For the last couple of years, we’ve lived in a small condominium complex in northwest Pasadena. It’s a "transitional" neighborhood, but we’ve put a lot of time and effort into improving the look of our block in recent months. For the most part, our fellow members of our Homeowners Association share our vision for our townhouses. (I’m the temporary president of the board of directors of the HOA). But in the past week or two, we’ve had a major conflict over the issue of hiring undocumented workers to handle landscaping and minor construction tasks around the property.
We are just a few blocks away from two large hardware stores and a lumber yard. Day laborers, almost all Mexicans and Central Americans, line nearby streets looking for someone, anyone, willing to hire them for a few hours of work. In response to complaints from residents about trash and loitering, the City of Pasadena opened a day laborer center on Lake Avenue, less than a mile from our home. Folks wishing to employ workers for the day can simply drop in to the job center and hire as many or as few as they like.
To me, it is unthinkable to question the immigration status of those whom I employ on a temporary basis around my home. Indeed, not only is it unthinkable, it seems fundamentally at odds with the gospel. (More on that in a moment). But one of my neighbors is very uncomfortable, for ideological reasons, with employing temporary workers who might be undocumented. He told me, in very strong language, that hiring "illegal aliens" was pushing California towards Third World status. Instead, we ought to be hiring American citizens to do all of our work for us, even if that meant paying higher wages. (My neighbor and I both work for public entities; we are both members of public sector unions.) His was, in a sense, a progressive argument: hiring the undocumented for cash-only transactions drives down wages for the American working class. My counter-argument was that by hiring those who need work the most desperately, we are helping to lift the most marginalized out of poverty. Trouble is, I think both of our arguments have some merit.
Whether worshiping in Catholic, evangelical, Mennonite, or Episcopal churches, I’ve always belonged to congregations that had strong feelings about welcoming all immigrants. Here’s the Mennonite policy, based on Leviticus 19:33-34:
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Is it loving an alien as myself to ask to see identity papers before hiring someone? If I am called to treat the alien as if he were native-born, how can I as a Christian not offer him work?
In general, we Christians are called to follow the laws of the secular state. We are to render obedience to Caesar, save in those instances when Caesar’s imperatives conflict directly with God’s call to radical, biblical, universal justice. Civil disobedience has a place, after all; I am convinced that Christians are called to be disobedient to the state when the state demands that we treat folks differently based upon their immigration status.
But those of us who hire the undocumented must be very careful not to exploit them financially. After all, giant corporations regularly hire "illegal aliens", not out of biblical compassion but out of a desire to save money by hiring vulnerable, non-union labor. Having hired many, many day laborers over the years to help with everything from moving to landscaping to very minor construction, I’ve always made sure to pay wages that are well above the minimum. (I’ve never hired anyone for under $20 an hour, frankly, and I’ve often paid more. Indeed, I try to pay day laborers what I think I would pay someone whose name I got from the Yellow Pages, though that is often tough to gauge.)
I know that many of the men I’ve hired are sending money home to Mexico, Central, and South America. Our church has an ongoing, long-term mission project in a small Sinaloa town near the Pacific. On my visits there, I’ve seen the tremendous good that the money sent home by those working in America has brought about. (When I visited my fiancee’s family last year in rural northeastern Colombia, I saw the same enormous benefits that remittances from America had provided.) When I hire a day laborer, and pay him well, I’m not merely enabling him to eat; I’m helping to support an entire community. And as a Christian, I believe I am called to love a Latin American community every bit as much as one here in the United States. Yes, my salary is paid by taxes — but villages in Mexico and Colombia survive on the money I pay to their sons and daughters here. Is it not contradictory to the gospel to prefer one’s own people to those who live abroad?
My neighbor and I are at a bit of impasse. If he wants to insist on hiring only documented workers to work around our place, I’m happy to let him make those hiring decisions. I will not, under any circumstances, ask to see a laborer’s identification. My concern is simply that whomever we hire be paid justly.
