What’s Wrong with the World

Well, just to start with, I'm sure he would also call people "chauvinists" who would never agree that "if a rule or policy benefits the group of which the chauvinist happens to be a member, then it is justified."

I'm sure there are plenty of us non-open-border-ists who would have very strict limits on policies that benefit in-group members. E.g. If it wd. (materially) benefit the group of which I happen to be a member for us to start killing and eating the children of some other group, I would still say that was horribly wrong. I mean, the statement as given is a pretty blatant straw-man.

So he really ought to say that the "chauvinist" holds the far less exciting-sounding view that (something like) "it is not in itself a knockdown argument against a policy that it benefits the group of which I happen to be a member more than it benefits some other group, and in some contexts and for some policies, that fact could be an argument in favor of a policy."

I make very little of it. It is an advance over his missives of about six months ago, which occasioned some comment here and elsewhere, a stab in the general direction of an argument. I was planning a post on his latest argument, though I now see that I have been beaten to it; hence, I will defer, and hold my fire.

If WW is saying something like, "Your need creates my obligation and my responsive sacrifice on your behalf benefits us both" then I have to agree with him. I take it that WW's "chauvinism" means "self-interested action in disregard of the need of the other." It would seem to be patent that such behavior is immoral, even if it is "just" by the standards of secular law. Charity, too, is justice--but tempered by love.

So if I feed my own children rather than putting their names in a hat with all the children in the world, picking out some other three children somewhere in the world, sending mine to a communal orphanage, and supporting the other three instead, is that "uncharitable" or "chauvinistic"?

If need 'creates' - and the sense in which it does so should be specified, though I pass over this for the present time - obligation, it does so within given networks of relationships. Need experienced by one of my children creates an immediate and weighty obligation on my part; need on the part of the child of a family in my parish creates some sort of obligation; need on the part of an unknown child in some other part of the world creates obligation, if at all, only in the most attenuated and non-specific sense of the term. It certainly does not engender highly specific sets of obligations involving "rights" to immigrate, with all of the attendant responsibilities on the part of the recipient communities to absorb the externalities, cultural, economic, and otherwise. Several argumentative stages have been elided if this putative obligation to admit the immigrant is the conclusion.

"Eating babies..." "sending mine to a communal orphanage"

And people get chided for setting up strawmen on this blog.

How does it advance the discussion to float ridiculous and unnecessary hypotheticals in response to serious questions about very real issues?

It certainly does not engender highly specific sets of obligations involving "rights" to immigrate

I will argue that it does just that, if it is determined that that is best available way to allow these people--our North American neighbors and brothers in Christ--to feed their children.
If we keep them out, their children go hungry. If we let them in, our children do not go hungry as a result. Let us not set up false outcomes to justify our self-interest.
That said, we should probably be about the business of finding better ways to address the needs of these people, so that they can stay in their country of origin, which I'm sure that most of them would prefer to do.

"Your need creates my obligation and my responsive sacrifice on your behalf benefits us both"

Rodak, far from being a straw man, Lydia was merely pointing out that the supposed "obligation" you describe is, as described, meaningless. Obviously there is a line somewhere between: A) dividing up all my material goods equally among all members of the human race ("Too bad, kids!"); and B) holding tight every nickel I own, and encouraging the poor instead to hurry up and decrease in the "surplus popluation".

I seriously doubt that Lydia in pointing out silly extreme A was tacitly advocating morally outrageous option B. "Serious questions about very real issues" would I think be oriented towards a prudential drawing of that line somewhere in between. How does the obligation you hint at differ, if indeed it does, from extreme A? If so, what goes into that moral calculus, i.e., that which discriminatorily allows you to withhold some good in your power to perform from somebody somewhere?

If it is unjust to treat citizens differently than non-citizens, why is it not unjust to treat family members differently than non-family members? How can universalism support even the loosest conception of the family? I think it is a huge mistake to argue that chauvinism is intrinsically wrong. Chauvinism can be wrong in practice, but it is often good, as in the case of parental obligations. We are all chauvinist as it is part of human nature.

"Serious questions about very real issues" would I think be oriented towards a prudential drawing of that line somewhere in between

Steve Nicoloso--
Exactly. It would seem to me to be more productive, instead of pointing out the obvious with Swiftian imagery, to address the problem directly by drawing that line.

