We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.
Advertisement
So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns, and watch over their kids?
Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly contrary to its sovereign protocols and laws.
First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law — and thereby oftenmust keep breaking more laws — should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state-tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students — whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration — the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to follow our laws dutifully?
And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million refugee North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical, or moral grounds?
Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn’t illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue — and one often ignored by all too many moralists.
As disruptive as immunity granted to illegal aliens from the duty to abide our rules can be per se, like putting the badge of respectability on the behavior of scofflaws and handcuffs on the authority of the law, such waivers from civil obedience also set precedents of upheaval for other—more nefarious—foreign influences who are assembling in our homeland votaries loyal to the rites of their tribe. They are intent on circumventing the traditions of our way of life in order to impose theirs.
Our acquiescence to this behavior will ineluctably encourage the Mohammedans’ insistence of jumbling their legal traditions with ours, and abet the introduction of shariah into the West, like erecting a tower of Babel on the top of each of our courthouses.
There are shelves worth of books and articles on the ethics of immigration. Although Hanson claims that illegal immigration is a complex moral issue, his one-sided examination of the issue doesn’t seem to demonstrate that he actually believes it.
When the American colonists overthrew their government because they found its tax laws “bothersome,” did they undermine the sanctity of law? What about runaway slaves and those who assisted them on the Underground Railroad? It is a key tenet of both the conservative tradition and the American tradition that there is a higher standard than the government to which both the individual and the government are bound. If a law is unjust because it keeps you from fulfilling your moral obligations, then your moral obligations must take priority. Talk about the “sanctity” of the law quickly becomes turning the state into a god. The justness of our immigration laws must first be determined before we can talk about whether immigrants have an obligation to follow them.
Hanson’s second point is that illegal immigration has harmful effects on American workers. But in large part it has these effects precisely because the immigrants are illegal. Who, however, is arguing in favor of the status quo? If more workers were allowed to enter the country legally, most of the problems identified by Hanson would dissolve. Admittedly, there would still be competition between native-born workers and immigrants, but is Hanson willing to admit as a general rule that the government can interfere in the labor market to protect the jobs of workers? If Hanson is concerned for the poor, why is it acceptable to deny work to millions of poor rather than find ways to provide opportunity for all? Assuming that Hanson agrees that it is wrong to put restrictions on foreign trade to protect American jobs, why is he willing to give greater liberties to consumer goods than to human beings?
Third, Hanson claims that illegal immigration is unfair to those who immigrate legally. But the conditions allowing some to immigrate legally and others not have nothing to do with the moral worth of the immigrant; the primary determinant is if one already has a relative living in the United States. Even if one has a relative in the U.S., the wait is still five to over twenty years. Those who migrate legally are those who have the luxury of being able to wait that long. We exclude those who are in most desperate need of the opportunities we provide. Hanson raises the objection that if we admit impoverished Latin Americans, we would have to admit the impoverished from around the world. But if a tornado went through your town and your neighbor’s house was destroyed, would you deny your neighbor assistance because you could not possibly assist all those whose homes were destroyed by the storm? If North Koreans and Africans are not currently trying to enter our country in large numbers, there is no reason to think that permitting larger numbers of Latin Americans to enter would change that.
Well said! It is much easier to argue interminably about the socio-financial impacts than to deal with the underlying issues that truly define "left" versus "right." I hope this article is printed in other publications.
Thanks VDH for raising awareness on the fallacies inherent in our wink wink immigration system.
Lost on the glitterati and ivory tower types is how job skills are learned by countless Americans in fly-over country. It's called OJT and it's as timeless as day following night.
Numerous skilled craftsmen & contractors I've met began as a HS dropout sweeping construction sites. Hard work and perseverance leads to roofing, which leads to framing which leads to finish, and on and on. Through hard work and learning on the job, a person can earn a good living.
For over a decade (in my part of the country) the low end entry point has been flooded with illegals. The same progression from low skill to high skill occurs with one huge exception: the illegal can never go to a bank and borrow $ to become a legit contractor. He will never go to night school and become a licensed electrician or plumber. And the reality is that he cannot frame for the next 60 years. His body won't let him.
So are we to constantly import sweat labor that undercuts entry by our own citizens? What is to happen to people that toil in jobs with no path to self preservation? Do the guardians of the status quo even care?
As usual Dr. Hanson has put his astute finger on the problem. None of us are oblivious nor unsympathetic to the migrants problems - we simply don't agree with the methods they are using to resolve them. Get in line like our ancestors did and you will be welcomed with open arms.
- First, I encourage readers to look at the work of Jason Riley from WSJ on immigration (see: External Link). Also, I endorse the comments of AustinBishop79 11/29/10 @14:19 which address the first 3 points in Dr. Hanson's post; the 4th point is: "Shouldn’t illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?" This is a serpent's moral reasoning.
- One of the most important and cherished American freedoms is the freedom to extend charity to whomever we please. Immigrants in this country tend to use their surplus to support loved ones elsewhere -- LET US NOT TWIST OUR MINDS TO TURN THIS NOBLE ACT INTO A MORAL FAILING.
- It is a fact that government structures tend to make access to education and emergency health care inexpensive or free even though the taxpaying society bears a substantial cost for them. Perhaps Dr. Hanson should be suggesting more means testing, or larger sales taxes and lottery sales as funding sources so the poor absorb more of these costs -- but illegals have no input on these policies. How can the learned Dr. Hanson naively suggest that it is somehow immoral for illegals to accept American generosity? Perhaps he should stand at the gate and constantly make SOPHIE'S CHOICE on which illegals and which of their children get school or food stamps or health care.
- Most importantly, how can one advance an argument on moral grounds and not mention the ideals in Chapter 25 of Matthew's Gospel? Most of us are the descendants of brave souls who ventured here because they loved the promise of a new life in America. There is little moral difference between those immigrants and today's illegals -- the morality of the migration hasn't changed, but open immigration laws have changed into highly restrictive ones with arbitrary enforcement and counter-productive effects. Our country has changed from being a vast land of abundant opportunity and has become a guarded lifeboat that prefers to hoard its generosity. Illegal immigration is not an easy problem to address, but calling poor migrants "immoral" because they want to be Americans is not helpful.
The author said, "We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?" I have news for you sir, it's still ILLEGAL and unlawful to be in this country or any other country without permission! ILLEGAL invaders and people that think like you are why the United States is becoming a second rate nation and cesspool. Instead of the rule of law we are now governed by political correctness. YOU not knowing right from wrong is the problem!
