Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[Jack_Fisher]

The system worked for these boys (and others) because they were in this country. Had they tried the LEGAL route from their homeland I have little doubt they would still be in Guatemala. Both boys learned Spanish on the way to the United States and learned English while in the States. At home, they spoke a native language that is little known outside their village.

those intrepid tykes covered some 14 miles per day (and probably more), every day for 6 months1/, sneaking into Mexico (which has a notoriously harsh anti-illegal immigrant policy) while learning conversational Spanish and English to complement their native Xinca. Moses would have loved them. quite impressive.

the system works. they illegally entered the US, at some point were probably detained pending removal, and made out a case for asylum before an immigration judge, and here they stay.

uncle could have simply petitioned for asylum on their behalf and spared them the trek, but maybe there is some merit in self-help…

… unless you’re saying the US should comb the backwoods of every carib nation inviting people to immigrate because they fit the Politically Correct Picture of what immigrants should look like.

---

notes.

1. air miles between Guat. City and Denver is about 2,000; the actual walking distance must be about 2,500 or so.

 

[catharina]

those intrepid tykes covered some 14 miles per day (and probably more), every day for 6 months1/, sneaking into Mexico (which has a notoriously harsh anti-illegal immigrant policy) while learning conversational Spanish and English to complement their native Xinca. Moses would have loved them. quite impressive.

the system works. they illegally entered the US, at some point were probably detained pending removal, and made out a case for asylum before an immigration judge, and here they stay.

uncle could have simply petitioned for asylum on their behalf and spared them the trek, but maybe there is some merit in self-help…

… unless you’re saying the US should comb the backwoods of every carib nation inviting people to immigrate because they fit the Politically Correct Picture of what immigrants should look like.

---

notes.

1. air miles between Guat. City and Denver is about 2,000; the actual walking distance must be about 2,500 or so.

I believe that Roman Catholics are Roman Catholic first, then citizens of nations. That the Church teaches a preferential option for the poor might as well be written in feathers on the clouds for all the strength afforded it by some RCs. While some people take the teaching seriously, others do not. The use of sarcasm in describing the needs, feats and reality of such children might be seen as hard-hearted. It calls to my mind the Scripture that “God is not mocked.” One might wonder whether most Americans are more focused on personal ownership than on the needs and rights of the poor. (PS - The boys spoke Queche, not Xinca.)

Galatians
Chapter 6

1 Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so that you also may not be tempted.
2 **Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ. **
3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.
4 Each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason to boast with regard to himself alone, and not with regard to someone else;
5 for each will bear his own load.
6 One who is being instructed in the word should share all good things with his instructor.
7 **Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, **
8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.
9 **Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up. **
10 **So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith. **

 

[fnr]

Heck no! If you need to find work in another country without proper documentation to feed your family or yourself, by no means is it improper. Too many times throughout history have “Nativists” used nationalist tendencies to exclude many immigrants, particularly Catholics, from the U.S. We complain about illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, or workers WITHOUT PAPERS (WOP – ever wonder how the slur against Italian Americans cropped up?), not acknowledging the true need to see the indignity of a situation where people can’t work in other countries.

By the grace of God, government has power, right? Well, then, the French town of Le Chambon was wrong to shelter Jews from the Vichy regime in World War II. The French Jews they saved were without papers, yet the right thing to do wasn’t to retreat into caring for the their own moral concern with governance, but to act to save people.

Christianity has nothing in its original canon on how to be a religion of rulers. It wasn’t until Augustine’s City of God that a positive Christian vision of rule was developed.

 

[catharina]

I don’t buy this argument.

1. … if, on the other hand, America expresses her desire through congress to allow virtually unrestricted immigration of this kind of economic immigrant, so be it. but don’t hold your breath.
2. … neither nicaraguan forest peasants nor british subjects residing in london have any right whatsoever to immigrate to America except those rights given by congress, which has the obligation to American citizens to control the borders and set sane immigration quotas.

The bishops have a moral and legal (Canon Law) obligation to present teachings to guide their flocks in the formation of conscience. To pretend that American citizens are stuck with current legal guidelines is a fallacy since American citizens above all others are forever in a position to challenge and change laws. As one reviews the CCC and the Code of CL, one finds that it is brought to new life according to directives from Rome and the bishops through encyclicals, statements and pastoral letters.

