Church and State: Institutions and Individuals

The principle of separation of church and state has been one of the most passionately debated issues of recent times, finding relevance in a number of other arguments such as those regarding abortion and gay rights. On one side of the argument are strict separationists who claim that the establishment clause found in the First Amendment of the Constitution provides an absolute dichotomy between religion and government, allowing neither to influence the other. From this perspective, government must not only protect freedom of religion, but must also be protected by freedom from religion, thereby ensuring a truly secular state. On the other hand, anti-separationists argue that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. America’s historical record is truly saturated with appeals to the Almighty and references by the founders of the nation to certain basic religious beliefs. Stuck in between the two is a position of political passivity held by a number of people with religious beliefs who are afraid they will act inappropriately or even unconstitutionally if they let their religious convictions have any bearing on their political voices. These political passivists remain as neutral as possible in public matters, believing their energies would be better vested in a single, spiritual focus, leaving politics to the politicians and others so inclined. While the Constitution and other early American writings contain certain separation language to be sure, the intended and proper separation is for the purpose of protecting the integrity of each institution, simultaneously allowing every individual freedom to choose his or her own religious beliefs and participate accordingly, both privately and publicly.

The disagreements stem from the seeming vagueness of the Constitutional amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The interpretation of this has great implications for how religion affects government and how government affects religion. Government leaders are in a particularly difficult predicament, as they are somewhat responsible for how the Constitution is interpreted, yet have the simultaneous responsibility of representing the constituents who elected them. After all, American government is a republic, that is, a rule by representatives of the people. As the people disagree over the application of what has become known as the establishment clause, elected officials almost inevitably find themselves misrepresenting their constituents to some degree regardless of their own interpretations. As for the voters themselves, the interpretation of separation may influence if, how, and to what extent their political beliefs may be expressed if those beliefs have any indication of being derived from religious considerations. If the non-establishment clause is taken to mean that government must be entirely free from religious concerns, voters who hold religious convictions may be relegated to either dissociating their beliefs from the public square or not participating at all. Of course, religious organizations are in essence limited in their potential effectiveness if their “life-changing” brand of faith is not allowed to influence one’s political views, and such a case could lend itself to oppression of religion, which is also in clear contradiction of Constitutional prescription. At the same time, anti-religious organizations and certain secular establishments want to free public polity from religious influence all together in order to preserve the respected plurality of American government. Accordingly, those who are affiliated with this perspective may maintain a biased concentration on the non-establishment portion of the clause, giving unfair lack of consideration to the free exercise portion. In any case, American citizens want to preserve the proverbial “wall of separation” and cringe every time an event occurs too near in proximity.

Most recently, Reverend Jeremiah Wright caused a great deal of controversy to intensify around a church member of his who happened to be a strong Democratic Presidential candidate. By comparing Barak Obama to Jesus Christ and claiming from his church pulpit that the underprivileged, single-parent raised, African-American Obama faced a disadvantage in the presence of the rich and white Hillary Clinton, many believed Reverend White blatantly leaped the sacred wall between church and state, perhaps all but equating voting for Obama with spiritual salvation. Some years before, the soon-to-be President George W. Bush added fuel to his already controversial candidacy by responding to a public questioner that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher. Jesus had changed his life, Bush claimed, giving his rejecters what they saw as justification for their attempted discrediting of him. His faith was going to affect his political philosophy, which was an unquestionable infringement of the separation principle. On the state level, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue gained some publicity after he called for and followed through with a public prayer at the state capitol building during his state’s significant drought in 2007. In the midst of protestors, Governor Perdue gathered with other Christians and called on God for relief from the persistent lack of rain. Of course, the separation issue goes beyond the political big houses and seems to find a persistent venue within the public school systems. Recently Robert Escamilla of Enloe High School in North Carolina was heavily reprimanded and reassigned to another school after having a formerly persecuted Christian speak to Escamilla’s religion class. The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union felt that Escamilla had joined with his guest speaker to proselytize students into an anti-Islamic sentiment. In spite of the controversy surrounding the nature and facts of the incident, those in positions presiding over the situation agreed that the Constitutional clause had been breached and action was taken accordingly. These and many more circumstances and events continue to amplify the controversy of church and state separation, and the need for a consensus on its meaning and application.

