An overview of the immigration research of Dave Leach
“Get in Line Like Everybody Else”, the Song. Youtube Video. This is a documentary disguised as a song, about the insane immigration rhetoric and laws that destroy citizens and immigrants alike. (In Spanish, with English scrolling lyrics: “¡Ponte en línea como los demás!” English singing and background posters will follow shortly.) Here is the bilingual script with documentation. You can download an mp3 file here.
A win-win solution, as much a blessing for citizens as for immigrants. Response to all the paranoid claims and concerns of reductionists. A solution inspired by the Word of God, who loves citizens and immigrants.
By Dave Leach, January 30, 2016. Contents: General links to my articles <> E-Verify <> Economic Impact of Immigration <> Birthright Idiotship <> 3 litmus tests of “Conservative”: is it what America’s Founders thought or did? Is it Biblical? Does it work? Then how did restrictionism get called “conservative”? <> Legal Challenge <> The Card I showed candidates
All my articles about immigration from 2000 through about 2011, including videos, and guest appearances for radio talk show hosts including Rush Limbaugh and Jan Mickelson: www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope During my earliest articles I had the help of a great translator, a former reporter living in Mexico City. So they are bilingual. It was those exchanges that made immigration repair a top concern of mine, alongside stopping abortion.
All my articles from then until the present: www.CafeConLecheRepublicans.com, search “Leach”. These include my research confirming the positive economic impact of immigration according to economists, the fact that significantly negative “research” is originated by six men who have no economics credentials, responses of Republican presidential candidates to the postcard below which I have shown them, my reports on all other aspects of immigration, and my dialog with Congressman Steve King including a comprehensive analysis of the Heritage study admired by King, which King later said he actually read.
Youtube channel: www.Youtube.com/user/Biblewizard2
(Video: Judge Roy Moore, conservative hero, validates the central argument of my legal challenge to immigration quotas. See below.)
The following are links to articles with short summaries of their contents:
E-Verify. As of a week before the Iowa Caucus, January 29, 2016, most candidates strongly support a national E-Verify mandate. Rubio regularly states his commitment to it. Cruz responded to my concerns by saying without E-verify, immigration can’t be enforced. Paul and Fiorina have given mixed messages: Paul is against the photo tool but not to the rest of the national database, while Fiorino is not opposed to the goal but to mandating it while it does not yet “work”. Huckabee, Kasich, Clinton, and O’Malley have not said.
My review, “E-Verify’s Fatal Flaws”, builds on highlights from Alex Nowrasteh’s “Checking E-Verify” and adds more examples of how the plan personifies “shooting yourself in the foot”. Alex wrote me, “Excellent piece, Dave.” (Since I am myself an Undocumented Economist, compliments like that are the closest I can come to listing my credentials.) These are the E-Verify problems that are relegated to the “undercard debate” of national immigration discussion.
Rubio’s website states “FACT: The enhanced E-Verify system does not establish a massive biometric database of every American” right before he acknowledges a “photo tool” which Rubio insists “isn’t a biometric data set by any reasonable definition.” Never mind the 25 anthropometric facial fiducial points in any frontal photograph which are measured by facial recognition software. It turns out that the Daily Beast article upon whose logic Rubio’s press release relies was persuaded to retract his logic just hours after first posting. Never mind the oozing implementation of the Real ID Act which unites all states’ drivers license photos into a central database, and the case by case cooperation between fed and state databases already occurring.
It is hard to imagine any greater threat to our nation than Obama’s 8 years, until you consider that had Republicans been in charge, we would be under E-Verify by now. If that doesn’t frighten you more than Obama does, please review Alex’s study, the Rutherford Foundation article, and my Bible study showing that E-verify, implemented nationally and filled up with those “photo tools”, already meets each technological element of the description of the Mark of the Beast in Revelation 13, and my study going into depth in the census verses and other Scriptures showing why freedom matters so much to God, with reflections from Orwell’s “1984”.
Economic impact of immigration.