To pretend that it always speaks for itself, (the CCC and Code), is to risk deluding oneself.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Heck no! If you need to find work in another country without proper documentation to feed your family or yourself, by no means is it improper. Too many times throughout history have “Nativists” used nationalist tendencies to exclude many immigrants, particularly Catholics, from the U.S. We complain about illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, or workers WITHOUT PAPERS (WOP – ever wonder how the slur against Italian Americans cropped up?), not acknowledging the true need to see the indignity of a situation where people can’t work in other countries.

By the grace of God, government has power, right? Well, then, the French town of Le Chambon was wrong to shelter Jews from the Vichy regime in World War II. The French Jews they saved were without papers, yet the right thing to do wasn’t to retreat into caring for the their own moral concern with governance, but to act to save people.

Christianity has nothing in its original canon on how to be a religion of rulers. It wasn’t until Augustine’s City of God that a positive Christian vision of rule was developed.

is it your position that current American immigration law is the functional equivalent of Nazi law imposed in Vichy France or 19th century nativism?

because if it is, this is a lazy way of arguing, and is fundamentally flawed. analogies are not identities. the argument is patently ridiculous.

I find your argument even more astonishing in light of the fact this thread has referenced “asylum” numerous times – relief legally given even to to illegals such as the guatemalan teenage trekkies. I assume you are also unfamilar with other forms of humanitarian relief from removal (deportation) available to illegals who face persecution, even sexual or other forms of domestic abuse, in their homelands, not to mention the framework of US immigration law which is in fact quite generous in providing legal immigration opportunities.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

The bishops have a moral and legal (Canon Law) obligation to present teachings to guide their flocks in the formation of conscience. To pretend that American citizens are stuck with current legal guidelines is a fallacy since American citizens above all others are forever in a position to challenge and change laws. As one reviews the CCC and the Code of CL, one finds that it is brought to new life according to directives from Rome and the bishops through encyclicals, statements and pastoral letters.

To pretend that it always speaks for itself, (the CCC and Code), is to risk deluding oneself.

(emphasis added)

no on is making that straw argument. please, be my guest. amend the INA if you can muster the votes, but to contend that what ought to be as a justification for evading validly enacted law is error.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I believe that Roman Catholics are Roman Catholic first, then citizens of nations. That the Church teaches a preferential option for the poor might as well be written in feathers on the clouds for all the strength afforded it by some RCs. …

you think the INA is unfair to the poor. I think it is fair but has been considerably abused by the people it is intended to help, aided and abetted by others with flat out misrepresentations, with political and social agendas that they cannot get enacted by congress.

I’ve pointed out specific, questionable assertions made by the bishops’ statement that have largely gone unaddressed, but have been glossed over.

you’re a citizen of the US, until the Catholic Theocracy fantasy of that other thread becomes fact.

 

[verdigirl]

you think the INA is unfair to the poor. I think it is fair but has been considerably abused by the people it is intended to help, aided and abetted by others with flat out misrepresentations, with political and social agendas that they cannot get enacted by congress.

I’ve pointed out specific, questionable assertions made by the bishops’ statement that have largely gone unaddressed, but have been glossed over.

you’re a citizen of the US, until the Catholic Theocracy fantasy of that other thread becomes fact.

Jack, the teaching of the Bishops is not going to resonate with you because I think you just don’t want to see it. The Bishops do not suggest that every one of the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants currently residing within our borders should receive automatic citizenship. I remind you that they’re asking for a more fair LPR process for those who want to stay and a temporary work visa program for those who don’t.

As a part of my own faith journey, I have put my citizenship in heaven ahead of my citizenship of this country. This is the lens through which I see the Bishops’ statements as well as the Catechism. It’s my opinion that too many Americans have decided to live the other way around and place their allegiance with this culture of death and cruelty and false idols (and I’m not just talking about abortion here!). Consequently, many Catholics in this country are too quick to fall back on the false illusion that many laws are just and don’t need constant revision to achieve a more and more perfect justice. We cannot simply make comments that there are abusers of a system as a way to avoid love-centered examination of the situation.

