# Is Illegal Immigration Moral?



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2010)

*Is Illegal Immigration Moral?*

*By* *Victor Davis Hanson*November 27, 2010
Real Clear Politics/Tribune Media EXCERPT:
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.
 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 against 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 often must 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 million 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?
 END EXCERPT


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 29, 2010)

I have to say for me it is quite a simple question and answer.  

Is illegal immigration a moral act?  No it is not.

As ever, sometimes things are not clear cut, there being degrees of 'wrongdoing'.  

If the illegal immigrant is truly escaping an evil end in their homeland (assuming that they hadn't brought it upon themselves), then, if official sanctuary is not available, a covert entry to another country is a less heinous option.  Still not moral but forgiveable.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say for me it is quite a simple question and answer.
> 
> Is illegal immigration a moral act?  No it is not.
> 
> ...


Is "Wanting to make a better life for themselves" the same as "escaping an evil end?" because that is the lie/excuse most often used for illegal immigration here...


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 29, 2010)

For me, circumventing the legal routes of immigration for such fiscal reasons is not moral, no.  Of course this is easy for me to say as I live in a country people want to come to, not escape from (well, that's not uncomplicated either, as 'native' British people are leaving in high numbers as our country flounders).

If you're going to be imprisoned or otherwise maltreated through no fault of your own in your own country then that imperative to 'escape' makes the less-virtuous (I won't say immoral) choice to violate the laws of another country more forgiveable.  It's still illegal after all.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> If you're going to be imprisoned or otherwise maltreated through no fault of your own in your own country then that imperative to 'escape' makes the less-virtuous (I won't say immoral) choice to violate the laws of another country more forgiveable.  It's still illegal after all.


I agree, that is not, however the cause of the vast majority of illegal immigration here in the US, where we are told illegals are simply 'hard working people, trying to improve their lot in life and doing jobs Americans won't do'
John McCain, that douchebag, went so far as to say white people wouldn't pick lettuce in Arizona even if paid $50 an hour for the 2 month season. Which was another of the reasons the actual conservatives in the Republican party never liked him as a candidate...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 29, 2010)

Big Don said:


> First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system.  If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must 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?



Illegal immigration is illegal.  To characterize it as 'moral' or 'immoral' requires a common yardstick by which to judge such things.  None exists.  Case in point; there are good, decent, law-abiding, and honest citizens on BOTH SIDES of the 'right to life' debate.  Is abortion therefore moral or immoral?  Ask both sides and you get two different answers.  There is no absolute (unless you are a staunch member of one or the other).



> Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on  impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million 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?
> END EXCERPT



That is two questions, not one.  The first (what is the effect on impoverished US citizens) is a good question. I cannot imagine it does them any good whatsoever.  The second (is it ethical to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens) is a question for the state, not the federal government.  People who argue vehemently for State's Rights often turn Federalist when the state in question doesn't play by the rules they think it ought.  Don't like how California determines who is a resident and who is not for tuition purposes?  Go have a chat with California.

However, I've never argued the ethical, legal, or moral right of illegal aliens to cross our borders with impunity.  It's a crime, albeit a minor one.  It has an effect on our economy (good, bad, or indifferent, it clearly affects it).  It should concern us.

However, I feel it is of far less importance than recognizing two things.  First, that our border security is more important than the illegal aliens that have been hear for generations now and which are not going away, and second, that we should reform our immigration laws to reflect the reality that people want the things that illegal aliens provide us.  That's all.  Secure the borders by drastically reducing the number of people who come across illegally and then focusing law enforcement attention on those few who will still be crossing illegally after all the (former) illegal workers are coming across with nice legal work visas.

I don't care even one tiny bit about the ethics or morals of the situation.  It's immoral what they do?  Aw.  Put on your big girl panties and get over it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 29, 2010)

You make some good points, Bill (and is it my imagination or have you not been about for a bit?).

I do think it is an interesting approach in the OP article tho' to take the focus away from the merely practical and pragmatic and ask the quite important question of the moral aspects of illegality.

After all, most things are illegal because they are considered either dangerous to the general public or immoral (not fitting the accepted codes of morality of the society).  There are also things that are legal that are amoral ... but that's a whole other discussion .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 29, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> You make some good points, Bill (and is it my imagination or have you not been about for a bit?).



Too true.  I have been entertaining.  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157625312041307/

I do have other interests too, ya' know...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> I do think it is an interesting approach in the OP article tho' to take the focus away from the merely practical and pragmatic and ask the quite important question of the moral aspects of illegality.



I'm a bit more cynical.  I doubt the sincerity of the question, given the source.  I think it's just another way of yakking up the same old hairball.



> After all, most things are illegal because they are considered either dangerous to the general public or immoral (not fitting the accepted codes of morality of the society).  There are also things that are legal that are amoral ... but that's a whole other discussion .



