The Morality of Torture

Recently, Senator John McCain — a politician I respect and whose presidential ambitions I supported in 2008, 2000, and even 2004 — spoke passionately on the Senator floor on the topic of torture. It was a speech prompted by the Senate Intelligence Committee’s release of a report regarding the CIA’s interrogation of post-9/11 terror suspects, (which, in turn, was prompted by, I suspect, the Democrats losing the Senate, and a desire to bury the House testimony of Jonathan Gruber).

Senator McCain argued “Our enemies act without conscience. We must not … It is essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others — even our enemies.”

Senator Ted Cruz — also a politician I respect, and whose presidential ambitions I intend to support in 2016 — echoed McCain’s view: “Torture is wrong, unambiguously, period, the end.”

But is torture “a stain on our nation’s honor,” as McCain’s says, or “wrong, unambiguously,” as says Cruz? I argue that in very limited circumstances torture is not only not ‘unambiguously wrong,’ but may be the most moral of possible options. In fact, I contend that it may be, in some situations, immoral not to torture.

“Torture defenders” often imagine what’s normally referred to as a Ticking Time Bomb scenario, based on the hypothetical along the lines that we have captured a terrorist who knew the location of a nuclear bomb that is set to detonate in 24 hours. According to a Pew poll, 71% of respondents approve the use of torture in at least rare circumstances and this scenario certainly qualifies. (Interestingly, former law professor and AACONS radio guest, Alan Dershowitz, in fact, argues that these sorts of cases are acceptable but “this should be a decision made at the highest level possible”).

But for some, like Professor Henry Shue, even the prevention of catastrophe is not enough to justify torture: “Some of us may, or may not, as a result of our refusal to tolerate secret torture bureaucracies and their gulags, die in some other catastrophe, but civilized principles will survive for members of future generations, who may be grateful for our sacrifice so that they could lead decent lives.”

And the United Nations is even more clearer in rejecting the Ticking Time Bomb scenario. In its Convention Against Torture, it declared “no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

For torture to be moral, however, it should be emphasized that it must be a last resort option inflicted with the least amount of severity possible. Most importantly, it must be for the greater good.

But when faced with the capture of a suspect who may have knowledge to prevent great harm, one generally has three options. The first option – the most common and clearly the most ideal – is normal interrogation techniques; such as building a rapport, using questioning and threats, lie detectors maybe, and so on. This method takes time however, and I wonder how effective it is with a detainee whose resistance is hardened by faith or fanaticism. The second would be to surrender the possibility of extracting the information, either resigning oneself to the consequences of this or perhaps hoping that there will be no consequence. Or one can use enhanced interrogation techniques (“torture”).

Assuming the rare circumstance that the first option is not a workable option — maybe because of time constraints or some other reason — which of the other two remaining options would most likely result in the least amount of harm? And, is that option, because it results in the least harm, not then the most moral?

For torture to be moral, however, it should be emphasized that it must be a last resort option inflicted with the least amount of severity possible. Most importantly, it must be for the greater good. Torture for the sadistic pleasure of the torturer — much like the torture Senator McCain endured — is of course evil and distinguishable from the sort of torture I would support under desperate conditions.

Some would raise the point that the Ticking Time Bomb scenario is so far-fetched that it does not deserve consideration. “It’s never happened. It probably never will.” says The Atlantic. Professor Shue wrote a paper entitled, “Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb” to roll his eyes at the scenario. But Ticking Time Bomb scenarios do occur more often than these critics realize, even if they do not involve hidden nukes threatening million of lives.

One frequent guest on our AACONS radio show is former Representative Lt. Col. Allen West. While serving in Iraq, West was faced with a Ticking Time Bomb scenario. He had an Iraqi detainee who had information about an impending ambush on his unit. West was then faced with the scenario described earlier. He had to choose between hoping that normal interrogation techniques would work before he and his men were killed; forgoing the information and accept as inevitable the death of his men; hoping that the ambushers would change their minds; or using enhanced interrogation.

West decided to fire a pistol near the head of the detainee. The Army decided this was torture, fined West, and forced him to resign or face of very serious charges. West resigned. But today, he and his men are still alive. West made the moral choice.

–DK

Why Is Income Inequality So Important?

