than staying there and fixing their problems you are PERPETUATING EVIL.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=Yerusalyim
It’s not a “straw man” question at all. You correctly state we should obey God rather than man. You also state that it’s not a sin for illegal immigrants to cross the US border, although the US has laws mandating this not happen. Ergo, by your reasoning, the laws against illegal immigration must be unjust.

Strawman:

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent’s position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the “straw man”—not held by his opponent.
In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the “straw man” he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent’s position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
An example of a straw man fallacy:
Person A: I don’t think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
By insinuating that Person A’s argument is far more draconian than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. Here the “straw man” that person B has set up is the premise that “The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day”.

I’ve reapeatedly responded that it’s 1) keeping quotas for “unskilled labor” at 5000/yr when our Nation is 2) complicit in the loss of 1.5 million “unskilled labor” jobs in their country. 3) the US is the wealthiest Nation in our region if not our world while profiting tremendously off their misfortune through NAFTA, World Bank Loans, IMF and SAs. 4) clearly able & willing to allow in greater numbers of immigrants, just not willing to allow them a “legal” means to do so, which increases US profits.

QUOTE=Yerusalyim
either the immigration laws are just and there are varying degrees of culpability for those who break this law or the laws against illegal immigration are unjust and are to be devoutly ignored. Which is it?

see false dilemna a.k.a. black & white thinking. fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

You’re trying to make a “right to know” and laws limiting immigration the same thing. They’re not. Although I agree that a Sovereign Nation has a “right” and “responsiblity” to govern which would include making laws that limit immigration it cannot do so in such a way that does harm.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

*A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22 *

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

QUOTE=Yerusalyim
If you don’t know then perhaps you should stop passing judgement on the US Government and businesses…

Are you saying that as a US Citizen I am to be more concerned about the supposed corruption of my neighboring country than my own or shut up? So because Jacques Chirac cheats on his wife I shouldn’t criticize Bill Clinton when he cheats on his wife?

I consider it my patriotic duty to hold my elected representatives accountable for their actions. I have no such duty to Mexico or Canada, since I’m not a citizen there. Because the US, World Bank and IMF that are profiting at Mexico’s peoples expense I do hold them accountable.

…so I propose to you that the Mexican government is corrupt, and that by allowing countless illegals in the US to send money back to Mexico rather than staying there and fixing their problems you are PERPETUATING EVIL.

I think that by suggesting these people “go home” to certain poverty and continued suffering to the extent they are not able to provide for themselves and their children and will starve is perpetuating evil and ill will towards your neighbor, and is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. To say nothing of Our Good Lord’s admonisment that “I was hungry and you fed me not, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me”.(Matthew 25:32 -46)

 

[joab]

Oh, and to add to my previous post:

Since NAFTA resulted in the loss of 1.5 Million jobs in Mexico, and the US has continued to restrict “legal” immigrantion to 5,000 “unskilled workers” this leaves at least 1,499,500 Mexicans without work to provide for their families and the legal means to migrate to the US for work.

.

Sprout,

Okay, if there are 1,499,500 Mexicans without work now due to NAFTA, then why are there 10-12 estimated illegal mexican immigrants in the US? The numbers are still not adding up for me to believe that I must be in an underpaid job, competing on an unfair field so that an “illegal” can feed his family. There is still an estimated 8,500,500-give or take-that are here to get rich/go home, could be felones, could be here to “live” off the system, or I just don’t know why they would be here.

I do know that the people who are emigrating here from places like Somolia, I have had no trouble with. In fact, I work with several of them and respect what they went through to get here and how they are working for what they have. I work with another from Guatamala. She will be a US citizen within a year. She will then sponser her husband and he will work to be a citizen .She is upset that people are not doing it the lawful way to become a citizen as she has.

 

[Ender]

Obviously the US Government isn’t all that concerned about who is or is not crossing our border due to “Security” reasons. It’s been, what? almost 6 years to the day of 9-11. I would think that if they were truly concerned a much more concerted effort at border control would have been made by now.

I fault our government for this as well.

I, as well, support laws controlling our border. I just differ in that I think we need to provide substantially more legal avenues for unskilled workers and family reunification thus allowing us to focus our efforts on those with malicious intents.

I would be willing to discuss what opportunities we should provide for alien workers - but not until we secure the borders. I am real tired of the feds bait and switch actions where they promise both border security and amnesty to get laws passed and then renege on the security part.

I also think you would make more progress with your arguments if you didn’t phrase them as if the rights of aliens overrode the rights of Americans. We have an obligation to do justice but the citizens of other countries have no rights to ignore our laws and take what we have not freely given them. Make it an issue of our justice towards them, not of their rights against ours.

Ender

 

[KathleenElsie]

Less then 20 miles of fence.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=joab;2685733
Sprout,
Okay, if there are 1,499,500 Mexicans without work now due to NAFTA, then why are there 10-12 estimated illegal mexican immigrants in the US? The numbers are still not adding up for me to believe that I must be in an underpaid job, competing on an unfair field so that an “illegal” can feed his family.

How is it you are in an underpaid job competing on an unfair field? The 1.5 million displaced were peasant farmers. This was back in the early nineties. In Mexico and Central America to be a peasant farmer means no education for the most part i.e. little or no ability to read or write even in their native language, little or no ability at math. Are you saying someone with little or no ability to read, write, do math, or speak English is forcing you to take an underpaid job?

Unless you are picking strawberries for a living, cleaning bathrooms, doing dishes, or mowing lawns I seriously doubt that’s the case. You seem quite astute at the written word and quite able to do much better for yourself.

If the US Gov’t can’t afford to, or doesn’t have the means to, provide for more than 5000 legal “unskilled workers” to *legally come to this country *to work, how is it then that the US Gov’t can and does “afford” and “has the means” and “is able” to the tune of 10-12 million workers to come here and work without legal documentation?

Do you not realize that it is because employers “invite” them here, “offer” them jobs that they come? Do you not realize that if they were given “legal” access then employers woud not be able to underpay them the way they are doing now? It’s the very “illegality” that increases employers profits and US profits.

Wouldn’t it make sense, then, to remove these employers ability to pay lower wages by giving these people “legal” avenues whereby they can demand a fair wage?

Here are a few answers to commonly held myths:

Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries

In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment. (Source:cato.org/research/articles/griswold-020218.html.)

Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans

The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. and foreign workers, and foreign-born students allow many U.S. graduate programs to keep their doors open. While there has been no comprehensive study done of immigrant-owned businesses, we have countless examples: in Silicon Valley, companies begun by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated more than $19.5 billion in sales and nearly 73,000 jobs in 2000. (Source: Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA (Mar. 1994), p. 13.

for more answers to common myths you can visit justiceforimmigrants.org/myths.html

QUOTE=joab;2685733…I do know that the people who are emigrating here from places like Somolia, I have had no trouble with. In fact, I work with several of them and respect what they went through to get here and how they are working for what they have.

I see, so you only have trouble with Mexicans who come here. :tsktsk:

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Rom 13

Those who immigrate illegally are breaking the laws of two or more governments who have been put into power by God and as such they are then violating God’s law made known throught those government.