Morality and the public good (and hence, laws) have been loosely affiliated with each other since dot, more or less.  In a society that derives its authority to govern from the consent of the governed, one would expect that although the two bear a more-than-passing resemblance to each other, one cannot argue the 'morality' of a situation with respect to whether or not it ought to be legal; merely over how one may choose to feel about it.  It is (ironically) in societies that are government by religious law in which morality (as given by the particular religion) and the law of the land are indistinguishable.

I always find it a bit amusing to watch those who decry 'Sharia Law' go on about how immoral this or that is, and how therefore it ought to have a stop put to it.  Yes, Imam, tell me more.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm a bit more cynical.  I doubt the sincerity of the question, given the source.  I think it's just another way of yakking up the same old hairball.


How wonderful. What a unique way to dodge the actual question, attack the person, not the words...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 29, 2010)

Hh





Big Don said:


> How wonderful. What a unique way to dodge the actual question, attack the person, not the words...



But he did answer the question...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 29, 2010)

Big Don said:


> How wonderful. What a unique way to dodge the actual question, attack the person, not the words...



OK, let me make it more clear.  Do I think that crossing the border illegally for work is moral or immoral?  I think it is immoral.  I also think it is irrelevant to any discussion of border security, which is what I care about.


----------



## granfire (Nov 29, 2010)

Immoral?
No. Having relations outside of marriage is immoral.
Crossing boarders without propper documentation is illegal.

Is it illegal to want a better life for yourself and your family?
No, it is not even immoral. 

Now, on the other side of the fence - literally - the matter of legality and morality arises:
Is it either or to hire illegals?
You bet your Gi bottoms it is as immoral as it is illegal.

And yet, as cynic realist, I don't see the need for the illegal workforce diminish any time soon.

because the white population does not care to pick lettuce, and the non-white part of the population does not, either.
See here is the problem: If you want to produce agricultural products to a price the average American can afford you can't pay much above minimum wage. It's as simple as that. There are costs you can't control on the farm, like the price of gas or pesticites. Or the latest round of Monsanto's licensing follies. 

And just to put my opinion in perspective: I used to work in the agricultural sector, in a grunt's position. The native workforce was something you didn't wish on your worst enemy, the truck load of 'Mexicans' worked their butts off, surpassing the best of the natives my miles. 
The thing is, it's called the _American Dream, _not the US American dream...from the Artic to Terra de Fuego, it's America...


----------



## billc (Nov 30, 2010)

I was listening to Rush the other day, a while ago, and someone called in and said that in Europe they use machines to harvest almost all of their crops since they do not have the cheap labor available that the U.S. does.  He said they use machines for all the crops that we would use manual labor to harvest.  Does anyone know anything about this?


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 30, 2010)

Like other posters have said, immoral or moral is a smokescreen to the actual problem and the solutions to the problem.  To answer the question though, nothing is black and white when it comes to illegal immigration.  Which is worse morally, crossing a border illegally to find work to feed your family or obeying the law and watching them starve?  We do need to get control of illegal immigration and change some of the laws regarding immigration.  Villifying those who are immigrating illegally does absolutley nothing towards those goals.  Maybe I'm just wierd in that I can have compassion for people and still see the need to limit illegal activity by those same people.

I find it interesting that many articles attack the illegal immigrants, but hardly ever attack those driving illegal immigration.  If there is no work for illegals, they would not be here.  Also, for the middle class people I know, they don't have the money to hire anyone, much less illegals to take care of thier lawn, thier children, or thier housecleaning. So with the middle class statement, the article lost credability for me.


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I was listening to Rush the other day, a while ago, and someone called in and said that in Europe they use machines to harvest almost all of their crops since they do not have the cheap labor available that the U.S. does.  He said they use machines for all the crops that we would use manual labor to harvest.  Does anyone know anything about this?



everything that can be harvested by machine is being mechanized in the US as well. After all a fleet of machines with a handful of operators is still cheaper than an army of migrant workers. There are just some things you can't pick by machine. Either the crop is too fragile or there are several stages of readiness on the plant.

However, labor laws are different in Europe, making it relatively easy to hire seasonal work.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2010)

Grapes, strawberries, tomatoes,  apples,pears,avocados,oranges,peaches-pretty much an ything that grolws on trees- carrots, asparagus, lettuce, cabbage, kale and a myriad of other things all must be harvested by hand, for a variety of reasons.



As for the issue of "morality" two weeks ago, it was "immoral" for a Catholic to use a coondom. While the Holy Father didn' declare it to be mooral; he did say that condom use was more moral than transmitting AIDS or having an. Abortion.

Even the Pope recognizes that "morals" are NOT absolute. It is, after. All, an age old dilemna: is it immoral to steal food to feed your children, or even more immoral to; let them starve? Because. That's what we're talking about here; peope stealing. To feed. Their families.

Sure, if they came into the country to smugglle drugs or rape children, it'sclearly immoral. To feedtheir families? I dunno. My dad said that one of thebest tests of morality was something like. WWID?,as in "whaat would I do? " 

So, in order to provide. A halfway decent living to your family, you have to illegally cross the border. What would YOU do?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 30, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Which is worse morally, crossing a border illegally to find work to feed your family or obeying the law and watching them starve?