First of all, it should be noted that, however it is interpreted, the restricting portion of the establishment clause unarguably refers to institutions of government and religion, not individuals (Colson 135). Individuals are mentioned secondarily, in that they may exercise their religious beliefs free of government interruption or coercion. The same is true of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists organization, which gave rise to the currently referred to “wall of separation.” Since the primary brand of religion in the church and state separation debate is most commonly Christian belief – a point Ed Doerr seems to have overlooked in his argument for freedom from religion as he briefly described early American settlers developing separate Christian communities as Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, and so forth – it is within reason to consider the responsibilities of the two institutions from that perspective (Doerr). As Gregory Koukl points out, Christianity is also the religious perspective that influenced the founders of America (“America’s”). From this biblical perspective, it is the duty of the church to reflect the general will of God for people, and the duty of government to provide a safe society for its people (Colson 100). This Christian perspective of the church could be applied to all religious institutions with some variance in its articulation, since the most commonly shared belief among religions of all types is the need to share their particular ideals that are relevant to people for the fulfillment of their lives. Conversely, the purpose of American government from the beginning, as stated in the Constitution, is to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. Immediately, we can clearly see that these institutions are purposed toward different goals. The church’s purpose is to proclaim and help make possible the fulfillment of God’s will for each individual; government’s purpose is to provide a relatively safe environment conducive to each individual’s quest for personal fulfillment. In fact, it could even be said that American government was designed in such a way as to allow those who were inclined to lead religious institutions complete freedom to do so as they felt directed by their God. As Koukl notes, all of the restriction language of the establishment clause seems directed toward government (“Political”). Even separationists will agree that the Constitution prevents the two institutions from imposing themselves upon one another; however it is important that we note the wall stops there, restricting the institutions alone. The institutions of church and state must remain focused on their respective purposes, each leaving the other to its own business.

This distinguishing between individuals and institutions helps us to understand the role of individual convictions that must be allowed in matters of legislation and public debate. When the argument is made that separation of church and state prevents religious beliefs from playing any part in public discourse and governmental decisions, the argument defeats itself, as legislation is inherently a moral matter. In fact, without morality, there can be no real legislation (Bauman). It must first be admitted that religious beliefs always lead to moral beliefs, even though moral beliefs are not always spawned by religious beliefs. While morality can sometimes be wrought without a religious foundation, religious foundations always lead to morality. In any case, regardless of whether a particular moral is rooted in religion, morals are always the basis for legislation. This is necessarily true because laws always demonstrate a judgment of value. Murder is illegal because human life is more valuable than the object of one’s envy. Racial discrimination is illegal because all people are intrinsically valuable based on the very fact of their human existence regardless of their race. Conversely, people resist laws only when those laws conflict with their particular values. Feminists will argue for women’s rights because they appreciate the value of equality regardless of gender, but on the other hand, argue against pro-life legislation because they value women’s rights above the rights of an unborn child. Those who argue against the death penalty do so because their moral opinions claim such punishment is immoral. If morality cannot be allowed consideration in public matters, laws cannot be formed and society cannot be structured (Bauman). Government must have moral values, and moral values can always be articulated from religious beliefs. Since America desires safety from criminal chaos, and is a republic representative of the people, the people’s moral convictions, whether religious in conception or not, must be allowed a voice, which is to say religion must be allowed influence in government.

