Until last night, I was agnostic regarding illegal immigration. Every time I listened to the arguments from both sides, I always felt like someone was pulling a sleight of hand on me. Either the Mexicans were all hard-working saints ready to take up jobs that us elitist Americans refused to take, or they were a drag on our social security, etc. EWTN had some awful speakers in the past year who gave such porous arguments that I could drive a car through them. But simultaneously, the anti-”illegals” crowd seemed to want to protect only their interests and turned a blind eye to a desperate people. If no bad arguments were being made on either side, then we were arguing over calling illegal immigrants “illegals,” which reeks of political correctness.
However, I think I finally found an argument which compels my assent, given that the facts presented are true, an argument which finally makes me realize that illegal immigration really is a problem, an argument that makes me realize that preventing illegal immigrants from coming into the United States is not just about protecting people’s pocketbooks. Surprisingly (and shockingly), the argument came from Michael Savage, a radio talk show host whom I despise. For instance, the last time I listened to him, he kept asking his guest why anyone was entitled to a dime of his money, and kept interrupting the man mid answer. I usually don’t listen to talk radio, but apparently my sister left the car radio tuned to a talk station and left the radio on when I got into the car. Savage was on, and so I listened.
The argument starts with this tuberculosis case that has made so much news. For those who don’t know, this lawyer was traveling overseas and picked up a dangerous strain of TB. He was instructed not to come back to America (or to travel in general). He was told to stay where he was and get treated by Italy’s medical staff so he wouldn’t spread the disease to other people. This man didn’t listen, and continued to travel. He flew into Montreal, and then crossed the border back into America, infecting many people in the process.
Savage said it, and I agree: such an act is criminal. This man blatantly disregarded his government’s orders and selfishly continued to travel, endangering many lives in the process. The act is reckless and blameworthy. Savage then brought up a bit of American history. In the 1920’s, America checked all immigrants for disease as they passed into the country. If they had so much as a tooth cavity, they were either quarantined until they got better, or sent back to their country of origin. This was part of a large scale program designed to eliminate/prevent dangerous diseases from coming into the country. No one complained about individual rights at the time because everyone still had some notion of the ‘common good,’ unlike Americans today.
Savage blames the fall of the quarantining system on the AIDS lobbyists. Whether or not that is true, I don’t know. But what is true is that at the moment we have no people screening immigrants as they come into the country for any disease whatsoever. Consequently, several diseases are spreading very rapidly. In the 50’s, TB had been nearly eradicated in this country. Now, TB is making a comeback. The resurgence of TB happened at the same time that AIDS became epidemic. TB followed AIDS in an opportunistic manner, taking advantage of AIDS patients’ weakened immune systems. Consequently, places like San Francisco have higher rates of TB than other places in the world in which TB is considered an epidemic.
Other countries have high rates of many diseases, including but not limited to TB. Mexico, for instance, has a very high TB rate. For years, scientists and health officials have been worried that small pox will evolve into a new strain which will make our current vaccinations worthless. Not to mention several other awful diseases, who need to be quarantined so as to keep everyone else from getting sick. This is one of those instances where the common good so trumps individual “rights,” and instance which is so self-evidently true that libertarians should just surrender their ideology now. No one would let a very sick person into their own household to infect everyone else in the house. Kids who are very ill are told to stay home from school for the sake of everyone else in the school. Such cases are no different than making sure that very sick people are not allowed to pass their illnesses to people in another country.
But even if we did screen every immigrant that came into this country legally, we have several thousand immigrants coming here illegally every year, people who are carriers of deadly diseases. I don’t care if we have TB vaccinations. As I said earlier, we can’t rely on these vaccinations as the sole defense against diseases which have historically wiped out countless people. We need to make sure that these diseases are eliminated altogether before they come back in force to bite in a different form. But even if we screened every legal immigrant, we are letting thousands of illegal immigrants into this country who are very probably carriers of TB and several other potentially dangerous diseases (I’d have to research to see if this is the case; I only know of TB for sure because it has been in the news so much recently). And if a person migrates to America illegally while knowing that he is a carrier of TB, he’s at the very least guilty of gross negligence and selfishness, and at worst a crime, putting lives at risk. He has no right to disobey our laws, putting our citizens in potential risk all because he wants a better life.
Now, I still think that the ultimate solution to the immigration problems is to improve the standards of living in Mexico enough that its citizens aren’t desperate to come to America to make a decent living. But the moral obligations flow both ways. They are obligated to respect our laws, especially if they are a potential threat to the health and perhaps lives of others. Neither side can justify their actions just because the other side was negligent in upholding their obligations. One of America’s obligations is to keep its people safe from deadly disease. Illegal immigration, no matter how desperate, prevents the US from fulfilling this obligation on a massive scale. Hence, illegal immigration must be stopped. I am no longer indifferent on this point, even if I still think every person deserves a better standard of living than what is offered in Mexico. Let’s fix both injustices rather than using one to justify the other.