 It is still illegal, and immoral, it is just sympathetic.





> Villifying those who are immigrating illegally does absolutley nothing towards those goals.


Of course, neither does lionizing them.





> I find it interesting that many articles attack the illegal immigrants, but hardly ever attack those driving illegal immigration.


 Like, Mexico's government?





> If there is no work for illegals, they would not be here.


Well, there are women everywhere, yet, relatively few rapists, so the idea that if the bait isn't here they won't be is kind of flawed, imho.


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

Big Don said:


> It is still illegal, and immoral, it is just sympathetic.Of course, neither does lionizing them. Like, Mexico's government?
> Well, there are women everywhere, yet, relatively few rapists, so the idea that if the bait isn't here they won't be is kind of flawed, imho.




somehow many of your pearls of wisdom got lost in the quote feature.
However, I would like to point out that  Morality or lack there of is not to equate with legality. though the first influences that latter, we can, I think agree that there is a wide gap between what is legal and moral in many cases.

You are also under the misconception that all short, dark skinned people who perform manual work under illegal conditions do indeed hail from only Mexico. Many come from far further South. I think the Mexican government has many flaws that are probbaly not linked to illegals from Central America though naturally there is the windfall from the immediate proximity.

And comparing the opportunity to earn money for a better life to the criminal act of rape just because the opportunity is there with that many women present...next thing you try to tell us the Burka prevents violence against women...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 30, 2010)

elder999 said:


> So, in order to provide. A halfway decent living to your family, you have to illegally cross the border. What would YOU do?



It is an excellent question, and one which those who are opposed to illegal immigration will *generally not answer*.

When I have posed the question, the answer I usually get is a side-step; _"Well, I would never put my family in that situation."_  Or, _"Well, they had no business having kids to begin with if they could not feed them."_ Or, _"Well, their own government should be looking into these situations, it's not our problem to solve."_  All of which may be true to varying degrees, but none of which answer the question.

Just answer the damned question.  Hypothetically, you are the head of family X, and you live in Country Y.  You have tried diligently to find work, but you have not found any.  Your family is living off of very little, and you fear the worst if you do not take action.  Across the border in Country Z, there is work.  

There are legal ways to cross the border and work; but you have applied and been on the list for several years now; there is a 20,000 worker maximum, so they have a lottery every year, and your number has not yet come up.

It is dangerous to cross the border, and it is illegal according to the laws of Country Z.  The work is hard, the pay is low; but it is work and it is pay.  A friend who has been there before offers to guide you into Country Z and take you to where the work is.

You consider yourself a moral person, a good person, a law-abiding person.  However, you see your family with no money, little food, living in squalor, and with no opportunity to change that situation, despite the fact that you vote in your local and national elections and try to make change happen within your own country.  You love your country and have no particular desire to leave and go to a country where you are not wanted by many, despised by many, and subject to arrest and deportation, not to mention predation violent criminals.

Do you go or not?  *Don't equivocate*.  *Yes or no*.

If 'no', fair enough.  I can certainly understand why you would suggest that no one else should come to the USA illegally in search of work either.

If 'yes'...

For my part, to answer my own question...yes, I would cross the border to Country Z.  I would consider what I was doing to be wrong, both morally and legally.  I would do it anyway.  There are things I consider more important than my sense of morality and my desire to obey the law, and one of those things is feeding my family.


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

The biggest immorality is that many who vehemently oppose immigration are often caught as benefactors of the ill gotten gains of illegal work. 

Who was the latest bigwig from DC? naturally, it wasn't his fault, it was a subcontractor....:BSmeter:


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 30, 2010)

Well posited, Bill.

My straight, unadorned, answer to your question is "No".  I would not break the law under the circumstances described.  I am from a very poor background myself and have been in situations where a little law-breaking would have improved my position greatly - I chose not to take the easy path then and I like to think that I would choose the same way again if the need arose.

By the way, I am (un-antagonistically) curious to know if the claims, that Mexicans are breaking American immigration laws because they cannot feed their families, are literal truth?  Or are they just poor and cannot get work that pays so well in Mexico?


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Well posited, Bill.
> 
> My straight, unadorned, answer to your question is "No".  I would not break the law under the circumstances described.  I am from a very poor background myself and have been in situations where a little law-breaking would have improved my position greatly - I chose not to take the easy path then and I like to think that I would choose the same way again if the need arose.
> 
> By the way, I am (un-antagonistically) curious to know if the claims, that Mexicans are breaking American immigration laws because they cannot feed their families, are literal truth?  Or are they just poor and cannot get work that pays so well in Mexico?




I don't have the data at hand and I am too lazy ATM to look it up.
But yes, the income (among other things) in central American nations is very low. I mean, illegals are known to accept positions that pay as low as 3 dollars an hour where the national minimum is somewhere around 5,50$ and that puts you well below the poverty level. (by pooling resources with others they manage to save a great deal of money and wire it home) I think the national average of some areas is somewhere around 1 dollar a day...