I’d like to hear from my fellow Christians or other people of faith on this issue, please. I’m sure I’ve got plenty of readers who are staunch opponents of hiring the undocumented. I know the rhetoric, thanks. This is one of those times when, frankly, I want to limit the discussion to the intersection of issues of faith, immigration, and obedience. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Hugo, you make an excellent point. When I served on the board of a non-profit that helped recent immigrants, someone once asked me if we served un-documented people. Of course we did; someone had to!
Hugo,
While I agree with your moral position that one should not discriminate based on immigration status, you are legally obligated to check the employment eligibility of anyone you employ (and retain a Form I-9 documenting that you did so). For the most part, then, you are right that for you this is an issue of civil disobedience. Clearly, there may be times when civil disobedience is appropriate, but in my view one should be very reluctant to resort to civil disobedience in a democratic society. Consider, for example, how you would react if a condominium association subject to Title VII refused to hire women for these jobs on the grounds that his religion taught him that women should not work outside of the home.
There is also a second issue here. Even if you conclude that civil disobedience is required of you here, does that justify your implicating your neighbor in a violation of law? I’m not a Christian, but I would not be surprised if that also raises moral issues within a Christian framework.
Some years ago, when the current immigration policy was formulated and made law requiring the use of the I-9 form, Roger Mahoney did a press conference stating the archdiocese position against that requirement and its intention of breaking that law. If I recall, it was something of an invitation to the authorities to come and arrest him if that’s what they wanted to do. [This is how I remember it.]
I am a Christian. I would like to be known as a person who goes out of the way to treat immigrants with justice, dignity, respect; who pays fair wages (including withholding taxes, FICA, and workers comp) as a distinctive of being an “evangelical” Christian. This issue seems to be foundationally more biblical than other things that we are known for because of the notoriety of certain radio personalities (or wherever it is that they lurk and get out their strange messages).
Fred, this is why I am willing to delegate the hiring to my neighbor, if he is unwilling to join me in such civil disobedience (which, of course, is universal in Los Angeles, where hundreds of thousands of the undocumented work daily.) Ultimately, I cannot wear a Christian hat and a citizen hat simultaneously if my duties to Christ and Caesar conflict. I won’t drag my neighbor in to trouble. But when I hire folks to work inside my own home, I will not ask them for proof of their right to work. I am prepared for the consequences of that; civil disobedience always has consequences.
Glenn, on this issue, I’ve always been a huge fan of Cardinal Mahony. On some topics, he’s fallen down badly. On immigration and justice for workers in the city of Los Angeles, he’s been a superb and faithful shepherd.
I’m going to take another direction - no suprise.
Your neighbor - brother - the “undocumented” (I’ll use your euphemism for illegal alien) has a duty of his own, directed by Christ, to Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s. In this case, since it harms none and does not violate God’s law, his Rendering Unto is to be legal and right with the duly recognized and legitimate secular authorities by emigrating and working with proper documentation and within the confines of the legitimate law.
By being an enabler in flouting this law, you are leading him to being in conflict with the one of the teachings of Christ.
Besides that, it helps nobody when what we have is corporate America encouraging the creation of what is basically a serf class; having worked with other companies who have made it a practice of employing illegals - excuse me, undocumenteds - I can tell you with certainty that once they have saved the money that the miniscule fine would cost them, that they exploit them shamelessly, working them long and inhuman hours without overtime or other benefits that they would have to pay by working within the law, and by threatening deportation or worse if they ever say “No.”
This is why I have said for a long time that the target of immigration authorities should not be the immigrant themself, but those who employ them, so that it became far to costly to risk. Reduce the demand, and the problem will disappear: No jobs, no people crossing the border for them.
Gonzman, complying with Caesar’s law would mean waiting endlessly for a visa. Do you have any idea what the chances are of a young Mexican or Colombian man getting a visa to the USA? To stay in an environment of unemployment and poverty may mean that families will starve — obeying the law would bring colossal economic harm to millions of Latin Americans!
