While I was away on my trip, and thus out of touch with the news, a friend of mine told me that there were going to be massive shut-down attempt demonstrations on Cinco de Mayo (May 5th) and wanted to make sure that I knew about it in case it would affect my travel plans.
She later called back and said that the demonstrations were going to be on May 1st.
"That’s interesting," I thought.
If the demonstrations were on May 5th then that would make sense, as it’s a distinctive Mexican holiday, but if they’re on May 1st that says something else: It suggests that there may be radical leftist/Communist/socialist influence behind the demonstrations (whether most of the demonstrators know it or not), because May 1st is a traditional day for radical leftist/Communist/socialist demonstrations.
AND THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE.
One of the organizing groups behind the May 1st demonstration is ANSWER.
I have to say that, for the purposes of the demonstrators, the May 1st events seem to have gone spectacularly badly. Not only did they seem not to pull the number of protestors the organizers were hoping forboasting about in advance, but they also continued the turning off of the American people toward illegal immigrants.
Take the young lady pictured above. Notice anything about her?
Well, she’s scowling, of course, but that could just be because she’d outside and there’s a lot of bright light, so we won’t hold that against her. Notice anything else?
Oh, yeah! She’s got a Mexican flag wrapped around her face!
Now why do people hide their faces in public?
ACTUALLY, THERE CAN BE SEVERAL REASONS.
None of them, however, will win friends in the United States or make people want to pressure their politicians to vote amnesty for illegal aliens.
Then there are folks who are just silly. Like this guy:
I mean, what on earth is he thinking?
First of all, it simply isn’t true that no illegal aliens would mean no burritos. We had burritos in this country long before we had massive numbers of illegal aliens, and we’ll have them long afterwards as well. The last I knew, "burrito chef" was not one of the ficitonal "jobs Americans won’t do."
But even if it were . . . so what?
Living without burritos would be a small price to pay if it meant ending the illegal immigration problem and restoring respect for the law and sealing the nation’s borders to terrorists and stopping illegal aliens from depressing the wages of U.S. workers and taking jobs away from Americans who would do them if the labor market weren’t being undercut by people who are in this country illegally.
In fact, I’m living without burritos now (they’re terribly high-carb unless you make them with low-carb burrito wrappers, which I’m not motivated to do), so this guy gets absolutely no sympathy from me.
But this photo of him is just another sign of how asinine (that means "dull as a donkey"–or in Spanish a burro, or even a burrito) these demonstrations have been.
The demonstrators are really, really hurting the the pro-lawlessness cause.
May 1st isn’t only a day for Communists and leftists. It’s also the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, which would allow for a responsible and Christian understanding of work and labour.
I probably love burritos at least as much as anyone else reading this blog, but last I checked, they’re quite easy to make, even for us gringos. “No immigrants -> No burritos” almost sounds like a joke rather than a legitimate protest slogan. I can imagine seeing something like that on The Onion: “Mexican restaurants unite to protest immigration reform: Taco Bell yet to issue a statement”
As I mentioned elsewhere, May 1 (Primero de Mayo) is a National Holiday in Mexico, it is Mexican “Labor(ers) Day.” So the organizers did pick the correct day if they want to appeal to a (real) Mexican mindset on this issue of workers.
Cinco de Mayo, on the other hand, is a “fun” holiday in Mexico to remember when a rag-tag Mexican Army kicked French butt at Puebla (and the French Army was the best in the world at the time). It is a day to cry “Estamos Mexicanos!” with some sense of pride. This was very important because between Mexican Independence (Sep 16, 1810) and the Battle of Puebla (May 5, 1862), Mexico had lost the Mexican-American War to the US, and about half of their national territory to the US (Texas, New Mexico, California). The US occupied Mexico City on Sep 14, 1847. So, after being beaten by the US, it was a boost to the national morale to beat the French fifteen years later. But it is a kind of minor holiday in Mexico, compared to Mexican Independence Day (Sep 16).
Personally, I’m conflicted about the whole immigration reform issue. Maybe because it is too personal for me. My wife just became a US Citizen in February, after 50+ years of dealing with legal immigration issues in the US and Mexico. We experienced such poor service from the INS/DoJ in the 1980’s that we dreaded any further encounters. It was a very pleasant surprise when the new, improved Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security did things so fast and efficiently! But the legal administrative process is daunting. It makes preparing your income taxes look easy.
