The Latino Evangelical Left
Forum category
http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2009/07/17/the-latino-evangelical-left/
During the 2008 presidential campaign, religion and politics wonks made much ado about very little over the emergence of the Evangelical Left. Certainly the white evangelical left exists (ie Tony Campolo), but despite all the hype over evangelical enchantment with Obama, the evangelical left did not have a break out year in 2008.
Yet the Evangelical Left should be heartened. As this article in the Economist notes, the fastest growing segment of American evangelicalism, Latino pentecostalism, is signficantly more open to the politics of the left than their white counterparts.
I am willing to bet that the anti-immigration stance of conservatives, especially during the summer of 2007, has exacerbated the leftward drift of our Latino religious brothers/sisters. This is why I have long supported pro-immigration conservatives. We have done our best to turn our natural political allies into political foes; I can only hope we fail.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, religion and politics wonks made much ado about very little over the emergence of the Evangelical Left. Certainly the white evangelical left exists (ie Tony Campolo), but despite all the hype over evangelical enchantment with Obama, the evangelical left did not have a break out year in 2008.
Yet the Evangelical Left should be heartened. As this article in the Economist notes, the fastest growing segment of American evangelicalism, Latino pentecostalism, is signficantly more open to the politics of the left than their white counterparts.
I am willing to bet that the anti-immigration stance of conservatives, especially during the summer of 2007, has exacerbated the leftward drift of our Latino religious brothers/sisters. This is why I have long supported pro-immigration conservatives. We have done our best to turn our natural political allies into political foes; I can only hope we fail.
SNIP I am willing to bet that the anti-immigration stance of conservatives, especially during the summer of 2007, has exacerbated the leftward drift of our Latino religious brothers/sisters. This is why I have long supported pro-immigration conservatives. We have done our best to turn our natural political allies into political foes; I can only hope we fail.I agree. Here in California I saw a resurgent Republican Party shipwreck on the immigration rock. The best as I can see the problem lies in the suburban conservatives in Southern California. They imported the nativist tripe from back East (not that California can’t\hasn’t generant(ed) its own brand of nativism).
How can we expect a very assimilated person like say a Franklin Gonzolez to support a party which pushes the nativist agenda to the point he fears being swept up by La Migra. Or more likely, he fears for his cousin Jose or his wife Maria Consuleo.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Personally, conservatives should fight back rather than be attacked on this hot issue of immigration. (is it ok to go on a tangent?) Instead of just taking the usual stance of building bigger and better fences to keep people out, they need to 1) show the actual damage illegal immigration is causing and 2) do a simple procedure of asking why until you find the reason they wish to come into the US. And once you find the root cause either shut it down (I don’t think this would work) or help start those things in Mexico(or wherever else they may be coming from). I remember reading an article about a city in Mexico where people were actually immigrating to that city because of the work faster than they were emigrating. And it was because of a single business that was able to sustain itself and provide decent wages, etc. Doing something like that would seem to be a better use of money. I have a feeling Mexicans would rather stay in their own country if they had the ability to do what they do in the US.
Daniel, I think your observations are accurate, but I’m wary of your implicit assumption that we would be better off if immigrants didn’t immigrate. As a historian I would note that we are a nation of immigrants. As a believer in free markets I would argue that open borders stimulate the labor market and encourage efficient production and wealth creation. As a believer in Christ I propose that we should see immigration as an opportunity for ministry rather than an invasion.
Paul, I am not opposed to immigration, just opposed to illegal immigration.
And I do see it as ministry as opposed to an invasion. The fact is, they are here, so we have to ask ourselves, what do we do now? And I think we can be both against illegal immigration and at the same time minister to them. I don’t see those as mutually exclusive.
Just as a side question/comment to your historian side. Would you say we are still a nation of immigrants? The reason I ask is sometimes I get tired of people asking my nationality. I always tell people right away, I am an American. They always respond with, no what nationality are you? And I again respond, American. If pressed further, I will usually say my great grandparents were Mexicans, but since then we are Americans.
