Republicans Miss the Point About Government and Religion

When did we decide it would be a good idea for our government to be in the birth control business? The uproar over contraceptives, religion, and the health care law distracted Congress from the reality of revisiting the payroll tax cut, battling over the budget, dealing with long-term unemployment, and plotting how best to stall any semblance of progress until after the 2012 election. For a few days their worries took a back seat to pontificating about religious freedom, or trying to justify demands forced on us by the health care law.

The dispute was also a much-needed diversion for Republican candidates bent on destroying their party’s chance to replace Barack Obama. Their all out effort to convince voters that no GOP candidate is suitable for the presidency shifted to familiar conservative turf as they made religious freedom a campaign issue, hurling charges at the White House and, predictably, each other.

On Capitol Hill John Boehner decried the president’s attack on religion, reassuring the country that This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand, and will not stand.¹

Senate Republicans also took up the call, charging that the Administration Tramples Religious Liberty:

Now the Obama administration has decided that it can do away with Americans’ First Amendment rights and force people of faith to live by the dictates of the government instead of the dictates of their consciences.²

The moral high ground seemed out of place coming from a House and Senate that waited until an election year to move on a congressional insider trading ban. Republicans would have been better served had they calmed down and thought things through before pushing the hot button over birth control. They could have scored some valuable points during the fracas by focusing on the intrusion of Democratic big government into our lives.

Republicans should hang up the religious freedom argument. Government and religion do not play well together, especially when the shoe is on the other foot, as it was with the Ground Zero Mosque. There is not a politician born, Republican or Democrat, who will not rend their shirt while attesting to a fervent, undying commitment to religious liberty. The real issue should be how we allowed Washington to get into the health care business in the first place, and how we should go about getting out of it.

Big promises were made in January 2011 when Republican House members staged their symbolic vote against the health care law and promised that the bill would be dismantled. Health care reform is still alive, well, and on schedule, even though the House GOP website offers the illusion that it has been halted in its tracks:

Because the new health care law kills jobs, raises taxes, and increases the cost of health care, we will immediately take action to repeal this law.

This promise was fulfilled on January 19, 2011, with the passage of H.R. 2. President Obama’s Job Destroying Health Care Law was repealed by the House of Representatives.³

Last week confirmed that the bill was far from dead, and brought us an unspoken, unexpected alliance between the Catholic Church and the Republican Party. It would have been more productive to hear arguments focusing on our out of control Federal Government that in less than two years will force Americans, under penalty of fines, to carry health insurance. By buying into the religious freedom rhetoric Republicans risk coming under the same fire as Democrats. Big government intrusion cuts both ways. It is difficult to argue that government should not impinge on religious freedom while GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates advocate policies that are based on religious convictions.

The solution to this quandary is for the Federal Government to get out of the health care business. As for legislating morality, the government should not be in the religion business, either. Our government is not about morality. It is easier to make the case that government is fundamentally amoral, and by nature infringes on its citizens and makes decisions that run counter to religious values.

Whether or not Americans agree that birth control and religious liberty should be pivotal issues, most agree that an economy that creates wealth and jobs so we can pay our bills, afford our houses, and not spend our retirement years broke and homeless are values we can all embrace. If lawmakers and presidential hopefuls cannot get enough mileage out of the economy, debt, and deficit to keep them from straying into dangerous moral territory, they are not trying very hard.

1..GOP.gov. Obama Admin. Attack on Religious Freedom “Will Not Stand.” http://www.gop.gov/republicans/johnboehner/media/8hAS2Uqc-fs, retrieved February 11, 2012.

2..Republican.Senate.Gov. Administration Tramples Religious Liberty. February 8, 2012. http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/multimedia?ID=45c38a02-abe5-4588-8173-b28b62ac7d6b, retrieved February 11, 2012.

3..GOP.gov. Repeal & Replace the Job Destroying Health Care Law. http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare, retrieved February 12, 2012.