A series: Liberty can be Fun! (includes videos)
Part Three: Every economist at the Senate hearings in 2013, as the Senate debated S744, agreed a million more legal immigrants would slash the deficit by a quarter trillion a year and grow the economy by one percent/year. Unfortunately the Senate only allowed two economists of their 39 “expert witnesses”. One was former head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who made that forecast. The other economist in the hearings was Grover Norquist, who defered to Holtz-Eakin as the “most authoritative person” on the impact of more immigration on deficits.
Holtz-Eakin opposed by Undocumented Economist Peter Kirsanow, who said immigrants take jobs especially from low skilled black high school dropouts. Holtz-Eakin replied that job competition is global – “the geographic location [of others seeking your job] has very little to do with it” – so the only serious job protection for the uneducated is education.
“The presence of competition that is a real issue for our low-skill Americans is not about immigration. It is about being in a global economy where there is a great abundance of low-skill labor and the geographic location has very little to do with it….[When we have] a skilled worker or an unskilled worker being paid half the wage in another country and coming here and being paid twice the wage [do you think that makes him more competitive?!] It is competition regardless. And I guess for me, I would hope our aspirations would be greater than protecting low-skill Americans in perpetuity from competition they cannot avoid, and instead, building their skills.” – Douglas Holtz-Eakin
See also Part Four: What an economist told the Senate about immigration. Immigration raises citizen’s wages, said Holtz-Eakin – contrary to what Undocumented Economists claim. He also explained how the CBO report of the 2007 Immigration Compromise bill did not take into account future expected revenues from stimulation of the economy, because Democrats had voted for the CBO to leave out that information.
Part Seven: Economists know immigrants don’t take citizens’ jobs Real economists emphatically dispute the claims of Undocumented Economists (who have no economics degree) that immigration hurts any part of the economy.
Part Nine: Questions for Senator Grassley. Iowa’s Senator Grassley controls the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, through which all immigration legislation must pass. He invites questions. I have one.
Disagreement among economists about the economic impact of more immigration is not statistically significant. I don’t know a more objective survey of the consensus of economists on a subject than a survey of the range of economic studies published by economists, written by an economist, David Roodman. The studies Roodman surveys show general stimulation of the economy from immigration.
As for the impact of immigration on native wages, even where there is a large influx of immigration the impact hovers on either side of zero.
My report on that survey is at http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/economists-know-immigrants-dont-take-citizens-jobs/ The survey was published by David Roodman. He was commissioned by the Givewell charity, which is considering whether to get involved in immigration.
“The scarcity of evidence for great pessimism [about the economic benefits of more legal immigration] stands as a fact”, he concluded. The survey showed the most pessimistic studies, such as those by Borjas, show citizens’ wages declining as much as 2% even from a 10% jump in immigration, while other studies show a 2% increase; in other words, considering the imprecise correlation between the samples studied and the whole economy, the result hovers around zero, because every worker is also a consumer, creating a new job, on average, to replace the one he takes.
Part of the variation among studies is that some studies break down, more than others, which population subgroups see wage competition. Another finding of studies which break it down that far, is that the particular sub-group of low-skilled workers which new immigrants most compete with for jobs, is not citizens, but the previous wave of low skilled immigrants [who similarly struggle with English]! And to the small extent that citizens’ wages suffer from immigrant competition, most of it is for teenagers, not breadwinners with families to support. In other words, adult citizen breadwinners face negligible job or wage competition from immigrants, even if they have very low skills. They still are fluent in English and understand our culture and society, which makes them competitive with immigrants who are not.
Short term wage competition is swallowed by long term increase.The Roodman study says the temporary job competition from the latest wave of immigrants occurs only to the extent their immigration was more than expected, and lasts only until capital (facilities, tools, computers, etc.) can be made ready to put the increased supply of workers to work. After capital has caught up with the new worker supply, all categories of native born workers benefit. The impact on any one group is minimized by allowing the full range of skill levels to immigrate. But even a huge unexpected surge of immigration, like 10%, produces only a 2% temporary hit for the population as a whole, by the most pessimistic estimation. This factor explains why economics studies generally distinguish between short term and long term effects. For example a 2013 dynamic study by the CBO of S744 predicted a very slight wage reduction for some citizens during the first several years but a wage increase after that.