Funny story regarding people always asking me my nationality. I usually ask what nationality they think I am and no one has yet to guess correctly on their first try. Seriously, I have been asked if I was from Brazil, Middle East, Bosnia region, Latvia (I had no idea there was a country called that till I was asked if I was from there), Micronesia, Russia, India, Morocco, and most recently Iran. (most of these were from people from those regions. The Iranian actually said I could have been his brother…) It is kind of the running joke with my in laws that ‘I am everyone’ and ‘everyone is my people’. If only I didn’t have this American accent, I could probably pull off most nationalities. Unfortunately, my wife would probably stick out in most of those countries.
And I do see it as ministry as opposed to an invasion. The fact is, they are here, so we have to ask ourselves, what do we do now? And I think we can be both against illegal immigration and at the same time minister to them. I don’t see those as mutually exclusive.
Just as a side question/comment to your historian side. Would you say we are still a nation of immigrants? The reason I ask is sometimes I get tired of people asking my nationality. I always tell people right away, I am an American. They always respond with, no what nationality are you? And I again respond, American. If pressed further, I will usually say my great grandparents were Mexicans, but since then we are Americans.
Funny story regarding people always asking me my nationality. I usually ask what nationality they think I am and no one has yet to guess correctly on their first try. Seriously, I have been asked if I was from Brazil, Middle East, Bosnia region, Latvia (I had no idea there was a country called that till I was asked if I was from there), Micronesia, Russia, India, Morocco, and most recently Iran. (most of these were from people from those regions. The Iranian actually said I could have been his brother…) It is kind of the running joke with my in laws that ‘I am everyone’ and ‘everyone is my people’. If only I didn’t have this American accent, I could probably pull off most nationalities. Unfortunately, my wife would probably stick out in most of those countries.
I do believe that many Americans struggle to differentiate between ethnicity and nationality.
You are right to note that the two are not necessarily exclusive. I guess my sympathy towards illegal immigration stems in part from my antipathy for nationalism. The nation-state is a funny and relatively modern construct. Bendict Andersen was thinking of the nation when he coined the phrase “imagined communities.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities
If the nation is a social construct like class, gender, and race, then it can be deconstructed. I believe that Christians in all places and times form the ultimate imagined community, the universal church. The community of believers transcends class, race, and gender. In Christ, we are neither bond nor free, Jew nor Greek.
So I feel a cognitive dissonance whenever I think of denying citizenship to someone, even at times fellow believers, simply because they were born in a different country. Law is arbitrary and all too absolute. The wave of a pen determines whether or not you become “American.” You came to Ellis Island in the 1920s, okay, citizen. You came to the Rio Grande in the 00’s, no go, illegal alien.
You are right to note that the two are not necessarily exclusive. I guess my sympathy towards illegal immigration stems in part from my antipathy for nationalism. The nation-state is a funny and relatively modern construct. Bendict Andersen was thinking of the nation when he coined the phrase “imagined communities.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities
If the nation is a social construct like class, gender, and race, then it can be deconstructed. I believe that Christians in all places and times form the ultimate imagined community, the universal church. The community of believers transcends class, race, and gender. In Christ, we are neither bond nor free, Jew nor Greek.
So I feel a cognitive dissonance whenever I think of denying citizenship to someone, even at times fellow believers, simply because they were born in a different country. Law is arbitrary and all too absolute. The wave of a pen determines whether or not you become “American.” You came to Ellis Island in the 1920s, okay, citizen. You came to the Rio Grande in the 00’s, no go, illegal alien.
This topic can go so many ways, as there are so many hot rabbit trails just on this one issue.
In attempt to keep it somewhat spiritual, I think the key to being against illegal immigration and at the same time having the ability to minister must come from a recognition that we are first and foremost citizens of a different kingdom and are, as the song goes, just a passin’ through. (of course probably either side can use that as justification)
Should we apply what was done in the 20s to today? Are we the same country? Besides that, there still is a massive difference between those who came through Ellis Island and those that come across any of our borders. That difference is those who came through Ellis Island became legal aliens, and wished to become legal aliens. But I highly doubt the majority of those that cross the border wish to become Americans let alone attempt.