I state clearly in my post that I pay anyone who works for me quite well. I have no sympathy for the Wal-Marts of the world who exploit migrant undocumented workers, but I won’t have those of us who do pay well lumped with those who don’t.
Hugo,
I’m certainly with you on your concern for the poor and utterly disenfranchised. I’m not sure however whether your course is ultimately the one that does the most good, given that it’s a one-time solution, and doesn’t change the status quo. As one person hiring people for decent wages, you’re helping those individuals (and important role), but do you become part of an exploitative black economy that further endentures those people to that economy, that is almost exclusively exploitative - you and a handful of other likeminded progressive christians being the serious minority.
You also have the problem of what happens if they have an accident while at work - you aren’t covered by insurance, they aren’t covered, there’s no union to fight their corner…
We have a similar scenario in the UK right now with hiring so-called illegal immigrants, many many of whom are legitimate asylum seekers, and the majority of the rest of just economic migrants like the rest of us, their only distinction being that they move across borders not just across town or state for a better life. How do we best help them? In the grand scheme of things, I favour an open door policy - so much of the trouble in the countries where many of them come from (eastern europe, afghaninstan, north africa) were caused by us in the first place that it seems insanely immoral to refuse them entry here when they need to escape from the hell we’ve built for them. But employing them illegally is not a step on the road to legitimacy, stability or security. It’s just extends their time working illegally…
I really don’t know what the best option is, and I applaud your stance, and I’m sure the families in latin america would thank you for the money that gets sent home, but I’m still not sure that there isn’t a better way through supporting unionisation and protesting the immigration laws…
Much as I may sympathize, what it amounts to is still giving a man a fish as opposed to teaching him to fish. This has long been one of my biggest bones of contention with the American Liberals - not with their compassion for anyone, but with the fact that once that compassion wells up it blinds them to everything else.
Poverty does not occur in a vacuum, this isn’t the result of chance or luck of the dice. Mexico is poor not due to a lack of natural resources, but due to the fact that they have a corrupt government that works hand in hand with big business, and sadly, with American big business to boot, and all those fat cats skim off the top and leave crumbs for everyone else. It’s to their advantage to do so - to keep the people barely able to get by. Not so poor they are desperate and will risk anything (say - revolution? Even if only a revolution at the ballot box…) to make things better.
Vincente Fox doesn’t have to deal with his problems as things stand. He can afford to chase after his political foes on charges of corruption, but he doesn’t have to do any real houskeeping. “No problem. Send them to the Gringos. Senor Bush is sucking up for Latino votes, the Democrats are sucking up for Latino votes - Carrumba! How can they say no?” They’ve got a stranglehold on who can be put on ballots, who can get an education, and are practicing the ancient Roman art of “Bread and Circuses” as far as their proverbial unwashed masses are concerned.
You look at where our illegal immigration problems are occuring from, and it has one common theme - the governments there are corrupt. There are many poor nations who don’t emigrate in such masses, because there is hope, social mobility, freedom, and reasonably forseeable reward for hard work. Look at Haiti - Under Duvalier, they did all they could to get here. Get that gang out, they stay home, because they have what I like to call a scrapping chance to better their lot in life.
These places that these immigrants are coming from are what we have always called “Banana Republics,” and for years we’ve been nothing more than a safety valve to them, to alleviate the pressure and keep the lid from blowing off. Now, you yourself are small potatoes. A occasional day laborer or so isn’t going to make or break anyone let alone national policy, and as far as casual labor goes, you shouldn’t as a private citizen be forced to act as an agent for statist concerns, and in many ways you’re a victim of your own tendancy of being entirely too scrupulous in this matter.
The failure here has been of the Republicrats in Washington abrogating their duty in the name of pandering to a voting bloc, with both sides there selling out not just our country but the freedoms of foreign nationals in the name of the allmighty Vote, and it’s bastard son, the Fast Buck, and the third member of that unholy trinity, the Status Quo.