However, some countries still do have other issues. some areas od Mexico make the OK coral shoot out look like a fire cracker display! 


many of these folks are honest and hard working. Minus the paper issue. Keeping their heads low and work their fingers to a nub.
There is a need for these people to come to the states and fill the jobs, because frankly, nobody wants to do dirty work anymore.
And lets face it, being dirt poor in Europe or the US isn't nearly as bad as being dirt poor in most other countries in the world.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 30, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> My straight, unadorned, answer to your question is "No".  I would not break the law under the circumstances described.



So just to be clear, you place the law as a higher good than the lives of your family?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 30, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> By the way, I am (un-antagonistically) curious to know if the claims, that Mexicans are breaking American immigration laws because they cannot feed their families, are literal truth?  Or are they just poor and cannot get work that pays so well in Mexico?



I cannot answer the question.  I wonder if anyone can, in an objective manner.  Are people literally starving to death in Mexico?  I don't hear of it; but that doesn't mean it never happens.  Nor are all people who choose to come to the USA to find work in the same economic straits; some are no doubt higher or lower relative to the 'poverty' level both in the US and in Mexico (and other nations south of the US border).  And what one person sees as desperate and grinding poverty might be quite acceptable to another.

Poverty is a word.  What it does to people varies.  What it means to a person is based on many things.  Nearly anything can be tolerated; people lived through the death camps in Germany during WWII.  But what is an acceptable level of poverty, a livable level of hunger?  I think that depends very much on circumstances.

One thing I know from personal experience; poverty outside the capital of Mexico and the US border areas is rampant and people live in squalor.  I was taken by an assistant US ambassador to a small town two hours drive from Mexico City.  There was no 'there' there.  No paved roads are one thing; heck, I grew up in towns of 400 that had no paved roads.  I'm talking no NOTHING.  No proper road leading to the town; just an animal path.  No plumbing, no electricity.  No phones, no radio, no TV.  Animals and broken carts and dirt and dust everywhere.  Every person was filthy, they made the beggars I used to see on the US border seem clean by comparison.  The smell was not to be believed.  There was only one color; brown.

We went there to visit a person who would become world famous in his own right in several years time; I shan't name him.  We drove to the edge of town; there was a row of vertical logs forming an impenetrable fence.  Men with machine guns manned the gate, which was high in the air.  We honked, they appeared.  The gate opened, we drove through.  Inside, it could have been Kentucky.  Green grass and pastures as far as the eye could see; no trace of the village outside could be seen or heard or smelled from inside.  There was a stable of Paso Fino horses, a riding ring, hired hands breaking and training them.  There were misters everywhere, spraying water into the air.  There was a rustic log cabin; or so it looked from outside.  Inside, every modern convenience, all done up to look 'weathered' and old, but the marble was marble, the stone was stone, the stainless steel could not be made to look 'common'.  When the peacocks wandered past I knew I was in the presence of real power, real wealth.  And no, I am not exaggerating.  We ate a peasant's lunch; bread made in the village with goat cheese and fresh tomato slices; some red wine.  But it was not a peasant's lunch, all the same.

If I lived in that village, and saw my house, my family, and that wall with those people inside, I would probably want better things for my family.  Better food and more of it.  A floor, electricity.  A chance for an education for my children.  To get that, there are many of my morals I would violate.  I would sell my soul to hell for a better chance for my children.  Seeing both, knowing that I could have at least some semblance of that better life by climbing a fence, running across a desert, and picking tobacco all day in the hot sun?  Sign me up.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If I lived in that village, and saw my house, my family, and that wall with those people inside, I would probably want better things for my family.  Better food and more of it.  A floor, electricity.  A chance for an education for my children.  To get that, there are many of my morals I would violate.  I would sell my soul to hell for a better chance for my children.  Seeing both, knowing that I could have at least some semblance of that better life by climbing a fence, running across a desert, and picking tobacco all day in the hot sun?  Sign me up.



I hear you Bill.  I struggle by often living on peanut butter and ramen, while I see the street gangs and drug dealers in my neighborhood driving Escalades, and Porches and wearing more gold than Fort Knox and I say "Gee, I should poison and shoot people too so I can have nice things"


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 1, 2010)

Guys, there is a hell of a difference between entering a country illegally to work your backside off to send money home for your family and dealing drug and such.  If you can't see the difference it says a lot.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 1, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Guys, there is a hell of a difference between entering a country illegally to work your backside off to send money home for your family and dealing drug and such.  If you can't see the difference it says a lot.


Yeah, because, as we all know, it is only possible to work your backside off in designated areas.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Guys, there is a hell of a difference between entering a country illegally to work your backside off to send money home for your family and dealing drug and such.  If you can't see the difference it says a lot.