Chauvinism can be wrong in practice, but it is often good, as in the case of parental obligations. We are all chauvinist as it is part of human nature.

In point of fact, I can't think of any verse in which Jesus gave the okay to favoring one's family members over any other human being. He commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He also taught that to help even the least of our neighbors was to help Him (and vice versa.) Finally, He taught that if your family came between you and Him, you were to choose Him over your family.
Nobody ever said acting in a Christian way was easy. We all spend most of our spiritual energy in spinning the gospel to make it conform to our perceived rights and needs.
The problem we have is our tendency to want the word "Christian" to be exclusively a noun. It's not. It's also--nay, primarily--an adjective. It's meant to modify our behavior, not to label our carefully protected self-image.
But those are hard sayings. We aren't capable of doing any of that. But we can do what we can do. And if all we can do is pay higher taxes so that hungry people can come here and work and take care of their own children by so doing, then we should count ourselves happy and grateful, that we are able to do so and still enjoy our relatively much, much easier lives.

So if I feed my own children rather than putting their names in a hat with all the children in the world, picking out some other three children somewhere in the world, sending mine to a communal orphanage, and supporting the other three instead, is that "uncharitable" or "chauvinistic"?

I would say no but if you decide your need to feed your own children trumps the need of everyone else to feed their children then you are a chauvinist. So it would be chauvinist to, say, feed your children by stealing food from the orphanage.

It's a false choice. Nobody is faced with choosing between feeding her children and allowing Mexicans into the country to pick the fruits and vegetables that she is dishing out to them.
Maybe she would prefer having to buy lettuce and grapes that have been picked by American workers, earning union scale wages? That might pretty quickly be more expensive than is the tax bill that's being paid to allow them to get medical care and schooling.
That said, that tax burden shouldn't be borne only by those Americans whose geographical location puts those services on their local taxes. Therefore, a temporary worker program that federally funds the necessary services somehow would seem to be appropriate.

The discussion both on this thread and on the one below seems to be dominated by people who are of the opinion that society should be arranged so as to, at all times, and in all circumstances, be as optimally oriented toward the realization of their relative advantage and the fulfillment of their maximum security and enrichment, as possible.
Intellectually and ideologically, that is a valid position to take. But I don't see it as being a Christian one. I remain open contradiction on doctrinal grounds, if any can be offered.

If it is unjust to treat citizens differently than non-citizens, why is it not unjust to treat family members differently than non-family members?

I'm still waiting for Rodak (or Wilkinson for that matter) to answer this question, instead of alluding to hard sayings in the Bible.

Even among the hard sayings that he cites, I note that the word "neighbor" has ballooned to mean, well, pretty much everyone in the world. Why would Christ choose the word neighbor if he meant, simple, person? Does Scripture read, "Love other people as yourself"?

Of course Christ did teach that a foreigner may indeed be a neighbor; but this does not give us leave to annihilate the meaning of his words. The manifest "nearness" inherent in the word "neighbor" seems to pretty clearly indicate a hierarchy or particularly of obligation.

I can't think of any verse in which Jesus gave the okay to favoring one's family members over any other human being.

Nor can I, though there is ample evidence of his submission to the authority of his own parents, which certainly suggests a respect for the family structure. Moreover, do the words of Christ recorded in the gospels exhaust the evidence of Scripture? Hardly.

The main point is that Rodak appears to present a Christian ethical system that is in some sense antithetical to the natural structure of the family. Pray tell, under this system do I have unique obligation to my children, or are they merely embraced by the universal obligation I have to all men?

Nor can I, though there is ample evidence of his submission to the authority of his own parents

Really? Just where do you see that? I see him, at a very tender age, deciding without any consultation with this parents, to stay behind in Jerusalem to debate with the doctors of the law in the temple. I see him letting his mother and his brothers stand outside and wait until He is done speaking with His followers, whom He designates as His real family. Where is your "ample evidence" of His "submission" to the authority of His parents? Most of the episodes involving His parents actually seem to contradict that statement, rather than support it.
And, yes, I think the gospel message is quite clear that when Jesus says "neighbor" he means any person with whom you have come in contact. And when he says "these, the least of my brethern" he is not talking about his personal brothers, but about all mankind.
You ask why he would use the word "neighbor" if He didn't mean it the way we usually use it. I ask then, why is James (among others) called his "brother" when it is asserted by the Church that Mary's virginity was perpetual? Words don't always have to mean what they need to mean to support your particular argument. (Zippy has assured me of that, many times!)