But what we need to do is to secure the borders, and not the least of those reasons include making Latin American countries clean up their own house, and also to stop sloughing off onto private citizens and industry things which are clearly the government’s perogative and duty to deal with.
My child goes to school with children of undocumented aliens. They all live better than poor taxpayers with their subsidized housing, free lunch, free medical care etc. My daughter’s friend’s father owns houses all over town while we pay for his kid’s lunch. My kid has peanut butter every day. My daughter will never have a room of her own. His two children each have their own room, thanks to the low income condo he controls. We will never have a living room since that is where she sleeps. If I wasn’t going through my retirement savings, we would be living in one room. His income isn’t reported. He uses it to invest. Don’t feel so sorry for those doing the underground economy. They are living a lot better than those of us paying taxes if not now in a few years from now.
P.S. I doubt if you would hire me or any other out of work or unemployed middle aged person if I were to show up at the day labor site. Not to mention all those young men would probably beat me up before I had a chance to compete for a job.
I meant underemployed. I am one of the millions of part-time independent contractors who work 10 hours to get paid for one hour with no benefits. but hey, I ain’t homeless yet!
Rainbow, I have seen how most undocumented workers in the San Gabriel Valley live (I don’t know where you are). I’ve seen three families in a studio apartment; I’ve seen the grinding poverty. I’ve been in the villages in Mexico and Colombia from whence they came. I have never, ever, met an undocumented laborer who owned condos all over town. These aren’t the hungry young men I see on Lake and Villa Avenues, wearing the same clothes day after day, willing to work for next-to-nothing.
As for getting beaten up, our Pasadena Job Center is clean, has security, and even has coffee for the men who wait there. Workers sign in in the morning, and then are hired off a list. I’ve had these folks in my home, and never had a bad experience.
My child goes to school with children of undocumented aliens. They all live better than poor taxpayers with their subsidized housing, free lunch, free medical care etc.
Government subsidies are based on your income and household size. A “poor taxpayer” has exactly the same eligibility as a poor undocumented alien–though, of course, the poor taxpayer who reports legal income may qualify for the Earned Income credit. And undocumented aliens do pay sales taxes, just like the rest of us.
Hugo, I agree with Fred (duh–we’re lawyers), but I caution that you need to have insurance, and you need to be sure that your insurance will cover you if a worker in your home is injured. (Some insurance policies may refuse to pay if you knowingly broke the law.) It would be catastrophic if a worker injured him or herself, and, having no recourse to the worker’s compensation system, had to seek that money from you. Whatever your good intentions in paying those bills, you might not be able to do so.
I hope your worker center also offers assistance or referrals to English-language classes and immigration assistance.
My daughter’s friend’s father owns houses all over town while we pay for his kid’s lunch.
Then his problem is unreported income, not undocumented immigrant status. Why don’t you report him?
The point is by encouraging the underground economy you are further grinding the working poor into the further poverty. How would it kill you to hire a union carpenter? The undocumented become documented by marrying or through amnesty and then use their knowledge of the underground economy to rack up the money and investments while paying no taxes. Believe me it is tempting to quit my independent contractor gig, fake an accent and work off the books as a nanny. I could probably double my take home pay.
Maybe Roumanian, no one knows what that accent should sound like?
To Hugo
They beat you up before you get to the sign up sheet. Somehow, I don’t see you hiring middle-aged vaguely white women for fixing up jobs — does not fit your preconceived image.
It is the same who cares if they are illegal attitude that leads educated people to jump their visitor’s visa and get black market jobs. You haven’t lost your job yet Hugo but check with some computer programmers, accountants, and laboratory workers.
Computer programmers aren’t losing their jobs because educated people “jump their visa”. They lose their jobs either to H1B workers, or to outsourcing.
How would it kill you to hire a union carpenter?
So Hugo should be hiring a union undocumented alien instead of a nonunion citizen?
If you think marrying is a simple ticket to citizenship, you really know zero about immigration law.
