Panicked Yet?

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little.

"Wolf! Wolf!" yelled the shepherd boy in Aesop's fable.

Both tales are cautionary and highly applicable to America and the world right now. Believing that the nation's economy will cave if it does nothing, the U.S. government is about to commit $700 billion dollars, at last estimate, to a bailout scheme for quasi-governmental mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At the moment of this writing, the details of the plan are sketchy—in fact, in flux, as nothing has been agreed upon—but among the speculated results are a massive governmental takeover of America's financial sector, or at least the housing market; limited oversight of the Treasury Secretary, who will ramrod the effort; and very little blame for the political and financial actors who caused this mess in the first place. When the sky is falling, who cares about free markets, oversight, and responsibility?

We should beware when our leaders urge us that some action must be taken "immediately" to fend off some looming crisis. Every blue moon, there is an actual crisis that must be handled expediently, but most of the time, the crisis is either not as dire as advertised or entirely contrived. Such is the case with our health care "crisis." Candidates for office wring their hands and tell us how terrible it is that some forty million Americans do not have health insurance and that government should step in and give it to them for free.

While the U.S. Census Bureau reports that there may be forty million among us without health insurance, at least twelve million of them are illegal aliens, another ten million or so are young and healthy people who have voluntarily chosen not to buy health insurance, another few million are in some way self-insured, and a significant number are between jobs and only temporarily uninsured. In actuality, it is estimated that only 29% of this forty million figure are involuntarily uninsured, thus about twelve million people, a number that is in no way critical.

As mentioned above, the politicians say this government health insurance would be free. Free to whom? There are no free lunches. Someone must pay for the care given by hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other caregivers. That "someone" is the American taxpayer. Politicians often point to Canadian, British, or Nordic national health systems as models, but they never tell the voter how much the citizens of those nations pay in taxes for their "free" medical care. According to a March 2005 CBS News article, the average Canadian family spends about 48% of its income in taxes, and in Ontario, for instance, about 40% of that is used to fund health care. If an American "free" health care system followed Canada's lead, the taxpayer could see what he pays in taxes jump by as much as 20%. Suddenly, "free" health care is quite expensive!

This is not to mention the horror stories about long waiting lists, even for what might be considered critical care. Certainly, many of these are isolated anecdotes, but it has been shown that both service and quality of care diminish after a government takes over a health care system. Care becomes rationed, and even more than by HMOs, procedures are frequently denied on the basis of age, weight, or some other supposedly disqualifying factor such as alcohol, nicotine, or drug use. In addition, care is often sacrificed to pay for the huge bureaucracy needed to handle the new system. Beyond that, public sector agencies are notorious for creating an environment of conformity and lethargy, discouraging quality service and innovation (just go to the nearest Department of Motor Vehicles to see this at "work").

Now, we need to think about the current economic crisis in these same terms. Is it truly a crisis? What is hiding behind the statistics that the media are throwing at us? What are the politicians not telling us? What are the hidden costs? Will lawmakers load the bill with political "extras," adding yet more debt and overregulation? Can the government really provide better oversight than the market? Will this bailout create another monster bureaucracy run by unelected and essentially untouchable executives? Do the American people really have any say in the matter?

Let us assume that this particular "crisis" is all about sub-prime mortgages and nothing else. What is the best way to solve this problem? Long-time mortgage expert Roger Schlesinger, in a recent column titled "What Am I Missing?" makes the case that this is actually a banner opportunity for moneyed investors to buy up foreclosed homes on the cheap. The fly in the ointment, however, is that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have restricted investors to a small number of loans, required large down payments, and tacked on punitive points, all of which discourages those with money from coming to the rescue of the housing market. In the end, Fannie and Freddie are actually extending the housing crisis rather than helping to solve it. This is government at its finest.

Time will tell if this financial mess is a true crisis or a manufactured calamity designed to amass governmental power, benefit a particular Presidential candidate, sell out the nation to the international system, shield the responsible parties from prosecution, or all of them combined. What is evident is the stirring of fear among the populace that could build to a fever-pitch—from concern to worry to alarm and finally to hysteria and panic. The rhetoric of fear is increasing with each news cycle.

While Franklin Roosevelt's famous dictum resonates in these unsettling times just as it did during the Great Depression ("[L]et me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"), perhaps we really need to fear, not the illness, but the cure. If the politicians and the media are so eager to sell Americans this bailout, we should be worried about what is in store for us on the other side. As the saying goes, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

The resurrected Christ tells the church of Smyrna, "Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer" (Revelation 2:10). If we are faithful and fear God rather than the distressing circumstances swirling about us, He will see us through them (Ecclesiastes 8:12).