Steven Camarota would let the U.S. economy decline in order to save jobs for high school dropouts. Camarota, researcher for the Center for Immigration Studies, is the most listened to restrictionist researcher in Washington on the subject of the economic impact of immigration, according to his bio. But he is an Undocumented Economist: he has no degrees in economics.
Even the most pessimistic economic studies have to be exaggerated to fit the claims of Undocumented Economists. For support from a real economist, Camarota footnotes to Borjas, the most pessimist economist in the Roodman meta-study, yet Camarota must exaggerate even Borjas’ pessimism in order to support Camarota’s own claims.
Relying on economist Borjas, Camarota supposes cutting immigration will make high school dropouts more employable, so he wants to do that rather than allow most other categories of citizen workers to benefit from more immigration. Borjas’ estimate of an 8.9% drop for dropout wages is “the most pessimistic estimation in the scholarly literature” according to Cato economist Alex Nowrasteh, http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-did-not-take-job, and economist Patrick Oakford found http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/03/borjas_wages_an.html where Borjas’ own labor textbook concedes that it is the “short run” impact of new immigration that is an 8.2% hit for dropouts (not 9.0%), and the long term impact is 4.8%, while other worker categories gain. Remember, that is “the most pessimistic estimate in the scholarly literature”. Nowrasteh’s characterization is supported by glancing through the Roodman study. Roodman charts the results of dozens of studies, and Borjas’ studies are consistently the most pessimistic.
Apathy about evidence. “Who cares what economists say about immigration?” This is an article by a frustrated (or at least bemused) economist explaining how much economists agree about the positive economic impact of immigration for citizens, but citizens don’t care. Citizens would rather keep shooting themselves in the foot, than acknowledge reality. (Bloomberg View article)
Economists agree immigration creates jobs, lowers prices, drives innovation. 40% of scientists are immigrants. The most pessimistic view is that there will be “only” “incremental benefits” from legalizing illegals because most of their benefits to us “are already recorded”. [A very pessimistic way of acknowledging that the benefits of illegal immigration are about equal to the benefits of legal immigration.] (Reuters article)
“Virtually no learned person believes” immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens, according to several studies summarized and linked in this National Journal article. [Presumably the article, by “learned”, means serious students of economics. Obviously wage loss is believed by many with advanced degrees in other subjects.] Immigrants increase opportunities and incomes for natives, and legal status for undocumented workers could create 121,000 jobs, which would increase to 203,000 by giving them citizenship. High skilled immigrants start businesses that hire citizens, and low skilled immigrants make their native counterparts more productive, stimulating investment. While some “could face increased competition” for specific jobs, the net impact is positive for natives. (And the Roodman study, linked below, points out that job competition (1) hits the most recent previous wave of immigrants hardest; (2) is only temporary, until capital can catch up to provide equipment, etc to put the new workers to work; (3) is erased to the extent the immigration can be predicted, which is an argument for cutting the red tape that turns hiring into a crap shoot in which dice take years to roll; and (4) after capital catches up, the impact turns positive for everyone.) (National Review article.)
“Immigration policy proceeds from the [economic] facts we believe. But reviewing evidence together isn’t as fun as attacking alleged motives.” The economic impact of immigration for citizens is the foundational inquiry for immigration policy: this article explains how the best solution for all other questions depends on what is true about the economic impact. (My article)
An “Open Borders” Economist. Very few people, arguing immigration, put numbers on their policies. Restrictionists will not put a number on how many immigrants we can take in before their benefit to us turns into the terrible threat they allege, much less can they point to any evidence to prove where that line is, because there is no such line, and therefore no such evidence. But expansionists likewise avoid publicly stating how much more immigration must occur before they will say “enough”. S 744, in 2013, would have doubled legal immigration to two million a year, so national discussion of numbers has been limited to that figure. That is why it is refreshing to read at least one expansionist economist who boldly states a high number, and justifies it.