Folks, can we keep the arguments here focused on Christian responses to immigration? It’s my blog, and I’m trying to keep this narrowly focused — hope you’ll understand. There are lots of places to talk about immigration in political and economic contexts, but I’m only interested in how faith informs our responses to the undocumented among us.
Well, I thought the tangent was more about whether you’re actually doing harm through hiring undocumented aliens, in the sense that would be contrary to the principles of our faith.
Fine, as long as we keep faith front and center.
My faith says there is nothing wrong with hiring a legal, union worker, but some people are too cheap.
When did Christ say you could not hire a union worker?
Carpenter’s Local Union 409
(213) 488-0258
(213) 385-3510
533 S Fremont Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Plumbers Union Local No 78 AFL-CIO
(213) 688-9090
1111 James M Wood Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90015
United Electrical Union Local 1010
(909) 947-8077
1408 S Grove Ave
Ontario, CA 91761
http://www.laschools.org/fs-general/ download/psa/LAC_Labor_Directory_2.pdf
To mythago:
Marriage is the easiest immigration route for women. Ask all the women on the marriage sites. Every man I know who has married in the last year has married an illegal.
It is easier than having to talk to your wife.
Good lord, I’ve hired many a union worker for complex jobs; never crossed a picket in my life, paid dues to CTA for years (I’ve given over 10 grand to my union in the last eight years, I’m confident). Is there a gardener’s union? Is there a union for folks you need to move a whole bunch of boxes? Perhaps there ought to be, but in the meantime what’s wrong with paying the fellow from the street corner 20 bucks an hour?
I have a million dollar liability policy on my place; I just read through it and it doesn’t mention illegal immigrants anywhere I can see…
Sorry I missed the part that Hugo pays 30% more than union wages to illegals who are not insured and who can put him into bankruptcy if they get injured on the job or if shoddy work falls on someone’s head. that is not Christian charity, that is just plain st—-!
So next time go to your local women’s shelter or your local senior center and offer someone there the $20/hour for gardening. I could move boxes. There a few jobs for women paying that kind of money off the books. some feminist you are.
As for getting beaten up, our Pasadena Job Center is clean, has security, and even has coffee for the men who wait there. Workers sign in in the morning, and then are hired off a list. I’ve had these folks in my home, and never had a bad experience.
For what it’s worth, I too live in Pasadena (Texas). Texas, like California, (obviously) has a big illegal immigration problem and like Cal, has a lot of day labor centers, which I use frequently for home and ranch (east Texas) projects.
I have never had a negative experience with the guys (or gals) I hire. In fact, just the opposite. The men I hire have a better work ethic than the American Citizens that also frequent these work centers. Houston, the closest metropolis is over 50% Hispanic. They are more honest than the locals.
I personally have a lot of respect for illegal immigrants. Here you have men that brave crossing the Rio Grande, often a deadly swim. Sometimes they cross many miles of desert terrain that are often deadly. Many die every year or are swindled by Coyotes to get them across, and through the checkpoints, braving deadly conditions just to get to cities where they can find work to feed their families. Last year for instance, a trailer load of immigrants died of heat exhaustion because a coyote left them sitting in the heat locked up in the Texas sun. They are at the mercy of these coyotes that frankly don’t show much mercy.
Most don’t speak the native tongue. They are very vulnerable in many ways. In short, they, to me, risk their lives and their freedom, just so they can feed their families and sometimes their community back home. I have a lot of respect for men willing to brave these conditions for their family. I think they are brave men. They are not bums or losers, mooching off the system. The ones that I can communicate with, are decent men. They pay their taxes like everyone else, except perhaps income taxes.
And yet, when they do get here, they are taken advantage of (Hugo aside) by a lot of the people that hire them. Often swindled and ripped off. And it’s not like they can go to the police when they are.
Yes….. It takes more balls (sorry ladies) than I have to do what they do. Think of how you feel when you visit a country where you don’t speak the language. You arrive with little or no money. And you got to sink or swim.
