Critics of President-elect Trump assert that mass deportation is morally wrong for two reasons: first, Trump’s plan is said to be overbroad and will deport people indiscriminately; second, Trump’s plan will cause unjust suffering for those affected. Let us address each objection in turn.
The idea that mass deportation will be indiscriminate is false. Since winning the presidential election on November 5, Trump and his surrogates have said that deportations won’t be indiscriminate. Aliens with criminal records will be first to go. Next will be those who have failed to comply with court orders. (Yes, that is another crime – just ask Steve Bannon). Surely, strategic decisions will be made about which class of illegal immigrants will be deported thereafter, but that’s a bridge to be crossed later.
For the sake of argument, though, let’s assume that the deportation would be indiscriminate. Does that mean that mass deportation is a legitimate moral wrong, in contrast to deportations that carefully consider the unique situation of each illegal immigrant?
The answer is “no.” There is no moral difference between deporting one individual and deporting 10 million, so long as the reason for the deportation is consistent for each person deported.
While it is true that convicted criminals will be the first to be deported and not all persons eligible for deportation have convictions, the prime reason for their deportation is not their criminality. In fact, the reason for the deportation remains that they have no right to be in the country to begin with. This is evident in the fact that we use other means (prisons) to punish domestic criminals. The reason we are deporting these individuals is that they entered the country illegally, not that they behaved criminally while here. Essentially, their criminality is the reason their deportation will be prioritized, but it is not the reason for the deportation.
Thus, given that the core justification for the deportation is illegal entry, there is no moral difference between deporting one person who entered illegally and one million who did so. In fact, this is the way that justice is supposed to work—anyone who commits a particular crime should receive the same punishment. Those who disagree with this premise simply don’t believe that illegal immigration alone is ever sufficient justification for deportation, and those people should be forced to defend this premise explicitly. To say that no one should ever be deported simply for crossing the border illegally is to say that anyone who wants to come should be able to do so – in short, it is to claim that we shouldn’t have a border.
Which brings us to the second claim, that Trump’s plan (to enforce the law) will cause unjust suffering. Enforcing any law – especially when there is a criminal violation of it – will cause someone to suffer. Sending a murderer to prison will hurt him mentally, socially, economically, and reputationally. Clearly, though, refusing to honor the demands of justice because the offender will suffer would be unjust. In the case of murder, we cannot “undo” the offender’s crime—the victim cannot be brought back to life. This is why the murderer goes to prison or is put to death. Thankfully, though, there are offenses where the wrong can be undone. If I destroy a piece of my neighbor’s property, justice can be attained by monetary compensation that makes him whole. Illegal immigration is this sort of offense. The crime does have real negative effects on society, but it can be “undone.”
If the remedy proposed was life imprisonment or death, this would be immoral. But that’s not the proposal. Instead, the Trump administration aims to take people who illegally entered this country and return them to their countries of origin. This follows the basic principle of equivalence in moral justice: the punishment should be calibrated to offset the crime, and should not impose suffering that exceeds that caused by the violation. Deportation merely reverses the harm caused by the person who entered illegally. And if you acknowledge that illegal immigration has negative effects on American citizens – particularly the most vulnerable ones – justice and morality demand that we offer them redress.
Finally, it’s not just American citizens who have been wronged but people from around the world who have followed the laws and waited years for permission to immigrate also have a moral right to justice. Punishing violators of the law will reward those who honor it and incentivize others to do the same.
At bottom, our immigration problem boils down to a question of sovereignty. Do Americans have a right to decide who can be an American? This shouldn’t be a hard question, but leaders in both parties have hesitated to answer with an unequivocal “yes” – even though a majority of their constituents support mass deportation.
People of all political stripes lament the decline of “citizenship” and civic engagement among Americans. These critics often ignore the reality that civic spirit is a product of individuals’ valuation of their citizenship – what do citizens gain by belonging to a special class of people, by being a true American, imbued with all the attending rights and responsibilities of their status?
The tolerance (and indeed, the official approval) of mass illegal immigration is a major cause of the decline in civic spirit. People value their citizenship when it provides them with exclusive rights – rights that non-citizens do not enjoy. Recent history has seen our governments whittle away the exclusive rights of citizenship. When illegal immigrants are allowed to work, to make use of public schools, to get drivers’ licenses, to receive in-state tuition at our universities, to receive medical care at the cost of American citizens, to collect welfare assistance, and indeed, in some cases, even to vote…what benefits remain the sole privilege of citizens?
For too many citizens, it seems the sole remaining “privilege” of citizenship is paying income tax and serving on juries. Is it any wonder that Americans value their citizenship less than they did in previous generations?
We owe it to all citizens – especially the most vulnerable, who are most affected by the mass importation of impoverished, uninvited foreigners – to restore the value of citizenship. This can only be accomplished through mass deportation, and while such a policy would certainly be costly and (in some cases) painful, it will be a moral act, a belated fulfillment of the redress our poorest citizens deserve, and a recommitment to the rule of law in our nation. We should not be surprised when a renewal of civic spirit follows.
Adam Ellwanger is a professor at University of Houston – Downtown where he teaches rhetoric and writing. He is a Higher Education Fellow at The Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform and a 2023 Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. Follow him at @1HereticalTruth on X.
John Waters is a lawyer. He served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security from 2020-21.
Read Full Article »