If you have ever taken a course on child psychology, you may remember Lawrence Kohlberg's research on the stages of moral development. Kohlberg was a Harvard professor who presented scripted dilemmas to children in different settings to test their moral reasoning. One such dilemma was the story of a woman who was dying of a rare form of cancer. When her husband had no way to afford the high-priced drug that could cure her, he broke into a laboratory and stole it. Kohlberg was not interested in evaluating childrens' conclusions about whether the man's actions were right or wrong, but rather in analyzing the kind of moral reasoning that informed their decisions. In his research he (and others who followed him) found that, as individuals mature, they pass through different levels of moral development. At the most elementary or "pre-conventional" level that is common in young children, an action is judged to be wrong if you will get caught, or right if it serves your interests. At the middle, or "conventional" level, moral reasoning is guided by considerations of "law and order." At this level, the overriding concern is for adherence to the law. The third, and highest level of 'post-conventional' moral reasoning has two stages: first, an understanding of social mutuality and concern for the welfare of others, and secondly, adherence to individual conscience and respect for a universal principle of justice. Kohlberg noted that this third level of reasoning is not achieved by a majority of adults.
Analysis of much of the recent angry rhetoric over "illegal immigration" suggests that many Americans are stuck at the conventional level of moral development, in which the statement "they broke the law" becomes the main criterion for crafting policy responses. If you Google the phrase "what about illegal don't you understand," you will find thousands of adherents to this level of reasoning.
Considering the immigration dilemma at a higher level of moral reasoning doesn't mean that there is one simple, 'right' policy response. However, it does require examining the root causes of undocumented immigration and its consequences through the lens of more universal principles of justice. If we study those root causes, it's easy to see that our own government policies have produced the problem, rather than contempt for the law on the part of those who enter without authorization or who overstay their visas.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, greatly facilitated the free flow of goods and capital across U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, but there was no concomitant reduction of restrictions on the entry of labor. At the same time, there has been a dramatic and increasing need for young workers in the United States, as Americans age and as we attain higher levels of education that make us disdain crucial jobs in many service industries. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is jobs that require only on-the-job training that are increasing most rapidly in the United States. Instead of responding to this need by increasing the allocation of employment visas to young, blue collar workers, we have kept the numbers at paltry levels that make it virtually impossible for millions of willing workers from Mexico, Central America or other countries to enter legally.
Only one percent of all employment-based visas are issued to low skilled workers. In other words, for these individuals, there is no "line" to get into. Instead, our government policies have led to a ritualized game of "Gotcha," in which immigrants are drawn to the U.S. because of the prospect of jobs that have gone unfilled by American workers; but once they cross the border, they are increasingly victimized by public anger and by mean-spirited local ordinances and laws. The newly passed law in Arizona that makes it a crime to be present without a visa or for a legal resident to give a ride to someone known to be undocumented has just raised the stakes in this debate by furthering the game of "Gotcha" at a very low level of moral reasoning.
1. You are comparing apples to bicycles
You cannot equate a man breaking the law to save his wife to people in general making the decision cognitively to cross into another country illegally to obain a better job instead of pushing to improve their own country. It's the not the same and you know it and to make the comparison is biased and unscientific.
2. "........gone unfilled by American workers.........."
Wrong. The jobs were'nt unfilled they were denegrated to less than living wage in unnaturally horrific human conditions purposely to attract illegal immigrants at low wages. The results of which drive down the wages for all Americans.
3. By opposing illegal immigration we're exercising a broader deeper sense of morality by sacrificing the few for the many even though there is pain and suffering on all sides.
Taking the side of the rich & powerful many against the desperately poor & powerless few. I wonder what kind of reward that earns you in heaven.
2. Seems your post is rationalizing/excusing those that break the law. Yes?
"' they do jobs americans won't do'
"Putnam adds a crushing footnote: His findings 'may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.'"
"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down,' that is, to pull in like a turtle," "withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."