This is a tough one Hugo!… I’ve hired many undocumented workers myself!__ I always have a very difficult time when I go to Home Depot and I see them lined up waiting for work. When I purchased my first house I didn’t have alot of extra cash left over after escrow closed to paint, re-carpet etc.. So I tore out the carpets in the house myself and dragged them outside….(I know what you’re thinking, what an animal)Anyway, I went down to Home Depot and hired three of these fellows and they helped me finish the job. __I think that if a another human being is willing to work to survive we should hire them if we need their services.
Marriage is the easiest immigration route for women. Ask all the women on the marriage sites.
Yep. You know zero about immigration law. Or how taxes work. Could you please troll a little more authoritatively?
Hugo, you might want to check, well, not with your insurance agent, but with an attorney. Your county bar association almost certainly does cheap consultation referrals (something like $40 to talk to an attorney for half an hour to an hour about your issue).
Whether or not it says “illegal immigrants,” most policies have clauses about things like criminal or intentional activities–i.e., they could try to avoid paying you if you knowingly and deliberately hired somebody in violation of immigration and labor laws. (Are you paying into worker’s comp? Are you sure you are complying with all California laws regarding overtime, breaks and meal periods? Etc.)
After all, civil disobedience extends to the workers’ undocumented nature, correct? You’re not interested in flouting laws enacted to protect workers.
Here’s some relevant California law. I’ve never had to pay more than $750 per calendar quarter, and am thus exempt from filing any paperwork:
http://www.edd.ca.gov/taxrep/taxfaq.htm#DomesticEmployer
I believe that immigration is both inevitable and morally right. I definitely agree that treating the undocumented the same as anyone else is a viable form of civil disobedience.
I frankly doubt that hiring illegal immigrants can be justified using the gospel. Heck, maybe you’re right. But it’s the civil government’s job, I think, to keep its borders safe. Yes, we should be kind to strangers. But not to queue jumpers, and not to criminals. These people may be poor, and we must, of course, help them how we can, with food, advocacy, and help them to obey the law, and fill in forms, and support them how we can without breaking the law. But I don’t see any justification for breaking the law, unless in the case of refugees, like those from Zimbabwe or China. There, I think there is a concrete duty to assist. But if you help an illegal immigrant, aren’t you penalising those who have waited for a visa, who might be asking for the same job?
Further, there is a judgement in your comment: “But if they have to wait, they have to wait for ages”. Waiting for ages (or not) is Caesar’s decision, on Caesar’s border. If you don’t like it, vote for someone else. If you lose, try to persuade your neighbours, like we are in NZ at the moment. But objecting to immigrants waiting sounds like you think the US has an obligation to let everyone in. And that is a political position, not a Christian one. Putting Christian colouring about helping strangers on it doesn’t make it any less political. Help strangers, I think. But obey the law. Lex dura, sed lex.
Oh, and isn’t the millions starving in Latin America because they can’t come to the US (Spurious, but even so) a Latin American problem? Not that we should do nothing, but surely what I am saying is, it must be solved in Latin America, primarily by Latin Americans. With all the help we can give, of course.
Hugo,
As you can see from the comments, and I’m sure as you knew beforehand, this is a very difficult topic, with many varying views of what is the correct path for a faithful person to follow. As I’m sure you know, the following verses from Matthew 25 are taken seriously by those of the Mennonite path, as well as by many others:
34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’
40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’
It does not specify, “When I was a legal resident and hungry, you gave me food.” Nowhere does God make legal residency status an issue when choosing to do good for people. The Bible states, “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” So, however we choose to treat *anyone*, we are treating God, and any of his representatives, in that manner.
Other related teachings are found in Matthew 12:
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
and
10 And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them, “What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, whole like the other.
No matter what our gov’t says, no matter what those people around us say, the Word is our ultimate authority. It is our direction from God. Where civic law contradicts God’s law, God’s law wins, hands down.
