It is the major purpose of law to provide justice for people who are experiencing injustice. A law is a good law if it intends a just outcome. A law is an effective law if it actually accomplishes more justice than it causes injustice.
Immigration law is no exception to this general rule. We have immigration law in order to provide justice to people and to minimize the level of injustice suffered by people. To determine whether our immigration laws are good or bad, effective or ineffective, we merely must examine how well they are accomplishing just outcomes for the people affected by them.
It is my belief that, as is the case with most kinds of laws, when immigration laws go unenforced, the result is greater injustice than when imperfect laws (the only kind we have) are enforced.
Now, a lot of the arguments I read in favor of the strict enforcement of immigration law seem to arise from a perspective that doing so provides protection for those who are already American citizens (whether protection from downward wage pressure, from purported crimes committed by immigrants, or from feared terrorism). None of those reasons lie behind my position. I am not an economic protectionist; I am a free-market capitalist. The idea that immigration fuels crime has been, from what I have seen, pretty soundly debunked by the relevant data. And all of the terrorist acts committed on American soil have been, I do believe, committed by either natural-born citizens or LEGAL immigrants.
Rather, I’m arguing for the strict enforcement of immigration law (and I’m open to the improvement of the laws on the books) because I believe that these laws provide justice for immigrants themselves. When our immigration laws go unenforced, the result is injustice for immigrants.
Sometimes injustice is measured by wrongs done to everyone, but not nearly always. It is a nonetheless unjust situation when one person gets something much better than he or she deserves while another person gets something much worse than he or she deserves. Most unjust situations actually benefit someone. This is true of American immigration law. When our laws go unenforced and when illegal immigration is tolerated, the result is a net injustice that greatly favors some immigrants at the expense of others.
I was personally unaware of these dimensions of American immigration law until our church became significantly involved in missionary work in Africa. When we fail to enforce our immigration laws, the result certainly is one of greater opportunity for immigrants who can enter America across land borders (primarily Mexican and Central American immigrants). Those opportunities do not equally extend, however, to immigrants from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, various island nations around the world, and yes, even the Middle East. Poverty is no less real in those parts of the world. Oppression is no less real there. It is just as possible to mouth the American dream in Pashto, Mandinka, or Ukrainian as it is to do so in Spanish. The benefits of immigration from other parts of the world is no less than with regard to our nearest neighbors, and the risks are no greater. The more our country experiences illegal immigration from nearby neighbors, the less appetite and capacity our nation has for welcoming immigrants from other parts of the world. We need to enforce our immigration laws in order to right this injustice.
We can do this without separating families at the border or descending into immigrant-bashing. I’d be perfectly happy to have more immigration so long as it were more fair. We need functional borders that distribute the opportunity of American citizenship fairly. We need just immigration laws. We need to enforce them justly and with firm resolve. Those who are winners under the present unjust system will object to the change. Those who are losers under the present unjust system do not have any voice by which they can object. We need to do it anyway, for the sake of justice.
Very good article, Bart. This is a really good perspective and balanced approach. Interesting perspective regarding fairness to those wishing to immigrate from non bordering countries (or countries that border US bordering countries).
I respectfully would like to add to your comments about injustice though that lax enforcement of laws (or open borders) would have the effect of increasing profound injustices upon immigrants themselves because open borders (what “catch and release” had become) actually increases the scourge of human trafficking – the perils and abuse and maltreatment of persons taking place with that is far greater, IMO, than even the occasional and temporary family separation that has been taking place on this side of the border for decades through numerous administrations. (I too do not like, indeed hate, the idea of separating families without just cause and I think and hope secure border enforcement can come without needlessly separating families – and I hope congress passes better immigration laws very soon) .
Congress has abdicated way too much of immigration law to our presidents far too long. Time for them to step up. But, I guess complaining about the way Presidents act with a power they should not even have is easier….
I also agree that adherence to extreme right positions like Nativism will certainly make for bad policy – as does extreme leftist positions like open borders – but expecting our govt. to adequately and seriously secure our nations borders is a very reasonable and non sinful desire of many Christians.
Legal and safe immigration that does the least possible harm, yes and yes again. Illegal and dangerous immigration that harms everyone. no and no again.
The truth is – as far as I can tell – that no one is for zero immigration. And no one is for completely open boarders at all. There are extremes, but those people are in the vast minority. We are all somewhere in the middle.
Inasmuch as we live in a representative democracy, we all get to have a say in who gets in, how many, under what circumstances etc.
Once an Act is passed by Congress and signed by the President, it becomes the law. The Chief Executive, the Pres, and the Administrative Agencies under his direction, are charged with the duty of enforcing the law.
The contours surrounding the fine points of immigration are all up for debate, have been debated, and we have a legal framework. It is appropriate, therefore, for those laws to be enforced.
They are enforced because of the legal and moral compact between the citizens of the US and its government. Abiding by that compact is the greatest form of justice and it is the basis of our country. Ancient Israel what condemned by God for not following the laws he had given, or for applying them with partiality.
God has not given specific commands to the US on all of the particulars of the modern state. We have agreed on those laws that will govern us.
People who live in different places, who want to come to the US for this or that reason, are free to do so in accordance with the law. When they do so contrary to the law, they should be removed.
Bart is correct that when anytime a government passes laws that it does not then enforce, that it is derelict in its duty and does a great moral injustice to its people who, as the “governed”, gave consent to the passage of the law through their elected representatives.