The greater the diversity the greater the distrust, says Putnam. In racially and ethnically
mixed communities, not only do people not trust strangers, they do not even trust their own kind. They withdraw into themselves, they support community activity less, they vote less.
They vote less wouldn't the criminals in congress like that
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070809_putnam.htm
No matter that they did not hire me. No matter that the office I choose may belong to another. They owe me. I deserve a better life than the one I have right now. Apple has more than I, so it is only right that I get my share of it. No matter that maybe another was to get that job by actually putting in a resume and going through an interview process. He can wait.
I love my new rights. Tomorrow, I think I'll be the CEO.
Are they not drug smugglers?
Have they not broke Federal law?
What about "illegal" do they NOT understand?
I will attempt to address the two points you make below on a thread that ran out of the reply option. First, let us be clear what we are talking about: the moral issues involved in comprehensive immigration law reform. When I say that it is unjust to deny people jobs who need jobs & are willing & available to work, I am addressing two issues that must be decided in any meaningful reform proposals: temporary work visas & employer sanctions. There are many advantages & few downsides to creating new visas for temporary & seasonal workers to come legally to the USA to fill jobs that otherwise have a limited labor pool in the USA such as in agriculture in CA. As for employer sanctions, this is another discussion, but in general, I fail to see the rationale for treating American businesses & industries that create jobs as the enemy & making it harder & more expensive for them to hire willing workers. As for the need for young workers, the author is right on! We aging Anglos are retiring or dying off so over the next few decades we need productive young workers to contribute to social security & take care of us in our old age. The birthrate is low among Anglos & high among Latinos, so we need to educate them well so they can prosper. Soon we will be competing with Mexico for a young labor force, so legalization serves us well long term.
Furthermore, we already have a number of guest worker programs, including those for seasonal agricultural workers and other unskilled workers. Employers won't use those programs because they can hire illegal aliens more cheaply and exploit them. Furthermore, you're wrong about the birthrate. The US is ABOVE replacement rate, even without immigration. Mexico, on the other hand, is aging MORE rapidlly than the US. Nor do "we" need to educate them. In fact, by your earlier argument, if we need unskilled labor, it's in OUR interest NOT to educate them since they will then do the jobs that illegal aliens are now doing. We can import skilled workers without having to educate them--or we can educate our own young to do better paying jobs. Spending the money to educate the children of unskilled uneducated illegal aliens takes money away form providing not only for our own children but for our own elderly.
Arguments about the cost of educating the children of unauthorized immigrants (UI) are totally pointless since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the these children are entitled to a free public K-12 education in Plyler v. Doe 1982. Besides, most of the children of UI are US citizens by virtue of being born in the United States. They are not subject to deportation & will grow up with the right to vote so the political party that advocates for deporting their parents or fails to educate them well will not win their political support. It is not only the morally correct thing to do to provide them a good education, it is the practical thing to do to improve society. Consider, for example, that in Arizona 45% of the births currently are to Latina mothers. Nationally it is 47%. This gives us an idea of the demographics of the next generation. We don't want them to be "unskilled & uneducated" as you say. UI who remain in this country without a legal status that allows them to be employed & assimilate will not be able to support their US citizen children in advancing & prospering in our society. Face reality. What is just is also in everyone's best interests.
The outcomes of NAFTA in Mexico are clearly a "mixed bag." One consequence has been migration within Mexico to the large cities & from Mexico to the USA, mostly among the rural poor who have been displaced & have lost subsistence farming on small plots of land as American corn is imported to devalue their crops. There has always been a great deal of back & forth migration from Mexico due to push-pull factors between Mexico & the US, even before & unrelated to NAFTA. Migration to the USA has actually slowed recently because of the recession here & shifting demographics in Mexico. The author addresses the moral issues involved in our immigration policy & the impact of NAFTA on Mexico's economy should certainly be a consideration. The USA pushed NAFTA so that it could open up markets for American products in Mexico, so we benefit, most especially if Mexicans have spendable income. The anti-migrant worker folks & the nativists do not occupy the moral high ground in this debate. We must consider the rich & powerful USA's role in exploiting Mexico & the disparity in wealth & income of our countries' working class in determining immigration policy.