It is different, but it's also the same.  Look at the root of what both My and Bills examples are saying without the specifics:

_I have less, I see someone with more, I want that and I feel the only way to achieve that is to break the law to get it._

Admittedly, Circumstances in Mexico, Poland, Russia, or any of the other places a majority of the illegal immigrants who come into the country are different and therefore may be difficult for many of us here to fully comprehend.  I get that.  But by the same token, if I were dirt poor living in conditions of squalor as Bill exampled, I don't know that I'd necessarily go "Gosh, since Canada is so great, I should, at great risk, sneak into their country and take advantage of what they have to offer to try and make a better life" knowing the risks of getting there, trying to integrate into their way of life, possibly being hated for being American, etc... rather, I think if I was willing to bust my *** to make a few dollars in Canada after taking all that risk, and dealing with the hardships of just getting there and staying there... I could probably find a way to use that energy and ability to better my situation where I am.  Maybe not in the dilapidated Mexican Village Bill described, or some Polish Slum, but you cannot convince me that all of Mexico is like that village and that if they could take the time to sneak here, they could go someplace there with less effort and risk and find work, or that there are not places that someone could go and live... better... off the land, gardening and/or farming.   

But Maybe it's true.  Maybe those places are so *** backwards, dilapidated and the people so uneducated and hopeless that they don't have or can't see a better way, and I just can't fathom that kind of existence...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 1, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Which is worse morally, crossing a border illegally to find work to feed your family or obeying the law and watching them starve?


 
This is a false dichotomy. Your question makes the assumption that these are the only two options specifically, and the only two options which people who illegally cross the border consider generally. 

There are other options available then those which you posit. The argument over illegal immigrations morality does not fall so neatly in line with the options that you choose to present.  For instance, and this one is not so sinister as some that might be posited, perhaps the person can feed his family, but wants a better life for then then they currently have.  This one is actually MUCH more likely then the "watching the family starve" theory.

Studies have found that 26% of children between 5 and 11 are overweight, compared to 19% for the same age group in the U.S.  71% of Mexican women and 66% of Mexican men are overweight, compared to fewer then 10% in 1989.  3/4 of Mexico City's 70,000 member police force are overweight.  

So people in Mexico aren't starving.  They may have other issues, but not eating isn't one of them.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So just to be clear, you place the law as a higher good than the lives of your family?


 
That's one way of looking at it, I guess.

I think what Suk is trying to say is that certain of his principles are important to him as a person.  If I wanted to take a simplistic version of your question of clarification, I could insert a specific law, such a murder, to substitute for your general provision, such as:

"So just to be clear, you place the _law against murder _as a higher good than the lives of your family?"

If so, then I'm certain he would say yes.  But, I honestly don't think that's what you meant.

What he, I think, is saying, is that he would do every _legal_ thing within his power to support and help his family before ever even considering breaking the law to do so.  And that may include options that might risk his own well-being, such as working to change a corrupt government which is keeping him from feeding his family.

His statement doesn't sound so sinister then, does it?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

Illegal immigration is not immoral because it's something decided by a court of law as to whether people are allowed to live in your country or not. If the law can be changed to say anyone can come to your country it then it can't be immoral, it's a point of law not morals.
Perhaps we are slightly different from America in that many of our illegal immigrants come from places like Somalia and Sudan as well as the more well known places. They take huge risks to get here, many die on the way here but the hope of not just a better life but just a life drives them forward. A lot of our illegals are fleeing from Rhodesia, white people as well as black, others fled Afghanistan when it was under the Taliban, once here although they arrived illegally many have applied for asylum. 

It's fine having principles but they don't put food in your children's stomachs, there are many places so poor on this planet that parents and families can't afford to have morals, they will flee from country to country looking for a life for their children. People who may be well off in material terms may also flee when their and their families are at risk as they were and still are in many places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. 

What the situation is in South America I don't know but the OP doesn't indicate any particular country or any particular group of immigrants. 

If your children are starving, if your family is facing torture, if you are in the middle of a warzone and your limbs have been macheted off or your womenfolk raped to death, if you face death camps, all these type of things then no it is not immoral to flee and enter any country you can.

I think we need to be clear in our laws about helping the people who need it and not helping those who have little need to be in a country. I believe a country should be open to helping refugees and giving them sanctuary, a humane people can do no less. We don't need to support those however who can support themselves in or have nothing to fear from living in their own country. Many refugees can bring with them a lot to offer a country that takes them in, the refugees from the Taliban for example were mostly doctors, lawyers and others who didn't have the approval of the Taliban to live, female teachers, medics etc especially faced death and torture but they can offer a lot to their new home, they often hope to go back to their original countries too.

Immigration is a subject that need a careful look at it not a blanket of disapproval covering all cases.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So just to be clear, you place the law as a higher good than the lives of your family?


 
Well there's a whole other worthwhile moral discussion there about becoming what you despise to survive ... but that's not what I said, EH.

Bill framed a question, laying out the parameters that bounded the question and requested a Yes/No answer with no elaboration or equivocation.  I gave my honest answer to that question based upon my own life experiences and the moral decisions I have made along the way.

Kenpo did a good job of laying out a little more detail of what I had in mind as a background to my answer (thank you, good sir).

