I seem to have temporarily lost my ability to write passable post titles. Sorry.
Over the past few years I’ve found myself having a bit of a change of heart about this topic. But before I go into matters I need to clarify one specific thing. I have no respect for people who pride themselves in breaking the law “because everyone does it” or “because it’s a stupid law”. As I understand it, the philosophy of law allows for the consideration of intent when pondering the severity of violation. It’s the philosophy of Mens Rea or The Guilty Mind. And I look a lot more kindly on people who break the law to feed their family than I do on people who break the law because they want to be a horse’s ass about it. And yes, I have one or two specific immigration advocates in mind.
That being said…
I think our current immigration laws are anti-American, anti-JudeoChristian and anti-human. I think if you can get here and aren’t crazy or a violent criminal you deserve your shot at making a life for yourself. Plain and simple.
I’m having a harder and harder time at justifying a life under the abundance of this country while denying others a seat at the table. It doesn’t square with what I’ve been taught about the ideals upon which the United States was founded, the Civil War was fought and the way I should live as a follower of Christ.
1. For we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
If indeed all men (and by this we mean all human beings) are created equal, how do we claim a right to arbitrarily decide that some folks, while being equal to us are not deserving of the life we enjoy? How can we allow the accident of birth to bar certain folk from being given the right to try to make it here? Granted we could follow this argument through to its extreme conclusion and declare that everyone gets a chance to go to Harvard, live in a 5000sq foot house and eat filet mignon every night. That’s simply not going to happen unless we convert to some as-yet-undiscovered form of uberwealthy communism. However, we can welcome people with open arms. That’s how many of us got here, descendents of those who came when the most harrowing part of the journey was the getting-here, not the being-here.
2. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How does it establish Justice to say to people they cannot be here because they weren’t born here? Throughout our comparatively brief history, the United States has been repeatedly enriched by the immigrant populace. We owe in part our very freedom to the French who came here to fight England on our shore. We owe in part the continued survival of our way of government to the German and Irish who came here to fight the Civil War, to the Chinese immigrants who enlisted to fight in WWII, to the post-war German immigrants who led us to victory in the space race. Our greatest moments have always been borne out of the times when we’ve been most welcoming to those from other parts of the globe.
3. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Many of those honoured dead at Gettysburg were born on foreign shores, as I mentioned above. They fought and died for a lot of reasons–to earn citizenship, to earn money, to end slavery–but they gave their lives so that our way of life would continue. As I’ve pondered this over the past few years I can’t see how our current stance on immigration does anything other than dishonour their deaths by villifying their very presence on our soil.
I’m not putting any Bible verses in here because I despise the tactic of using religious arguments to fight a political battle. It’s like having a discussion with someone else where you speak only French and they speak only Esperanto. So I’m not going to try to use one of my native tongues to address people speaking a different language. I can only say this: As someone who does believe in the tenets of Christianity I believe I am to treat others as I myself would like to be treated. I myself do not like to be mocked, spat upon, underpaid, overworked, made to live in unsanitary and overcrowded conditions. I myself do not like to be treated like a criminal simply because I look different, sound different or come from a different place from everyone else. As a fat woman who moved to the South from Indiana I do have some experience in this, albeit not as severe as that suffered by illegal immigrants. I don’t like to be called “fatso” so I don’t call people “illegals”. I also believe as a Christian that I am supposed to treat with compassion those who are poor and hungry because in so doing I am honouring the person of Jesus Christ. I can’t square that with the way illegal immigrants are treated in this country.
Now, I’m a believer in following the law. Since I believe in all these things there is only one conclusion I can draw. The laws are stupidbad laws* and must be changed.
–
*Change made because laws are inanimate objects and therefore lack powers of cognition.
Yes. But especially yes to your use of our root texts. I’d throw in the whole of Model of Christian Charity, where Winthrop instructs us that it a community good to learn compassion for the poor and a moral necessity for a good society to raise ourselves by aising others. That was supposed to be what made us exceptional — the conduct of our character, not our ethnic makeup. It’s an assent to the social contract, right?
And I doubt I’ve ever told you how happy I feel when I click over and see that you’ve got a new post up.
It makes me happy to know that you are made happy! ;-p
The reason I didn’t use Winthrop or some of the other equally good theosophic texts, as much as they do feed my personal worldview is because I’m trying very hard to make my broader argument as secular as possible, while admitting that my personal views are shaped by my religious beliefs.
