"the U.S. economy relies on undocumented people. For the sake of everyone in the U.S., irregular migrants must enter the country" - I think the dignity of everyone in the US is actually undermined with this logic. Better paupers in a house of law than masters with cheap labor for our chicken products.
People voting for Trump are not buying his cat-eating stories hook, line and sinker. They are not idiots. They know the men standing outside Home-Depot are undercutting the rates citizens could charge, the same way that China floods our market with crap goods to destroy local manufacturing. At some level they feel powerless to undo these things. Deportation is one way to resist.
The real problem however is the log in our own eyes. We love cheap goods and have bought into worshiping material idols as the source of our comfort and happiness. That's a relatively modern phenomenon; it wasn't so long ago (1940's) that middle class folks worried about having enough fuel for winter.
So, while deportation helps us feel like we're pushing against the things we know are deforming our economy, the fact is that we are so steeped in material convenience we'll never sacrifice what we really would need to, in order to undo what China, Mexico and Amazon hath wrought.
Trump is cruel, unfeeling and uncompassionate. I do believe clemency is the right thing to do. But until immigration stops being the preferred political hot-potato for both parties, we cannot stem the tide of new illegal crossings, and we won't be able to get back on course as a sovereign nation.
I like Christian’s reframing of “deportability” as a condition that bars full social participation. It gets at something important. But I worry that this conversation totally misses a major objection here from those on the pro-deportation side.
The idea that these migrants are a threat to US sovereign power because they undermine territorial integrity seems off. The migrants are not sovereign citizens in the Hobbesian wild who have decided to transgress territorial boundaries. They are *subjects* who have left one sovereign territory to enter another.
So what about thinking of illegal/irregular immigration as a “crime”? A murderer who hasn’t been brought to justice also has the threat of a sovereign “ban” hanging over their head. They also are barred from social participation in the grandest sense (perhaps even theologically, cut off from God, but let’s not get diverted).
If we think that it is good for a state to mete out punishment to those who break the law, and that this is not incompatible with human dignity, why is illegal entry different?
My outlet published a piece some months back that argued the phenomenon of illegal entry into the US and the threat of deportation is a form of entrapment. Migrants are lured into the US through a “nod-nod, wink-wink policy of looking the other way" precisely because we Americans know the essential role they play in the functioning of our economy. "To suddenly do an about-face in wanting them out of here, uprooting their American lives built on hard labor, is an act of entrapment." So, I'm not sure the analogy to murder necessarily stands here, though I am no legal expert. https://ethnicmediaservices.org/oped/what-part-of-illegal-dont-you-understand/
I don’t think illegal entry is the same as murder either. But I think the “entrapment” analogy is probably even more flawed. The agent luring and the agent deporting are not the same.
I do agree that the whole regime is a way of disciplining labor. Deportation-as-threat is a good way to get a pliable labor force.
I'm not so sure about that. Look at the political power of big ag to sway Congress, for example. They're now pressuring Trump to lay off farmworkers in the whole mass deportation campaign. The line between luring and deporting agent doesn't seem as cut and dry to me.
I really appreciated this discussion. I share a commitment to human dignity as a result of my Christian faith but continue to struggle to find underpinnings that satisfy more skeptical rationalists (looking at you, Damir).
On this issue in particular, I resonated with y'all's discussion of the false pretenses under which the Trump administration is acting. Their sowing of chaotic information related to migrants has stirred resentment in a stew of voters. However, I don't think it's just because of the obvious and tired "they're taking our jobs" angle that some like to straw man. I wonder if people are resentful or even jealous that they perceive that migrants can seek the "American Dream" in its mythical sense more than the average American in our present economy. I'm not necessarily saying this is the reality, but I do think a ton of Americans view themselves as lacking the agency to change their life in any meaningful way.
I agree with the entrapment theory. Migrants have been encouraged by government and business to come here for decades because they have a positive impact on the economy and now we want to pull the rug out from under them.
Also, the idea that they undercut native-born labor is at best overblown if not downright false based on some research. Anyone in the business community, particularly in the construction or agricultural industries knows that we have a massive labor shortage which is the biggest constraint to production. They are not stealing jobs, and mass deportations would create huge problems for the economy.