'The Alien Who Is Among You'

Over the past several weeks, the big story has been illegal immigration. Supposedly, about twelve million illegal aliens already reside within America, and millions more are expected to stream through our porous borders in the coming years. Most of these are Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, although with them also come people of other nationalities—and the fear is that radical Islamists have and will use this route to infiltrate the country and carry out another massive terrorist strike.

To think that mass migrations of peoples are a recent phenomenon would be sheer ignorance of history. In fact, few ethnic groups remain in their lands of origin. Those familiar with the Bible are aware that the people of Israel migrated from Canaan to Egypt, and several generations later, after being redeemed from bondage, they migrated back. When Israel was conquered by Assyria about seven hundred years later, they were taken en masse to the land of the Medes, and people of Mesopotamian origin were sent to replace them in Palestine. Later, as church members know, the descendants of Israel began a many-centuries-long migration that took them from the region around the Caspian Sea to northwestern Europe and then on to the New World and beyond.

Many other groups and nations have done the same. Political and economic pressures are primary prods on peoples' movements. For instance, the Potato Famine in Ireland displaced millions of Irish to America and elsewhere in the mid-nineteenth century. More recently, the various ethnicities represented in the Balkans region have shifted due to the political unrest in that part of the world. The ongoing mass-migration of Hispanics into the U.S. is primarily economic opportunism resulting from the disparity of the world's wealthiest nation sharing a border with a far-poorer developing nation.

The history of the Americas, and the United States in particular, can be organized around the concept of migration/immigration and its consequences. This land was colonized by migrants seeking both religious and/or political freedom and economic opportunity, but they clashed with the native population and eventually drove them from their traditional lands. New immigrants swelled the colonial population, expanding the territory, prospering the colonists, and inspiring the idea of liberty and nationhood. More new blood increased America’s inventiveness, capacity, and dynamism, producing a confident, resourceful, and innovative people who spread across the continent, which caused further displacement of native inhabitants. Each new set of immigrants has brought both new challenges and new vigor.

Yet, there is a palpable difference between previous immigrants and the millions of non-citizens now clamoring for amnesty and citizenship. Indeed, most of the previous immigrants to these shores came here through legal channels. However, the distinctive difference between then and now is the attitude of the immigrants, particularly regarding becoming Americans. Previous generations of immigrants—and granted, some still today—truly desired to assimilate to this culture. They learned the history, the laws, the culture, and the language of America, leaving the lands of their birth behind them. They gladly threw themselves into the Melting Pot of America, taking on themselves the proud mantle of American citizens and patriots.

Not so today. Today's illegal immigrants want America to change to suit them. Signs must be in their native tongues, and school must be taught in them as well. They fly the flags of their native countries. They make money under the table, put it in American banks, and wire it back to their native lands—and not necessarily to bring their loved ones across the border to join them but sometimes with the expectation of returning there to live like a king among paupers. They take advantage of our liberal welfare and healthcare systems. They find and exploit every loophole in the law. They form political action groups to lobby for separate rights for themselves. They march, not against injustice but for it! They publicly vow to "re-conquer" lands purportedly stolen from their ancestors. In sum, they do not want to be Americans at all, but merely to take advantage of America's largess.

Believe it or not, the Bible speaks in principle to this current, national problem in several places. For instance, Exodus 12:43-49 concerns participation in the Passover service but can be expanded to include Israelite citizenship. Verse 43 says, "No outsider shall eat it," yet verse 48 stipulates that a "stranger" can eat it if all the males in his family are circumcised. Undergoing circumcision represented that the individual agreed to abide by Israel's laws and accepted the covenant God made with Israel. As verse 49 says, "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who sojourns among you."

Simply stated, no outsider was to have any of the benefits of citizenship until he voluntarily took upon himself the responsibilities of citizenship. Once he did, he was to be treated as if he had been born and lived in Israel all his life. Other scriptural instances of this standard merely restate or refine this principle to varying degrees (for instance, Deuteronomy 23 excludes various groups due to their negative influences on Israel historically or presently).

In principle, then, America should function no differently. Illegal aliens should be given no benefits of citizenship. We should not lower the bar either for reasons of misguided compassion or higher profits. Entry quotas should be fastidiously monitored and enforced. The border should be strengthened, and all illegal immigrants who are caught—and certainly those who commit crimes—should be unceremoniously deported. Businesses and individuals that knowingly hire illegal aliens should be pursued in accordance with the law.

Unfortunately, there is no will do to any of these things politically or economically. It seems we are in the midst of the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:43-44: "The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He . . . shall be the head, and you shall be the tail." As this chapter plainly states, this is a result of failing to "obey the voice of God" (verse 15). How close are we to experiencing the rest of these curses?