And as for the commentor who brought in someone not hiring women because their faith teaches that women should stay home, if that person were Christian, I’d have to point out Ruth and Deborah to him. There are other women in the Bible who also worked outside their homes, but Ruth and Deborah are among the better known.
Waiting for ages (or not) is Caesar’s decision, on Caesar’s border.
Actually, it is our decision and our border, it since we (unlike the average Roman) get to have some say in our laws.
In matters of spirituality then I think the intent counts as much as the result. My personal argument has not been about how much we pay or don’t pay but in health insurance. See I can’t stand around knowing that someone may need a doctor or have love ones at home needing a doctor and give them alittle cash and shrug my shoulders and say “oh well not my problem”. So for me the issue is to make sure that all the people that I hire have good health insurance, which usually means at the very least a green card… it also means doing a heck of a lot of work myself rather then hiring someone else to do it. Personally I’m for open boarders and think that everything would quickly equal out if that was done. This immigration thing is just crazy and it is making second class citizen out of people that deserve better.
Actually, it is our decision and our border, it since we (unlike the average Roman) get to have some say in our laws.
True, mythago, but in Christianese, “Caesar’s decision” often translates into “within the domain of what the civil government gets to decide, rather than the domain where Christians are morally bound to disobey” rather than to “we have no say in this at all.” I think John’s simply disagreeing with Hugo about whether this is one of those cases where civil disobedience is appropriate.
I believe that God knows what is in our hearts. If we choose to employ an undocumented worker, and treat that person with consideration because that is what we feel led to do, then so be it. Not everyone is called to examine liability issues, insurance concerns, etc.
I used to have a neighbor from El Salvador. I paid her to watch my kiddo while I went to work. I greatly preferred this arrangement to a commercial day care center. She was a good person, and raised her own two boys so well. That money gave her enough to buy a car and get medicine for her kids when they needed it. If she had been documented, and still been my neighbor, it would have been the same deal. It was a case of doing what was best for everyone, and I am going to look after my own child and my neighbor before worrying about domestic policy, frankly. It was what was at my doorstep. Perhaps it was selfish, but was I to ignore the situation and farm my child out to Kindercare or hire a total, but documented, stranger?
I recently gave running a maid service a go. It was small–only myself and two other people, both of who were documented. I couldn’t afford to pay for insurance for either one of them–not and employ them. The choice was them having a job or not having one. It is tough for small employers to pay for health insurance. Does anyone think it is better when people work for half the money and get some crummy policy with a $500 deductable per person? Some of the discussion on here is not only relevant to undocumented workers. Nickled and Dimed addresses this problem eloquently.
Does anyone think it is better when people work for half the money and get some crummy policy with a $500 deductable per person?
As opposed to them spending half of the larger paycheck on a crummier insurance policy, or going thousands of dollars into debt with a medical emergency?
I do not have a problem hiring an undocumented worker. For all the reasons mentioned in your post, Hugo, I think we are often biblically called to such action. But as a white person and someone who is part of the dominant culture in this country, I worry about the implications of this kind of thing. I wrestled for months over whether or not to hire someone to clean our house.
On the one hand, I want to give work to someone who truly needs it, regardless of ethnicity or legal status. On the other hand, I don’t want to be the wealthy person from the dominant culture who is patronizing those who are “less fortunate” by giving them a job. I am in a privileged place if I am looking to hire someone to do my housework. Am I just contributing to the gross structural injustice of our dominant culture by hiring a Mexican woman to do work for me around the house? Or am I using my wealth in a helpful, biblical way? Perhaps both!
Thoughts?
Well, Nancy, the situation is helped in our house by the fact that my fiancee is Colombian-American, and she grew up working (from age eight to fourteen) helping her mother clean houses. She’s scrubbed more toilets than anyone I know, and did so when she was still in elementary school. She’s earned the right to hire folks now that she has “made it.” And the wages she and her mother made helped keep the family going… all the way to her college degree and career in business management.