It is also the case that, if either (a) conditions could be improved in their home countries, or (b) American employers faced stiff penalties for employing illegal workers, then the problem would vanish. I know people from Europe and Asia that have “de-immigrated” from the US because of better opportunities back home (Ireland, Germany, Korea, China). And, the teeth of the immigration laws really need to be on the employers. This is the case in most other countries. It is an employer that must help/sponsor the immigrant with the legal immigration process.
May 1st isn´t a day only for Communists/radical leftists. God knows that I hate Communism, and indeed Communists used to celebrate the first of May. But not only them.
Indeed, all over the World, the first of May is a day for the celebration of workers. You Americans celebrate your Labour Day on a different date, but the majority of the countries of the world commemorates Labour Day on May 1st.
In several countries that were never Communist contries, including the country of one of my two nationalities, Brazil, where I live, Labour Day is a holiday, and has been so since the times of populist dictator Getulio Vargas, who was no leftist. Thus, both leftists and right wingers observe Labour Day. In Germany, the Nazis were the ones that instituted May 1st as Labour Day. So many countries celebrate Labour Day on May 1st that the INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, that has 178 member States, recognized May Day as The International Workers Day. The ILO has a Convention promoting the adoption of Labour Day as a holiday.
So widespread was the celebration of May 1st as a Labour Day, that Pope Pius XII (obviously no Communist), instituted the date as the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, thus introducing the Christian element into this day of commemoration of Labour. This clearly shows that May Day ceased to have just a connection with Communism, and became a day for the celebration of workers even by anti-communists.
Of course, irrespective of political trends, workers tend to organize demonstrations on the day consacrated to Labour. I believe that it was based on that spirit, rather then in virtue of any alleged link with Communism or radical left wing tendencies, that the Immigrant´s protests were held on May 1st.
Furthermore, given that not all immigrants are latinos, much less Mexicans, May 1st must have seemed more appropriate then May 5th, given the international character of May Day celebrations.
This is just a note on the day, for I do not whish to enter here in a debate about the merits of the demonstrations.
To Zhou: I am a lawyer, who has had to research this issue professionally. The big reason that American companies do not face penalties for hiring illegals is anti-discrimination laws, which *prohibit* employers from inquiring about legal status if presented with documents which are not obviously fraudulent. If the documents are *not* “obviously fraudulent,” then the employer is exempted from potential liability. Therefore, the laws are written so as to encourage forgery and discourage legal immigration.
Regarding the Catholic bishops: it really bothers me that our bishops tell us that it is important to obey the laws of our government… EXCEPT immigration laws, where they make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. To them, so long as it bumps the percentage of Catholics, it’s all good.
Nontheless, May 1 is associated with liberalism, if not specifically socialism and communism, in the minds of most Americans. It is also the foreign Labor Day, not the American Labor Day. Not the best day to declare yourself an American on, I think.
They should have quietly refused to work on our Labor Day. 😉
Mike,
We don’t obey abortion laws either. Basically any law that is morally unjust is not a just law.
P.S. I forgot to mention above that the French were not amused by the Mexican victory on Cinco de Mayo in 1862. They beat the Mexican army in every battle after that, and entered Mexico City in June 1863, not quite 16 years after the American army entered Mexico City.
It was the Americans that finally gave the French the big boot in 1867. But, hey, the got French Indochina (a.k.a. Vietnam) that year, so the French empire continued. (Perhaps it was revenge for this that prompted the French to “give” troublesome Viet Nam to the Americans after 1954.)
It may well be that future historians write that Americans of all sorts were not amused by the events of May 1, 2006.
Who says that immigration laws are unjust?
“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” CCC2241
You know Jimmy, SWAT teams and special forces personnel also cover thier faces for obvious reasons.
Here is some immigration news from France:
—
The French government unveiled a bill in April 2006 that would require newly arrived immigrants to sign “reception and integration contracts” that obligate them to learn French, respect the country’s values and actively seek work. Immigrants could not bring relatives unless they can be supported without welfare assistance and unauthorized foreigners would no longer receive residence permits after 10 years in France. France expelled 10,000 unauthorized foreigners in 2005.