It must be recognized that in Jesus' day, the only way to come in contact with your neighbor, and to learn of his situation, was face-to-face. Today we learn of the plight of our "neighbor" via television, print media, the internet. We don't get to say that the Mexicans aren't our "neighbor" because they are coming into Arizona or Texas from Mexico and we live in Minnesota or Ohio. We know, and therefore we share the obligation to address the need.

As for Wilkinson, it is nice to see him actually making an argument for once. The argument amounts to this: patriotism is immoral. Logically it is coherent, I suppose.

I do think he gestures toward a good point when he says: "The massive, pluralistic, modern state is already so far down the anti-communitarian slippery slope that communitarian moral chauvinism asserted at the level of the state seems patently ridiculous, like a steam-powered laptop."

What he neglects here is perhaps the quintessential genius of the American political tradition: federalism. I discussed the ironic "smallness" of American self-government just last week. A massive territorial-extensive nation-state like America will naturally tend toward the abrogation of local and state loyalties, unless provision is made to preserve them. That provision was made in our very Constitution; and though it has been considerably attenuated by war and socialism, yet it endures.

So, to use Wilkinson's terms is it the very pluralism of the massive, modern state, at least here in America, which has preserved humane patriotism.

The argument amounts to this: patriotism is immoral.

I'd say the argument is: Xenophobic nativism is immoral."

That said, it doesn't mean that America doesn't have the right to control her borders. The humanitarian issues should be addressed in a formalized, structured way, that solves both the problem of the dire need of the immigrants, and the illegality of their status in this country. That would be an expression of "patriotism" worthy of the name.

(I notice that Jesus got dropped like a hot potato there...)

So, Rodak, in an entire childhood, we have one recorded instance where Jesus gave his parents a good scare. After which he accepted their rebuke and never did anything of the sort again. Quite a career of subversion of the family, wouldn't you say?

We have, moreover, the plain fact that the Blessed Trinity itself is given to us in familial terms. "For God so loved the world that be gave his only begotten Son" -- sonship, being, of course, an irrelevant category against the universalism of obligation.

But again, since you won't answer the question put to you, I don't know if you really think Christianity positively subverts the family, or if you are just being quarrelsome.

After which he accepted their rebuke and never did anything of the sort again.

Again, where did he "accept his rebuke"? He asked them, apparently without contrition, why they didn't realize that He needed to be about His father's work? And what evidence have you that he "never did anything of the sort again"? Now lack of evidence becomes evidentential-in-itself, I guess?

Are you waiting for me to answer this question?:

Pray tell, under this system do I have unique obligation to my children, or are they merely embraced by the universal obligation I have to all men?

I have been giving the answer to that question all along. It merely does not apparently register with you. You have an obligation with regard to your own children not to allow them to become dependent upon charity, if at all possible. This obligation does not release you from the obligation to help the community make it possible for any and all other children to also be fed and housed, to the extent that you have the means to do so. Your children do not, by virtue of being your children, somehow automatically deserve to eat while others starve. Nor do mine, not incidentally.
We enjoy surplus wealth in this country, most of which we waste on gaudy toys and largely vacuous entertainments. Obesity is epidemic. We have the means to share, big time.

I notice that Jesus got dropped like a hot potato there.

Uh, no. What happened is that I was busy writing a comment on the topic presented by Steve in the OP.

Well that's an answer -- of sorts. But really the question, based on your testy reply to Lydia's comment, is: If it is unjust to treat citizens differently than non-citizens, why is it not unjust to treat family members differently than non-family members?

What happened is that I was busy writing a comment on the topic presented by Steve in the OP.

Yes. That's the same topic I'm addressing. But, since this is a blog authored by "Crusaders," I thought that it was most appropriate to discuss the issues raised by Steve within the context of Christian morality.