Alex Nowrasteh, a self-described libertarian economist at the Cato Institute, says we should let almost everybody in.”My dream setup would be a system where only criminals, suspected terrorists, and those with serious communicable diseases like drug-resistant tuberculosis are barred from coming to the United States to live and work,” Nowrasteh says. Open borders were the law of the land for almost 100 years of American history, he points out. He says between 50 and 100 million people might move to the U.S. if we re-instated those rules now. He says that’s fine. Compared to Europe, the U.S. is a big, empty country.
The Direct Relationship between Population Size and Technology Growth: the only limit to our technology is the size of our population, and its freedom and safety. New technology requires a lot more than inventors: it needs armies of ordinary workers to make it happen.
“Why capitalism is awesome” offers a glimpse of the armies of ordinary workers needed just to maintain existing technology. It illustrates several inventions that have kept each of the following common products coming to us over the decades: pencils, pins, crayons, pizza, and book shelves. When we think “innovation” we usually think of spectacular new products that our grandparents never imagined. What is obvious from this presentation but not articulated is the army of workers of all skill levels needed to not just invent these improvements, but to retool for their production.
Similarly, “How long does it take to make a video game?” gives a brief glimpse into the army of workers needed to develop a silly video game. Multiply this by all the new products coming “on line” (a term unknown to our grandparents) this year that our parents could not have foreseen, to grasp how dependent our technological growth is on the largest “brain pool” of free, safe citizens possible. It is a glimpse of the manpower needed not just to create new technology, but to test it, manufacture it, market it, and distribute it, which requires the whole range of education and skill levels.
Brain pool shortage. A little immigration grows our economy a little, pays down our deficit a little more, and helps innovation; but the latter, not just because immigrants are more innovative than citizens on average, but even if they weren’t, because the larger a national brain pool, the more technology it can invent, develop and maintain. Fruits of “innovation” include luxury, national security, and necessities. (www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/brain-pool-shortage-labor-shortage-drive-immigration-levels/)
Credentials: Should they matter? Wide ranging discussion. Topics: Several ways legitimate researchers document facts – ways which even have precedent in Scripture: citing authorities, Peer Review, getting endorsements, none of which Undocumented Economists do. By every human measure of how to acquire understanding of a subject, the way it is done is to study it. The problem is not that people listen to Undocumented Economists, but that they listen only to them. The contrast between reality and “Political Reality”. List of Undocumented Economist researchers and their college majors. Two economists cited by restrictionists: Borjas’ pessimism about the impact of immigration is overstated by restrictionists, while Sowell’s is not but he doesn’t base his conclusions on economics. I am an undocumented theologian and lawyer as well as economist, but I don’t pretend to be my own original source. I quote acknowledged authorities in support of my conclusions. I hope my contributions will be used, but I would be afraid of a world where I were the top authority and where real theologians, lawyers, and economists were all ignored! Have you noticed that several Scriptures document God’s habit of delivering His best gifts via messengers with the least credentials of the time? Notice also that what those generations regarded as credentials were royal birth – tyrannical power over others. God often challenged people to choose whether to believe tyrants with the power to punish those who didn’t believe them, or His messengers who offered the evidence of miracles and prophecies come true. This generation of conservative restrictionists who boast of their belief in the Bible and who accept university credentials as a measure of expertise in every other area, will listen neither to the 200 Bible verses about immigration nor to their own human experts, preferring to believe, as in Bible times, people with power and influence. Credentials may not be everything, but they aren’t nothing. Scripture warns against ruling out any human messenger as the potential carrier of truth; all should be heard, considered, and addressed. But also weighed. Compared. Perhaps the most dangerous substitute for God and for human expertise is Majority Opinion. www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/credentials-mean-anything/
The most trusted study by Undocumented Economists (according to Congressman King)
“Rector’s Undocumented Reckoning” is my analysis of Robert Rector’s 2013 Heritage Foundation study. It took me 3 months and fills 55 pages. I undertook it because Iowa Congressman King told me he trusted it more than any other study. He marveled at how many variables Rector took into account. When I replied that I needed to read it, he gave me his private email address to get back to him after I did! After I did, he actually read it, which generated some dialog between us. Alex wrote me, “your piece is the best summation of the debate over Rector’s study & its flaws that I have yet seen”, along with a suggestion of something to add, which I did.