This does not answer all of the questions that can come up in a debate about immigration, or any area of the law, but I believe it is a good framework for understanding.
Many of the debates about immigration are about the legislative solutions to problems relating to immigration. People are free to advocate for policies they think are best, and from what I can tell, there is a great deal of advocacy that goes on. But those debates involve legislative issues that our representatives are elected to determine.
It seems to me this discussion requires us to first agree on the definition of justice we are using. For example, there is, and always has been, some inherent unfairness in a world in which some people are born, due to no choice of their own, into negative circumstances, and orhers are born, once again, due to no choice of their own, into not quite so negative circumstances. Some, by virtue of their place of birth, have opportunities to work themselves and their families into more postive circumstances, and some do not have these same opportunities. If this situation, in and of itself, may be described as injust, then the world has alwsys been full of injustice and likely will remain so for many years to come.
I suppose the question may be asked, what moral obligation do those of us born into relatively positive circumstances and opportunities have to open the door for those seeking to benefit from these circumstances and opportunities? It seems to me, the greater the disparity, the greater the moral obligation to not horde but to share. At the same time, laws of nature and economics teach us it is better for everyone, both more fortunate and less fortunate, if such sharing of opportunity does not amount to hand-outs. Human dignity calls for opportunity to work and provide for oneself and one’s family, not for free lunches.
The truth is, those looking for better circumstances and opportunities will do what it takes to find them. And the worse the situation in which they find themselves, the greater will be their resolve to cross whatever boundaries necessary to improve their circumstances. For some, this will imply traveling longer distances, and for some, shorter distances. For some, the greatest boundaries are geographic. For some, they are legal. For others, social, laboral, or linguistic. It only makes sense, due to geographic realities, for example, that more people emigrate from Mexico to the US than from Mexico to Spain. It also makes more sense that more people emigrate from Morocco to Spain than from Morocco to the US.
The destiny of choice for many emigrants from Africa and the Middle East today is Europe. The destiny of choice for many Mexicans and Central Americans is the US. Yes, we should work toward a system that is more just for all involved. But these natural dynamics will always be part of the equation.
There is also the ongoing matter of how many immigrants, from which destinations, is a host society able to successfully assimilate. A morally superior country will tend to be more generous in the way they answer this question than one that is not, as there will always be some degree of self-sacrifice involved. At the same time, though, much research points to economic and other benefits, not only for immigrants, but also for their host countries, that come along with relatively generous immigration policies. I suppose there is a limit to everything and a law of eventual diminishing returns, though.
As long as a host country is truly seeking to be generous, and has truly reached a point of saturation, it must take measures to see that this point of saturation is not exceeded in such a way as to ultimately be harmful for all involved, both immigrants and natives. Before this point of saturation is reached, though, there need to be effective mechanisms in place to ensure as orderly a process as possible for those who would seek to immigrate. The laws should encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration. They should especially target unethical employers who seek to exploit undocumented immigrants in order to avoid paying minimum wages and benefits, and who treat them as virtual slaves, who will do as they are told to avoid being deported. The laws of supply and demand will naturally control much of the influx of immigrants, provided these unethical employers do not artficially distort the economic dynamics by seeking to hire undocumented workers for lower wages than what the market calls for.
There’s a lot here I agree with, but there’s an adjustment in emphasis I’d make – making a higher priority fixing the laws first before moving to strict enforcement. I’ve got a post coming tomorrow to go into more detail.
The primary purpose of laws are to protect the common good of society….not to seek justice. Justice is enforcement of the law against individuals or groups who seek their self interests contrary to the law. This principle has existed in civilized societies to prevent chaos and allow peaceful resolutions of disputes.
[…] here at Voices, Bart Barber wrote A Non-Nativist Case for Strict Enforcement of Immigration Law. There are several reasons I approached Bart’s article with a lot of anticipation. One of which […]
Strict enforcement of unjust law leads to unjust consequences. Strict enforcement of immigration law would deport Dreamers brought here as a small children with nowhere to go, putting them in peril. Many have US citizen children and they would not be good parents if they brought their children with them to dangerous situations where they had no resources. So, many would be forced to leave their US citizen children here, thus breaking up the family.
When a law is unjust, strictly enforcing it leads to other problems. The Executive Branch legally has discretion in prioritizing how and which laws should be enforced. Congress controls appropriations and if money is not appropriated for the enforcement of a law, the Execitive Branch is unable to enforce it. Congress has never and to this day does not appropriate enough funds for the strict enforcement of all immigration law, or of all of the laws on the books, for that matter. So, choices have to be made. Discretion must be used by the Executive Branch. We see the choices the Trump Administration is making. They want all undocumented immigrants deported. But, they don’t have the resources, Due Process impedes them, and Congress, controlled by Republicans, won’t allocate the resources.
Strict enforcement of current immigration law would be incredibly expensive and would create outcomes that are unjust. But, the good news is that despite the current crisis at the border, illegal immigration continues to be at historic lows. The border is more secure than it has ever been. And, more actual criminals have been deported over the last decade than ever before. That said, we need to fix the laws that don’t work and that are damaging to children and families and help create ways for people to get right with the law through earned pathways to legalization.
Yes, enforce the law. But, change bad laws that cause harm and that do not address the real problems before us.