Wilkinson's statement of what he calls "chauvinism" is, as it stands, ridiculous. That was what my "eating the children of the poor" example was directed towards. He implies that so-called "chauvinists" can justify _anything_ if it benefits their in-group. Since he must know this is false, he shouldn't make such a sweeping statement. Rodak is evidently incapable of seeing that logical function of my example.

My second example was simply intended to answer claims that we are morally obligated to make no distinctions as regards our _positive_ obligations among various groups of people. Wilkinson's argument seems to imply this and, indeed, is an example of _resolutely_ refusing to acknowledge any difference between positive obligation and the duty not to harm the innocent.

If it is unjust to treat citizens differently than non-citizens, why is it not unjust to treat family members differently than non-family members?

Oh, that question: First of all, to my mind, when speaking in the Christian context, what is meant by "justice" is that which will be meted out in the End to those souls who do not practice charity, when given the opportunity to do so, in the here and now. So I speak of the border issue in terms of charity, not in terms of justice. I am more interested in how we can help these people who need our help than I am in how we can avoid inconveniencing ourselves.
I have said that the border needs to be regulated. I have said that the "illegal immigrants"--that is, our neighbors--need our help. The discussion should involve, imo, how both of these things can each be addressed so as to satify both the demands of statute law and the demands of Christian morality. Aren't we capable of that, after all?

Rodak is evidently incapable of seeing that logical function of my example.

Right. They didn't cover Lydian Logic in Special Ed class.

Why don't you address my points, rather than my capacities?

Kant did embrace a cosmopolitan right, but it was restricted in certain ways.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/

This cosmopolitan right is limited to a right to offer to engage in commerce, not a right to demand actual commerce. A citizen of one state may try to establish links with other peoples; no state is allowed to deny foreign citizens a right to travel in its land. Settlement is another matter entirely. Kant is strongly critical of the European colonization of other lands already inhabited by other peoples. Settlement in these cases is allowed only by uncoerced informed contract. Even land that appears empty might be used by shepherds or hunters and cannot be appropriated without their consent.

Rodak is evidently incapable of seeing that logical function of my example.

By the way, William Luse, I consider the above to be insulting. Please whip out your redactor, as promised, and do your thing on it, a.s.a.p. Thank you.

Still no answer. Allow me to reformulate and try again: If it is uncharitable to treat citizens differently than non-citizens, why is it not uncharitable to treat family members differently than non-family members?

Even land that appears empty might be used by shepherds or hunters and cannot be appropriated without their consent.

It would seem to me that the undocumented aliens are not "appropriating" any land or other property. What they are doing is working--which employment can be considered a "contractual agreement" with whomever is hiring them--and, presumably, also renting a place to live in while doing that work.
The actual illegality is largely on the part of those providing the employment, since there would be no incentive for the immigration, if the jobs were available.

It would seem to me that the undocumented aliens are not "appropriating" any land or other property.

Tell that to the ranchers on the border, whose property is under constant depredation from illegals. But I guess Rodak's universal charity excludes them. Trespassing, vandalism and theft are only crimes if you're not poor.

If it is uncharitable to treat citizens differently than non-citizens, why is it not uncharitable to treat family members differently than non-family members?

Once your obligation to not allow your family to become needy of charity themselves, to the best of your ability, it is uncharitable to treat non-family members differently with regard to the basic necessities. I have already said that, several times.
It is. Got it?

Rodak, I answered your weird charge that, by accusing Wilkinson of straw-man tactics (see his statement about how anything is justified that benefits one's own group to a chauvinist) I was myself doing something irrelevant or engaging in straw-man tactics. I don't know why you don't get that. These things have a purpose, a function. Even exaggeration does. Wilkinson is just _wrong_ in his characterization. Of course his opponents don't think _any_ policy is justified by benefiting their group. And in fact, that sort of strawman is typical of Wilkinson's approach in general. He talks about things like taking other people's rights away and such, as though we're advocating _actively harming_ those who wish to immigrate here by limiting their ability to do so. In other words, he apparently does think that limiting immigration is tantamount to doing grave active harm, which perhaps goes some way to explain his sweeping and ridiculous characterization of his opponents' position.