—
From Thailand:
—
Thai migrant policy allows employers to pay a fee and register the migrants they are employing, which defers their removal for a year or two (there are an additional 143,000 expatriates, mostly Japanese and other nationals associated with foreign investment in Thailand).
With uncertainty about whether re-registration will be allowed, there is little training of foreign workers by Thai employers, and migrants are unsure how much longer they will be able to work legally in Thailand. With limited enforcement, some migrants are not re-registered. For example, 850,000 migrants were registered in 2004, but only 705,000 were re-registered in 2005, suggesting there were over a million un-registered or illegal foreign workers. On July 19, 2005, employers who registered migrants in 2004 were permitted to extend their registration until June 30, 2006.
Registration has become more expensive over time, with migrants required to undergo health checks and with total fees equivalent to one to two months’ wages. In most cases, employers pay the registration fees and deduct them from migrant wages. Migrants receive photo ID cards, but some employers keep them until the registration fee has been repaid from wage deductions, which leaves even legal migrants vulnerable to trouble from the police. About 225,000 unauthorized foreign workers were detected and removed from Thailand in 2005 and almost 5,000 Thai employers were fined.
Thai employers in 2005 requested 1.9 million foreign workers in a government survey.
—
From Spain:
—
Spain had a three-month legalization ending in May 2005 that drew 690,679 applications from unauthorized foreign workers, its fifth and largest legalization program. Unauthorized foreigners in Spain at least six months (entered before August 8, 2004) and holding work contracts with Spanish employers for at least six more months (three months in agriculture) could receive renewable one-year work and residence permits. Employers generally had to legalize their workers, but employer organizations, unions and NGOs campaigned to enlist their cooperation.
However, the one-year work and residence permit is issued only after the contract is validated by the Social Security administration and the employer makes the first tax payment. As of September 2005, only 352,500 migrants had become members of the social security system, and 34 percent were domestic helpers, 19 percent in construction and 14 percent in agriculture.
Spain’s legal foreign-born population quadrupled in less than a decade, rising from approximately 500,000 in 1995 to two million in 2004. Nonetheless, in December 2004, Spain had an estimated 1.2 million unauthorized migrants.
In August 2005, Spain announced another legalization effort, this one offering foreigners illegally in Spain for two years or more and employed at least one year to apply for legal status if they report their employer. If the unauthorized worker then receives a work permit, he or she will be retrospectively registered with the social security system, obliging the employer to pay back taxes.
—
It is not a uniquely American problem.
However, the magnitude of the problem in the US is a result of “half-hearted” immigration reform in past years that resulted in empoloyers being able to “look the other way” without facing any penalties for employing workers with no legal right to work in the US.
What do you mean, “we don’t obey abortion laws?” Abortion laws say that the practice is legal. As Catholics, we believe it is immoral and should not be legal. We do not participate in abortions and we work to have the laws changed. How exactly is that disobeying the abortion laws?
How exactly do we not obey immigration laws?
Jimmy, I am an immigration lawyer, and am of the belief that many of the laws in the immigration area are confusing and contradictory, and that some form of more efficient way of securing work visas would be good for the country.
That being said, I couldn’t agree with you more as to the problems in intent, organization and unintended consequences of these protests. They are killing their cause.
These words from a commentary by Johns Hopkins economist Steve Hanke, an economic advisor to Yugoslavia’s post-Tito government in 1990-91, are enlightening:
What has not surfaced in the public discourse is the sad state of the Mexican economy and Mexico’s embrace of a communist-era economic strategy lifted from Marshall Tito’s Yugoslav playbook.
Under the communists, Yugoslavia couldn’t produce enough jobs to fully employ its labor force. To solve Yugoslavia’s surplus labor problem, strongman Tito came up with a simple, but ingenious, economic strategy: open the borders, at least by Soviet bloc standards, and export surplus labor. This plan worked like a charm. At its peak in the early 1970s, there were over a million Yugoslavs, about 11 percent of the labor force, working in Western Europe. And the hard-money remittances (primarily German marks) that they sent back home amounted to as much as 30 percent of Yugoslavia’s exports.