June 2, 2007 at 3:57 pm |
Ahhh, the sound of the formation of another great moral conservative. Music to my ears…uh, my eyes?
June 2, 2007 at 11:44 pm |
Here is a little bit I took from Michelle Malkin’s home page, also a very strong argument for securing our borders.
At a recent UCLA forum on terrorism, Los Angeles officials said the city’s estimated 40,000 gang members are an attractive target for terrorists like al-Qaida. “There are many, many more people who consider themselves jihadists now,” said L.A. Police Deputy Chief Mark Leap. “And criminal enterprises are being used to support terrorist activities.”
L.A. County Sheriff’s Lt. John Sullivan said officials are worried al-Qaida could tap into smuggling networks that move migrants and contraband across Mexico’s porous border and into the U.S.
Chief among them is the notorious MS-13 gang, which has infiltrated L.A. and other U.S. cities from Central America.
“MS-13 has a lot of characteristics that could facilitate terrorist activities,” Sullivan said, noting that al-Qaida has stated its intent to smuggle black-market nuclear devices into the U.S. and kill at least 4 million Americans.
Los Angeles remains a prime al-Qaida target, officials at the forum warned.
Al-Qaida leader Adnan El Shukrijumah was recently spotted in Central America, sparking rumors he’s recruiting Hispanic gang members. The FBI has put out a $5 million bounty on El Shukrijumah, whom it suspects Osama bin Laden has lined up as “the next Mohamed Atta.”
…The [;ast] thing we need is an “axis of evil” within our own borders that finds al-Qaida hooking up with immigrant street gangs.
June 3, 2007 at 12:47 pm |
Joel,
Let’s see if I can vocalize why I am unmoved by arguments from terrorism regarding this problem. First, let me acknowledge that terrorism is a real, serious possibility. I don’t want to let terrorists into this country, and we should use extensive measures to prevent such things from happening.
However, there seems to be waaaaay more than just terrorism involved in these border problems. It is an undisputable fact that the vast majority of immigrants from our southern border are Mexicans, and the vast majority of Mexicans are not terrorists. ISTM that the argument for extremely tight borders must be directed against the norm, not the exception to the norm. For if we have no good moral reason for keeping the vast number of Mexican illegal immigrants out of this country, then we have no good moral reason for clamping down against all illegal immigration. If we prevent all such immigration just to stop such a few people, we may be doing something gravely unjust against those Mexican immigrants. So if we are having an argument over whether or not we should use extreme measures to close down our borders, we need to address the important question as to why the vast majority of such immigrations must be stopped. Merely saying that they are disobeying our immigration laws begs the question as to whether our immigration laws are just in the first place.
Arguments from economics against Mexican illegal immigration always seemed to have a good deal of truth to them, but no such argument can ever compel my assent. The fact is, even if Mexicans are not entitled to our wealth, we have an obligation at the minimum as human beings, at the most as Christians to help the poor. While mass immigration may put a great strain on our economy (which is a legitimate concern), I always roll my eyes that no one even seems concerned with the economic disaster going on south of our border. Consequently, I can never help thinking that such arguments are not made out of a desire for justice, but out of concern only for one’s narrow self interests. If one is truly concerned about justice, we cannot pick and choose where we wish to root out injustice. If such complaints about the drain on our economy were accompanied by a genuine concern and discussion over how to correct the economic woes of Mexico, then that would be a different story. But incidently, such arguments are almost non-existent, save for from the USCCB.
No one can blame Mexicans for desiring to escape Mexico. They are doing it for their very survival. I can’t blame them any more than I can blame a desperately poor man for stealing a loaf of bread (or several loaves, if you like). Sure, the act of theft is wrong, but the worse sin lies in a wealthy society in which people are still so desperate that they must steal to eat.
But that’s why I find the argument that I posted about the health risks so compelling. Suddenly, illegal immigration is no longer about just feeding one’s family. What this argument provides is a serious moral reason why Mexicans should not migrate here illegally. While it is only a venial sin to steal to feed your family, it is a mortal sin to kill a rich man for his loaf of bread. Not that Mexicans are intentionally killing people or anything: it’s just that the act of migrating to America fully aware that you are/ probably could be carrying deadly diseases with you is equally as serious of a sin as overlooking the plight of a desperate people. I may have sympathy for their poverty, but I no longer see illegal immigration as a simple act of trying to make a decent wage. It can now be seen as an act of gross negligence, of putting other people’s lives in danger. No longer can I see their injustice of being a drain on our economy as being far outweighed by the desperation of their plight. Now, there are equally grave moral reasons why they shouldn’t solve their plight via migrating illegally.