As for you, Rodak, you say that you have an obligation to keep your children from needing to be supported by charity. But do you have a _prior_ obligation, even that minimal one, to them over any parallel obligation to other people's children? If not, then my example of putting all children's names in a hat holds. If so, then you cannot consistently say that we have no greater positive obligations to some people--in virtue of such "accidents" as family relationship, for example--than to others.

But I guess Rodak's universal charity excludes them. Trespassing, vandalism and theft are only crimes if you're not poor.

Trespassing, vandalism, and theft can be addressed as appropriate. Where did I say these people have the right break the law? I said that they had the right to the means of obtaining the basic necessities of life. I asked that we discuss how that might be accomplished.
Again, the whole intent seems to be on how to punish these people who are already in dire straits. I guess I just don't get it.

I apologize in advance if this has already been addressed in the 36 comments that were written before I even saw this post.

But I think WW is correct in the general assertion that "your need creates my obligation." However, this alone does not address (1) the importance of this moral imperative vis a vis other moral imperatives, or (2) the method by which this moral imperative is addressed.

Lydia's point about "let me feed my family first before I feed someone else's" goes to the conflict of this moral imperative with other moral imperatives. Taking care of oneself certainly must take precedent before one can assist with othes.

It's like the oxygen mask on airlines: put on your own mask first before assisting other people. But the priority of "you first" in no way diminishes the duty of putting on someone else's oxygen masks if you can.

Now, in the instant case about is open borders the best way to address Latin American poverty? No!!!!! But that's another issue which goes to methods and hierarchy of moral conflicts.

The actual illegality is largely on the part of those providing the employment, since there would be no incentive for the immigration, if the jobs were available.

I agree, any immigration reform law needs to have enforcement against employers as its major feature.

Where did I say these people have the right break the law?

You implied very clearly that mass illegal immigration has little effect on the property of others.

I said that they had the right to the means of obtaining the basic necessities of life . . . the whole intent seems to be on how to punish these people who are already in dire straits.

These basic necessities are simply unobtainable in Mexico? Please. The country is not, in point of fact, the hellhole of corruption, depravity and privation that Liberals so often imply in their sob-story narratives. In fact it is in the top half in world rankings of medium income, above, for example, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, and Ukraine. It has enormous natural resources, a very mild climate, large proven oil reserves. And its political system is hardly aided by the expedient policy of simply sending its unemployed north. A nice trick, if your a politician reluctant to face hard problems.

Certainly there are many who are indeed in dire straits, but might it also be that many of these immigrants come here to pursue the "gaudy toys and largely vacuous entertainments" you (rightly) deplore?

You implied very clearly that mass illegal immigration has little effect on the property of others.

I did not. I said that the undocumented aliens were "not appropriating", i.e., not taking possession of any land or property. I never said that they weren't crossing it, or trashing it. Petty theft is, of course, "appropriation," but not in the sense that I was using the term in response to Step2's reference to Kant, quite clearly.

Certainly there are many who are indeed in dire straits

It is only those with whom I am concerned. I assume that the gaudy toys and vacuous entertainments are available in abundance in Mexico City and elsewhere in Mexico, so I don't think that's the fundamental incentive for the northward migration.

Taking care of oneself certainly must take precedent before one can assist with othes.

Royale--

Yes. But do you seriously believe that Lydia is in any danger, any danger at all, no matter how remote, of actually facing such a decision? No. That is a total strawman argument.
Nor am I advocating open boders. If you read what I have written, I am advocating controlled borders that allows those in need to work here, while spreading the tax burden for services entailed across the whole society through federal taxation, lifting the burden off localities in the Southwest and elsewhere.
If the people could enter legally, it would also alleviate most of the property-related problems to which Paul refers, since they could enter in vehicles, on the roads, rather than sneaking in through peoples' back yards.

"I am advocating controlled borders that allows those in need to work here, while spreading the tax burden for services entailed across the whole society through federal taxation, lifting the burden off localities in the Southwest and elsewhere."

I generally favour the same, combined with a clampdown on businesses that go out of their way to hire undocumented workers. In particular, I prefer seasonal work visas.

combined with a clampdown on businesses that go out of their way to hire undocumented workers

Yes. I have made that point above, and should have mentioned it here, as well. Thanks for the reminder. That's a very crucial aspect of it. If that were not done, the flow of uncontrolled immigration would surely continue, despite all of the other efforts mentioned.

