Warning: This is a very long post.I just read a
Lou Dobbs article about the May Day immigration marches in Chicago and elsewhere, and, at last, I think I can actually formulate an immigration-related thought worth sharing. After many (many) hours of consideration, I think it boils down to a simple question of Why. Meaning...
At a basic level we have A and B. A thinks he has a right to something from B. B disagrees. (I think) what opponents of amnesty and legalization are missing, what they haven't heard from A, is Why. Why do you have a right to anything? This is important because of the language with which A is making his claim. He doesn't "want" it; he's not asking B for a favor; he has a "right" to it. And (so political theory says) rights have to be grounded in something. I have a right to my home because I payed for it. You have a right to a fair wage because you're contributing your time and labor. A has a right to citizenship because...
And here is where the debate breaks down. I imagine there are 2 bases on which to declare a right. Either A is entitled to something (he earned it, or it's his by nature), or B owes it to him. There are some passionate proponents of Mexican immigrants' rights who take the second approach. Their claims to the rights of illegal Mexican immigrants are based on the history of exploitation and territorial violations between the U.S. and Mexico. At the very least, this kind of thinking has the makings of political grounds on which a group of people could make a claim on a government/state. There's another group of people though - the largest and loudest, the ones who hold up signs at marches - who, if they even try to answer the Why, answer most often with something essentially akin to "because we're here." We deserve to be here because we live here, because we work here, because our families are here.
Emotionally compelling as that reasoning may be, it is politically and legally unstustainable. It effectively asserts that one has the right to do something because they went through the trouble of doing it (or because they do it well). But one cannot assert that one has a "right" to commit an illegal act because one has shown that he can do it responsibly. This does not work in the case of immigration any more than it would work for a driver who argued he had a right to go 70mph in a 50 mph zone because he had demonstrated (through much speeding) that he could do so safely.
Or we can imagine a different example, one where the original commission of an act is illegal, but all subsequent acts are (potentially) legal. This is more in line with much of the public discourse around immigrants' rights. Specifically, illegal immigrants may have broken the law, but many of them have since demonstrated their faithfulness to the virtues and work-ethic America claims to value in its citizens. This should prove them deserving of citizenship.
This is another logic which fails legally and politically, its moral weight notwithstanding. Imagine C robs a bank and uses the money to buy a home and finance his child's education. I cannot imagine any circumstance under which the bank would say to C, "You shouldn't have stolen the money, but since you have it, at least you've invested it wisely. God Bless." I am 100% sure the bank would want its money back, and that it would have the legal grounds to assert its right to reclaim it. Admirable behavior in the wake of illegal activity might constitute a moral argument for amnesty (Now that we've shown we can be good citizens, we
should be allowed to stay), but it is not a defense of illegal immigration itself. And it cannot be used to compel legal concessions (i.e. stoppage of workplace raids and deportations).
I find the most compelling basis on which to assert Mexican's "rights" to U.S. citizenship is the basis on which those passionate people referenced earlier (mostly academics) have done so. It has been argued that if the U.S. were to return to Mexican control all of the lands it acquired through unjust
wars and treaties during Westward Expansion, Mexico would have the resources to feed, clothe, and house every one of her people. If this is true, A might say to B, "I have a right to live, work and raise a family on this land because it's mine (by nature)," OR, "The opportunities I'm taking advantage of are those you built using resources you stole from me (You owe me)." These are similar to reparations arguments made by Black Americans. At any rate, these are not the arguments you get from the sound bites of interviews on the nightly news.
Perhaps there are some who think that the way to get something you want from the U.S. government is not to go out of your way to point out the centuries worth of exploitation and oppression it perpetrated on your people. Maybe they think you attract more flies with honey, and instead of saying "You're an imperialist and a war-monger," they say "We love America. We want to be Americans too." And they may be right. Unfortunately, what this leaves one with is not grounds for a "right" to citizenship, but rather only a sympathetic story that one hopes will elicit a neighborly response (Sure, come on over.) At that point, I guess there's just the question of whether you want to bet your citizenship on the neighborliness of the U.S. people.
Labels: All Things Political
"Bees" have always been a topic of conversation equally among the Generalists. The Generalist here, Aristocrates here, and Puff here. (By the way, I can't believe I didn't think about my post after reading Puff's.)
