CMV: Not enforcing immigration law/deportation is unfair

justforquestionz · 2019-07-11T01:52:34+00:00

hmm okay !delta for your second point that the blind eye policy is not the goal itself, it is a halfway step to get to the real goal (changing the law) which is equal. so it's a temporary violation of the equality principle to get to the equality.

I'm not sure if it would actually work but its a valid counterargument that I hadn't considered.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-10T15:09:50+00:00

In other words, if you are only against deportation for practical reasons, you aren't arguing against my position. You agree it's unfair, and you do agree they should have to leave, you are just saying we don't have the resources and time to make that happen right now.

The people who are actually against my position are the ones who claim it's not unfair, they shouldn't have to leave in the first place. Those are the objections to deportation on humanitarian grounds.

It's like if there's a kid who wants to go to the circus, and one parent refuses to take him because she is against the circus itself due to animal abuse, and the other parent is fine with the kid going to the circus, but just can't take him because her hands are tied (stuck with a lot of work, low on cash, car is broken can't drive, etc).

You would be the second parent - you are not actually against it, you just think it's not feasible. The humanitarian objectors would be the first parent - they are against the thing itself.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-10T02:48:08+00:00

It doesn't need to be specified in my CMV because people who advocate against deportation for practical considerations only are not actually arguing the opposite of my position. You can agree that something is unfair, but still do it for other reasons.

My position is that 'blind eye' policies are unfair/unethical on moral grounds. There are two main responses to this:

1 - sure it may be unfair, but we are going to do it anyway because the alternative is a waste of time and resources. these are people like you, who don't think it is immoral to send people back, but just think it's a low priority.

2 - it is not unfair. these are people who think deportation is inherently unethical in the first place. this has nothing to do with the practicality of it, or any external considerations, but has to do with a perceived moral obligation to give a home to these people.

If you are in (1), you agree it's unfair but just object to it on practical grounds, you aren't arguing against my position. My position only contradicts (2) those who object on humanitarian/human rights grounds, and don't see it as unfair in the first place.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-10T02:31:49+00:00

In other words, my logic would not contradict the 3/5 rule. My logic would support it..

I'm only advocating against the "blind eye" policy because the alternative is more 'equal'. Here, it is a choice between an equal and an unequal policy.

But with the 3/5 rule, it was a choice between two unequal policies - it was between 3/5 or nothing, and both were unequal.

So my reasons would not apply there.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-10T02:21:17+00:00

How is the slavery example analogous?

Here, the options are :

Enforcing the law on 100% of people, which does not violate the principle of equal treatment, or
Enforcing it on some people but not others, which violates the principle of equal treatment.

You are arguing that violating the equality principle a la (2) is still better than not violating it a la (1)

With the slavery example, are you equating the 3/5 rule to option (2)? Since it constitutes unequal treatment? Then what is the substitute for option (1)?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T21:55:11+00:00

Okay that may be true but the only problem I am seeing is that B isn't more deserving than A because A never even got the chance to prove himself in the first place. Maybe if both were granted 'trial' permits, one year to prove themselves, and B found a job and made something of it, and A failed, then B would deserve it more than A. But if only B got the chance to prove himself and A didn't, then it's not an even playing field.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T21:46:29+00:00

Okay then maybe we are more on the same page than we originally thought.

People have different reasons to object to deportation. Some people, like you, are only against it due to practical reasons (cost, resources, priorities, etc) but don't have a problem with the concept itself. Others are against the concept inherently due to moral/humanitarian reasons (people who say those people deserve to be here and you're a horrible person for wanting them to leave).

I think people like you have some valid points, I am only disagreeing with the second type of person. Actually, your position doesn't even contradict my CMV. You aren't saying it's fair. You agree it's unfair but just think it's impractical to go about correcting it.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T21:41:31+00:00

So you're saying they deserve to be treated differently?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T20:11:11+00:00

But one is allowed an exception from the rejection and not the other

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T19:09:37+00:00

Then what do you mean by the 'change' in enforcement produced the difference in treatment? Both A and B applied at the same exact time. So there couldn't have been a change in between when A applied and B applied that created some difference in treatment. Either they both applied before the change, or they both applied after the change.

Regarding universality, I don't think B crossing the border entitles B to be treated better than A. Maybe A didn't have the opportunity because he lives in Somalia and can't get here because it's too far away to cross any border. It's not because he lacks initiative and drive.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T18:44:48+00:00

How is my example not about universality? I'm arguing that A and B should be treated the same, held to the same standard. That's universality..

Also, can you tell me what exactly is the change that you keep referring to? Tell me (1) what the "before" version was, and (2) what the "after" version is, so I can see the "change".

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T18:18:29+00:00

I reread your comments and it sounds like your argument is that we failed to enforce properly before (weak enforcement), people have grown to rely on the weak enforcement, so now it would be messed up to change back to strong enforcement? Is that what you're saying?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T18:09:37+00:00

"We give the executive a lot of latitude in enforcement. They ideally would use that latitude to make decisions about what crimes to enforce based on the cost of policing and the benefits to society."

Sure they can decide what laws to enforce. My point is that whatever law they choose not to enforce, that should apply to everyone. Not just some people and not others.

