Victor Reppert raises the question:
People like [Arizona's] Governor Brewer often say that we are a nation of laws, and that is why we must make a strong stand enforcing our immigration laws. Are people who insist on a strong stand against illegal immigration gratuitously assuming that persons who enter the country illegally are acting immorally? If the only way to support your family was to enter another country illegally, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to break the law, since you have a moral obligation to support your family which trumps your obligation to obey the law?
As a conservative, I find it self-evident that the rule of law is a precious thing, that it must be upheld, and that part of upholding it is enforcing the nation's laws against illegal immigration. Someone who takes this position, and insists on a strong stand against illegal immigration, needn't thereby assume that every illegal border-crosser is acting immorally. I concede to Victor that there are circumstances in which the moral obligation to support and protect one's family trumps the moral obligation to respect the laws of another country.
But if it is morally permissible for some to enter illegally, it does not follow that the law making it illegal is without moral justification. Indeed, the Federal and State authorities have a moral obligation to protect their citizens against the threats posed by border violators. Juan may be morally justified in attempting to cross the Rio Grande, but border control agents are morally justified in preventing him from doing so and deporting him if he does. The law cannot cater to each individual case. In the eyes of the law one is an illegal alien whether one is a common criminal, a member of a criminal gang, a drug trafficker, a human trafficker, a terrorist, a carrier of a contagious disease, or, like Juan, just a poor man down on his luck trying to provide for his family.
The rule of law must be upheld despite the unfairness to some. One of the reasons we are not not like Mexico, and why everybody and his monkey's uncle's brother wants to come here, is precisely because we have hitherto maintained the rule of law. Analogy: it is reasonable and just that felons not be allowed to vote or purchase firearms. The fact that this is unfair to some felons is not a good reason to question the rightness of the law. As I said, the law cannot cater to individual cases. Examples like this can be generated ad libitum. Consider laws regulating drinking age and driving age. Fourteen year olds are not allowed to drive despite the fact that some drive better than forty year olds.
Recent Comments