As an aside, Gran (I think) made a valid point that being amongst the poor in England is very different than being amongst the poor in somewhere like Somalia.  That is very true.  But I don't think that Mexico is quite as bad as somewhere like that - I could be wrong, of course, because I don't live there and all reported statistics (upon which I can base an opinion) are ever suspect due to their subjective compilation.

It's a dangerous question to ask as it risks de-railing the thread but why are things so bad in Mexico that a country of that size with the resources it has cannot provide gainful employment for so many of it's citizens?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I hear you Bill.  I struggle by often living on peanut butter and ramen, while I see the street gangs and drug dealers in my neighborhood driving Escalades, and Porches and wearing more gold than Fort Knox and I say "Gee, I should poison and shoot people too so I can have nice things"



By that reasoning, then, there can be no distinction made between dealing drugs and cheating on your taxes, or doing a California stop on a stop sign, or exceeding the speed limit.  Ever fail to pull over promptly for a fire truck?  You might as well be a gangster or a murderer or a rapist, they're the same thing.

I would tend to reject the notion that there are no degrees of gradation to law-breaking.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> By that reasoning, then, there can be no distinction made between dealing drugs and cheating on your taxes, or *doing a California stop on a stop* *sign*, or exceeding the speed limit. Ever fail to pull over promptly for a fire truck? You might as well be a gangster or a murderer or a rapist, they're the same thing.
> 
> I would tend to reject the notion that there are no degrees of gradation to law-breaking.


 

What's that? it sounds a bit iffy lol! In Italy traffic lights are considered as an idea not a rule so driving is very interesting there.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 1, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Well there's a whole other worthwhile moral discussion there about becoming what you despise to survive ... but that's not what I said, EH.
> 
> Bill framed a question, laying out the parameters that bounded the question and requested a Yes/No answer with no elaboration or equivocation.



Bill stipulated in his question that your family was living in squalor, with very little to eat.  I took that to mean that they were starving, or that their lives were in danger more generally.  YMMV.  That is also why I asked a clarifying question rather than unloading on you.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> By that reasoning, then, there can be no distinction made between dealing drugs and cheating on your taxes, or doing a California stop on a stop sign, or exceeding the speed limit.  Ever fail to pull over promptly for a fire truck?  You might as well be a gangster or a murderer or a rapist, they're the same thing.
> 
> I would tend to reject the notion that there are no degrees of gradation to law-breaking.



That wasn't my argument.  Let me quote my follow up post:



Cryozombie said:


> It is different, but it's also the same.  Look  at the root of what both My and Bills examples are saying without the  specifics:
> 
> _I have less, I see someone with more, I want that and I feel the only way to achieve that is to break the law to get it._



Of course there are degrees.  Nothing is absolute or even Black and White.  

Also, since we are discussing the severity of the crime, I have to ask, where DO we draw the line?  

Ok, we say "Its ok for them to come over illegally, we'll forgive it, its like a parking ticket in severity"

So then they come over, and forge Identity documents.  Do we forgive that?  What about when they use someone Elses legitimate SSN and **** their credit, is that forgivable or not?  Then what about when they drive without a license and insurance?   How about when they work under the table for cash and fail to pay federal and state income taxes? Do we say "Well, gosh, all that wouldn't have happened if we just let them come here legally in the first place, so its really not their fault they broke all those additional laws?" or do we hold them accountable and at what point and for which violations?


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 1, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> "So just to be clear, you place the _law against murder _as a higher good than the lives of your family?"
> 
> If so, then I'm certain he would say yes.  But, I honestly don't think that's what you meant.



Something like it.  I might break that law if it meant saving their lives, if I could be sure it would save their lives anyway (can't really say for sure).  My greatest responsibility is to the lives of my family, not the laws of the country or anyone else's life.  I think you would find that many people believe similarly.  Would you sacrifice your child's life to save three strangers?  If not, then you believe in the same basic premise.

How much less than my moral responsibility to the law when the law in question is either a misdemeanor or an infraction?  How could anyone claim to be a moral or a good person when they wouldn't even commit a misdemeanor to save the lives of their family?  I would feel bad for their children.

Laws are meant to serve a higher good, the well being and peace of the citizens underneath it.  The law is not a higher good in and of itself.  When the law ceases to serve that higher good, it should be disobeyed.

Think of the alternative, if the law is taken as a higher good than human well being.  Every law, no matter how unjust or evil, would take moral precedence over human life.  Want to shelter the Jews in Poland during Nazi occupation?  Illegal and thus immoral.  Want to shelter a runaway slave in New England?  Illegal and thus immoral.  And so forth.  I think you will find that placing the law on the highest moral pedestal has very little logical or popular support.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Also, since we are discussing the severity of the crime, I have to ask, where DO we draw the line?
> 
> Ok, we say "Its ok for them to come over illegally, we'll forgive it, its like a parking ticket in severity"



You have to define what you mean by 'OK'.  It is not legal.  That is not OK.  I don't care about this type of crime.  So to me, it's 'OK'.  I believe it is generally immoral to not obey laws, so that makes it 'not OK'.  However, I don't care in this case.  So it's 'OK'.