At this point, it should be noted that there often appears a difference between the ways separation should be applied as argued by the separationists and anti-separationists. Much of the time, separationists claim not to seek an abolishment of religion, but a prevention of government supporting religion in any way. Anti-separationists often feel the separationists’ arguments are infringing, or are dangerously close to infringing, upon the guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. While separationists’ arguments may often appear differently targeted in this respect, their arguments may be more discriminatory than noble. A point of recent conflict of this nature can be identified in former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft’s charitable choice and President Bush’s faith-based initiative. The first of the two acts, Ashcroft’s charitable choice, was a provision of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which allowed religious organizations to apply for and receive federal funds for treating those with drug addictions and helping those on government welfare find work, all without requiring the organization to develop a separate secular sub-organization. In an extending measure, President Bush’s faith-based initiative further allowed religious groups to participate in programs such as mentoring the children of prisoners, preventing youth delinquency, and offering housing for teenage mothers (Glazer). Upon hearing such proposals, separationists irately proclaimed a breech of the separating wall, claiming tax dollars should not be spent on religious proselytizing efforts (Gey). It must be considered, however, whether this is a legitimate complaint. Even laying aside the fact that allowing religious groups to participate would expand the possibility for relief distribution, is it fair to argue against such a use of funds because it conflicts with the wills of a relatively small number of citizens, when, indeed, the same monetary source is used for a number of other questionable expenditures? What a clear example of the previously made point that legislation is both supported and rejected based on moral values. In this argument, separationists disagree with the use of tax funds for charity only if religious charities are included. How many pro-life citizens disagree with the use of tax money to pay for elective abortions through government-provided medical care? How many pacifists disagree with the use of their tax dollars to support military provisions? How many citizens would rather their tax dollars not pay the salaries of politicians they voted against? Out of sheer consistency, those who argue such a line against inclusion of religious organizations in charitable relief funding must argue the same line in every area in which they disagree with the use of tax money. Surely we could all find at least one disagreeable appropriation of a significant portion of our earned incomes.

Perhaps just as clearly, it further appears that to not include religious organizations in distribution of federal relief funding would be to violate anti-discrimination laws. In a society that frowns so heavily upon any organization that discriminates on the basis of gender, race, or religion, it seems odd that government is required to do just that. Can any strict separationist offer a non-religious reason in opposition to charitable choice or faith-based initiatives? If religious organizations are not allowed such participation because they are religious, they are being discriminated against based on religion. If the concern is that those organizations would be dishonest in their uses of the money, using it to pay for new buildings or uniforms for their softball teams, for example, then government may prohibit their funding for reasons of misappropriation. Otherwise it is religious discrimination and nothing less. The Constitutional amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is a matter of refusing to give one brand of religion legal advantage over another or indiscriminate legislative power, which is a far cry from discriminating against religious organizations because they are religious. Furthermore, the Constitutional duty of Congress is to provide for the common good of the people. We should not demand that Congress limit the reaches of this provision by casting aside some organizations based on their religious orientations.

In all fairness, there is some question as to the most precise meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Does this mean that Congress will not make a law that will lend itself to establishing a religion, or does it mean that Congress will not make a law that gives any religion what it wants? Based on the religion-friendly perspectives of the participants of the Constitutional Convention and other evidence from various historical records, the former interpretation appears most practical. All of the restricting language is clearly applicable to the separate institutions, and the separation of the institutions is necessary to provide an environment in which each has opportunity to carry out its respective duties. When government tries to control a religious institution, or when religion tries to perform the duties of the state, oppression is incubated and some of the greatest evils against mankind are brought to fruition, as the historical record shows. While disastrous events such as the Inquisitions and Crusades are often remembered as examples of religion being given governmental status, overcompensation in avoiding potential repetition of such atrocities lends itself to a governmental oppression of religion, devastating the personal freedom so foundational to the Declaration of Independence. Religion cannot be eliminated from the public square altogether without unfounded discrimination, and moral-free legislation is purely mythical. Religion always leads to morality, which is the basis of value, and value is the basis of every law. If nothing else, religion, generally speaking, values people and because of that value does much to help the common people, which is the Constitutional goal of the American government. Separation of church and state must be applied to prevent one from encroaching upon the proper operations of the other, allowing both to fulfill their respective responsibilities, and nothing more. Casting religion from the public, political square is impossible and, if it were possible, impractical. Only when we realize this concept will every voice be allowed its proper hearing at the table of debate in a government truly representative of the people, created by the people, for the people.

Works Cited:

Bauman, Michael. “Dispelling False Notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of Separating Morality from Law.” Christian Research Journal 21.3 (1999). 23 April 2008. .

Colson, Charles. God and Government: An Insider’s View on the Boundaries Between Faith and Politics. Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Doerr, Edd. “Church and State: Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Religion.” The Humanist May / June 1993: 31-33. SIRS Researcher. SIRS. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 1 April 2008. < http://sks.sirs.com>.

Gey, Steven G. “Charitable Choice: Would Jesus Have Accepted Federal Funding?” Liberty: Magazine of Religious Freedom Jan. / Feb. 2001: 16-21. SIRS Researcher. SIRS. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 1 April 2008. <http://sks.sirs.com>.