Undocumented Economists dominate Congress’ immigration hearings. 39 Expert Witnesses were heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2013 regarding S744. Only 2 of them were economists, even though “economic opportunity” was part of the title of the bill. Here are their college majors, with links to their sources.
33 Expert Witnesses were heard in 2014 and 2015. Only one was an economist, but he didn’t address the economic impact of immigration. Here are their college majors with links. Here are some reflections on why it matters.
Humor with Hitler. Video of Hitler’s Final Immigration Solution: rounding up economists, allowing only Undocumented Economists before congressional immigration hearings, and eliminating everyone who knows calculus.
Appeal to Cruz. I’ve had several brief opportunities to talk to Cruz, and a promise from a campaign worker to get his answer to my questions which those talks raised which was never fulfilled.
In my second conversation with him I appealed to him as a lawyer to acknowledge the impropriety of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member, hearing “expert witnesses” on the subject of the economic impact of immigration, who have no university credentials to certify their alleged expertise.
The difference between an “expert witness” and an ordinary “witness” is that a witness is allowed to relate only what he has personally seen or heard; for example, “I saw a woman with olive skin buy food with food stamps”. He is not allowed to conclude “therefore, illegals are on welfare.” Only an “expert witness” is allowed to make statements about the eligibility of undocumented immigrants to receive food stamps.
I do not believe any court in America would allow an “undocumented economist” to testify about the economic impact of immigration on jobs, wages, etc. So why should the nation’s judiciary committees, which produce legislation that controls all of America’s courts, have a lower standard?
So I thought I had a question whose point he could not escape. I asked him, “if the attorney against you in a case called someone with no university credentials in economics to testify as an expert witness on an economic question, wouldn’t you object?”
“Not necessarily”, he answered. “He might have acquired expertise in some other way.”
He wouldn’t even object?!!
An immigration attorney I asked about that mocked Cruz’ answer. “Where else are you going to get expert credentials? Buy it in a store?”
I would like to know: does he really believe what he told me?
Other questions I would like to ask:
“What economic authority supports your statement November 10 that immigration is an economic calamity, and of no benefit to citizens? What evidence led to that conclusion?
“How helpful do you think university credentials in economics are in understanding the economic impact of immigration? Do you think that to the extent economists disagree, we should transfer our trust to Undocumented Economists? Who are the authorities you trust on the economic impact of immigration?
“May we presume you will adjust your position in response to evidence? Will you review evidence submitted to you? What credentials in those submitting evidence to you will make your review of it seem worth your time?” See my article at: http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/appeal-to-cruz/ Or my earlier article exploring the qualifications required in an “expert witness”: www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-cruz-right-could-an-undocumented-economist-qualify-to-talk-in-court-about-economics/
Amnesty. This elusive word, this vague pejorative, has become a personal attack, a substitute for discussion.
Half the Republican presidential candidates want you to have to hire an immigration lawyer when you have a baby, to prove you are a citizen, if you don’t want your baby to be an “illegal”, subject to immediate deportation the day of birth.
It doesn’t matter if your ancestors sailed on the Mayflower. In fact, it doesn’t matter if your ancestors greeted the Mayflower. If Birthright Citizenship (being a citizen by being born here) ends you will have to fill out the same applications that citizens do now when they have their babies abroad. The current filing fee: $600, not counting the cost of the lawyer to fill out the application, whom you will need because the laws governing citizenship by descent are as complicated as centuries of legalism have been able to make them. Neither does that count the cost of your lawyer to fight for you in court, if bureaucrats booboo.
Basically half our Republican presidential candidates want voters to suffer what they have brought upon America’s immigrants, in fulfillment of Luke 6:38 which promises/warns that the opportunities we allow others is the measure of opportunities that will be allowed to ourselves….