Which OK are you referring to?

This is common, and it is used as an argument-ender by supplying false logic.

Q: Do you find it immoral to cross the border illegally?
A: No.
Q: Then you agree that it is OK to break the law.

The truth is that you ask about one kind of "OK" and then use it to reframe the answer given to mean another kind of "OK."

No, I do not think it is OK to break the law.  However, although my religion and my upbringing compel me to admit that breaking the law is also morally wrong, I find that I frankly do not care.  So to me?  OK.  I just do not care.  My not caring does not make it OK to the world, or to the law, nor does it mean that I want people to break the law or rape buildings or rob children.  It means I do not care about THIS particular thing.  Trying to paint my answer as meaning something else is a very very old trick.  It only works if the person you do it to doesn't notice.  I noticed.

If we catch an illegal alien, we should arrest them and deport them.  Our laws should be obeyed.  Am I going to lose sleep over the millions of illegal aliens that come to the USA to find work?  Nope.  Not for one minute.  That implies nothing except what I just said; that I personally do not care.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Laws are meant to serve a higher good, the well being and peace of the citizens underneath it.  The law is not a higher good in and of itself.  When the law ceases to serve that higher good, it should be disobeyed.



I am in favor of rule by law.  I also accept that the law (as quoted) is an ***; it is a sword that cuts without noticing what it has damaged.  However, I accept the notion that laws are meant to be followed, and I support the idea that they should be.

That does not mean I personally care if a given law is enforced or not.  With regard to illegal immigrants coming across the US border illegally in order to find work, I simply do not care.  Yes, they are illegal.  If caught, prosecute and send them back.  I do not want my rights infringed in an attempt to catch them, nor do I particularly care to see my tax dollars spent trying to catch them.  I do not care.  No one can make me care.  I won't start caring.  And that is my right.  Support the law?  Yes.  In this particular instance, I just do not care if it is enforced or not.  It's nothing to do with support of laws in general or the 'morals' of the situation.  I'm can't be arsed to care, that's all.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Laws are meant to serve a higher good, the well being and peace of the citizens underneath it.  The law is not a higher good in and of itself.  When the law ceases to serve that higher good, it should be disobeyed.


Those sneaking across borders are NOT citizens...


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am in favor of rule by law.  I also accept that the law (as quoted) is an ***; it is a sword that cuts without noticing what it has damaged.  However, I accept the notion that laws are meant to be followed, and I support the idea that they should be.



In most cases and circumstances, I agree.  I reserve my moral judgment however as to when the law should be disobeyed, if in my judgment it should.  I refuse to give up that judgment to blindly follow that of others.  I fully expect to suffer the consequences however if that happens.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 1, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Those sneaking across borders are NOT citizens...



Which is completely irrelevant to the points I was making.  Well done!


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 1, 2010)

I don't think anyone has said that the immigration laws should not be enforced.  In my opinion, they should be enforced.  However, vilifying illegal immigrants as a tool for arguement on the issue is wrong.  It sets up a premise which it is an us vs them thing.  We are the law abiding US citizens who do no wrong and they are the dirty criminals who do not respect our laws or way of life.  It just isn't that simple.  Many, if not most, illegal immigrants are hard working, honest people that other than breaking the immigration laws are law abiding people.  Painting them as something less than that is a cheap trick based on a faulty arguement. Knowing that, I can have empathy and compassion for them, while still believing that those laws need to be enforced.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> In most cases and circumstances, I agree.  I reserve my moral judgment however as to when the law should be disobeyed, if in my judgment it should.  I refuse to give up that judgment to blindly follow that of others.  I fully expect to suffer the consequences however if that happens.



Agreed.

The nature of the argument in the thread above (not you) is tedious.  It is heading more-or-less the direction I expected it to head; it's an _'ah ha, gotcha!'_ kind of argument.

If I am asked if I support the law, then the argument is made that I must therefore be in favor of securing our  borders against illegal aliens.  If I do not agree, then the argument is made that I want people to be raped, murdered, and general anarchy to prevail.  I am not going to play that nasty little game.  I support the law; my lifelong involvement in the military and law enforcement should be evidence enough of that; I do not have to prove my bonafides to anyone.  I simply do not care about whether or not that law is enforced in this one particular case.  That is nothing more than personal opinion, and I never represent it as anything else - not a moral position, not a legal position.  I believe my opinion is the correct one, of course, and I'll both defend it and explain my reasoning, but it remains nothing more than an opinion.  I won't be portrayed as immoral or supporting illegality across the board for having an opinion.  I do not aim the above statements at you, of course.  I am speaking to the thread.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 1, 2010)

Also, using its the "its Mexico's fault" arguement isn't very good either because many, many, illegal immigrants come through Mexico, not from Mexico.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 2, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The nature of the argument in the thread above (not you) is tedious.  It is heading more-or-less the direction I expected it to head; it's an _'ah ha, gotcha!'_ kind of argument.
> 
> If I am asked if I support the law, then the argument is made that I must therefore be in favor of securing our  borders against illegal aliens.  If I do not agree, then the argument is made that I want people to be raped, murdered, and general anarchy to prevail.