A Nation of Laws?

A primary concept that separates the United States of America from other nations, particularly those governed by strong men or oligarchies, is the principle of the primacy of law. No person's whims or cadre's machinations are to hold any weight in "the land of the free" unless and until they are duly processed through checks and balances into enacted law. We tout our country as "a nation of laws," in which no individual, not even the Chief Executive, stands above the law. The rights, privileges, and obligations enshrined in our founding documents are to apply equally to all citizens, and the subsequent statutes built upon that foundation are to follow this code of equality before the law also.

America has taken this obsession with law to extremes. Any law passed in Congress seems to run to hundreds or thousands of pages of picayune regulations to cover any and every situation. Added to this are various amendments and supplementary statutes, appropriations, and other rigmarole of lawmaking. Every activity must be covered by laws and regulations, so our law libraries run to thousands of volumes, which no one can possibly comprehend fully. There are so many laws in so many jurisdictions that any person at any time could be considered in violation of one or more of them.

Our near-worship of law has produced a huge number of lawyers—the U.S. has the highest number of lawyers per capita of any country in the world—and with that has come a powerful lobby that wields sometimes overwhelming influence in Washington and the state capitals. We even make law central in our entertainment; we seem to be fascinated by crime, forensic, and courtroom dramas, all of which revolve around the laws—used and abused—which govern our lives. And when elections roll around every two years or so, everything else takes a backseat to debates about who our lawmakers should be.

Yet, does it not seem ironic—understanding what we do about Americans' soft spot for law—that so many of them are quite willing to break the law when it comes to the question of illegal immigrants? Should a company fudge some numbers on their reporting to the government—prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law! Should a person drive drunk and get in an accident—take away his keys, seize his vehicle, throw him in the slammer, and let him rot! Should a politician take money under the table—smear him, fine him, imprison him, and run him out of town on a rail! However, should the government try to deport an illegal immigrant—somebody's housekeeper, gardener, or driver—why, that is inhumane!

A young lady recently called a Charlotte talk show, complaining how long and hard it was for an immigrant, legal or illegal, to get into this country through the proper channels. She proceeded to relate her sob-story about conditions in her former country—the lack of jobs, no opportunity, the repression, etc.—and it wound up with her telling the host that her mother just had to take matters into her own hands and cross the border illegally. Her justification was that, since the process was so involved and difficult, going around the law made perfect sense, and the American public should just accept it. What she was really saying was, "Would you not have done the same thing?"

The next day, on another show, a wealthy businessman called in to say that the host's views on this topic were all wet. The caller owned a company involved in agriculture, and he admitted that his firm hired illegal aliens routinely. Why? Normal Americans, he declared, would not work in the fields. Why not? The wage is too low. Well, then, why not follow the law by hiring citizens at a wage they will work for? How naïve! If he did that, he could not compete in the marketplace, and he would go out of business! According to him, the law was impractical, so he took his chances and ignored it. He would support wholeheartedly any amnesty measure that Congress passed.

And let us not forget the bureaucrats. Their line is that 11-12 million illegal immigrants live in this country already (a number that at best can be called a "guesstimate"), and rounding up, processing, and deporting that many people is both physically impossible and prohibitively expensive. Thus, they have ignored the laws already on the books for years, and should Congress pass more immigration laws, they will most likely ignore them too.

What can one conclude except that Americans love law in principle, but when the law begins to squeeze them and their accustomed lifestyles, why, it becomes perfectly acceptable to ignore, bend, or break the offending law. As Romans 8:7 says about people's attitude toward God's law—and we find that it applies equally well to man's laws—"the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." When millions of people display this self-centered attitude toward law, taking matters into their own hands, anarchy is the result (see Judges 21:25).

True, man's laws are too often poorly written and weakly enforced by those sworn to do so. However, despite America being a free country, this deficiency in the nation's, state's, county's, or city's laws does not give us the right to become scoff-laws. Americans are at heart a rebellious people (see Ezekiel 2:3-4), having given birth to this republic in civil war and fighting among ourselves at every turn, and the Founders, knowing this, wrote into our basic covenants processes for correcting bad law and bad government. Unfortunately, these measures are rarely used, as either we cannot agree on what should be done or we lack the will to carry them through. So these problems continue, and the country slides further toward chaos.

Nevertheless, we can test ourselves (II Corinthians 13:5) in regard to law. What is our attitude toward it, especially toward God's law? Is it, "Oh, how I love Your law?" Or is it, "Those laws don't apply to me?" Be honest.