Is Illegal
Immigration Moral?
By
Victor Davis Hanson
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?
Third, consider the moral
ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the
American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a
green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States,
went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he
a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And given the current precedent, if
a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5
million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en
masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on
what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth, examine the morality of
remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families
and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of
income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize
increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send
billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that
equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to
buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The debate over illegal immigration
is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated
moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.
Victor Davis Hanson
Victor
Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
No comments:
Post a Comment