We’re American when the laws suit our rationale, and Catholic when they don’t. Sounds a little schizophrenic to me.

I know you don’t like to draw correlations from other issues to show logical lines of thought, but in my mind, this is exactly like the “three strikes, you’re out” law in my state and in others. Instead of examining the circumstances of individual crimes, or even weighing the seriousness of them, we automatically throw people in the can for the rest of their lives because “that’s the law.”

Somehow this injustice is intended to make us feel safe.

I don’t know you enough to make definitive observations about you, but I invite you to look at the situation through the lens of the heart God gave you, and not solely on the “objectiveness” that is keeping you from dismissing the Bishops’ teaching out of hand.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Jack, the teaching of the Bishops is not going to resonate with you because I think you just don’t want to see it. The Bishops do not suggest that every one of the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants currently residing within our borders should receive automatic citizenship. I remind you that they’re asking for a more fair LPR process for those who want to stay and a temporary work visa program for those who don’t.

respectfully, V, there’s a lot of strawmen here:

the Bishops’ position is not being challenged because of the false claim that they want all 12 million illegals to be given citizenship. but, you cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of the 12 million illegals simply want to stay. the Bishops’ paper ignores this obvious fact. if illegals want to work and then go home, they can work and then go home. but this isn’t so. they stay, and the numbers of illegals swell each year, with all of the attendant demands on the infrastructure. why is LPR status morally required?. alleviation of **need **is a matter for the conscience – beyond that, conferring the benefits of LPResidence and Citizenship, admitting 12 million new LPRS/citizens with no limit on those to come, is a political question that all Americans are entitled to be heard on.

As a part of my own faith journey, I have put my citizenship in heaven ahead of my citizenship of this country. This is the lens through which I see the Bishops’ statements as well as the Catechism. It’s my opinion that too many Americans have decided to live the other way around and place their allegiance with this culture of death and cruelty and false idols (and I’m not just talking about abortion here!).

brass tacks: there are 12 million today. next year there will be another few million, and a few more million the year after that. what number of illegal immigrants present now must be legalized and what number of economic refugees to be given LPR status over the next 50 years will satisfy you? if one is proposing law, one must be aware of the real life consequences.

Consequently, many Catholics in this country are too quick to fall back on the false illusion that many laws are just and don’t need constant revision to achieve a more and more perfect justice. We cannot simply make comments that there are abusers of a system as a way to avoid love-centered examination of the situation.

that argument is not easy to assess. many laws are just. the *INA *is constantly amended, and is extraordinarily lenient. but American law must at some point serve American interests or it has no claim to legitimacy. why on earth would an American want to obey laws that place the rights of non-resident foreigners above their own interests and, on top of that, impose a burden on them?

We’re American when the laws suit our rationale, and Catholic when they don’t. Sounds a little schizophrenic to me.

Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder, unrelated to church/state political discussions.

I’m always American, and proudly so. I defend the American way of life because that preserves our right to worship as Catholics without fear. it is shortsighted to believe that Catholicism does not need this kind of civil protection. I am against abortion, a right guaranteed by the Constitution; therefore I dissent – not with the courage of a rosa parks, but in my own way. This too is a Constitutional privilege. but blow up an abortion clinic? shoot an abortion doctor? no. But that is beside the point.

I know you don’t like to draw correlations from other issues to show logical lines of thought, but in my mind, this is exactly like the “three strikes, you’re out” law in my state and in others. Instead of examining the circumstances of individual crimes, or even weighing the seriousness of them, we automatically throw people in the can for the rest of their lives because “that’s the law.”

Somehow this injustice is intended to make us feel safe.

I like analogies. I just think that comparing Nazis murdering Jews to US immigration law is insanely stupid, to put it mildly. Those three strikes laws are getting a lot of fine tuning, but I understand the public demand for tougher punishiment.

I don’t know you enough to make definitive observations about you,…

I’m like Scoop Jackson, only more so.

…but I invite you to look at the situation through the lens of the heart God gave you, and not solely on the “objectiveness” that is keeping you from dismissing the Bishops’ teaching out of hand.