Mass deportations based on some moralistic idea of fairness (“they broke the law so must be punished”) would be “cutting off our nose to spite our face”.
This doesn’t mean I’m for open borders. Congress needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would simultaneously work on:
1. Improved border security and enforcement.
2. Deporting real criminal elements.
3. Providing a pathway to legal status for people who are here.
4. Setting up a robust guest worker program for future migrants because we need the people.
This will allow us to start with a clean slate and pursue a common sense and legally supported immigration system.
I would also argue that the cruel and potentially inhumane nature of mass deportations overrides any concerns about some need to enforce the law, but this isn’t even necessary to justify the practical matter that we’re much better off allowing the law abiding migrants to stay.
“It’s legitimate to vote to regulate the inflow of foreign workers and to demand greater security along the border”
Why is it legitimate? Does the “demand” spring from our generous, compassionate, and empathetic impulses? Or the impulses of fear, xenophobia, and aggrievedness?
It seems that every WOC article is about sympathy for the grievances of Trump voters. “Of course I’m on the left, a liberal, but you have to hand it to the put upon Trump voter on this one.”
You’re a liberal, maybe even a leftist. We should be working towards a world without borders, where membership in the political communities isn’t enforced with violence. I wish more intelligence here went towards this project.
It's worse than that -- I am a Christian, so I am committed to a world where there is "neither Jew nor Greek." I am bound to contribute to building a world of universal friendship without borders. I guess my way of doing that is by living out my vocation a Christian. But given the current political dispensation, I think people have a relative (not absolute) right to want border enforcement. I also think people have a relative (not absolute) right to have a private home where they exclude some people and not others. The new world isn't here yet.
That said, a lot of people choose more radical paths, giving us a glimpse of what that new world will like. Monks and friars are one example. And some of these people combined that with radical politics. Dorothy Day was that. So I stand convicted by your comment. I struggle with this question, too (as I hoped the dialogue would show).
I really enjoyed this rich conversation. I am torn really on this question as I do believe people have a moral duty to resist cruel policies from governments and I firmly believe mass deportations sit inside this category. They are cruel even if they are usual and the government should treat entrants as kindly as possible. I do also believe governments should welcome immigrants for reasons beyond the economic benefits but as a good in of itself.
However, where I found some of the arguments lacking was on the question of sovereignty. For sure, the international community has not made borders inviolable in the case of refugees seeking asylum. Additionally, the international community through R2P has also laid down certain basics that sovereign states need to adhere to in order for their sovereignty to be respected. Despite the myth of Westphalia being oft repeated to my annoyance the notion of the state remains a territorial one predicated upon a monopoly of legitimate control of violence as Weber argued. We have not really moved beyond that in my mind despite good arguments existing suggesting we should.
Yet, I am not convinced any of these very basic principles of sovereignty and dignity are violated by deportation of undocumented migrants into the US. As far as I know there is no right to cross borders merely for economic advantage if you do not have sufficient paperwork and in my head it would be difficult to make a case for saying government's don't have a sovereign right to determine what level of migration they want to accept. This is even more complex when you could argue many of the government's supporters want to restrict immigration granting a certain legitimation on a democratic basis to a crackdown on undocumented workers in the US.
Merely making it 'harder' to cross the border is to somewhat abdicate really answering the question as it fails to address the core premise of what happens to those who do 'slip through the net'. What is it about illegal entry to a country that grants a certain protection compared to other offences? If you looked at it from the pro-deportation side they could argue it is essentially tantamount to trespassing in ones home.
Therefore, unfortunately I think I land on the belief that we should argue against cruel actions even if they have become usual and stand up to government's who propose mass deportation policies through every legal basis we can on a normative basis. But, I think descriptively it is hard to argue that government's don't have a sovereign right to determine their own immigration policies as long as they don't break norms set down in international law (refugees) or the principles of R2P.
This core question I think went somewhat unanswered
"the U.S. economy relies on undocumented people. For the sake of everyone in the U.S., irregular migrants must enter the country" - I think the dignity of everyone in the US is actually undermined with this logic. Better paupers in a house of law than masters with cheap labor for our chicken products.
