U.S. citizens and the establishment blogosphere are quick to proclaim laws unjust when it is expressed by familiar faces. Why is it that they are silent on, or they actively promote, unjust laws when it affects the millions of migrants living under their noses?
The establishment blogosphere, which is mostly progressive, is failing the pro-migrant movement. While anti-migrant advocates dominate the social web and send hundreds of thousands of emails to their congressional candidates, I only hear crickets from the gatekeepers of the progressive blogosphere, and I get active resistance from their minions.
Migrants have become the chosen punching bag of the right and the establishment progressive blogosphere is content to just stand by and watch.
Crooks and Liars should change their title to:
“When Injustice (Against White Male U.S. Citizens) Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty”.
Perhaps the reason is that it is unclear that U.S. immigration law is unjust. You say you are not in favor of “open borders,” so I presume that you agree that a political community has the right to decide who will be a member of the community and who will not. (In America, we have circumscribed our right so to define the political community through our Constitution–it would, in my view, require a constitutional amendment to change the law so as to deprive anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction of U.S. citizenship). I also presume you agree that a state has the right to determine who may enter its territory and who may not.
If all this is so, then the question is whether the consequences and punishments we hand out for violation of our rules about who may be a member of the political community and who may be present on U.S. soil are so harsh as to be unjust. Maybe yes, and maybe no, but even if you're right, this argument packs much less of a punch than an argument that our immigration laws are unjust because they are too restrictive. Anyway, I'm not sure that you're right, because the right to set boundaries to the community almost by definition implies that those left outside of the community will suffer the penalty of exclusion.
Now, there are a lot of reasons why our immigration policy may be unwise, but this is a different question altogether. It is, in my view, unwise to consider deporting all illegal aliens, because of the terrible effect such a move would have on our economy (and, as you point out, on the economies of the states from which the illegal aliens came). It would be wiser, in my view, to create a path to citizenship for some category of illegal aliens already present in the United States. But does justice require it? I think not, at least if you grant the two principles stated in the first paragraph of this comment.
Likewise, we may want to be merciful to certain categories of illegal aliens on humanitarian or moral grounds. But again, let's not confuse mercy and justice.
TedF
Are we talking about justice in a universal sense, or from the perspective of the U.S.? I'm talking about justice in the universal sense, and I think that's the only way to look at it. I don't think anyone can deny that migrants are suffering from injustice. From an unjust system and from unjust laws, in both the countries that they come from, in the countries they arrive, and in a global sense.
I'm sorry my answer isn't longer, because I appreciate your thoughtful response. But if we can define what type of justice we're talking about, then I'd be happy to discuss this further.
Can I give a litle potted political theory here?
Your conception of justice reminds me of John Rawls's concept of “Justice as Fairness” from “A Theory of Justice.” His theory is rich and technical, but the basic idea is that if we all had to get together to make laws, the fair way to do it would be to imagine that we didn't know much of anything about ourselves (e.g., our sex, our social class, or as relevant here, our citizenship). What kind of immigration policy would we make for ourselves if we didn't know whether we would be born to American parents or to Guatemalan parents? Obviously the policy would be much more accommodating of Guatemalans than the policy in real life, which of course is made by people who know when they make it that it is to their advantage. I see the attraction of thinking of justice as fairness, and in many respects, I hold views like this.
But not everyone takes this view. In general, the communitarians (who are nice, often progressive, moral, upstanding people) object that the communities of which we're part are so important to our identities that we can't and shouldn't try to take a God's-eye view when we make decisions about the structure of society. The idea is that it's okay in some sense for me to care more about the welfare of my family than about the welfare of people outside my family; to care more about the welfare of my neighbors than about the welfare of people who live far away; to care more about the welfare of my compatriots than about the welfare of foreigners. I see the attraction of this view, and frankly, I think many immigrant groups (legal or illegal) probably hold this view quite strongly. Just think about remittances–why do so many Mexicans send their remittances to family in Mexico, rather than to strangers elsewhere in the world arguably in greater need? I'm stretching my memory here, but I want to sayyou could find this view in books by Michael Waltzer among others.
That's the end of the rather paltry lesson. My point is that your implicit conception of justice is not the only conception, even among well-adjusted, progressive, good people.
TedF
That was very helpful. I see the distinction definitely.
I mean I'm just getting down to the very basic principle that I can't see how people can look migrants in the eye and not feel touched by what they're going through and feel the need to change it.
pretty heavy accusation to be levelled without any sort of justification.
That makes you a racist.
Kyledeb pitted one race against another by playing the race card. That makes him a racist.
Of course you may be one of those people that believes that only white people can be racists. That other ethnicities or races can't be racist because they have no power right?
What is the race card? Are we to deny that White Americans have a skin privilege over all other people in this country?
Blacks and Social Justice by Bernard Boxill, since we're getting heady in this post. There's a difference between being race-conscious, and racist. You'll find that the view you are espousing above doesn't make any philosophical or logical sense.
Please learn to explain what it is you are saying. Pretend that we, the BMG audience is the dumbest audience in the world and spell out exactly what it is you mean. As far as I’m concerned, “You sir are a Racist” is a random, non-sensical non sequitur. This fits the pattern of your many other comments where most of us have no reference, no idea what the hell it is you are talking about.
<
p>
I agree with points this poster makes. However, I find this post disjointed and fail to see where the connection exists between the John Kerry questioner getting tasered and immigration laws. The poster fails to form a clear symbiosis between the two disparate examples.
<
p>
Despite not getting this person’s point, eabo, it is clear to me that there is no racist sentiment. Even if you are correct, the burden of proof lies upon you, the accuser, to illustrate where this poster is racist. Otherwise your accusation is baseless, unsupported personal attack and a violation of the Rules of the Road.
Thanks for the defense of my personhood, even if you disagree with my post. No need to defend me from EaBo, though. We have a pretty developed relationship, now. While I do feel the attack was baseless, I understand, and familiar enough with, EaBo enough not to take it personally. I'll try to to a better job of connecting the disparate points for you next time. It was about how people are willing to claim a law is unjust when it affects people that look like them, but how when it affects outsiders they don't come to the same conclusion.