I don’t accept all of the Bishops’ conclusions and recommendations.

 

[fnr]

is it your position that current American immigration law is the functional equivalent of Nazi law imposed in Vichy France or 19th century nativism?

because if it is, this is a lazy way of arguing, and is fundamentally flawed. analogies are not identities. the argument is patently ridiculous.

Ah… my post was only meant as an initial response to the opening post, not a systematic argument. Analogy of that type is pretty poor as the basis for argument, I agree.

I do not at all equate American immigration law with Nazism or the type of Nativist sentiment present in the U.S. during the 19th Centurty. I suppose the major point I was making is that nothing about legality per se imposes moral responsibility, and in some cases, legality requires immoral action (hence the Le Chambon reference).

I find your argument even more astonishing in light of the fact this thread has referenced “asylum” numerous times – relief legally given even to to illegals such as the guatemalan teenage trekkies. I assume you are also unfamilar with other forms of humanitarian relief from removal (deportation) available to illegals who face persecution, even sexual or other forms of domestic abuse, in their homelands, not to mention the framework of US immigration law which is in fact quite generous in providing legal immigration opportunities.

That really seems to get at the question of whether the U.S. is sufficiently generous in its immigration policy. That’s not really the issue of the original post. From the perspective of a resident of a net-immigration country, I wouldn’t think that the original question applied to me, particularly if I don’t intend to cross borders to work anytime soon. I guess my initial post muddled the issue.

I don’t see how it’s immoral, from the perspective of a potential illegal immigrant, to cross a border to work without papers. Now, if he’s misrepresented his identity, they’ve sinned, but work by itself isn’t immoral. I don’t think it’s morally incumbent upon a potential immigrant to honor the laws of another country where he’s not looking to settle. It may be wise to do so, since exposing yourself to legal action isn’t a very secure way to live.

I think I’m biased by reading of The Grapes of Wrath. If it were illegal to cross state lines, I think the Joads of that novel likely would have done it anyway, and frankly wouldn’t blame them.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…, legality requires immoral action (hence the Le Chambon reference).

I don’t think anyone doubts that can happen.

…, …That really seems to get at the question of whether the U.S. is sufficiently generous in its immigration policy. …

so how generous does the US have to be? with 12 million illegals present and millions more entering every year, the answer will always be “not enough” in the eyes of the loudest pro-illegal proponents. I could put you on the other side of the slipperly slope and instead of defending immigration quotas ask you to set new ones yourself. why not a fifth preference for uncles? a sixth preference for second cousins twice removed? why even wait for visa numbers to come up for a hypothetical eighth preference and giev LPR status to every last mountain peasant found on the planet?

yet quotas have to be set. and they are set. I find them more than fair and generous in their exceptions.

I don’t see how it’s immoral, from the perspective of a potential illegal immigrant, to cross a border to work without papers. Now, if he’s misrepresented his identity, they’ve sinned, but work by itself isn’t immoral. I don’t think it’s morally incumbent upon a potential immigrant to honor the laws of another country where he’s not looking to settle. It may be wise to do so, since exposing yourself to legal action isn’t a very secure way to live.

(emphasis added)

I suppose if you want to pick and choose what you want to render to ceasar by ignoring some law and virtually rewriting others, you can excuse any misconduct that isn’t immoral per se. your highlighted statement is demonstrably wrong, since a legal visitor is bound by the civil and penal law (e.g., murder or traffic laws) as much as any citizen, and risks removal if he violates the law one too many times.

and you can argue that a person who evades immigration procedures and denies the host country knowledge of his true identity is already acting in deceit, because of the duty to disclose that information as a condition of entry and work. you can’t deny that a government has the duty to stop criminals, gang members, and plague carriers from entry, or to protect citizen labor pools.

I think I’m biased by reading of The Grapes of Wrath. If it were illegal to cross state lines, I think the Joads of that novel likely would have done it anyway, and frankly wouldn’t blame them.

but, of course, its not illegal, so this analogy is of limited persuasiveness.