If my guilt keeps me from hiring someone, then I have put my emotional balance ahead of the opportunity to do justice in the lives of others by offering them work at a more-than-fair wage.
Hugo, don’t you think Nancy’s “guilt” is more important than just an issue in keeping one’s “emotional balance”? I mean, Jesus seemed to talk a lot about people’s hearts. He seemed to ask folks to examine their motives and discern guilt, not just concern themselves with Justice. For Jesus, motives matter. (Just as much as “race matters”?)
I should start out by saying that I am an atheist, so my basis of moral action is not biblical. So you can decide I am an interloper here.
But I think you are giving yourself airs by calling the hiring of an illegal ‘civil disobedience’. Here is a swell post from Volokh from couple of weeks ago: [Todd Zywicki, July 11, 2005 at 11:43am] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
One More Oral Argument Meltdown:
Since I’m in the mood, one more good oral argument exchange in a different case. The case is on appeal because the plaintiff’s case was dismissed because his lawyer failed to file his expert witness list by the deadline set by the court. As a result, the court refused to admit expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff and dismissed the case.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court’s deadline was unreasonable. But more than that, he claimed in his brief and oral argument that his failure to file the pleading in time was and act of civil disobedience against the high-handed practices of the district court judge, “like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and the brave Americans who stood up to the tyranny of King George.” (Coincidentally, the district court judge’s first name was “George”).
Which led to the following exchange:
JUDGE: Counsel, you say that your failure to meet the deadline was an act of civil disobedience, designed to demonstrate the injustice of the court’s approach in this case? And that as a result, we should reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the case and remand?
COUNSEL: Yes, your honor.
JUDGE: Now counsel, you do understand how “civil disobedience” works, don’t you?
COUNSEL: I don’t understand the question, your honor.
JUDGE: Well, the way that civil disobedience works is that you believe the law to be unjust, and so you are willing to be punished for violating it in order to demonstrate the injustice of the law. For this to be a true act of civil disobedience, therefore, you would have to be willing to accept the punishment, and through that willingness to accept the punishment, you demonstrate the injustice of the law. So, for instance, Martin Luther King’s act of civil disobedience was his willingness to be arrested and go to jail in order to demonstrate the injustice of the laws. So, if this was a true act of civil disobedience on your part, aren’t we obliged to affirm the ruling of the district court dismissing the case?
COUNSEL (after long pause): Um, your honor, I would like to amend my argument…
I think hiring an illegal is more like going 50 in a 45 zone after deciding that the street is really safe at that speed. Unless you are going to announce to La Migra that this is what you are going to do - and that exposes the poor schmoe you have hired to being picked up and deported from your front lawn.
That said, I don’t have much criticism of hiring these guys: the authorities clearly don’t care very much, or they would be doing sweeps at the Home Depot and putting people on waiting planes to Tegucigalpa. The ‘Render Unto Caesar’ argument works a lot better when Caesar REALLY wants something.
That said, paying well and treating the guys decently - let’s call it the Lady Bountiful school of hiring illegals - goes only so far. You have the power. They know it. So you have to look carefully into your own heart to know whether you are behaving well.
Couple of anecdotes, from the newspapers: a guy from Mexico who is quadriplegic in a nursing home here in Virginia, fell off a roof, has no insurance for his family, never will see them again because there is no way they can travel to see him or he to see them. And two Polish immigrants who died of cyanide poisoning when a factory owner in Chicago sent them into a tank to clean it out. I think there is no way you can duplicate what there is in place for bonded insured legal employees for hazardous work, and what is in place for bonded insured employees is the minimum for right action as an employers, so you should not offer hazardous work to illegals. How to set the boundaries? Nothing over ten feet up a ladder? Nothing involving a chain saw? Not sure, but you should think about it.
and I think you are on the right track in standing out of the way of your fellow condominum-ite when he has scruples on hiring illegals.
i am syed fazal ahmed i am 34 years old i am engineer and working as a system analyst in a privatecompany