Her position mirrors that of pro business publications like the Wall Street Journal, which has called for an amendment saying "There shall be open borders". In other words lots of cheap labor to undercut the bargaining power of the American worker. Or Bill Gates, who at the same time Microsoft was laying off thousands of American citizens, was calling for unlimited H1B visa workers. Cheap compliant labor who won't say or demand anything.
Why not promote legal immigration instead?
Govs of Mexican states & President Calderon don't stop this...then what?
NPR News investigation has found strong evidence
of collusion between elements of the Mexican army & Sinaloa cartel
Marisa Peñaloza & Robert Benincasa
May192010
GulfZetaCartel
LaFamililaCartel
TijuanaCartel
SinaloaCartel
Beltran-LeyvaCartel
JuarezCartel
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126906809
&
Mexican Military aiding crossing of Illegal Aliens including drug trafficking
January102008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipFuOIBrUw&feature=related
Each year thousands of women & children, with 12-year-olds in top demand, are smuggled from Mexico into USA, sent to brothels across the United States. Such brothels, notes Schurman-Kauflin, “can take the form of homes, apartments, spas, massage parlors, & hotels … even middle class neighborhoods can be at risk.
http://www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/media/publication-archive/perspective/illegal-immigration-drugs-gangs-and-crime
U.S. People Tortured Murdered, Mexican Cartel
CNN - Samantha Hayes in Atlanta
February192009
ATF-Phoenix,
DEA-Birmingham
DEA-Atlanta
McAllenTX
BirminghamAL
Miami, BoiseID, AnchorageAK,
suburban Atlanta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHuIQ11j4s&feature=related
Ethnic Cleansing of Innocent Blacks by Mexican Supremacists in California
March 17, 2008
KNBC Channel 9 news L.A - Conan Nolan reporting
(Wait 9 seconds for news channel footage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ICV0ln91a0&feature=related
Mexican Mafia engages in racial profiling Killing & targeting L.A. Blacks
October162007
KCAL Channel 9news L.A.- Mark Coogan reporting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU5Uq-RalKI&feature=related
What would you do if the US officials said the country is full, but your family is better off should you commit a misdemeanor?
Fact is most people want to duplicate the Arizona Law in their state.
It is only a misdemeanor.
They will be there just until their families are better off, what do you say?
Then there is always that vapid comparison about how being here illegally, excuse me, undocumented, is the same as you or I going over the speed limit. Well, riddle me this, batman. If you speed does the government have the right to take you into custody, refuse bail if they choose, and deport you to another country? The answer would be no. You get a summons at the most and you're on your way.
Illegal aliens know when they lie to get a visa or when they cross into this country without inspection that they are breaking the law and running the risk of deportation. They know when they commit other acts, such as using stolen or fraudulent identities, drive without licenses, or work without authorization that they are breaking the law. They know when they evade taxes that they are breaking the law.
It is this Administration that is again proving that it has NO intention of enforcing the law because it's looking out for its own political interests--even though the unemployment rate is high and millions of Americans are out of work while illegal aliens are working. Americans in general have NO AMBIVALENCE about illegal immigration any more than they have about other people who lie, cheat, or jump lines. Don't kid yourself on that.
Its time to go after the corporate interests that never get fined or punished. Allow documented seasonal workers to come in. Make the documents important, and tell them if you show up off season, you will lose your seasonal documents. Make the legal part for seasonal workers and go after the big corporations. If all of the jobs are gone, except for seasonal work, they will come in for seasonal work.
After all, if they cannot enforce laws already passed, why draft more laws that will not be enforced.
Additionally, ever notice how these new laws get more bloated and complicated with each new version of a 'comprehensive' solution.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
- James Madison
But great article, by the way; it's too bad most people won't get it.
However, more of the same old BS immigration policy (like SB 1070 in AZ) isn't going to fix anything. All it does is escalate the situation.