June 3, 2007 at 9:34 pm |
Paul,
I agree that basing an argument solely on economy is selfish in light of the desperately impovershed situation Mexicans are in, but we do have a legal way of coming to America and I would happily welcome anyone who comes to America in such a manner, but anyone who is willing to commit a felony in order to come to America is inherently disordered and I have no problem clamping down on such behavior and ignoring the norm for the exception in order to keep nuclear weapons out of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Don’t even get me started on all the illicit drugs that come to America via Mexico and all the guns that go south of the border that just fans the flames. That is trouble we are better off without!
June 4, 2007 at 12:13 am |
Joel,
I’m not absolutely positive what the felony which you refer to is, but I assume in my answer that the felony is the act of entering the country illegally. If I am wrong, please disregard this post.
I am more concerned with the moral quality of the act and of the law than I am with whether or not the immigrant commits a felony. Again, if my situation is so desperate that I must choose between breaking an immigration law and feeding my family, the choice for me is a no brainer. Yes, disobeying the laws in this case is wrong no matter how you slice the cake, but ISTM that the moral evil rests on our shoulders as well if we create a society which has been so ignorant of the plight of our southern neighbors.
Prior to my discovery of the argument from health risks, I maintained that while the Mexican illegal immigrants were morally culpable for breaking the law, their culpability was laughably small compared to the moral culpability of our country, which has essentially turned a blind eye to their plight. I thought that a) the desperation of the people dimishes their culpability, and b) given the extent to which America has allowed such an economic imbalance to form, she kind of deserves the fate she is getting. Before she complains about the splinter in these immigrants’ eyes, she had better remove the plank from her own eye.
I also think that arguments from health risks have more weight than arguments about nuclear weapons. While the threat of nuclear weapons is daunting and hella scary, it is as you said a situation in which we must ignore the norm in order to rid ourselves of the exception. The problem being that ISTM that we are then left in a situation in which we’ve potentially done a great moral evil as well if we do not find a justification for why the norm itself is immoral. The problem is, I always felt like I was stomping on a baby kitten in order to kill a few roaches whenever we talked about completely shutting off our borders to stop terrorist and drug threats. Often, the most extreme measures often leave something to be desired morally. We ought to look for alternative means of solving the problem before we start doing what is less desirable.
I do grant that there is weight to the arguments concerning terrorism and drugs, for we can argue that the allowance of the norm allows for the exception, and in eliminating the norm we eliminate the exception. But what the argument about health risks does is that it shows how the norm itself is immoral, something that no economic argument (or argument from terrorism, drugs, etc) has been able to produce. Without the argument from health risks, the Mexican can also make a case that sits very hard on my conscience because the norm may (and in my mind, does) seem to have legitimate reasons for needing to be in America.
What the argument from health risks does is that it says no matter what legitimate reasons the norm has for being in America, the norm itself–people whom under the arguments from terrorism were considered collateral damage in fixing the problem–themselves are the problem. They are no longer collateral damage in attempting to solve a larger problem, but they are directly endangering other people’s lives by potentially being a carrier of a deadly disease. The only way to be sure that they aren’t such a carrier is to be screened by our health officials as they enter the country. In order to do this, they cannot enter illegally. Our argument against the norm is now just as legitimate as the norms argument against us: the norm cannot in themselves be a danger to us just to save their own skins. When we combine the argument from health risks with arguments from terrorism, we now have the moral upperhand over both the norm and the exception to the norm.
Of course, as I said earlier this still gives us no excuse not to help correct Mexico’s economic situation, but that’s a topic too far afield from where I want to go at the moment.
June 4, 2007 at 10:17 pm |
Paul,
You spoke very well and I must agree with you completely. I also agree that we are resposible for the welfare of our neighbors if we have the ability to help. Jesus made this very clear in the Gospel and it sounds like something you have formed a clear opinion and argument about. I would be happy to hear it some day.
June 8, 2007 at 11:00 am |
Most illegal immigrants are guilty of overstaying a visa or visit to the USA (I.e. 90 days). This is a misdemenor, not a felony. It is also illegal for them to accept employment and for companies to offer employment. Respect for the law should not exlude big business (or little business) who set the bait for these persons.