If so, then you cannot consistently say that we have no greater positive obligations to some people--in virtue of such "accidents" as family relationship, for example--than to others.

Lydia--
In keeping our own children from becoming wards of the state, we are fulfilling our obligation to the state, not to our children. Our children, of course, benefit from this. And we, of course, feel our obligation to our own children much more strongly than we feel our obligation to the children of others. That is human nature. It does not, however, make it right in the eyes of God, imo, unless we are at the point where we are literally as destitute as the "other" and down to our last crust of bread. At that point, we would naturally choose to give that crust to our own child, if it was not enough to share. But as a rich nation, adjacent to a poor nation, we are not in the situation of worrying about being down to our last scraps. In the actual situation, as opposed to the hypothetical that you insist upon, we are in a position to help, and should find a suitable way to do so. We can blog about the philosophical issues while the children are having lunch.

Through 44 comments to Steve's post, we have 23 from Rodak and maybe 10 actually answering Steve's question.

So you think we really don't have any greater obligations to our own children that to other children except "the obligation to not allow your family to become needy of charity themselves." We should all feel a deep and even (using the word as an adjective) Christian guilt because we show more affection for our children than for the neighbors' kids, or because we're happier to see our siblings than the stranger at 7-11. That's just human nature but probably not "right in the eyes of God." Christianity is not for the sentimental. Etc., etc.

Fine. We heard you, man.

May I now ask that you to refrain from a further repetition of these views, especially in Steve's next post, so that the rest of us might carry on our discussion in peace.

Paul--
Where did I say anything about feeling guilt, Christian or otherwise?

Actually, Rodak, I take issue with the idea that everyone, via the wonders of, variously, transoceanic voyages, TV, literacy, the printing press, the internet, is somehow our neighbor. See Tony Esolen's excellent Where Went the Neighborhood? (Touchstone May 2005), wherein he proves quite the contrary: the impetus to universalize Christ's teaching in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, comes all too often at the expense of love of the particular neighbor; something akin to "I love humanity; it's humans I can't stand." Abstract love for all mankind can often even be a cover, a false moral comfort, for neglect of actual neighbors, for whom one's attention could make a real actual difference (But his dog shits in my yard!).

So then, back to that line... i.e., between dividing up every penny equally to everyone in the world and never sharing ever...

Assuming I don't make myself or my family an object of charity, you say "it is uncharitable to treat non-family members differently with regard to the basic necessities". Basic necessities? Ignoring for the moment whether government has a role in assuring the redistribution of all wealth that rises above "basic necessities", just what do basic necessities consist of? Surely this leaves out willing my earthly possessions to my children (assuming that I die after they've established themselves in the world). Saving for my kids' college? Surely that isn't a necessity. How could we justify saving for retirement? Surely retirement is optional. I could just work 'til I can't work no more, and then either die or rely on family. My family of 8 (9 in May) lives in a 2000 ft^2 house. But sure we could live in a much smaller house. Hell, I could be a lot more generous if we'd just stop popping out all these darn kids! I'm sure cleverer minds than mine could go on and on about the things that are not strictly speaking necessities, that everyone is "guilty" of. It's a sin to ever go out to eat; worse, if it's a nice (expensive) restaurant. Seeing a movie? The opera?! Netflix??!! Vacations? Hobbies of ANY kind!!!????!!!!

This is to say nothing of the demand side (the demand, that is, for every spare nickel and spare second of time above "basic necessities"): Might my help for a poor man possibly go to rewarding his wicked habits like sloth, gluttony, drug abuse? It's a possibility. It's practically guaranteed when Big Government puts its hand to wealth redistribution. So then, I'd have to be careful even in my charity. Would you admit that it is possible, for example when such help destroys his sense of manhood or serves to protect him from the natural consequences of habitual bad decisions, that the most charitable thing I could do is not give aid or comfort to a neighbor in need?

So I say this line is very hard to draw, that in fact is doesn't admit of ANY neat answers. And where you've drawn it is simply not plausible. It is natural, and not unbiblical for charity to start at home and proceed outward in inverse proportion to distance (or perhaps even to the square of distance).

Steve Nicoloso--
I've been told to shut up, so I regret being unable to engage your points.