 

[verdigirl]

respectfully, V, there’s a lot of strawmen here:

the Bishops’ position is not being challenged because of the false claim that they want all 12 million illegals to be given citizenship. but, you cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of the 12 million illegals simply want to stay. the Bishops’ paper ignores this obvious fact. if illegals want to work and then go home, they can work and then go home.

Jack, my brother, of course the vast majority want to stay. We all recognize that our country is the best place in the world to live.

As far as the demands on the infrastructure, I’m not sure what you mean. Would you clarify? To me, it would seem that the only downside would be that years from now there will be 12 million more people wanting to collect their social security checks and now 12 million more people needing to collect at least minimum wage and needing equal protection under the law. We already benefit from their presence economically. There is a lot of testimony on the record from American business that says that they cannot afford to lose the foreign-born workers. Again, I remind you that our social security pot is being enlarged every pay period by people who will NEVER be able to benefit from paying into the system because of their status.

It’s not necessarily LPR that’s morally required; rather, it’s an achievable LPR that keeps families together that is morally required. This is a benefit to Americans because we have a need to keep our industries running, and only the most law-abiding persons would be approved for LPR status.

Right now, to apply for LPR when there is no citizen to sponsor you, you have to leave the country and apply for LPR in your country of origin…assuming that you haven’t left any tracks here. So what happens to your children that are born in the U.S. while you’ve been working here? 68 percent of all Hispanics are Roman Catholic, so it would be sinful for us to suggest that they shouldn’t have children, right? Maybe they should just take birth control while they’re within our borders. Would that fix it?

I hope that illustrates the evil that the situation is causing. It’s too easy for us to just insist that they all go home. Their children are ALREADY home.

I’m not sure if you came across this, but the Bishops also recommend the following to protect the rights of American workers:

• Wages and benefits which do not undercut domestic workers
• Labor-market test to ensure U.S. workers are not harmed

I feel as though I don’t quite understand why you are challenging the Bishops’ position. I hate to ask you to clarify…I’m sure it’s just because I’m obtuse today!

 

[catharina]

(emphasis added)

no on is making that straw argument. please, be my guest. amend the INA if you can muster the votes, but to contend that what ought to be as a justification for evading validly enacted law is error.

Without reviewing the entire thread (again), I feel confident saying that the implication presented by several posters was fully dependent on quoting the CCC and its definition of people’s right to establish borders. I have added that both the CCC and the Code of Canon Law are ever dependent on guidance from Rome and bishops for proper understanding by the faithful. Yes, that straw argument “the CCC FORBIDS outright entry into a nation where civil law forbids it.” Preposterous, yet the chorus continues to sing “Not In My Backyard.”

As much as I would do everything possible to ignore (and change) laws in a number of states that allow abortions for minors without parental knowledge, I would as extremely believe and act on that belief in determining that laws forbiding immigration can be totally unjust in certain instances. To pretend otherwise speaks to great mastery in the habit of self-delusion.

 

[catharina]

…
I find your argument even more astonishing in light of the fact this thread has referenced “asylum” numerous times – relief legally given even to to illegals such as the guatemalan teenage trekkies.
…

As for your chronic sarcastic disrespect of those two children from Guatemala (who were among hundreds of undocumented children from all over the world, personally known to me), I can only ask “do you not fear the Lord?” The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

“Teenage trekkies” could never define the children known to me. The two from that Guatemalan village in no way equated to American teens, aged 14 yrs old. Experientially, they resembled more closely American 10 yr olds. Along their way, they were helped by the poor (adults) from towns and cities south of the Texas border. They were given rides on chicken trucks and in the back compartments of flatbed trucks. Food and moneys earned were most often earned because they were willing and able to slaughter chickens by hand (for market).

 

[verdigirl]

“Teenage trekkies” could never define the children known to me. The two from that Guatemalan village in no way equated to American teens, aged 14 yrs old. Experientially, they resembled more closely American 10 yr olds. Along their way, they were helped by the poor (adults) from towns and cities south of the Texas border. They were given rides on chicken trucks and in the back compartments of flatbed trucks. Food and moneys earned were most often earned because they were willing and able to slaughter chickens by hand (for market).

Every time someone brings up these kids from Guatemala, I just feel so sad, and at the same time, so happy that their story ended well. I give thanks for the compassion and justice these immigration officials were able to offer, as well as for the work our laypeople did here to help them.