Like Yugoslavia, Mexico’s economy is stuck in a variety of statist rut. According to the World Bank’s “Doing Business in 2006” report, Mexico’s labor market is simply dysfunctional. Of the 155 countries covered by the report, Mexico ranks 125th in terms of the difficulties faced by businesses in hiring, employing, and firing workers. It’s not surprising that Mexico is on a slow growth path and that it can’t produce jobs.
Rather than modernize the economy, Mexico’s politicos have embraced a Tito-inspired strategy: When incapable of fostering productive jobs, export the labor force. As a result, over 27 percent of Mexico’s labor force now is working in the United States, and these workers are sending home $20 billion in remittances. That amount equals one-third of the total wage earnings in the formal sector of the Mexican economy and 10 percent of Mexico’s exports.
The United States should break diplomatic relations with Mexico and close the border to give the Mexican economy “shock therapy.” No nation has the right to enable another nation’s corrupt leadership. Before doing so, however, we should drill for oil offshore and in ANWAR, develop nuclear power and more efficient cars because Mexico provides a substantial amount of oil.
As I recall May 1st was instituted as the Feast of Saint Joseph, Patron Saint of the workers precisely because it was already a communist festival and the church wanted to tweak their noses.
An anonymous poster writes: “How exactly do we not obey immigration laws?”
Are you serious when you ask that? If so, well … entering the country illegally is not obeying the law. Employing illegals (without checking for even forged papers) is disobediance as well.
If only these bishops would place as much pressure on the politicians and others to change abortion policy and any number of other far more clear-cut issues, like the five non-negotiables.
I’m of the opinion that many of the powers that be don’t want to solve the immigration problem, but make it worse. Who will work more cheaply, a legal immigrant, or an illegal who could face deportation? And, who is a better oppressed class for socialist organizing? Finally, the U.S. has plenty of enemies who would like to use this crisis to weaken the country: think of Bolivia, Venuzuela, and Cuba, among others.
And who really benefits from having better border and immigration controls? Perhaps the middle class would benefit, but they don’t seem to be too concerned yet.
Jimmy,
I find it a bit disheartening that you seem predisposed to see only the worst in the immigration demonstrations. I am neither a radical leftist nor a communist, and I know plenty of other people whose sympathies are with the demonstrators who would fall into neither category.
Incidentally, the young lady could have a Mexican flag wrapped around her face . . . because she wanted to have a Mexican flag wrapped around her face. Seriously. I think you are really reaching here.
I’m tired of these protests being called “immigration demonstrations”. These illegal aliens are not immigrants. Immigrants move to another country to become part of that country. My ancestors came here to be Americans, not to turn America into a part of Ireland. Many of these illegals did not come here to become Americans, as is evident by their calling for “Reconquista”.
How naive can people be about the intentions of the ‘immigrants’ or the eventual consequences of importing a large, radical, and poor foreign population?
Looking back in history to the era of the Church fathers, is there any precedence for the current position of the bishops, like them calling for the government of Rome to allow in all the Goths and other tribes that wanted to settle within the Roman Empire?
What is the idea behind protesting immigration reform by bedecking oneself in a foreign flag and chanting in a foreign tongue?
If the situation were reversed, I would be in Mexico City discussing the issue in Spanish and not rubbing Old Glory in their face by draping it over mine.
Tim,
I cannot thank you enough for keeping this issue alive on your blog.
The Bishops just must take note of the fact that much illegal immigration is motivated perhaps as much by leftist reconquista sentiments as a desire to work.
Here in Tucson,while there were the usual number of shoppers, there were very few illegals at the stores. Everyone I know voiced the idea that we would like to have more days like that. We here in the southwest tend to be very comfortable with a bicultural situation with lots of intermarriages and relationships. We have no problem with reasonable LEGAL immigration.
However,the illegal and immoral invasion that we have to deal with everyday just has to be experienced to know that strong objections to any type of amnesty for the illegal and to any further numbers coming in is borne not of racism or xenophobic sentiments, but a realistic understanding of the destructiveness and danger of the situation.
The rally downtown was full of Mexican flags and Communist and leftist propaganda.There were no more than 400 people there for the whole day.
In Nogales, Sonora, the locals blocked the road into the U.S. and boycotted the U.S. businesses who are their employers and prevented people from crossing to do their shopping. I was aggressive and mindless.
Even the MSM here was hard put not to see the hatred and disrespect for America and its laws the demonstraters tend to have.