It's pretty obvious to me that we have a heck of a lot more obligation to "our own"--especially our own children, parents, and spouses--than simply to give them the last crust of bread when they are starving and there is only one crust. We have an obligation, to the best of our ability, to give our children our personal and direct time and affection, to guide and oversee their education and upbringing, to make sure they are clean and warm, and a host of other things, that we simply do not have as automatic positive obligations to other people's children.

How does this translate to the question of jobs? Well, your fellow citizens aren't (all) your children, of course. And I'm actually not convinced that anyone has an obligation to give _anyone_ a job, fellow citizen or otherwise. So I'm in a strange position on that one.

Let's try to get at the immigration question a different way: Suppose that the people in government positions in the U.S. can tell that if they simply have open borders (as Wilkinson wants them to do) and treat coming into this country (from anywhere in the world) as some sort of fundamental right, American quality of life will be tangibly lowered in all sorts of areas from economics to crime, from cultural changes for the worse (honor killings, for example, from Egyptian and other ME immigrants) to disease control. But they can (let's say) also tell that many of the people who come here will, at least in the short term (before everything gets pulled down too far in the U.S.) have a great improvement in their lives.

Now, unlike Wilkinson, I lack a utilitarian "evil-o-meter" that tells me that the total number of turps of badness in the world are fewer with open borders than without them, that the people in the U.S. will suffer less bad stuff all added up than the good stuff that comes to the immigrants, all added up. And as I implied in the last parenthesis, there is a real possibility that a true open-borders libertarianism such as WW seems to be advocating would in the long run or even the medium run cause enough of a downturn in America that it would be of less and less value to immigrants as the years went by, as America was pulled down towards the economic level of other countries. So even from a utilitarian point of view, depending on how big of a sweep of history one takes into account, WW may just be flat wrong.

But setting all that aside, let us suppose that Wilkinson's crystal ball is right and that the hardships to Americans are less in his ideal world than the benefits to immigrants. In that case, the question is this: Do American government officials owe it to would-be immigrants from other countries to give them access to U.S. soil so that they can have those benefits, even at those costs to U.S. citizens?

And absent a principle that the government of one country is required morally to ignore the distinction between citizens and non-citizens and to benefit non-citizens at the expense of citizens, I cannot see that this is true. As for such a principle, how, exactly, is it supposed to follow from the "equal moral worth of all human beings" once we admit that "equal moral worth" does not translate into "equal positive obligation from everyone to everyone"--as it obviously does not? In short, it doesn't.

And that's what I think of Wilkinson's position.

Concerning points made earlier regarding what Christ might wish the state to do about this problem, undertaking 'charitable' action at the level of the state cancels charity in its Christian sense, as the decisions the state makes and the resources it takes to carry them out, are backed by violence that could and would be applied to those who refuse to participate (like someone refusing to pay tax because he did not support such a scheme). Charity can never be coerced.

It is up to individuals to carry out the Lord's command to be charitable; we cannot delegate that responsibility to the state.

If certain countries were not plutocracies whose politics are designed for and wallow in corruption and whose main victims are their own people I might give the universalist argument a thought, a quick thought.

If the trans-border victims who provide us with the opportunity to save ourselves by helping them were not claiming a greater allegiance to the country so described then to the country expected to succor them, refusing to participate culturally and linguistically then, and considering questions of legality and citizenship, the thought I give, while fading fast and brief to begin with, would still exist, however ephemeral.

If the idea of universalism didn't resemble, or in fact be identical with, an international welfare state, as opposed to a national welfare state, then my dismissal would be prompt, but not as prompt.

But as I am tired of being hectored by people who find their moral persuasions in mass plans, who insist on judging others only on the basis of those plans irrespective of other considerations of morality and obligation being met by those people unknown to them, that therefore those plans and emotions are per force a moral mess, I would and do realize that I am wasting my time giving such crap a moments thought.

For all of the reasons above and more I could add Will should content himself with a draw down on his bank account and send out CARE packages, many, many Care packages.
Go to it Will.

Steve: No worries, take your time getting back to me. I'll find it.

I had to post my personal reply to you on this thread instead, though, because I can't help myself:

Lydia nails the point exactly on Comment 1, after which follow 50 posts of mostly thread hijacking. Very amusing!