Moral Issue: Jim Crow and Immigration Restriction

[BigBallinStalin]

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/201 ... dif_1.html

Tell Me the Difference Between Jim Crow and Immigration Restrictions

Under the Jim Crow laws, discrimination was not merely legal. It was mandatory. It was illegal for blacks to live, work, and shop in certain places. Virtually everyone today regards this as an enormous injustice. So do I. But I question the claim that modern American policy is vastly morally superior. The American government continues to mandate discrimination against an unpopular minority: illegal immigrants. And this mandatory discrimination is far harsher than anything under Jim Crow.

Most obviously:

1. Under Jim Crow, there were many places in America where blacks were not legally allowed to live. Under current immigration laws, there is nowhere in America where illegal immigrants are legally allowed to live.

2. Under Jim Crow, there were many jobs in America that blacks were not legally allowed to perform. Under current immigration laws, there are no jobs in America that illegal immigrants are legally allowed to perform.

Admittedly, immigration restrictions are not worse than Jim Crow in every possible way. Most notably:

1. Illegal immigrants face fewer restrictions on travel. De facto, though not de jure, illegal immigrants are free to use any form of transportation that doesn't require identification; they can ride trains but not planes. Under the Jim Crow laws, blacks were unable to use many forms of transportation either de jure or de facto.

2. The children of illegal immigrants face fewer restrictions on attending public school.

3. The Tuskegee Institute estimated that 3,446 blacks were lynched between 1882 and 1968 - about 40 per year. The FBI reported 681 hate crimes against Hispanics in 2010, but only one of these was a murder. Lest we feel too superior, note that according to conservative estimates, several hundred immigrants die crossing the border every year.

The Jim Crow laws were awful. Still, if you had to suffer under Jim Crow or modern immigration laws, Jim Crow seems like the lesser evil.

You could object that our moral obligations to citizens are far higher than our moral obligations to foreigners. But that's hardly satisfactory. After all, the essence of the segregationist position was the American blacks were not fully-fledged American citizens. Imagine that instead of abolishing Jim Crow laws, the American public had resolved its cognitive dissonance by simultaneously (a) stripping blacks of their citizenship, and (b) declaring that "All citizens are entitled to equal treatment." Would that have made the Jim Crow laws any less reprehensible?

Another possibility: You could say that the treatment illegal immigrants receive is an appropriate punishment for their law-breaking. This position would be plausible if legal immigration were easy. But for the typical low-skilled immigrant, legal immigration is virtually impossible. The U.S. makes it illegal for most foreigners to live and work here no matter what they do. So how does the treatment they receive in any way fit their "crime"?

But perhaps I'm overlooking some crucial distinction. So tell me: What is the moral difference between Jim Crow and immigration restrictions?

[patches70]

So is the author arguing against immigration laws? Does he think that anyone can come into the US and there should be no Federal process to determine if said immigrants should be allowed citizenship?

Hell, guess what? Bank robbers face the same problems that illegal immigrants face, but worse! Someone wanted for bank robbery can't even ride a bus, go to the store or anywhere else lest he be recognized and eventually arrested and put in jail. So yeah, people who are committing crimes often have limited choices available to them. What exactly is the moral issue there?

That if someone who is restricted in life because of committing a crime then the crime should be abolished? I dunno about that.

Every nation on the planet has a process that allows immigrants to enter said nation legally. In every nation on the planet those who immigrate illegally (i.e. circumventing the legal process) face penalties of some kind. Penalties that include deportation, imprisonment, fines, curtailed opportunity among other things.


It seems the thing that some people can't accept that is if a said system is inadequate or has problems, then there is a process by which that process can be addressed. In the US that process can't be addressed by a President simply issuing an executive order. It's not legal. Sure, it can be frustrating especially to those who want said process changed, abolished or reformed now but it doesn't change the fact that there is a procedure in which said process can be addressed.
If we just had a tyrant we wouldn't have to worry about such things, but having a tyrant in office that can arbitrarily make, change, issue and revoke laws at a whim, just because said tyrant may alter something one may agree with; chances are that down the road that very tyrant is going to do something that said one won't agree with.

And then what leg would that person stand on?


But on another note, there is nothing wrong with attempt to persuade others to one's causes through discussion. But when said discussion turns to the absurd like the above article, it kind of defeats the author's intentions.
He's just appealing to the emotion, leaving reason behind. I don't know if that's the most effective way to win others to one's side. IMO.

[Phatscotty]

[Metsfanmax]

You could object that our moral obligations to citizens are far higher than our moral obligations to foreigners. But that's hardly satisfactory. After all, the essence of the segregationist position was the American blacks were not fully-fledged American citizens. Imagine that instead of abolishing Jim Crow laws, the American public had resolved its cognitive dissonance by simultaneously (a) stripping blacks of their citizenship, and (b) declaring that "All citizens are entitled to equal treatment." Would that have made the Jim Crow laws any less reprehensible?

And thus we come to the central paradox of the notion of citizenship. In order for a state to have any meaning at all, it has to have some notion of who its obligations lie towards. It has to have some sort of arbitrary selection process, like "people born within the borders of the state." Otherwise what would a nation be? It has to know who belongs to the nation and who does not. Can the answer be "anyone who walks into the borders of the nation?" If so, are we prepared to simply grant citizenship to whoever wants it?