I feel so blessed that I was born here. My parents both came from Guatemala, as a direct result of the American intervention into their society in the 50s and 60s. The death squads that killed so many indigenous people, students and activists were trained by military personnel from the School of the Americas in Fort Campbell, KY. Our “Monroe Doctrine mentality” has caused so much upheaval in this hemisphere!

It’s the least we could do for these kids.

 

[catharina]

Thank you, V.

Such children, recieved here, are a grace to this nation. Their lives, the lives of their parents were burdened by poverty and upheaval - always. It would be a grace if all recognized that such children come to us as a grace. Ditto for so many others.

 

[Ender]

My parents both came from Guatemala, as a direct result of the American intervention into their society in the 50s and 60s. The death squads that killed so many indigenous people, students and activists were trained by military personnel from the School of the Americas in Fort Campbell, KY. Our “Monroe Doctrine mentality” has caused so much upheaval in this hemisphere!

Let’s not start this again. First, the SOA was never at Fort Campbell, it was based in Fort Benning, GA. Second, the school no longer exists as it was converted in 2000 to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), but most importantly, it ***NEVER ***was involved with training death squads and had nothing whatever to do with the spate of killings throughout Central and South America.

Going down this path will sidetrack this thread so if you want to discuss this topic start a new thread - I won’t ignore comments like this about SOA/WHINSEC.

Ender

 

[verdigirl]

Let’s not start this again. First, the SOA was never at Fort Campbell, it was based in Fort Benning, GA. Second, the school no longer exists as it was converted in 2000 to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), but most importantly, it ***NEVER ***was involved with training death squads and had nothing whatever to do with the spate of killings throughout Central and South America.

Going down this path will sidetrack this thread so if you want to discuss this topic start a new thread - I won’t ignore comments like this about SOA/WHINSEC.

Ender

Wow. I guess I must be a liar, and my family’s eyewitness reports are falsehoods.

I’ll concede that you’re right about Ft. Benning, though. My bad.

 

[bobzills]

To claim it is sin to immigrate illegally would be to claim the intrinsic justice of immigration regulations. I’m not able to do that since I have no reason to believe that the anti-immigration stance of the USA is any more valid than the anti-Life atance of the USA. To say or imply that a law is just by the fact of its mere existence is to act in defiance of both love and logic.

If all immigration policy is just in the USA then one might argue that to defy it is sinful; however even that line of reasoning cannot mean that anyone and everyone who acts against the policy is sinful by in such action. The law of God always overrides the law of the land when the two are in conflict.

It’s Spirit versus letter of the law. One’s conscience must speak to the mercy and justice of God not man.

The fact that someone is here illegally by itself may not be a sin. However, there are often other things involved, such as not paying income taxes, receiving welfare benefits, going to public schools and getting medical care, but not paying for it. In that case, something else may be involved, in the family of theft. And theft is a sin. Who is paying for these services except for the hard working and overtaxed legal citizen? If legal citizens are working hard and paying their fair share of taxes, then it seems to be right for them to question grants that are given to non-paying illegal immigrants.

 

[verdigirl]

The fact that someone is here illegally by itself may not be a sin. However, there are often other things involved, such as not paying income taxes, receiving welfare benefits, going to public schools and getting medical care, but not paying for it. In that case, something else may be involved, in the family of theft. And theft is a sin. Who is paying for these services except for the hard working and overtaxed legal citizen? If legal citizens are working hard and paying their fair share of taxes, then it seems to be right for them to question grants that are given to non-paying illegal immigrants.

Hi there. Here’s what the Bishops say to your points (from “Myths,” justiceforimmigrants.org/myths.html)

Immigrants come here to take welfare

Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.

(Source: “Questioning Immigration Policy – Can We Afford to Open Our Arms?”, Friends Committee on National Legislation Document #G-606-DOM, January 25, 1996. http:www.fas.org/pub/gen/fcnl/immigra.html)

*Immigrants don’t pay taxes *

Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998

(Source: immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm))

You’re right about the theft issue, but the reality shows that they’re paying their way, and then some.