No economic issue means as much to the Left as income equality. As President Obama said in the 2012 State of the Union address, “No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

Other issues, such as unemployment, the deficit, revenue collection, or even economic growth, are of relatively minor import to the Left. In 2008, for example, when a moderator asked Senator Obama about his support for raising the capital gains tax, pointing out that “history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up,” Obama shrugged: “Well, that might happen, or it might not.” It was more important, said Obama, to raise the capital gains tax “for purposes of fairness.”

Robert Reich, one of the Left’s favorite economists, has made such a reputation attacking income inequality that he is now earning $242,000 to teach a single class at the University of California, Berkley – a taxpayer funded school that could cost close to $30,000 a year for in-state students and over $50,000 a year for students who are out-of-state.

Many others are making a lot of money, or advancing politically, by complaining about income inequality as well. Bookshelves are filled with books decrying it, including the now-maligned best-seller “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by economist Thomas Piketty, which makes the hysterical claim that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is a threat to democracy. This is a notion with which Hillary Clinton, our presumptive 45th president, says she agrees. (Of course, Hillary, if she is to be our next president, has to agree with such claims, or she will not win her party’s nomination over her two most likely challengers, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.)

According to this week’s Census Bureau report, income inequality has increased 4.9% since 1993. This is the result of the rich getting richer. According to the CBO, after-tax income between 1979 and 2007 for the 275% for the top 1% of households. And as if to rub it in, the number of global billionaires have increased 7% this year, up 155 to a record 2,325.

I was not one of these new billionaires, unfortunately.

The same CBO report also shows that the income for the bottom 20% (holla!) also grew, by 18%. In fact, income for all quintiles grew during this period. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that while the top 1% really began pulling away from the rest of us beginning in the mid to late 70s, the US poverty rate has remained flat during this period, pegged at about 14-15%, as it has for nearly 50 years now.

Globally, in fact, according to the World Bank, “The number of people living on less than $1.25 per day has decreased dramatically in the past three decades, from half the citizens in the developing world in 1981 to 21 percent in 2010, despite a 59 percent increase in the developing world population.” Much of this progress has been made in Africa and Latin America, the two regions with the highest income inequality in the world. The World Bank reports that “the extreme poverty rate fell 10 percentage points in [Sub-Saharan Africa] between 1999 and 2010 and is now at 48 percent—an impressive 17 percent decline in one decade. In [Latin America and the Caribbean], after remaining stable at approximately 12 percent for the last two decades of the 20th century, extreme poverty was cut in half between 1999 and 2010 and is now at 6 percent.”

This is not to argue that poverty here or internationally is acceptable, but rather to suggest that a proper focus on poverty reduction would center on job creation primarily by way of economic growth. Although as I referenced earlier President Obama sees inequality, “fairness,” as more worthy of his attention than growth, it is primarily with growth that we would create the jobs to lift the poor out of poverty. In the US (according to this White House, ironically) the rough rule of thumb is that 1% of GDP growth equals 1 million jobs created.

The focus should not be on income inequality and its specious link to poverty. What link is there, after all, of the deleterious effect of income inequality on the poor if inequality hasn’t increased US poverty levels, and in the global regions where income inequality is at its greatest, poverty is actually being reduced?

–DK

The Irony of the #FightFor15

I remember how difficult it is to work in the fast food industry. One of the toughest jobs I’ve had was when I had to work an overnight shift at a McDonalds, where I was greeted at each shift with an abusive boss, rude co-workers, and a demanding workload that increased regularly, along with the pressure to accomplish more in less time, essentially so that my employers could justify giving me fewer hours. All for barely $200 a week.

So with my memories of sitting in my car in a McDonalds parking lot, dreading the time when I would have to clock in, it is easy for me to sympathize with those fast food workers I saw on strike today. Most will go on to bigger and better things in their financial lives, either at the fast food places they are currently working or elsewhere, of course, but many will not. And not many, in fact very few, will benefit from these “#FightFor15” strikes.

Wages for salaried employees are generally the product of the size of the labor pool available to do a particularly job. This is not Nobel-prize winning economics. This is Barnes & Noble economics. If I’m selling widgets, and widget-building requires rare talents and skills, and competent widget-workers are few, I would pay my widget-builders much more than I would if good widget-workers were a dime a dozen.