I’ve spent far too much time lately reading Objectivist philosophers and find myself tailoring my arguments to them as my mental conversationalists.
This is a great post, Kat.
It says so much of what I always try to say, except that I get caught up in frantic, spluttering tongue-tiedness. Because, of course, US immigration laws violate the most-repeated exhortation of my own scriptures and therefore of my own ideas about justice.
Bad law that should be changed – this is my position as well.
With one caveat: there is a segment of the world population which is at war with the United States, whether our government chooses to call it that or not.
This may sound contradictory, but I believe in closing the border, then letting pretty much everyone who isn’t a terrorist in. The only way we can properly monitor that is to arrange it so everyone who comes to the US is coming through “the front gate”. The only way to accomplish this is to a) make coming in the back door impossible and b) make coming through the front gate very easy.
We should not have any quotas for ethnicities or class or education levels. The only qualification should be that you don’t want to kill us.
When my grandparents and their parents and siblings entered the US, immigrants were still being asked whether they were anarchists. They all answered “no.” The thing is, I have reason to believe that some of my greatuncles were. I’m sure our screening for people who want to kill us will be just as effective. The lucky part is that “being an anarchist” and “actually throwing bombs” are two different things, as are “wanting to kill us” and “doing something to kill us.”
This is an interesting post, Kat, and I have reached some similar conclusions (here). But I’m having trouble with your seeming conclusion that a society does not need citizenship or that the concept of citizenship is inconsistent with liberty or some such.
Along the same lines, I’d be interested to hear how America’s immigration laws violate “[your] own scriptures,” nm. Sure, much of the anti-immigration/anti-immigrant rhetoric may do so, but that doesn’t seem to be what Kat is arguing.
oops . . . try here.
Sorry, Ned, I won’t discuss anything touching on my religion with you.
I kind of remembered that about you, nm. Nonetheless, you’re the one that made the bold religious assertion, and I guess everyone’s supposed to accept your assertions and interpretations without question?
But the God of Israel–as recorded in “[your] holy scriptures,” certainly believed in citizenship and nations and “alienage.”
All being created equal, I think for myself and feel quoting Judeo christian ideas are fine for you but they certainly do not define how everybody thinks. Maybe in an ideal world. Our world is far from ideal but I truly believe what our forefathers conceived is far ahead of any other country yet conceived. Of course that fact has created the immigration problem!
Our social, economic and rule of law could not survive unlimited immigration hence our laws are justified. What is not, are our elected officials not enforcing said laws.
Being fat is selfish and stupid but not illegal.
And neither is it illegal to be selfish, stupid and Robert P. Dion!
Let me say this: I am a complete proponent of immigration: legal immigration.
The laws are there for a reason, and I agree wtih Ned and Robert on this. They are called “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens” for one reason: they came here illegally and did not follow the process to come into this country.
The immigration laws are there not only to provide for a way for people to come into this country to work temporarily through a visa – and hopefully to one day become a naturalized citizen – but also as a national security provision. It’s also there to keep would-be terrorists out and protect our national interests.
Granted, the laws are flawed and need to be revised. However, just allowing anyone into the country without some sort of oversight is just plain ridiculous and irresponsible. It’s also irresponsible the way our current politicians are treating the law by not enforcing said immigration laws.
Without border control we no longer have borders and therefore no sovereignty. It’s this type of “political correctness” in not calling illegals just what they are that has put our country in the state it is currently in.
they came here illegally and did not follow the process to come into this country.
Many of them likely tried.
Unless you have an immediate family member who is already a US citizen or are incredibly highly skilled in a very in demand field, it’s virtually impossible to become a US citizen
Here’s some interesting data on immigration.
I disagree. Sure, it’s an involved process, but necessary to ensure those who apply for naturalization are serious and committed to becoming a U.S. citizen – that they’ll uphold and defend the Constitution and be able to contribute to the country.
It’s important that those seeking to become a U.S. citizen have command of the English language, know our history, and know how local, state, and federal government works.
[...] Now, I’ve already written a long prooftext/essay on my reasons for become an Open Border type person. So please don’t start haranguing me with [...]
I know this a year old post but just came back to it via the trackback and saw (for the first time) Eric’s response to my last comment and felt the need to respond.
Eric,
The wait list for unskilled immigrants without a US citizen relative is longer than the average human life span. It’s not “an involved process” anymore than winning the lottery is “an involved process.” As I said it’s virtually impossible. You of course are free to disagree, but it is OBJECTIVELY wrong to say otherwise.