Gosh, we had home-made burritos tonight for dinner. Did they get a patent on burritos while we weren’t looking?
Tim J: Yes, but only if you CALLED them “burritos.” Call them Freedom Wraps and you’re set.
Does anyone else think that the woman in the first pic looks like she’s been posessed by Cthuthlu?
I am going to do something here I usually refrain from doing: arguing from personal experience.
I am the son of a LEGAL South American immigrant. Because I work in foreign languages, a great portion of my coworkers and friends come from everywhere but LEGALLY. I have yet to meet one who viewed these protests favorably. Mostly what you get is derisive mocking.
I know a man who is going to be sent to Iraq possibly to pay the ultimate price for this country. Yet, because he is legal, he has to deal with a very drawn-out and very expensive process to get his citizenship.
And these people want their citizenship handed to them because they WALKED here and want to stay? In what country on Earth are you allowed to do that? (answer: none, no wait, Antarctica)
I would like to point out how discriminatory such allowances would be. It does not apply to Canadians. Nor does it apply to Central or South Americans. It will not work for Asians, Europeans, Arabs, Africans, or Mongols from the plains. It favors one group and one group only: Mexicans.
If so many people are so interested in coming to the US, fine. We should make Mexico part of the US. Let the illegals stay with the understanding they train in the army for a counter-invasion. We can run a decapitation strike against their capital, establish a puppet government, make everyone speak English. We could probably run three countries better than those corrupt officials can run one. To make it fair, we’ll even change our name: United Countries of America.
Viva UCA!
I thought this was funny, the Bishops want wage rates for illegals “that do not undercut domestic workers.”
Of course, illegals and legal new arrivals will almost always be willing to work for lower wages than the natives. So this drives down the natives wage rates.
If more blacks were Catholics, then maybe the bishops would realize the harm that illegals do the stability of lower income people.
In other words, nominal Catholics from Mexico who are here illegaly are more important than low wage earning Americans.
“Of course, illegals and legal new arrivals will almost always be willing to work for lower wages than the natives. So this drives down the natives wage rates.”
So legal immigrants are a problem now too?
What we need is a higher minimum wage equivalent to a just wage. The exploitation of labor in this country through wages below that of a just level is a problem I think needs more attention rather than immigration. Once we mandate juster wages this talk about wage depression will lose a lot of its force.
“If more blacks were Catholics, then maybe the bishops would realize the harm that illegals do the stability of lower income people.”
No, I think the bishops want a just wage for everyone. Immigrants are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, which is why they’re the most exploited by employers in this country. That’s why they’ve always had to be protected (Deuteronomy 24:14-15).
And immigrants are nominal Catholics now? That’s a wide brush you’re painting with.
I would say that Mexican Americans, with their 40% illegitimacy rate are nominal catholics.
I find it curious that Roman Catholic quote Duet. about immigrants, but what about the death penalty for homosexuals?
As far as raising the minumum wage law, why not $20 an hour? Read Sowell, it causes unemployment. Mandating a “just wage” is as silly as mandating a change in the speed of light.
Raising the minimum wage might “solve” our illegal immigration problem inasmuch as doing so would send even more US jobs overseas (or south of the border). Oh wait, actually, many of the jobs illegals do now are under the radar of government now so that’d just result in unemployment for the law-abiding.
(By the way, I say this as someone who, just last year, earned part of my income on minimum wage jobs and who is currently unemployeed, so don’t start that class warfare stuff with me.)
“I would say that Mexican Americans, with their 40% illegitimacy rate are nominal catholics.”
So 40% of them are? I really don’t feel comfortable guessing at the devoutness of a group of people in any case. Statistics don’t tell the story of souls.
“I find it curious that Roman Catholic quote Duet. about immigrants, but what about the death penalty for homosexuals?”
The Catholic interpretation (as presented in the Catechism) of the passage is that denying wages is a sin that cries out to Heaven (just like the sin of Sodom). There’s numerous passages throughout Scripture with the same message. I quoted that passage in the context of Catholic social teaching (where the just or living wage comes into play).
“Mandating a “just wage” is as silly as mandating a change in the speed of light.”
Just wages, like just working conditions – are issues of the common good and of Justice. I don’t see what’s so silly about the goverment (and that means local goverments as well) stepping into an issue of such import.