This very simple formulation gets skewered occasionally but basically that’s how it works. So it should follow that those who wish to increase the wages of a certain set of workers would want to do so by decreasing the size of that labor pool, thus making each worker remaining in that pool a rarer, and thereby more valuable, commodity.

That is how it has worked in North Dakota. Thanks in part to an unemployment rate as low as 1.5% in some areas, the labor pool available for fast food employees is so small that employees began getting paid $15 an hour at least three years ago, plus many have received signing bonuses. This is all without the benefit of strikes or a government mandate.

One would think that those who pontificate endlessly about employee wages would want to replicate North Dakota’s success, and they would, if they truly cared about employee wages. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case.

Those on the Right oppose higher wages, at least the higher wages that don’t result from economic growth. Lower pay for low-skilled worker means more profit for their employers, more hiring by employers, and lower priced goods for the consumer. It is for this reason that so many support guest workers – to prevent the sort of labor shortages that would otherwise necessitate wage increases. As the famed libertarian Bryan Caplan, economics professor at George Mason University, admits, under the open border system he proposes “low-skilled wages are indeed likely to fall.”

If there aren’t enough native-born or legal immigrant Americans willing to make widgets for $10 an hour, then instead of increasing the pay to a more attractive rate, simply expand the labor pool with illegal immigrants/guest workers.

Unfortunately, low-skilled workers searching for employment may find their unemployment extended by the increased competition from illegal immigrants, resulting in situations as one sees in NJ, which has a 6.6% unemployment rate with illegals accounting for nearly 9% of the labor force, or California, which has a 7.4% unemployment rate with illegals accounting for 10% of the labor force.

Once the SEIU succeeds in unionizing fast food workers, their membership numbers will grow from 1.7m to 5.6m, and a proportional growth in dues would supersize the amount of money the SEIU collects to $922M a year.

To me it seems obvious that the ease at which native-born and legal immigrant Americans could find work would be greater, and the likelihood that they could find higher wages would be greater if 10% of jobs were not being held by illegals.

Those on the Left do support higher wages for the low-skilled worker. Unfortunately they also support policies that increases unemployment. Liberals typically support both open border immigration which increases the size of the labor pool and policies that raise of cost of hiring; such as Obamacare and a higher minimum wage.

This makes the lower-skilled worker not just less valuable to the employer but more expensive to the employer as well. Much like consumers who typically spend are less willing to buy a good when its price is raised, employers typically are less willing to hire when the cost of hiring is increased.

Furthermore, this increase in wages dampens hiring because many employers, especially employers in the fast food industry, have a limited capability to raise prices. Recent stories indicate that many McDonalds franchise owners are suffering from increased rent (12% of store sales), remodeling costs, higher fees for training and software, and declining same store sales. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would compound their troubles:

The higher labor costs would initially force fast-food restaurants to raise their prices by 15 percent, which would drive down sales by 14 percent. This would force restaurants to raise prices again, pushing sales down further. In equilibrium the average fast-food restaurant would have to raise prices 38 percent. Prices would rise roughly twice as much as the initial increase in labor costs.Total sales and hours worked would both fall by 36 percent. Fast-food restaurant owners would also have to accept a 77 percent reduction in profits in order to stay in business—leaving them with an average profit of just $6,100 a year per store. Otherwise they would have to raise prices to an extent that would drive away their customer base. James Sherk, Heritage Foundation

Increased unemployment and the increased price for goods are a small matter for Progressives relative to the benefits to them of their end goal: increased unionization. Once the SEIU succeeds in unionizing fast food workers, their membership numbers will grow from 1.7m to 5.6m, and a proportional growth in dues would supersize the amount of money the SEIU collects to $922M a year. Imagine the degree of influence on policy and elections this will give the SEIU, especially during the immigration-amnesty debate, which they will give them the opportunity to add this nation’s 10 to 20 million illegals to their roles.

According to various sources, nationwide, approximately 15% of people employed by fast food restaurants are illegals, a number much greater in states with greater concentrations of illegals. It is ironic then that fast food workers are striking for higher wages. These strikes are driven by an union that is promoting the amnesty that has prevented so many of these workers from achieving the higher wages that they seek.

–DK

Should People of Color Support Palestine?

As always, as goeth the Progressives, so goes the African American leadership.