Glazer, Sarah. “Faith-Based Initiatives: Is U.S. Funding of Religious Groups Constitutional?” CQ Researcher 11.17 (2001): 377-400. CQ Researcher Onlilne. CQ Press. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 23 April 2008. <http://library.cqpress.com>.

Koukl, Gregory. “America’s Unchristian Beginnings?” Stand to Reason 2007. 28 March 2008. <http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097>.

- - -. “Political Passivity – Vice or Christian Virtue?” Townhall.com 30 April 2007. 1 April 2008. <http://www.townhall.com/ columnists/GregoryKoukl/ 2007/04/30/ political_passivity%e2%80%94vice_or_christian_virtue?page=full&comments=true>.

Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, April 28, 2008.

Marriage as Glaser Sees It

In matters of morality, one of the most hotly debated issues concerns homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular. Recent political action has addressed the question of whether homosexual unions should be given marital status, and, because of its historical stance on the subject, the Christian Church has found itself at the center of the argument even outside of the religious realm. Of course, the Church’s position has not only been attacked from without, but also within, as many homosexuals have battled for their rights to church membership, ministry, and leadership. One such person holding church membership and simultaneously engaged in a homosexual relationship is Chris Glaser, who attempted to defend his approval of same-sex marriage in an essay entitled “Marriage as We See It.” Throughout the essay, Glaser relates his own experiences as a called minister in his Presbyterian church and as a homosexual in a committed relationship, as well as his interpretation of biblical teachings and Western culture to encourage a reinterpretation of marriage that includes recognition of committed same-sex relationships.

Glaser begins his argument by claiming that American culture is adverse to same-sex marriage because it provides a convenient scapegoat for the disintegration of traditional family function, given the circular reasoning for ostracizing members of the gay community. Early on, gay relations were opposed by the claim that they could not be enduring relationships or conducive for raising children. Once experience showed this to be unfounded, the argument became homosexual relations were unacceptable because those involved were unashamed in announcing their lifestyle. Also, the previous argument that gays were “selfish” and “irresponsible” has been disproved by their willingness to serve others, so the antagonists now attack gays because they want to serve. Turning to the realm of religion, Glaser relates his experience being involved in his denomination’s study of homosexuality. During his time of involvement, he realized that, while the group as a whole was willing to discuss whether ordination should be extended to homosexuals, the question of homosexual marriage was taboo. Similarly, a denominational committee some years later prescribed what it considered an acceptable ethic of sexual relations equally applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual unions, a presentation which caused irate reactions because of the very notion that homosexual relations could include any measure of good. To many, the report’s allusion to subjugation of women, marital rape, incest, and adultery within heterosexual relationships was not able to justify redefining marriage to include anything other than what was traditionally acceptable. Glaser further argues that the Bible accepts practices such as extramarital relationships, which are also considered inappropriate in Western culture, and suggests that Jesus is really the one who redefined marriage since he redefined family based on spiritual relations rather than physical. According to Glaser, Jesus’ teachings emphasized faithfulness rather than gender in relationships, and Western culture originally emphasized the economics of marriage rather than the intimacy. Glaser concludes with an emotional appeal by telling of another gay couple who did not ceremonially vow themselves to one another in the presence of their church family. When one of the men was killed in an automobile accident, the other did not receive the extent of support from his church family he might have received had the church been aware of the couple’s commitment. For all of these reasons, Glaser states that gay couples are entitled to the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples, and same-sex unions should be recognized and offered marital status.

Prior to reading Glaser’s essay, I was opposed to homosexual relationships, and after reading Glaser’s essay, I am still opposed to homosexual relationships and remain unconvinced that marital status should be granted to same-sex unions. I am willing to consider any argument to the contrary, but Glaser’s essay is ineffective as his supporting evidence is not well reasoned. His claims that homosexuals are being blamed for the dysfunction of traditional families and that reasoning for denouncing gay marriage is circular are beside the point. These may or may not be true observations in some cases, but they do not support the promotion of redefining marriage. Glaser’s appeal to religion is not very substantial, either. He reasons that gay marriage should be a discussable issue because, at least within his denomination, ordination of homosexuals is discussable. However, if he refers to a religious institution, he should consider that institution’s text. The Bible, including New Testament passages such as Romans 1:24-27, indicates quite clearly that God does not approve of homosexual behavior, meaning neither the marriage nor the ordination of someone living a homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable in any case. Glaser is also deficient in offering problems that do occur in marriage as grounds for accepting homosexual marriage. Failures within a marriage do no constitute redefining marriage any more than a sports team’s losing record constitutes redefining that sport.