I’m not interested in “class warfare.” I’m interested in the issue of justice and labor. And that workers receive a living wage so they can take care of their families in dignity should be uncontroversial. Yes, raising the minimum wage would have to be part of a number of connected solutions. No, not all minumum wage jobs would be forced to go overseas anyway (jobs in retail and service jobs, for example).
Ryan-
Minimum wage jobs are not meant to create an income sufficient to support a family.
The kid behind the counter at McDonalds does not need or deserve, and should not expect, such a wage for learning to say “You want fries with that?”.
I remember my first minimum wage job very well. I worked hard, all day long, often in 100 degree heat. the actual work, though, was unskilled and not something one would count on to support a family. If I were in the same job today, it would be a good sign that there was something WRONG with me.
People can’t expect to camp out permanently in these kind of jobs and support a family.
“Undocumented” workers need to take note that it is their status as illegals that keeps them in dead-end jobs. They need to follow the law.
If they will have patience, do the paperwork, LEARN ENGLISH, and commit to learning a valued trade, then there will be no limit on what they can achieve for themselves and their families.
There are exceptions (desperate poverty, political oppression, etc…), but most of the immigrants I know were not really poor in their home country. They just saw the chance at a better life here.
Tim J.
I will just through this thought out there. I think there is an undue attitude that those not successful in their carreers deserve to be poor. Some people do not have the opportunity or ability to get a good education or advance in their carreers. Often this is their own fault. They did not study hard enough, they droped out of school because the couldn’t take the stress, they skipped work in the past and got fired, things like that happen. I think there is way too much disrespect for those whose failure is their own fault in this country. I’m not advocating any particular policy here, just pointing out an attitude that many in our culture take for granted that I don’t think is right.
p.s. I don’t know why I wrote “through” instead of “throw”. Maybe a subconscious something about failure?
J.R. –
I know what you mean, and have been thinking myself about doing a post on dignified poverty. We need to make room for dignified poverty in our society.
The Bible does make the distinction between “widows and orphans” (those who can’t help being poor), and a guy who just won’t get out and work, or won’t work very hard. Proverbs is full of warnings and put-downs of such people as the latter.
Sometimes a person continues to suffer from decisions they made a long time ago, even though they have changed and matured (or maybe repented). We should give these people a chance, but it would be a question of individual judgement, case by case, and it involves risk.
“‘I would say that Mexican Americans, with their 40% illegitimacy rate are nominal catholics.’
So 40% of them are? I really don’t feel comfortable guessing at the devoutness of a group of people in any case. Statistics don’t tell the story of souls.”
Anyone who believes that Mexicans are, as a rule, devout Catholics knows nothing of Mexicans. There are indeed devoutly religious Catholics in Mexico among the poorest classes but catechesis in Mexico is, if anything, worse than what we have had in the U.S. Many Mexican Catholics join Protestant churches or cults without ever realizing they have actually left the Catholic Church. Many more simply have no real religious faith at all and lose any vestige of Catholicism they had upon moving to the U.S.
Tim, right. And there is a third kind of poor person, those who are intentionally poor, for the sake of the Kingdom.
Separately, it seems to me that this issue has the idea of class struggle behind it. A lot of people have the idea that anyone at a disadvantage is being oppressed by those better off. In my experience, those who are really pro-illegal take this view that these are oppressed people with no rights, so they want to fight for that social class. They will not listen to arguments that these people broke the law precisely because those are the arguments of the conservative “oppressors.” They then get the idea that they are the enlightened, compassionate, decent, progressive people of our society while everyone else is either stupid and ignorant or those with a vested interest in the status quo. Here we see a dangerous mixture of pride, real compassion, and Marxism. It is within the Church too. I once belonged to a Catholic group we jokingly called the “Justice League” and this was precisely the attitude I think we took when addressing the issue of social justice. I have also encountered the attitude in many Secular Franciscans. Good people in many ways, but deceived by this “liberal” spirit.
The illegals of course often listen to this stuff and believe it themselves. In this way we have so many people with a very irrational unrealistic view of the situation, in the name of compassion and justice.
Of course social justice is a real thing we need to work for, and sometimes people really are oppressed by other people or social structures. The key is to find an authentic and realistic Christian way of looking at these situations.