Glenn Beck on Illegal Immigration

I very rarely watch political talk shows because they’re generally worthless. It’s people attempting to deal with complex matters in about 3 minutes, which often leads to destructive commentary that accomplishes nothing. As Jon Stewart said on Crossfire, these types of shows are hurting America. 

However, I will sometimes catch a few of these talking heads while flipping through the channels. One that has caught my attention is Glenn Beck. Though I do not watch him regularly, he does bring up good points (and bad points), but attempts to do so in a civil manner.

Today, while looking through CNN’s website, I came across his commentary on illegal immigration being the new slave labor:


“Jobs Americans just won’t do.”

I can’t stand that line, but more importantly, I don’t even understand it.

Americans spend months at a time at sea fishing for crab or drilling for oil; two of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Americans clean bathrooms, subway stations and crime scenes. Americans man toll booths, pave roads, embalm bodies and inspect sewers. Yet people really expect us to believe that they won’t pick strawberries or oranges?

It just doesn’t add up…


The unspoken truth is that these businesses don’t hire illegal aliens because they can’t find American workers, they hire illegal aliens because they don’t want American workers. And it has nothing to do with wages.

Illegal aliens mean no workers’ comp claims, no age, race or sex discrimination lawsuits, no healthcare premiums, no unions, and no demands for raises, vacations or bigger offices. In fact, illegal immigrants are the perfect employees because they’re not employees at all; they’re corporate slaves.

Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell once said, “Blacks were not enslaved because they were black, but because they were available.” Can’t the exact same thing be said for illegal aliens? They’re available and we’re allowing them to be exploited in the name of cheap groceries.

This is only part of the article and I encourage everyone to read the entire thing.

It certainly is a valuable question – has America lost so much of its moral fiber that it’s willing to look the other way because of cheap food prices while corporate America introduces a new form of slavery? 

For too long I believe American Christians have held completely absurd views on illegal immigration, often dictated by their political leanings more than their theological leanings. The liberal Christians have been rabidly pro-illegal immigration because they’ve adopted the Marxist view of a “world without borders.” On the opposite end are conservative Christians arguing we should deport all illegal immigrants (read: brown people, you don’t see anyone crying for Canadians to be rounded up) and stop letting them take jobs away from Americans. 

The central moral issue of the matter, however, has been completely ignored. This merely shows that there has been a greater moral breakdown in Christianity. On the left of Christianity, Christianity has been wrapped in a Marxist flag, so that all actions are interpreted through the view of Marxism or Socialism. On the right, Christianity has been wrapped in the American flag, to the point that one puts America’s interests first instead of the interest of Christ. 

As Christians we are to speak out against social injustices. This would mean that we should be anti-illegal immigration because it is creating a new slave labor force in America and, as Christians, we shouldn’t stand for slavery (William Wilberforce provides an excellent example on this issue). At the same time, we should be pushing for immigration reform because it’s an equal injustice that hard working people in poverty have a near impossible time coming into America on their own means. 

We shouldn’t fear “Spanish culture” from infiltrating American culture (I would, however, argue that Spanish culture is morally superior to current American culture) – as Christians culture is simply a relative thing. We should only be proud to be American so long as America is doing the right things. At the point America abandons her morality (which she has been doing more and more) we should cling even harder to Christianity.

Christians needs to rethink how they approach the illegal immigration issue. If we’re pro-illegal immigration then we’re merely supporting slave labor, which is anti-Christian. If we support the status quo law, however, then we’re supporting a form of a social injustice, which is also anti-Christian. 

As Glenn Beck says:
“Is the price of fruit really the standard we want to live up to as a country? Is that really who we’ve become?”

We, as Christians, should also ask this question…is this what Christianity has become? Something more concerned about economics and Americanism and not about what Christ would have us to do?


5 thoughts on “Glenn Beck on Illegal Immigration

  1. Joel, you have an excellent insight into what is wrong! I have posted your story on my blog

    We’d like to stay in touch with you.

    God Bless…..Nebraska Observer

  2. Joel,

    Some interesting thoughts on the immigration issue. I particularly liked Mr. Beck’s comments on the “jobs Americans won’t do” line. I also appreciated your call for Christians to seriously examine the “results” of the immigration debate rather than the “intensions” of those on either side of the issue.

    However I do have a couple of questions/observations for you:

    1. Is the greater moral burden on the corporations who hire the illegals or the government who refuses to enforce its own existing laws and creates such a wage-war environment where it is not as profitable to hire citizens.
    a. I agree that corporations are morally at fault for hiring illegal’s (since it’s against the law, not for paying a low wage) but should not the governments who create the environment be more accountable?

    2. Do you have a specific example when the following argument has been used:
    “On the opposite end are conservative Christians arguing we should deport all illegal immigrants (read: brown people, you don’t see anyone crying for Canadians to be rounded up) and stop letting them take jobs away from Americans.”
    No serious proponent of immigration law enforcement that I know has seriously advocated a racially motivated mass deportation. This seems to be an emotionally laden straw man argument that rarely shows up in actual discussions on the issue.

    a. Illegal’s leaving via attrition (not being able to access employment, housing, social services, etc.) is the most standard argument I have seen amongst immigration enforcement proponents.
    b. I do not doubt that some racial discrimination exists in certain sectors of the immigration debate; however this is not the norm. It is a simple fact that the vast majority of those who are violating immigration law are Hispanic, and not Anglo-Saxon or Francophile (i.e. Canadian) in racial origin.

    3. What exactly makes “Spanish” culture morally superior to “American” culture?
    a. Can you define “Spanish” culture and “American” culture?
    b. Have you watched Spanish TV lately, or ever?