Anyways, I think there are better ways for conservatives to ‘attack’ illegal immigration than just constructing bigger and better walls. IMO, helping Mexicans form businesses within their own country is both positive for Mexicans as they now have jobs they want and positive for conservatives as they are seen as actually helping someone rather than appearing racist or negative. That to me would gain the Latino vote en masse. Even if those businesses have to sign contracts to give better rates to the US for a set time, would that not seem more positive than anything either side has put forth?
In attempt to keep it somewhat spiritual, I think the key to being against illegal immigration and at the same time having the ability to minister must come from a recognition that we are first and foremost citizens of a different kingdom and are, as the song goes, just a passin’ through. (of course probably either side can use that as justification)
Should we apply what was done in the 20s to today? Are we the same country? Besides that, there still is a massive difference between those who came through Ellis Island and those that come across any of our borders. That difference is those who came through Ellis Island became legal aliens, and wished to become legal aliens. But I highly doubt the majority of those that cross the border wish to become Americans let alone attempt.
Anyways, I think there are better ways for conservatives to ‘attack’ illegal immigration than just constructing bigger and better walls. IMO, helping Mexicans form businesses within their own country is both positive for Mexicans as they now have jobs they want and positive for conservatives as they are seen as actually helping someone rather than appearing racist or negative. That to me would gain the Latino vote en masse. Even if those businesses have to sign contracts to give better rates to the US for a set time, would that not seem more positive than anything either side has put forth?
The principal difference between Ellis Island style immigration policies and today’s is that they actually allowed people to immigrate and become citizens while we don’t. Today, except for a very small number of visas issued to academics and skilled professionals, we do not allow foreigners to immigrate into the United States. What has changed between then and now is not the desire of foreigners to enter America but rather our desire to welcome them.
It is important to distinguish between becoming a “legal alien” and becoming “American.” The desire to become a “legal alien” simply denotes that a person wants to live in America and enjoy the privileges (freedom, jobs, education, etc) that we enjoy. Becoming “American” carries a great deal of baggage and implies cultural assimilation. I would argue that neither the majority of immigrants at Elllis Island nor those today desired to become “American.” If you’d asked the fresh-off-the-boat Mr. Gepetto if he wanted to become “American” rather than “Italian” he would have laughed in your face (in the unlikely chance that he understood English). The same was true with the German immigrants of the mid-18th century, the Irish from the 1850s, the Italians of the 1880s, the East Europeans of the 1920s, and the Hispanics of the 1990s. What matters is not their intent, but the end result. The melting pot works wonders. Besides, we shouldn’t think of some distinctly “American culture.” America has always been a cultural hybrid. Immigrants become more like us and we become more like them until the distinctions become distant memory. The question that logically follows then is why we should treat the Lopez family differently from the Jaworskis, the Bertini’s, the O’Connors, or the Mullers?
I remember a San Francisco Chronicle article from a couple years ago in which the reporter went to visit the home of an illegal alien. The lady spoke nothing but Spanish and loudly proclaimed she had no desire to become American. She said something to the effect of, “The day that my hair turns blond and my eyes blue is the day I become an American!” While she was telling this to the reporter her son yelled (in English) from the next room, “Mom! I want a burger!” The son marched into the kitchen wearing a San Francisco 49ers jacket and turned on the TV to watch the Simpsons. Cultural assimilation is inevitable (though it is arguable whether recent immigrants are the better for it!).
Now let’s get down to economics! :-)
I’m a believer in the economic free market. Your solution, promoting business opportunities inside Latin countries, is a distortion of the market. Immigrants are drawn by jobs at businesses in the US and fill a void in the labor market during economic expansions. Most businesses do not relocate to Latin America because of the costs of relocation, government corruption, and lack of security from gangs and extortion. Thus, if the government directly subsidizes business relocation to Latin America it is undertaking something which the free market determined was not the most efficient way to expand wealth. This destroys potential wealth.
I’m also an advocate of free trade, the idea that goods and services should freely flow across national boundaries. The explosion of global wealth over the past 300 years is a direct, partial result of the expansion of lowered barriers to trade. Labor is every bit as much a part of the market as cars, widgets, investment, or ideas. Why should we build a (literal) wall to prevent the free exchange of labor when we vehemenently oppose (financial) walls to the free exchange of other goods or services? Because the exchange of goods and labor in a free market is not a zero sum game, immigration enriches both “native born Americans” and Hispanics.