That wasn't my intention or what I was trying to do.  I thought I was being clear in my question, and wasn't laying a trap.  Maybe I could rephrase it without the term "ok" and maybe ask "For the sake of this exercise lets assume we all agree that we don't need to prosecute an illegal alien for sneaking into the country, so where do we draw the line on their behavior?  If in doing so they commit Identity Theft, forged documents, Income Tax evasion, driving without a licence, etc? Or as those acts were "forced" by the poorly thought out law that cause the first crime we desire to overlook should they be ignored as well?"

Seriously, It's not a trap, I'm genuinely trying to understand the mindset behind this argument.   I do think some of your Subsequent posts clear some of that up for me Bill, and EH made an excellent post that also mimics many of my feelings about the law in general also.  But I also have a personal reason for thinking that Illegal immigration is wrong that I don't feel like sharing here at this time.  

I also recognize that by making immigration less difficult to do legally that the issues that I have could be mitigated, and this is why I am in favor of positive immigration reform.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I think we need to be clear in our laws about helping the people who need it and not helping those who have little need to be in a country. I believe a country should be open to helping refugees and giving them sanctuary, a humane people can do no less. We don't need to support those however who can support themselves in or have nothing to fear from living in their own country. Many refugees can bring with them a lot to offer a country that takes them in, the refugees from the Taliban for example were mostly doctors, lawyers and others who didn't have the approval of the Taliban to live, female teachers, medics etc especially faced death and torture but they can offer a lot to their new home, they often hope to go back to their original countries too.
> 
> Immigration is a subject that need a careful look at it not a blanket of disapproval covering all cases.


 

Here is my response:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&feature=player_embedded&fmt=22

It's a six minute video and provides an interesting perspective.


----------



## geezer (Dec 6, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I also recognize that by making immigration less difficult to do legally that the issues that I have could be mitigated, and this is why I am in favor of positive immigration reform.


 
I agree with you. Now back to the OP. Is illegal immigration moral? No, but its human. Perfect morality is not. So, as Bill pointed out, it's a human reality. And we need to address the issue intelligently and _humanely._


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2010)

geezer said:


> I agree with you. Now back to the OP. Is illegal immigration moral? No, but its human. Perfect morality is not. So, as Bill pointed out, it's a human reality. And we need to address the issue intelligently and _humanely._


 
You stress the word "humanely".  What would be humane?  As the video that I posted the link to pointed out, we are only taking the hardest working people out of those countries.  The citizens of the countries that we are talking about would be better served by keeping these hard working people in their country to help make it better.  Not in us allowing them to come into our country.


----------



## granfire (Dec 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You stress the word "humanely".  What would be humane?  As the video that I posted the link to pointed out, we are only taking the hardest working people out of those countries.  The citizens of the countries that we are talking about would be better served by keeping these hard working people in their country to help make it better.  Not in us allowing them to come into our country.



true, but those people can't be kept in the country, short of building a wall. And then it's not 100%. Unless of course you are willing to shoot your hard working countrymen for wanting to make a better life for themselves where that is actually feasable.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2010)

granfire said:


> true, but those people can't be kept in the country, short of building a wall. And then it's not 100%. Unless of course you are willing to shoot your hard working countrymen for wanting to make a better life for themselves where that is actually feasable.


 
You're right.

But the question is regarding the morality, ours and theirs, of illegal immigration.

I say we do a diservice to the people of the home country when we allow the hardest working individuals into our country to sneak into our country and stay. We should foist their work ethic back into their own country in order to have them raise the standards there, not to siphon off the best and the brightest for our own gain. 

I also think that those that leave those countries do a diservice to their fellow countrymen and women, saying that their interests are more important then their neighbors. That's why I think illegal immigration on their part, for the most part, is immoral. They are abandoning their fellow countrypeople to their squalor, in the U.S.'s case, most likely never to return.

As far as shooting them, no, I wouldn't.  But if they ever returned, unless it is specifically to stay and help their fellow countrymen, I would shun them and offer them no help, goods, or services.


----------



## granfire (Dec 6, 2010)

their morality is to make the best living they can for their family.

Don't forget that that 3 $ an hour strawberry picking job pays for oh so much more back home.

So the home country is not losing out. It has no jobs for those hard working folks to make a decent living.

It's a mess all around.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2010)

granfire said:


> their morality is to make the best living they can for their family.
> 
> Don't forget that that 3 $ an hour strawberry picking job pays for oh so much more back home.
> 
> ...


 
I understand that is their morality.  It's kinda sad, too.  

And the home country is losing out.  It is losing it's hard working people who could expend that effort making their country better, which would include entrepenuars who would create jobs.


----------