Should babies of “illegal aliens” born here be counted as citizens? And while we’re checking, does the Constitution answer this: may we enslave “illegals” as Iowa talk show host Jan Mickelson literally urges? The answer depends on the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment according, some like Mickelson say, to what one Senator in 1866 meant by one sentence.
Three litmus tests of whether a policy is “Conservative”
(1) was it the policy of America’s Founders?
There were no numerical limits to how many could immigrate from anywhere during America’s first century. Restrictions on immigration by the the English king was one of the reasons given for the Declaration of Independence:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. [7th of 27 complaints, Declaration of Independence]
Ben Franklin wrote, “Strangers are welcome because there is room enough for them all, and therefore the old Inhabitants are not jealous of them; the Laws protect them sufficiently so that they have no need of the Patronage of great Men; and every one will enjoy securely the Profits of his Industry. But if he does not bring a Fortune with him, he must work and be industrious to live. (1784 — Those Who Would Remove to America. Reference: Franklin Collected Works, Lemay, ed., 977.)
One would expect validation of these facts from Christian conservative historian David Barton. But just as Thomas Sowell argues immigration without recourse to his vast knowledge of economics, Barton, instead of arguing from his vast knowledge of history, argues from a misapplication of Scripture. He reasons that because God established the borders of Israel, therefore any violation of our borders is a violation of God. Which brings us to our next test.
(2) Is it Biblical? Studies – mine and others – documenting the great gulf between God’s immigration policy and that of “reductionists” are summarized and linked below. The Biblical evidence is tremendously lopsided.
In favor of allowing more legal immigration are verses telling us to recognize the rights of immigrants as surely as we want our own rights protected. Matthew 25:43, 46 even warns of Hell for those who will not “take in” strangers because that is Jesus’ measure of whether we have “taken in” Jesus into our hearts.
On the “reductionist” side are the fact that God established borders – as if that authorizes us to ignore God’s rules about who to let across them; verses telling immigrants to obey our laws, as if that excuses voters from supporting immigration laws that defy God’s laws; and James Hoffmeier’s theory that one of the Hebrew words translated “stranger” – “nekhar” – should be translated “illegal”, even though he cites no lexicon supporting that meaning and I can’t find any either, and even though he acknowledges the awkward fact that Ruth called herself a “nekhar”.
The Evangelical Immigration Table [http://evangelicalimmigrationtable.com/] lists the most verses about immigration that I have seen anyone post, except for myself.
My own Bible studies: a 12-page overview with responses to restrictionist claims and links, www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/StrangerProject.pdf. A list of 190 verses that include the word “stranger”: www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Stranger-Bible-Study.htm.
A comparison of what we know about the Mark of the Beast prophesied in Revelation 13-14 with E-verify technology showing the latter, once nationally mandated, would satisfy the description of the former; and comparing the censuses of Moses and David to show why national tracking was important to God way before computers. www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Mark-Beast.htm Video: https://youtu.be/1cs8xoAto38
A study of the Hebrew word translated “vex” in Leviticus 19:33, showing the word always alludes to involuntary removal, so that “ye shall not deport him” is a good translation of Lev 19:33. www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Ye-shall-not-deport-a-stranger.pdf.