It is not unusual these days to find some prominent African American academic, politician, or pundit condemning Israel for her recent actions against Hamas in Gaza.

CNN commentator and Morehouse professor Marc Lamont Hill decries the strategic advantage Israel’s Iron Dome (which is a defensive system used to shoot down rockets fired by Hamas into israeli terrority) gives her, saying “It allows Israel to essentially assault and siege Gaza without any retribution or response on the other side. So again, to some extent, they are not just funding defense, they are funding an offensive war and ultimately an occupation. That for me, is the problem.” Princeton Professor Cornel West gives as one of the reasons he believes President Obama is a “war criminal” is “because he facilitates the killing of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank”. MSNBC host Joy Reid who recently compared deaths in Gaza to “one hundred 9/11s”, also argued recently that Democrats should not support Israel because “people of color, minorities” support the Palestinians.

This is not surprising. The “African American intelligensia” is as ever in lockstep with the Progressive movement, and Progressives have opposed Israel for nearly 50 years.

As Joshua Maravchik writes in his book “Making David Into Goliath: How The World Turned Against Israel”:

“Israel would never again enjoy the degree of sympathy it experienced in 1967. The simplest reason was that Israel would never again seem so endangered. The devastating prowess demonstrated by Israel’s fighting forces gave it an aura of invulnerability…No longer did Israel enjoy the public relations gift of opponents who were collaborators of Hitler and Goebbels. Now they faced the comrades of such chic, romanticized figures as Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara. Not only did David become Goliath, but on the other side the frog had become a prince.”

Prior to 1967’s Progressive abandonment of Israel, the African American leadership expressed great support for her. This is not to say that there was never friction between the two groups – such things are common when two or more groups are crowded into the same ghettos – but expressions of Jewish racism and Black anti-Semitism aside, there would many examples of a great kinship between the two, and support for Israel often seem as strong on the Black side as it was on the Jewish side.

In 1948 for example the NAACP, which was founded with the help of Jews, stated “The valiant struggle of the people of Israel for independence serves an inspiration to all persecuted people throughout the world. We hail the establishment of the new State of Israel and welcome it in the family of nations.” Dr. Martin Luther King showed his support for Israel when he stated unequivocally that ”Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

Israel in defending themselves defend all of us. No American, no Christian, and especially no African American, should lose sight of this.

W.E.B. DuBois much earlier linked – as many Black leaders did during his time – Zionism with Pan Africanism. In 1950 he is quoted as saying in a speech before the Jewish People’s Fraternal Order that “The Negro people have an obligation to support the fight for a free Israel as the Jewish people have an obligation to support the fight for a free Africa.” Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey said similar things as well.

Yet post 1967 African Americans followed the Progressives in expressing contempt for Israel. In his famous book 1993 “Race Matters”, Professor Cornel West mentioned “the inhumane policies of Begin and Shamir” and the “Israeli denigration of Palestinians”. He also condemned “the military status of Israel in the Middle East (especially in its enforcement of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza).”

This characterization of Israel as an occupier, or, as some call it, a colonizer, continues to resonate today, especially in the Black community, and is eagerly fomented by the Palestinians. One such Palestinian, Ali Jarbawi of Birzeit University, wrote in the New York Times that “The Israeli occupation of Palestine is one of the only remaining settler-colonial occupations in the world today.”

And since Israel is a colonial power, many argue, then it is incumbent upon Blacks to reject it. Kristian Davis Bailey, research assistant at Stanford University’s the MLK Institute, says this in an interview with Dr. Hill: “Israel is a colonial project, and as Black people we have a tradition and a right and an obligation to oppose colonial projects.” Dr. Hill eagerly agreed.

Yet if Israel is a colonial power, it is certainly not a very good one. No good colonial power would be so willing to allow the people it is colonizing to live in peace as a separate and sovereign nation, as Israel has demonstrated its willingness to do time and time again. Palestine, not Israel, has rejected a two state solution, something I doubt any other “colony” has ever done. Imagine if King George III had told the American colonies “Hey, you guys can be free, if you want, you know, as long as you promise not to bomb London and kill British citizens.”

Israel’s depiction as a racist state, a depiction that has created so much animus towards it from the Black community, is also common, and opponents of Israel attempt to justify this claim by pointing to its controversial Law of Return, which gives any Jew the right to be an Israeli citizen without undergoing the naturalization process non-Jews must undergo.

Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard puts this depiction of Israel and its law of return in context in his book The Case for Israel:

The most primitive apartheid against non-Muslims is still openly practiced in some Arab countries. Moreover, Jordan has a law of return that explicitly denies citizenship to all Jews, even those who lived there for generations. Its laws provide that citizenship is open ‘to any person who was not Jewish’ and who meet certain other criteria. Saudi Arabia similarly bases eligibility or religious affiliation. Germany long had a law of return, as do China and many other countries. Yet only Israel which as citizens of virtually every religion, ethnicity, race, and national origin, is characterized by its enemies as racist or apartheid.

Perhaps the most prevalent, though largely unspoken, argument from Black Progressives as to why African Americans should reject Israel in favor of the Palestinians is one alluded to earlier here by Joy Reid, that Palestinians, like us, are “people of color”, therefore their should be an alliance between us and them.

However, although there may be little evidence that Palestinians are racist against Blacks, indeed some reports indicate that there are 10,000 Arab Africans in Gaza, there are other forms of prejudice beyond racial prejudice. There is also religious prejudice.

Being a person of color did not spare Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman , from being imprisoned and sentenced to death for being Christian. Even more recently ISIS, an Islamist terrorist group much like Hamas in Palestine and people of color, captured Iraqi’s largest Christian town, sending those Christian people of color who managed to survive that fall fleeing for their lives. Boko Harem, people of color, famously kidnapped 300 or so school girls who were also of color, and recent reports indicate that Boko Harem is now forcing those girls to become suicide bombers.

African Americans are overwhelmingly Christian, and in Palestine, being Christian makes one vulnerable to many forms of discrimination. Michael Curtis, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University, writes “In the voluminous commentaries on the Middle East today very little attention has been given to the sad fate of Christians in the Arab and Muslim countries. Even less attention has been paid to the contrast between the treatment of Christians in Israel and their treatment in Arab countries. In Israel Christians have religious freedom and their numbers have increased. In Arab countries the religious freedom of Christians is restricted and their number has been reduced because of harassment, fear, and persecution..” According to Dr. Curtis, Christians in Palestine “have been intimidated and maltreated; money has been extorted, land and property confiscated, and Christian women have been abused, raped, abducted and been subjected to forced marriages.”

Even this treatment of Christian seems mild in comparison to the persecution of Christians by the Sunni Islamist groups that is rapidly emerging throughout the Middle East and Africa, groups many say with whom Hamas – the group the Palestinians have elected to govern them – have aligned themselves. (The Palestinian mourning of the death of Osama bin Laden and celebration of the 9/11 attacks do nothing to assuage this belief).

Included in this list of groups are the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, and al Qaeda. These groups may call for the death of Jews most loudly, but they few can doubt that they see the death or subjugation of Christians and others as a necessary part of building their global caliphate as well.

Marcus Garvey is quoted as saying, “if Hitler hates the Jews, he also hates Blacks.” it can also be said that those who hates the Jews also hates Christians. We saw this throughout world history, including the Holocaust, during which some put the number of Christians killed by the Nazis at 3 million. And those who hate Christians, also hate African Americans Christians. As a Yakidi spokeswoman passionately cried a few days ago that her people “are being butchered under the banner of ‘There Is No God But Allah’”, and no one unwilling to live under such a banner will be spared simply because he or she is Black.

Israel in defending themselves defend all of us. No American, no Christian, and especially no African American, should lose sight of this.

–DK

Christianity and Illegal Immigration

I have to confess to being surprised that God has been allowed a return to political discourse.

It was only days ago when displaying one’s faith, seeking to uphold His word as law, was to invite scorn from the Progressives. At their 2012 convention they actually sought to remove any mention of Him from their party platform. Hobby Lobby was excoriated when they declared that their faith prevented them from funding abortifacient, while Chick-fil-A was boycotted when their CEO mentioned he preferred the Biblical definition of marriage. The Little Sisters of the Poor was recently named to the National Organization of Women’s “Dirty 100” list.