June 11, 2007 at 3:29 pm |
Paul,
While I agree with the overall thrust of what you have written here, there are two points that I would like to make here:
1) It’s wrong for immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally because it’s illegal. No further moral argument is required. It’s the law.
2) What seems to be getting (completely) ignored in all of these discussions is the fact that Mexico’s economic problems are MEXICO’s problems, not ours. The only people who can fix this problem are the Mexicans. Foreign aid isn’t the answer here anymore than it is in Africa. Sending money to people who can’t manage money is foolish, and sending money to people who can manage it is unnecessary. Obviously that does not mean that we should just sit back and do nothing. What it does mean is that America is not responsible for the problems of Mexico. Whatever solution the international community believes is appropriate to remedy the problem should be implemented by the international community, not the U.S. Short of effecting a military takeover in Mexico similar to what we’ve (unfortunately) done in Iraq, which would be sinful in itself, any talk of the U.S. addressing the economic plight of Mexicans in Mexico is vacuous.
Drew
June 11, 2007 at 9:59 pm |
Paul,
Thanks for this post. I also am very ambivalent on what to do about immigration. I agree with the reasoning you present, I question your conclusion.
First a factual point. During the 1920’s we had massive volumes of legal immigration. It was legal and easy to immigrate to America for these people – who happened to be mostly caucasian, northern european.
I agree with you reasoning that illiegal immigration is a problem. However, if legal immigration was readily available, wouldn’t it solve the problem you raise? If immigrants could obtain work visa’s and cross legally at the border couldn’t we screen for diseases, terrorism, criminals, etc. would proceed similarly to the days of Ellis Island? Now the smugglers and terrorist and criminals would be the ones trying to cross illegally.
Just my thoughts.
Paul D.
June 13, 2007 at 5:25 pm |
Drew, thanks for your post. I don’t know if you’ve read my further commentary in the comments section of this post, but I think everything that I want to say in response to 1) is in there. There was never a question in my mind about whether or not Mexicans were doing anything immoral. I acknowledge that several times. The question that I have (very roughly speaking), in agreement with the USCCB, is whether America has been a completely moral player in this struggle. Again a more complete exposition is in the comments section of this post.
In response to 2, I understand the gist of what you are saying, and I have always agreed that throwing money at a problem rarely solves a problem. But ISTM if Mexico’s economic problems are causing us economic problems, then Mexico’s economic problems are our problems. I’ve never stated what means I think are necessary to give Mexico said aid, and quite frankly I don’t know what I’d do. But with that said, I find it incredible that no one involved in this debate even seems concerned with what means need to be taken–internationally or not–on how Mexico is to get out of its economic plight. As I said earlier, if the arguments from economics are really arguments from justice (i.e. that it is unjust for the Mexicans to drag our economy, benefit from our social programs, etc), then ISTM that there should at least be some concern over Mexico’s economic condition. Without such a discussion, I have a hard time believing that these arguments are about justice as much as they are about protecting our own self interests. While the two aren’t mutually exclusive, the terms aren’t coextensive, either. But again, I said all that in previous comments in more detail.
Paul D, unforunately, I don’t have the time or energy to give a full response at the moment. However, here’s what I have written thus far.
While some have argued that our immigration laws are way too strict (I am not knowledgeable enough to make a judgment either way on that issue), I doubt that creating more slots for legal immigrants is going to solve the problem. There are just too many people wanting entrance into this country, and too much is at stake for them e.g. the Mexicans, who are in a very bad economic state. No matter how many visas we hand out, we can’t give visas to each person wanting to leave Mexico, unless we want to make Mexico a part of the United States. Consequently, I doubt that any amount of visas is going to satisify the demand, and people will still come illegally.
June 14, 2007 at 11:21 am |
Hi Paul!
Regarding point # 1, fair enough. Regarding point # 2, I agree that Mexico’s economic problems need to be addressed. I tend to think that this is more the job of international bodies like the U.N., the World Bank, etc. However, if, as you say, “their economic problems are our economic problems,” then the only solution I can think that could be initiated from our end would be to scrap NAFTA completely and draft a new trade treaty that would require Mexico to enforce the same labor laws, environmental regulations, etc., that we have. If that didn’t work, we could always slap big tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, or we could do a full-scale embargo. There are options at our disposal that would give us some breathing room in dealing with this problem without it involving foreign aid to Mexico, which is what I think a lot of the liberals (and neo-conservatives) in this country would like to do. Thanks for the reply!
Drew
April 25, 2009 at 9:35 am |
[...] weak border security, it’s only a matter of time before it reaches us. But then again, I warned people of this two years ago. Maybe if you people would start reading my blog more this wouldn’t have [...]