A tabloid I mailed to Iowa churches Christmas of 2007: www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Church-mailing-12-22-7.pdf
Favorite immigration verses on a postcard: www.Saltshaker.US/HipanicHope/Immigration-Scripture-Postcard.pdf
A thorough analysis and response to “Worldview Weekend” evangelist Brannon Howse, and Center for Immigration Studies staffer Stephen Steinlight. www.saltshaker.us/HispanicHope/ Howse-Steinlight.pdf Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGdwKUFZIus
The Immigration Crisis by James Hoffmeier, book review. Hoffmeier’s book is the closest I have found to any carefully constructed theology in support of numerically restricting legal immigration. He says the Hebrew word for immigrant in Leviticus 19:33-34 – “ger” – means “legal immigrant”, but there are other words meaning “illegal immigrant”, such as “nekhar”, to which the rights described in this passage do not apply. We can certainly, Hoffmeier says, deport, oppress, mistreat, etc., “illegals”. Hoffmeier’s theory, if valid, neutralizes Leviticus 19:33-34 as evidence of God’s opposition to our immigration laws which restrict legal immigration to a tiny percentage of those trying to come. One sticky problem for him is that Ruth calls herself a “nekhar”. Hoffmeier tries to sidestep this teensy problem by saying she wasn’t serious; she was just being respectful. This is a fairly exhaustive analysis of that and other problems. www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/immigration-crisis-hoffmeier-book-review/
“Ger” and “nekhar” in Bible dictionaries. Ominously missing from Hoffmeier’s book is any reference to any Greek or Hebrew lexicon in support of his distinction between the two words. Which made me mightily curious about what the authorities do say. Part 1 of this study is an overview of the various Hebrew words, with a summary of their contexts. Part 2 lists all verses with any synonym of “immigrant”, in the order they appear in the King James version of the Bible, showing which Hebrew or Greek word is used. (123 verses in the Old Testament, 24 in the New.) Part 3 lists how several English Bible dictionaries define “stranger”. Part 4 lists how several Greek lexicons define the Greek words written. Part 5 lists definitions from several Hebrew lexicons. My search is for a phrase in any of these resources that is friendly to Hoffmeier’s theory. I conclude that Leviticus 19:33-34 does not refer only to immigrants with a “lucky number” in our “liberty lottery”. www.saltshaker.us/hispanichope/strangerinbibledictionaries.pdf
Here is my response to a published interview with Hoffmeier after he published his book: www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/hoffmeiers-nemesis-leviticus-1933-34/ Here is my response to an article by NumbersUSA that quotes Hoffmeier’s book: www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/numbers-usas-bible-study-doesnt-quote-bible/ And my response to an article by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who did not quote Hoffmeier but said similar things: www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/restrictionist-bible-study/ and again at www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/another-bible-study-without-bibles/
The “does it work?” test. Who is best qualified to advise lawmakers and voters whether more immigration is good or bad for citizens and for America? Certified experts with university credentials who are qualified to be expert witnesses in any courtroom, or amateurs with no training and no credentials?
Then why is the Republican national immigration debate dominated by amateur Undocumented Economists? (Whose research alleging economic catastrophe from immigration is trusted as if they are America’s top experts, but who never cared enough about correctly understanding economics to make that their major in college?)
And, has it been the right decision, of economists, to never point out that those who challenge them have no credentials? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to at least demand equal time with Undocumented Economists in congressional immigration hearings? No court would allow any Undocumented Economists to testify as an expert witness on an economic question. Why do America’s Judiciary Committees listen mostly to the least qualified?
Many voices counsel the little boy to keep quiet about what is so obvious to him – that “the emperor has no clothes” – the Undocumented Economists have no credentials. I am a little boy who has not kept quiet. I ask you to join me in affirming the obvious. I want to encourage you with my experience declaring this fact, that it is effective; it silences critics; it makes Reductionists thoughtful: I don’t think it will take many, joining in that affirmation, to get the “parade” to stop.
My model legal brief at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Deportation-Brief.pdf is designed to help almost anyone who is being deported by challenging the constitutionality of immigration quotas that make it impossible for them to remain here legally. The concepts are explained in ordinary language in a few pages at the beginning. After the introductory pages are sample arguments, backed by court opinions, applied to immigrants in five different situations in which those prosecuted are actually legally innocent, and two more categories of arguments about what happens when the laws you violate are illegal, and the legality of laws that restrict the fundamental rights of minorities, from which majorities are exempt.
In one of my one-hour shows about the opportunity, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D77iOfhyfgg) the first half is a bilingual reading of the introductory pages. The second half is my interview with immigration attorney Michael Said (Des Moines, South side) about the brief and related realities about immigration law.
Popular among conservatives, Judge Roy Moore affirms the central premise of my legal brief in a very short interview I was allowed to have with him when he came to Des Moines to explore, very briefly, a run for president in 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEsVodF9sHE
The opportunity to insert these arguments into the United States v. Texas case, which the Supreme Court agreed January 19 to hear, is explained at http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/daca-in-court-the-threat-the-opportunity/ .