People voting for Trump are not buying his cat-eating stories hook, line and sinker. They are not idiots. They know the men standing outside Home-Depot are undercutting the rates citizens could charge, the same way that China floods our market with crap goods to destroy local manufacturing. At some level they feel powerless to undo these things. Deportation is one way to resist.
The real problem however is the log in our own eyes. We love cheap goods and have bought into worshiping material idols as the source of our comfort and happiness. That's a relatively modern phenomenon; it wasn't so long ago (1940's) that middle class folks worried about having enough fuel for winter.
So, while deportation helps us feel like we're pushing against the things we know are deforming our economy, the fact is that we are so steeped in material convenience we'll never sacrifice what we really would need to, in order to undo what China, Mexico and Amazon hath wrought.
Trump is cruel, unfeeling and uncompassionate. I do believe clemency is the right thing to do. But until immigration stops being the preferred political hot-potato for both parties, we cannot stem the tide of new illegal crossings, and we won't be able to get back on course as a sovereign nation.
I like Christian’s reframing of “deportability” as a condition that bars full social participation. It gets at something important. But I worry that this conversation totally misses a major objection here from those on the pro-deportation side.
The idea that these migrants are a threat to US sovereign power because they undermine territorial integrity seems off. The migrants are not sovereign citizens in the Hobbesian wild who have decided to transgress territorial boundaries. They are *subjects* who have left one sovereign territory to enter another.
So what about thinking of illegal/irregular immigration as a “crime”? A murderer who hasn’t been brought to justice also has the threat of a sovereign “ban” hanging over their head. They also are barred from social participation in the grandest sense (perhaps even theologically, cut off from God, but let’s not get diverted).
If we think that it is good for a state to mete out punishment to those who break the law, and that this is not incompatible with human dignity, why is illegal entry different?
My outlet published a piece some months back that argued the phenomenon of illegal entry into the US and the threat of deportation is a form of entrapment. Migrants are lured into the US through a “nod-nod, wink-wink policy of looking the other way" precisely because we Americans know the essential role they play in the functioning of our economy. "To suddenly do an about-face in wanting them out of here, uprooting their American lives built on hard labor, is an act of entrapment." So, I'm not sure the analogy to murder necessarily stands here, though I am no legal expert. https://ethnicmediaservices.org/oped/what-part-of-illegal-dont-you-understand/
I don’t think illegal entry is the same as murder either. But I think the “entrapment” analogy is probably even more flawed. The agent luring and the agent deporting are not the same.
I do agree that the whole regime is a way of disciplining labor. Deportation-as-threat is a good way to get a pliable labor force.
I'm not so sure about that. Look at the political power of big ag to sway Congress, for example. They're now pressuring Trump to lay off farmworkers in the whole mass deportation campaign. The line between luring and deporting agent doesn't seem as cut and dry to me.
I really appreciated this discussion. I share a commitment to human dignity as a result of my Christian faith but continue to struggle to find underpinnings that satisfy more skeptical rationalists (looking at you, Damir).
On this issue in particular, I resonated with y'all's discussion of the false pretenses under which the Trump administration is acting. Their sowing of chaotic information related to migrants has stirred resentment in a stew of voters. However, I don't think it's just because of the obvious and tired "they're taking our jobs" angle that some like to straw man. I wonder if people are resentful or even jealous that they perceive that migrants can seek the "American Dream" in its mythical sense more than the average American in our present economy. I'm not necessarily saying this is the reality, but I do think a ton of Americans view themselves as lacking the agency to change their life in any meaningful way.
I agree with the entrapment theory. Migrants have been encouraged by government and business to come here for decades because they have a positive impact on the economy and now we want to pull the rug out from under them.
Also, the idea that they undercut native-born labor is at best overblown if not downright false based on some research. Anyone in the business community, particularly in the construction or agricultural industries knows that we have a massive labor shortage which is the biggest constraint to production. They are not stealing jobs, and mass deportations would create huge problems for the economy.
Mass deportations based on some moralistic idea of fairness (“they broke the law so must be punished”) would be “cutting off our nose to spite our face”.