One of the greatest errors in Glaser’s argument, however, is his misrepresentation of both the biblical and social understandings of marriage. In claiming that the Bible supports extramarital and non-marital practices such as polygamy, “concubinage,” and sexual relations with the wife of one’s deceased brother, Glaser grossly neglects the fact that the Bible nowhere endorses such practices in any way. It should first be noted that there is quite a difference between reporting customs as they are and actually approving of them. Furthermore, a thorough reading of the Bible reveals that God clearly defined his planned design for marriage between one man and one woman committed to each other for life, he warned against deviant practices, and disobedience often resulted in tragedy. In the matter of Jesus’ teachings, for Glaser to claim that Jesus was more concerned with fidelity than gender in relationships is to put words in Jesus’ mouth that he never spoke. Likewise, the idea that Jesus meant for the human concept of family to be entirely replaced by Christian brotherhood is to stretch an easily understood metaphor into a mystical view that denies the sanctity of the physical all together. From a biblical perspective, God instituted the concept of family from the beginning and it is sacred even in its physical sense. I also take issue with Glaser’s claim that Western culture originally viewed marriage from an economical point of view. Just because certain benefits of marriage were recognized, it does not necessarily follow that the intimate purpose of marriage was ignored. Glaser’s concluding point that the man who lost his loved one was not comforted as much as he would have been had his relationship been considered equal to marriage is touching, but unsupportive of his claim. While it is saddening any time a human being experiences loss (and homosexuals are certainly capable of loving one another), “what might have been” is purely speculative and matters of morality must be decided upon fact rather than emotion.

Homosexuality is a difficult topic because love is a difficult, yet wonderful part of human existence that we cannot very well do without. When emotions are considered and evidence of genetic homosexuality is being discussed, the issue becomes especially complicated, and many people do not consider the Bible a valid authority on the matter. Of course, if a religious text is not revered as authoritative in a particular instance, its words will be meaningless to the ones involved in the discussion. In this case, however, Chris Glaser is a member of a Christian church and references the Bible himself. Unfortunately, Glaser’s interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, as he apparently ignores many of the passages that relate specifically to the issue of his interest. His argument as a whole is founded on empty and unsupportive evidence and is unconvincing apart from emotional appeal. I do not dispute in any way the notion that homosexuals are capable of love and commitment to one another to some extent, but I do dispute the strength of the evidence Glaser presents. If he wishes to be convincing in his argument, he is going to have to offer some support that substantiates his claim on a factual and authoritative level.

Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, March 3, 2008.

Immigration's Silent Victim

Recently the Charlotte Observer investigated a poultry processing plant based in South Carolina to observe the employee makeup and the risks they were subject to. Throughout the course of the investigation, reporters unsurprisingly noticed that many of the workers were Hispanic. What did appall them, however, was the physical toll the job was taking on the bodies of many of these workers, and how management of the plant appeared to be exploiting the immigration status of the workers, thereby keeping company overhead minimized. One of the personal stories reported by the newspaper told of the difficulties of Karina Zorita, who entered the United States illegally and obtained a job at the plant’s branch in Eastern North Carolina. After about six months at her job, Karina could no longer bear the burning pain in her fingers that resulted from the repetitive motions her job demanded. She had been to see the company nurse, who sent her back to work, and even after she had visited a doctor not employed by her company, Karina’s supervisor denied the lighter duty the doctor prescribed. The pain worsened, causing her to take three weeks off work. When she returned, she was told she was no longer employed; she had missed too much time, regardless of the fact that two of the three weeks she missed were paid. Unemployed, she still is unable to straighten her fingers, cannot grasp even a cup of water, and may lose hand function altogether. She is young, has small children, and hands that “don’t work anymore.” There are many stories similar to Karina’s, and while there are a number of legitimate concerns resulting from seemingly uncontrolled immigration into the United States, an often overlooked and alarming problem is the exposure of the disintegrating state of American employer ethics. Immigration regulation must be reformed, if for no other reason, to help prevent the development of a new subclass of poorly treated human beings.