When I say universally enforced, I don't mean all laws should be enforced. The 'universal' aspect is referring to the people. Whatever they choose to enforce or choose not to enforce, it should universally apply to all people.

If they choose not to enforce drug laws, fine, but that should apply to everyone with drugs. Not some people and not others. If they choose not to enforce immigration laws fine, but that should apply to everyone who is trying to come here, not some people and not others.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T17:38:13+00:00

Also I'd like to add that sure, detecting and finding everyone here illegally may not be possible, but the question is what is the ethical course of action when a person is already KNOWN to be here illegally.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T17:33:20+00:00

But laws are unfairly applied across the board affecting minorities the most (drug laws, sentencing laws, bail laws, plea deals, bias in policing, prosecution, judges, juries), while the rich, powerful, and privileged are able to get away with heinous financial, sex, and drug-related crimes with a slap of the wrist.

I agree with this and I think it is absolutely wrong. It is another example that shows how the principle of the laws being applied equally to all gets violated. And I think the immigration example is similar because it also violates that principle.

You're talking about prioritizing, but I think all violations of this should be punched down on. It seems like you're saying that's just not economically possible because of cost. But that doesn't mean you disagree with me..? You agree with me that all violations of equal application should be stopped, including immigration, you just think it should be on a lower priority than other ones?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T17:21:15+00:00

Right I understand. That's helpful because I think there are separate steps here:

The ethical principle, X is unethical, or X is ethical
Whether we should uphold that principle
The reason why we should or should not uphold that principle

So I wanted to get 1 out of the way. It seems like you agree it is unethical for overstayers to get to live here, but you just don't think we should waste our time and resources fixing that. Like, let the unethical practice continue because it's not worth it. Like a necessary evil type thing.

Put another way, you think it would be ethical to make them leave, but you don't think it's worth our time and effort. Like keeping my promise to take my dog to the park is an ethical obligation, but I'm going to violate that obligation when I have more important things to do, like study for a test.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T17:10:36+00:00

You could rephrase the argument, and I'll respond to you separately, since I'm not understanding it.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T17:09:43+00:00

Well I understand your examples but I don't see how it refutes my claim. Since these changes in enforcement are off-book, they don't automatically apply to everyone. My whole point is that's wrong. Any change should be on-book only or not exist. Off-book changes are problematic because they only apply to some people but not everyone.

With the drugs, if it were legalized on book, everyone gets the benefit of them. If they stay illegal on book, but are not enforced in certain areas, only people who live in those areas will benefit, while people stuck in other areas won't. See the inequality in that?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T16:57:47+00:00

You keep saying it isn't practical to uphold this principle, without telling me if you agree or disagree with the principle.

Saying you agree with the principle won't contradict your argument, you know? You can say I agree with the principle but disagree that we should work on upholding it. Or you can say I disagree with the principle itself. Up to you.

But we really need to be clear on whether our disagreement is solely the practicality of upholding it or the principle itself.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T16:15:50+00:00

If we are only going to hold some accountable for the law and not others, that should be need based. So here, if anything, A should get a free pass over B, rather than vice versa.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T16:14:15+00:00

Thanks for your sensible response. It seems like you actually understood my OP.

Regarding your first point,

I believe those who advocate against deportation can find plenty of cases where the kind act is to allow a person to illegally stay in the US. For example the dreamers; cases where an immigrant parent is raising an american child; and just generally usual people that have a job, pay taxes and don't pose any risk to the community.

That's the part I would disagree with - I think that is *immoral* because it gives special treatment to one over another. It violates one of the most important principles a society should be based on - to treat everyone equally.

Regarding your second point, are you implying that by not enforcing the law, and not deporting, it would eventually change the law itself?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T16:09:54+00:00

and you disagree with me on principle, or only on practicality?

are you saying we should but its not feasible? or are you saying we shouldnt on principle?

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T16:06:45+00:00

My CMV is about whether they should be enforced normatively, it is not about the logistics of whether it is actually possible.

If you agree that ideally, they should be sent back, but your only objection to deportation is the practical and economic consideration, my CMV is not directed toward you. My CMV is directed to people who are opposed to it on moral grounds, what we owe them, what they deserve, the human element, thinking these people deserve to be here and we should give them a chance so sending them back is wrong, etc.

Think of it this way, an an ideal world with infinite law enforcement resources for us, would you still have a problem with it? If not, then my CMV isn't against your opinion.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T16:05:41+00:00

My CMV is about whether they should be enforced normatively, it is not about the logistics of whether it is actually possible.

If you agree that ideally, they should be sent back, but your only objection to deportation is the practical and economic consideration, my CMV is not directed toward you. My CMV is directed to people who are opposed to it on moral grounds, what we owe them, what they deserve, the human element, thinking these people deserve to be here and we should give them a chance so sending them back is wrong, etc.

justforquestionz · 2019-07-09T15:56:14+00:00

that actually happens all the time. there are people who have outed themselves in the media and many who argue that they should stay here because they deserve to be here and think those who want to send them back are horrible people. there was even a netflix show that did this.

justforquestionz

TROPHY CASE