This doesn’t mean I’m for open borders. Congress needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would simultaneously work on:
1. Improved border security and enforcement.
2. Deporting real criminal elements.
3. Providing a pathway to legal status for people who are here.
4. Setting up a robust guest worker program for future migrants because we need the people.
This will allow us to start with a clean slate and pursue a common sense and legally supported immigration system.
I would also argue that the cruel and potentially inhumane nature of mass deportations overrides any concerns about some need to enforce the law, but this isn’t even necessary to justify the practical matter that we’re much better off allowing the law abiding migrants to stay.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/capitolism/trumps-deportations-will-hit-american-workers-too/
Dear President Trump, While You At It, Please Deport Liberal White Women Too.
https://tinyurl.com/yfjjz7wb
BTW
About This Birthright Citizenship Fiction and the 14Th Amendment https://tinyurl.com/yhvr8twh
“It’s legitimate to vote to regulate the inflow of foreign workers and to demand greater security along the border”
Why is it legitimate? Does the “demand” spring from our generous, compassionate, and empathetic impulses? Or the impulses of fear, xenophobia, and aggrievedness?
It seems that every WOC article is about sympathy for the grievances of Trump voters. “Of course I’m on the left, a liberal, but you have to hand it to the put upon Trump voter on this one.”
You’re a liberal, maybe even a leftist. We should be working towards a world without borders, where membership in the political communities isn’t enforced with violence. I wish more intelligence here went towards this project.
It's worse than that -- I am a Christian, so I am committed to a world where there is "neither Jew nor Greek." I am bound to contribute to building a world of universal friendship without borders. I guess my way of doing that is by living out my vocation a Christian. But given the current political dispensation, I think people have a relative (not absolute) right to want border enforcement. I also think people have a relative (not absolute) right to have a private home where they exclude some people and not others. The new world isn't here yet.
That said, a lot of people choose more radical paths, giving us a glimpse of what that new world will like. Monks and friars are one example. And some of these people combined that with radical politics. Dorothy Day was that. So I stand convicted by your comment. I struggle with this question, too (as I hoped the dialogue would show).
I really enjoyed this rich conversation. I am torn really on this question as I do believe people have a moral duty to resist cruel policies from governments and I firmly believe mass deportations sit inside this category. They are cruel even if they are usual and the government should treat entrants as kindly as possible. I do also believe governments should welcome immigrants for reasons beyond the economic benefits but as a good in of itself.
However, where I found some of the arguments lacking was on the question of sovereignty. For sure, the international community has not made borders inviolable in the case of refugees seeking asylum. Additionally, the international community through R2P has also laid down certain basics that sovereign states need to adhere to in order for their sovereignty to be respected. Despite the myth of Westphalia being oft repeated to my annoyance the notion of the state remains a territorial one predicated upon a monopoly of legitimate control of violence as Weber argued. We have not really moved beyond that in my mind despite good arguments existing suggesting we should.
Yet, I am not convinced any of these very basic principles of sovereignty and dignity are violated by deportation of undocumented migrants into the US. As far as I know there is no right to cross borders merely for economic advantage if you do not have sufficient paperwork and in my head it would be difficult to make a case for saying government's don't have a sovereign right to determine what level of migration they want to accept. This is even more complex when you could argue many of the government's supporters want to restrict immigration granting a certain legitimation on a democratic basis to a crackdown on undocumented workers in the US.
Merely making it 'harder' to cross the border is to somewhat abdicate really answering the question as it fails to address the core premise of what happens to those who do 'slip through the net'. What is it about illegal entry to a country that grants a certain protection compared to other offences? If you looked at it from the pro-deportation side they could argue it is essentially tantamount to trespassing in ones home.
Therefore, unfortunately I think I land on the belief that we should argue against cruel actions even if they have become usual and stand up to government's who propose mass deportation policies through every legal basis we can on a normative basis. But, I think descriptively it is hard to argue that government's don't have a sovereign right to determine their own immigration policies as long as they don't break norms set down in international law (refugees) or the principles of R2P.
This core question I think went somewhat unanswered