As in Karina’s case, many Hispanic immigrants send a large portion of their American wages home to their families. Karina was sending $150 dollars per week to her mother, who was caring for Karina’s children. What makes this so astounding is that these workers are employed in low paying jobs, making hourly wages many Americans would never consider. Employers generally pay less money for jobs that require fewer qualifications, jobs that primarily rely on physical labor and a willingness to work. Education often figures heavily into the qualification equation, and because of their education status, many Hispanic immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, have few employment options outside of those that require physical labor and offer lower pay. They do not often complain about receiving what Americans would consider minimal pay because the pay is still usually greater than it would be in their own countries. Employers are able to take advantage of immigrants’ willingness to work for less money and reduce their own overhead. In fact, due to cultural differences, employers may even feel that they not only save money in payroll, but also get greater production from immigrant labor than they would from Americans who seem to have grown into a culture always demanding more for less. Many employers are more than willing to hire immigrants, even if they are in the United States illegally, in order to keep productivity high and overhead expenses low.

Unfortunately, however, these physical jobs are known to be rather demanding on the body. We may consider, for example, many of the jobs in a poultry plant. In processes of removing bones, shearing, and cutting various poultry parts, employees may make the same repetitive motions some 20,000 times each shift, according to the Charlotte Observer’s report. Recently, Duke University released a study in which 43% of the 300 poultry workers interviewed reported symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders. While these problems may be treated much of the time, they must first be diagnosed. However, the Charlotte Observer reporters found that when employees took their concerns to the attention of their supervisors, they were, in so many words, told to ignore their problems and get back to work. In fact, Doctor Jorge Garcia, who works at a medical practice in South Carolina, told reporters he has seen about 1,000 poultry workers in the past seven years, and is frequently asked by his patients not to tell the plant operators he had been consulted. They are afraid they will lose their jobs. While a response from plant operators should be allowed, it may be perfectly clear why employers at high-risk jobs frown upon employees visiting medical professionals; medical care is expensive. As mentioned above, employers envy demonstrating large positive gaps between production and expenses. Earlier I stated that payroll is the most controllable expense, but perhaps it would be more precise to say employee compensation in general is most controllable. Even if a company has to pay an employee two or three dollars above minimal wage, avoiding medical expenses, especially related to company liability, is a sure way to keep overhead from consuming fiscal profits. This figures in quite easily for employers of illegal immigrants, since employers can refuse medical care by threatening loss of job, or, worse, authority notification and deportation.

If one were to ask a number of American citizens what complications result from illegal immigration, he or she would likely get a varying array of responses, perhaps including lack of jobs for citizens, overcrowded schools, and potential increases in crime. Surely there are news stories and research statistics that qualify these responses, but should we not take notice of what immigration is telling us about ourselves? When someone crosses our boarder and takes up residence illegally, a crime has been committed by that person and he or she should be held accountable. After all, the term “illegal immigration” was so named purposely, and broken laws must be met with consequence in order to retain any meaning. Still, it should not be overlooked that many employers are profiting from this epidemic of crime at the expense of the health of others. Rick Thames, editor of the Charlotte Observer, compared the subclass developing by this situation to that created by slavery in America’s history. While I am not certain that is the best analogy, it does have some legitimate parallels, as people are being taken advantage of in an unacceptable manner. If immigration described the process of some inanimate objects falling from the atmosphere on to American soil, we could very well use immigrants for whatever purpose best suits us. Immigrants are not inanimate objects, though; they are human beings in every way just like American citizens and, while their illegal actions should be met with the appropriate consequences, their human qualities should be met with human consideration. The controversial occurrence of immigration has caused a number of problems and even tragedies in our society, but it has also exposed a problem of long existence within ourselves. That American people could conceivably exploit the poor decisions and disadvantages of other human beings for the sake of the financial bottom line is shameful in every way. Laws may not change the nature of man, but they may minimize the damages done by that nature if they reduce the opportunity. If the United States does not take the necessary steps to control its immigration problem, American citizens may find themselves having gained very temporary success by having passively inflicted very lasting pain.

Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, February 22, 2008.