It is important to distinguish between becoming a “legal alien” and becoming “American.” The desire to become a “legal alien” simply denotes that a person wants to live in America and enjoy the privileges (freedom, jobs, education, etc) that we enjoy. Becoming “American” carries a great deal of baggage and implies cultural assimilation. I would argue that neither the majority of immigrants at Elllis Island nor those today desired to become “American.” If you’d asked the fresh-off-the-boat Mr. Gepetto if he wanted to become “American” rather than “Italian” he would have laughed in your face (in the unlikely chance that he understood English). The same was true with the German immigrants of the mid-18th century, the Irish from the 1850s, the Italians of the 1880s, the East Europeans of the 1920s, and the Hispanics of the 1990s. What matters is not their intent, but the end result. The melting pot works wonders. Besides, we shouldn’t think of some distinctly “American culture.” America has always been a cultural hybrid. Immigrants become more like us and we become more like them until the distinctions become distant memory. The question that logically follows then is why we should treat the Lopez family differently from the Jaworskis, the Bertini’s, the O’Connors, or the Mullers?
I remember a San Francisco Chronicle article from a couple years ago in which the reporter went to visit the home of an illegal alien. The lady spoke nothing but Spanish and loudly proclaimed she had no desire to become American. She said something to the effect of, “The day that my hair turns blond and my eyes blue is the day I become an American!” While she was telling this to the reporter her son yelled (in English) from the next room, “Mom! I want a burger!” The son marched into the kitchen wearing a San Francisco 49ers jacket and turned on the TV to watch the Simpsons. Cultural assimilation is inevitable (though it is arguable whether recent immigrants are the better for it!).
Now let’s get down to economics! :-)
I’m a believer in the economic free market. Your solution, promoting business opportunities inside Latin countries, is a distortion of the market. Immigrants are drawn by jobs at businesses in the US and fill a void in the labor market during economic expansions. Most businesses do not relocate to Latin America because of the costs of relocation, government corruption, and lack of security from gangs and extortion. Thus, if the government directly subsidizes business relocation to Latin America it is undertaking something which the free market determined was not the most efficient way to expand wealth. This destroys potential wealth.
I’m also an advocate of free trade, the idea that goods and services should freely flow across national boundaries. The explosion of global wealth over the past 300 years is a direct, partial result of the expansion of lowered barriers to trade. Labor is every bit as much a part of the market as cars, widgets, investment, or ideas. Why should we build a (literal) wall to prevent the free exchange of labor when we vehemenently oppose (financial) walls to the free exchange of other goods or services? Because the exchange of goods and labor in a free market is not a zero sum game, immigration enriches both “native born Americans” and Hispanics.
Just got to the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702044099045743505418135125…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702044099045743505418135125…
Paul, those are some good points.
A few comments (not arguments) though. When I say help form businesses in Latin America, specifically Mexico, that can take any form. And by no means am I saying it would be cheap or easy. What I am saying is, I believe the reason they cross illegally is due to jobs that are lacking in their own country. (that is the root cause) So in order to stop illegal immigration, you must attack the root cause. So forming businesses in their own country would solve the issue. What I am not talking about are things you brought up, it would be expensive, lack security, etc. That is a different discussion. I am just speaking to the root cause of the issue and naming one option to solving it.
And I am not opposed to what you said, I just think we are talking about two different things.
A few comments (not arguments) though. When I say help form businesses in Latin America, specifically Mexico, that can take any form. And by no means am I saying it would be cheap or easy. What I am saying is, I believe the reason they cross illegally is due to jobs that are lacking in their own country. (that is the root cause) So in order to stop illegal immigration, you must attack the root cause. So forming businesses in their own country would solve the issue. What I am not talking about are things you brought up, it would be expensive, lack security, etc. That is a different discussion. I am just speaking to the root cause of the issue and naming one option to solving it.
And I am not opposed to what you said, I just think we are talking about two different things.
You’re right about the root cause of the problem. I have an easier solution though…allow them to immigrate legally. Problem solved! :-)
Discussion