Share

Kansas Forgets the First Rule About Illegal Immigrants

Much of what happens in politics can easily be explained by the story of the old woman and the snake. Kansas would do well to remember the story. Public officials and business owners who defy reason and law by giving a helping hand to illegal immigrants risk suffering the fate of the old woman, shocked and amazed that their good intentions could turn on them so swiftly. Like the snake in the fable, the question of what to do with illegals eventually sinks its fangs into anyone who evades the commonsense answer to the problem: follow the law and deport them. They can get in line with everyone else. Coming to the U.S. illegally does not make anyone special.

Immigration activists need to dream up some new ideas. Their excuses for why we need to turn illegals into legal residents or guest workers are old and tired. From the fairness argument, to the DREAM Act’s flawed no fault of their own reasoning, to the better life in America and nation of immigrants rationales, to the Obama administration’s inextricably linked ethnic favoritism, to the jobs no one else will do routine, we have heard it all and none of it stands up to scrutiny.

Kansas has become the newest state prepared to embarrass itself on behalf of its illegal population, in part because it enjoys a low unemployment rate and needs more workers. Last week HB 2603, the Business, Workers and Community Partnership Act, was introduced in the state’s legislature. Kansas’ unemployment rate was 6.3% in December 2011. Supporters of the bill maintain that illegals are required to perform jobs that cannot be filled with the available workforce. The proposal calls for five years of residence, but fails to answer the questions that befall all measures giving illegals a pass based on the length of time they have evaded law enforcement. If they are unable to work here legally, how do illegals manage to support themselves long enough to qualify for a pass on our immigration laws, and how do you perform a background check on someone without a legal history?

The Federal Government has raised another unanswered question. Why do we need HB 2603, Utah’s guest worker plan, or similar proposals given that the president and Homeland Security have declared illegals who behave themselves to be off of the enforcement radar? The Department of Labor protects migrant workers regardless of their immigration status. We have signed agreements with Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala, the countries that supply the majority of our illegals,¹ assuring them that the U.S. will look out for their citizens on the job whether or not they have a right to be here. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis made it clear that immigration status is not a factor when it comes to migrants:

Unfortunately, due to language barriers and immigration status, migrant workers can be vulnerable to abuse.²

No matter how they came to this country, these workers have certain rights.³

It all boils down to the right to work that comes with legal status. HB 2603 relies on the Federal Government to supply work permits for its illegal immigrant workforce. Proponents need to explain how these individuals managed to live here for five years without a permit and without breaking any laws. New federal policies that entitle illegals to remain in the U.S. threaten employers who hire them, and force illegals to engage in fraud, identity theft, tax evasion, and other crimes to maintain their lives on the lam. They also put America on shaky ethical turf, forcing our illegal residents to take jobs their supporters claim citizens will not accept without ever questioning the morality of letting foreigners remain here to perform tasks that are deemed to be beneath us.

The president, Homeland Security, the Labor Department, and other arms of our federal bureaucracy are not doing illegals any favors by letting them stay within our borders while denying them a legal means of support. Illegals would be better off if we took the responsible route, followed the law, and forced them to follow the legislated path to legal status. If it is possible for authorities to scrutinize the backgrounds of illegal immigrants with any success, many will likely be removed anyway (see: New Immigration Policy Could Force Us to Overlook Fraud). This does not justify granting special favors, or giving a pass to a select few so they can help us achieve our economic goals while we dangle the possibility of legal status or citizenship. Instead, we should reward immigrants who follow the law and come here legally. Business owners need to find other ways to perform difficult or unpleasant tasks, or to supply a legal workforce for positions that are difficult to fill.

Stopgap measures that meet temporary needs or massive federal initiatives that follow through on campaign promises will only make the immigration problem worse. If more politicians and bureaucrats would get this through their heads we would not be wasting our time hearing about bill after bill to fix a problem that has no solution outside of applying the laws we already have on the books. The first rule of dealing with illegal immigrants will never change: permissiveness based on political or economic self-interest always creates more problems than it solves.

1..Homeland Security. Office of Immigration Statistics. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010. Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker. February 2011. p. 4.

2..United States Department of Labor. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. Remarks by Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor. Nicaragua & Guatemala Migrant Workers Rights Signing Ceremony. June 16, 2011. http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/20110616_NG.htm, retrieved June 23, 2011.

3..Ibid.

Share