Yet the party of “Keep Your Rosaries Out Of My Ovaries” has suddenly stopped arguing that we remove In God We Trust from our currency to start quoting scripture like the Pope at Mass. It is a spectacular display of shameless manipulation, remarkable even for the world of politics, that the Left has turned to appeals to our Christianity to support their desire for amnesty, and their desire that we not deport anyone – not even the thousands of illegal teenagers who have stampeded our borders recently.

Repatriating of these illegals “not the American way and it’s not the Christian way,” says Univision anchor and longtime open border advocate Jorge Ramos. Kirsten Powers, another advocate for open borders, says it is “a Christian thing.” Stephen King, whose work often mocks conservative Christians (remember Carrie?) tweeted “Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America.’”

But does Christianity obligate us to be open border advocates, to accept as citizens any and all foreigners, simply because they have entered our country? How does the Bible instruct us in this current illegal immigration crisis?

It clearly compels us to love even those who are foreign to us. Leviticus 19:34 reads, “The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” And as Matthew 25:40 reads, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

However, the Bible does not suggest the the world should exist as if we were all one nation. In fact multitude of nations are mentioned in the Bible. And Act17:26 references national borders, or the “bounds” of man’s “habitation.”

The Bible also makes clear that each of these nations is entitled to make its own laws, as long as they do not supersede God’s Law. The example of this most often quoted is probably Luke 20:25: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s,” but there are many others.

So we can take from this that man is justified in both creating laws and maintaining borders, though we would not be justified in transgressions against the will of God. “Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” The key is distinguishing what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.

The laws of God are clear. They are conveniently compiled in a tidy list of 10. Similarly, Jesus, when asked which is the greatest commandment of law, gives an profound yet simple answer: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 22:37-39

Yet the party of “Keep Your Rosaries Out Of My Ovaries” has suddenly stopped arguing that we remove In God We Trust from our currency to start quoting scripture like the Pope at Mass.

I would argue that there is a distinction against prosecution and persecution, that we may punish those who do wrong, as Jesus did to those who had turned His house into a den of thieves, but our punishment should not be an act of evil itself. We are justified in prosecuting (i.e. imprisoning or levying a fine against) a man who enters our home uninvited, who steals from us, or otherwise does us harm. But we are not justified in treating that man with cruelty, or without compassion or forgiveness: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32

To relate this to the current immigration crisis, it is evident that it is “a Christian thing” to have a border and to punish those who violate that border. If not, then what country has ever been Christian? What would be unchristian however would be to persecute the illegals – denying them medicine, food, and shelter.

If we are treating illegals humanely, are we not meeting the requirement of Christ’s commandment that we love our neighbor as ourselves, or are we obligated to do further? Are parents whose home is full of the children they’ve adopted, and whose budgets are strained with the care of those children, not being true Christians if they say “no more” when another child comes to their door?

If we were such a prosperous nation that we had no poverty among us, it would be unchristian to turn away others who are in poverty, but no one would say that is the case. It may be arguable that a child living in Tegucigalpa faces greater poverty and crime than a child living in Newark, it is not arguable that a child in Newark faces poverty and crime. Nor is it arguable that the greater responsibility for an American government is to that Newark child.

Furthermore, what is the Christian obligation in the face of the evil actions of others? In Corinthians, Paul chastises a church, not for any sin they committed directly and collectively themselves, but for not shunning one of their members for his sin, and delivering him for punishment: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 5:3-5

Like the Corinthian church, we are often “puffed up” when we tolerate the misdeeds of others instead of shunning or punishing them for those misdeeds because we believe that tolerance makes us good Christians. And we show the same pride when we tolerate the misdeeds of other nations.

To not repatriate the illegals, these “undocumented kids from Central America,” would be to not only tolerate their misdeeds, It would be to reward those misdeeds, and to encourage more misdeeds in the future. These governments by sending their most disadvantaged to our nation seek to absolve themselves of their responsibilities to them. Not only does this allow them to not care for them, they are rewarded in the form of remittances. Illegals who find employment in America send a significant amount of their earnings back to the families they left behind, and the amount of that money becomes significant. Mexico received over $22 billion in such payments in 2012 alone from emigrants, many of whom are working illegally in the US.

Therefore the conservative position on illegal immigration, that they be treated humanely, even if we must imprison them, but that they must be returned to their nation of origin, is not only the most sensible position, but it is the most Christian position as well.

–DK