tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post118865063156072738..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Immigration and the Human Rights of Non-AmericansAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11799545223880747132012-11-29T13:33:17.204-07:002012-11-29T13:33:17.204-07:00My post was not meant to discuss current immigrati...My post was not meant to discuss current immigration reform specifically, which admittedly brings in additional issues.<br /><br />However, you wrote:<br /><br /><i>. . . someone could agree with what you wrote and still be in favor of strict immigration policies on the grounds that people who want to come ehre should follow the same procedures.</i><br /><br />Technically, this is not true.<br /><br />From the Republican principles on which this blog post was built, these "strict immigration policies" would count as bureaucratic red tape that gums up the free market.<br /><br />It would be like attaching all sorts of expensive policies to - say - importing raw materials with which to manufacture some product. The Republican position would be to view all of this expensive red tape as an illegitimate barrier to free trade. It makes the activity much more expensive - regardess of whether you are importing lumber or laborers.<br /><br />However, this does not answer the other question:<br /><br /><i> do you think it follows from this that people who came illegally, without following the necessary procedure in the first place, ought to be allowed to stay anyway because of the benefits to society you mentioned?</i><br /><br />I do not find this to be an easy question to answer either way.<br /><br />On the one hand, if we assume that the government had imposed huge costs on imported lumber, and lumber was being smuggled into the country, when those restrictions are lifted the tendency is to grant that the lumber smuggled into the country can stay.<br /><br />On the other hand, the "moral hazard" argument does have weight. If we set up a system where those who break the law gain an advantage over those respect the law, we set up a culture that - for all practical purposes - rewards and thereby promotes a willingness to break the law while it punishes and thereby inhibits a desire to obey the law.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31430229829861240282012-11-29T11:40:28.183-07:002012-11-29T11:40:28.183-07:00I agree substantially with this, but doesn't t...I agree substantially with this, but doesn't the immigration reform debate go a bit farther than this?<br /><br />For example, many people would object that it is not the fact that people from different countries are different from us that we want to expel them, but rather because they came here under false pretenses; they broke the law to come here, and for that they ought not be allowed in. <br /><br />Now, how many people are here illegally, I admit that I do not know; furthermore, I would disagree that the punishment for coming illegally should necessarily be immediate deportation. However, someone could agree with what you wrote and still be in favor of strict immigration policies on the grounds that people who want to come here should all follow the same procedure, and people who don't do that should be punished somehow. They don't need to be racist or motivated by tribalism to make a case like that.<br /><br />I think the ideas you wrote about in this essay make a strong case for an easier procedure for becoming a citizen, but do you think it follows from this that people who came illegally, without following the necessary procedure in the first place, ought to be allowed to stay anyway because of the benefits to society you mentioned?SS400https://www.blogger.com/profile/17307796666410840170noreply@blogger.com