    Well I think I will cut it off here, my apologies for the wall of text. I appreciate your thoughts.

    Peace be with you,

    Bishop Joe

  3. Hello Joel,

    I have read your post and found a lot in it to agree with. However, I would like to add my own perspective to the mix and I do have a different view on some of the points you made. Before I write anything I feel it is only right to state what my theology is, which should make it clear where I am coming from on this subject. I belong to the conservative Christian side of the debate by virtue of being a dispensationalist. You would have probably suspected as much by the time you finish reading this comment.

    I suppose the root of my response is grounded in my understanding of government and its purpose. To the best of my knowledge the Reformers originally developed the concept of the Divine Institutions of which civil government is one (I cannot really find any current Calvinist/Reformed writing on the subject though). The Divine Institutions are institutions designed by God for the purpose of stabilizing human society and apply to both believer and unbeliever alike. For instance, I do not believe that marriage (another divine institution) is reserved for Christians only but is meant for all of mankind. I believe that the following definition of the purpose for civil government (the fourth Divine Institution) will help clarify my understanding of a government’s responsibilities:

    The fourth divine institution is civil government whereby God transferred to man through the Noahic Covenant the responsibility to exercise kingdom authority in order to help restrain evil after the Flood (Gen. 9:5–6). Before the Flood man could not execute judgment upon evil as seen in the way in which God commanded man to deal with Cain’s murder of Abel (Gen. 4:9–15). This divine institution is based upon capital punishment (Gen. 9:5–6) and i[s] for the purpose of restraining evil (Rom. 13:3–4).

    by Thomas Ice

    If the purpose of government is to punish evil then by extension government has no right to be a party to evil since that is counter to its very reason for existing. If slavery is evil (and I agree the virtual enslavement of the illegals is evil) then our government has no right before God to facilitate it and in fact should move forcefully to end the practice.

    When you state that we as Christians have a responsibility to speak out against social injustices I also agree with that. However, in order for me to support a government policy of dramatically increased legal immigration I would have to be convinced that to not allow the increase would be evil. Notice, I am not equating social injustice and evil. It does not appear to me that our modern (and I believe secular) concept of social justice (or lack thereof) equates with the biblical concept of evil. Of course using this definition of governmental responsibility would result in a far smaller reach for government in almost every area of modern America.

    I am not knowledgeable about how sociologists define culture but I do believe that a people are within their rights to seek to preserve their culture and traditions. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comment, I am a dispensationalist so I do not believe that any nation in this day and age is bound by the Mosaic Law (I am not a theonomist). However, that does not mean that there is nothing we can learn from ancient Israel and the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was from the hand of God after all. Immigration into Israel was not forbidden but it was strictly regulated, probably the best way to think of it was compulsory assimilation. Any alien who wanted to become a citizen of Israel had to follow the Mosaic Law like everyone else. This meant strict adherence to dietary, clothing, ceremonial codes to name just a few. I could not quickly find any discussions of this subject on the web (which probably wouldn’t help further my point anyway) but if you read the book of Deuteronomy you will find passages like this one:

    10″Then you shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks to the LORD your God with a tribute of a freewill offering of your hand, which you shall give just as the LORD your God blesses you;

    11and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your son and your daughter and your male and female servants and the Levite who is in your town, and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your midst, in the place where the LORD your God chooses to establish His name.

    Deuteronomy 16:10-11 (New American Standard Bible)

    The stranger mentioned in this passage is what we now call an alien be he legal or illegal.

    My point is that ancient Israel was far more aggressive in forcing assimilation than we are in the United States. Much of what Israel was preserving through that forced assimilation we would call culture.

    There are my two cents.


  4. Gweller,

    The difficulty with your view is that “American culture” is an extremely slippery term. There really has never been an American culture. Even in the colonial period, there was the Puritan culture of New England and the Anglican culture of the South. The only unified trend that I can see running through American history is, “We’ll give you the freedom granted to you by God and if you work hard enough you can make something of yourself, no matter your background.”

    The irony of the situation is that in our modern (secular) society, this way of thinking is beginning to go by the wayside, while immigrants (legal ones) are living it and truly believe it. In other words, I would argue that many legal immigrants provide a better support for the traditional American ideal than most modern Americans do.

    With that in mind, it makes sense to provide an immigration reform that allows immigrants in who are willing to do so legally, but not in a manner that makes it difficult for them to do so.

    While illegal immigration allows for slave labor, legal immigration bolsters support for the idea of an open and competitive economy.

  5. Joel,
    I’m sure you don’t remember me but I was in a debate with you on Intelligent Design ages ago. If you recall, I’m not a Christian, I’m very secular and I believe in working toward a greater good for the sake of humanity more than my own personal soul.

    What I find interesting is that even though you and I differ greatly on the religious aspect, I agree with you in the case of illegal immigration. You hit the nail on the head for the most part. Glenn Beck is a particular form of crazy that is unfortunately growing in America, even more so now than when you wrote this. He’s not on CNN anymore, he left to join the others of his breed on Fox News where he can spout his frightening views without fear of retribution along with his friends Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.

    What I would like to say, however, is that this way of thinking shouldn’t be linked indefinitely to a secular society. In fact, a great deal of those who “fear the brown people” consider themselves the “religious right” and are often the loudest in the arguments against immigration reform.

    I’m not coming on here to bash anything you’re saying, quite the opposite. I’m just saying that politically we are in agreement and that this message shouldn’t just be for Christians, but for all of us with half a conscience. Secularism isn’t what brings these backwards ideals about, but it is a consequence of certain freedoms a secular society comes with. Don’t throw out the secular baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Just remember that there are people with secular views that have similar moral values.

Comments are closed.