What’s Wrong with the World

David Frum has been arguing against mass immigration in mainstream publications since the early 1990s, so I don't see how the issue has suddenly become "desacralized." If a mainstream conservative like David Frum has been arguing against mass immigration, then it was never sacred in the first place.

Second, regarding the "national question" (I assume you mean Peter Brimelow's, not Lenin's): I think it's too late for future immigration policy to make much difference to it one way or the other. Richard Spencer has been pointing this out, correctly, for a long time. Even in our most wildly optimistic dreams, America will soon be a "majority minority" state. Even if immigration were to stop tomorrow, there's no foreseeable way that the answer to Brimelow's "national question" could be changed.

That doesn't mean that immigration policy is unimportant. We should do what we can to restrict it. But at this point it's not going to affect the "national question" much more than it already has.

Also, when you described yourself as "anti-immigrant," that was a typo, right? I hope you meant "anti-immigration."

If a mainstream conservative like David Frum...

Was that a typo too?

Legal immigration must be targeted as well since the main function of programs like the H1B is to hold down middle class wages. There's no kinder way of putting it. The idea that there is a shortage of skilled professionals in any field except medicine is a myth. Even in the case of medical workers, it's a problem that could be readily fixed by changing domestic education policies instead of resorting to immigration.

Bill Luse,

Ha!

Aaron,

No -- I was being deliberately provocative. Yes, I'm most definitely anti-immigration as it is currently practiced. But as I suggested in the O.P., given the current context of our past immigration policies (basically opening our southern border to Central American peasants for 30+ years) I'm actually not a big fan of the existing immigrant population. Yes, I know I need to practice Christian charity and love to my neighbors -- but they shouldn't have broken the law to come here and many continue to sin while here so I will focus my ire and policy attention on the problems they cause, thank you very much.

Mike T,

Well said -- as Steve Sailer likes to say, "the weasels are winning":

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/weasels-are-winning-software-pay-falls.html

The biggest myth about the H1B visa is that these workers are something resembling the creme de la creme of other countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's a separate visa category for that, the O1 visa. The average H1B is more akin to an average state university graduate in a STEM field than a MIT wunderkind.

Why should the poor immigrants be more loyal than the king and more Catholic than the pope?

Post-nationalism is the reigning ideology of both Democrats and Republicans. It is announced to the world that nations must be subservient to the market and private property. Then why should an immigrant feel guilty about entering in market relations with individual Americans?

...the existing immigrant population...they shouldn't have broken the law to come here and many continue to sin

Wait a minute, you were talking about the existing immigrant population and how you're all anti-immigrant, and now all of a sudden you're switching to illegal immigrants. Are you sure you're thinking carefully about this?

Anyway, to follow your lead and narrow it down now to illegal immigrants: Consider that while all illegal immigrants are breaking the law in some sense, it's pretty hard to blame a lot of them for it. For instance, a two-year-old illegal immigrant seems relatively blameless in my book, even if he does "continue to sin," for instance by not letting his brother play with his toys. And an adult illegal immigrant who immigrated illegally at the age of two also seems relatively blameless to me, though I'm sure there are some who believe he should have turned himself in to the authorities as soon as he reached the age of reason.

Lest anyone miss my point: Yes, I do understand that when people talk about "illegal immigrants" they're not talking about two-year-olds. That is my point.

William Luse, no, referring to David Frum as a mainstream conservative was not a typo. I was talking about his anti-immigration writings from about 1990 until the present. I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that Frum was a mainstream conservative (neocon variety) until maybe 2007.

I do not believe that a man sins by wandering into American territory without permission from the American law.

Even though American law is violated, it is for Americans themselves to police their borders. Are others to blame to exercise their rights to God-given earth?

Thing is, straying across borders is NOT trespassing into a private property.

So if an immigrant strays across the border and refuses to acknowledge American authorities, and enjoys no benefits from the American law, I do not think he sins.

Aaron,

You make a number of good, important points so let me respond in kind:

1) According to the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2010 there were almost 40 million legal and illegal immigrants in the United States. Their best estimate of the number of illegal immigrants is 28%, which would make the number of illegal immigrants in the neighborhood of just over 11 million. I think that both numbers are too high -- as my discussion with Mike T suggested, I think our current large number of legal and illegal immigrants leads to a depressed labor market and low wages for many types of jobs.

2) In addition to the problem of supply and demand, I think the immigrants who come here (both legally and illegally) cause many problems -- as the same Center study cited above puts it:

• Many immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. However, on average even immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years have not come close to closing the gap with natives. • The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives. See Table 21, p. 42, and Figure 5, p. 46. • The share of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years who lack health insurance is twice that of adult natives. See Table 21, p. 42, and Figure 5, p. 46. • The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years using one or more welfare programs is nearly twice that of native-headed households. See Table 22, p. 44, and Figure 5, p. 46. • The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years that are owner occupied is 22 percent lower than that of native households. See Table 22, p. 44, and Figure 5, p. 46.

I would add my particular hobbyhorse, which is out-of-wedlock births -- the Hispanic rate is now over 50%. So much for those mythical Hispanic family values!

3) Yes, the children of illegal immigrants are not guilty of the sins of their parents. However, that doesn't mean this country owes him citizenship just because his parents brought him here illegally or because his life might be tougher in his parents' country of origin. We can't let these immigrant children hold our immigration policies hostage.

4) I think your timeline on Frum is off by a couple of decades. I don't think he became seriously concerned about immigration until the late 2000s. If you can find a piece by him earlier than that (say 2007) I'd be surprised.

I would add my particular hobbyhorse, which is out-of-wedlock births -- the Hispanic rate is now over 50%. So much for those mythical Hispanic family values!

That "family values" argument, in addition to being ridiculous on its face given what we know about the behavior of immigrants from Latin America, was always leveled against conservatives by people who didn't particularly care about family values to begin with. It was a high-falutin' sort of concern trolling by open borderites who have since (mostly) had the good sense to abandon the pretense. The Bush family are just downright incorrigible in their determination to cling to this stupid and offensive line of argument, and what's remarkable is that they are constantly shocked at the backlash from a conservative base that has been sick to death of their shtick for years now.

Aaron,

One more point -- you were right to note that I conflated the legal immigrant population with the more specific problems of the illegal population and right to call me out on this mistake. It does my side no good when we are careless with our facts. Likewise, I should note that like the Center for Immigration Studies, I welcome a limited number of immigrants at this time in our country's history as a more appropriate approach to the "national question" and appreciate the contributions that some immigrants have made over the years to America.

I just strongly identify with Ben Franklin and his intellectual heirs ever since the first wave of Germans started landing on our shores -- I want the numbers of immigrants to be controlled and I want the immigrants coming here to be assimilating rapidly.

Thing is, straying across borders is NOT trespassing into a private property.

No one is talking about straying - one does not stray across the desert and the Rio Grande. One has a very particular motive and that is to live and work in the United States without going through the legal processes. The borders are mostly public property, which can be trespassed. I can't enter a public park anytime I want. They usually close at dusk.

Marissa,

Well said! I wasn't going to bother responding to Bedarz, but I'm glad you did. There seems to be a certain type of religious conservative that seems to think national borders are somehow illegitimate. That's news to me.

You make excellent points, eloquently. Thanks for stopping by.

There seems to be a certain type of religious conservative that seems to think national borders are somehow illegitimate.

Jeff, Bedarz showed on another thread that he thinks loyalty to your own polity is an amorphous thing without any obligation at all - you can give as much and as little as you like. I showed that this reduces to there being no such thing as a polity properly speaking. He doesn't mind people people wandering through borders because he doesn't think borders have ANY MEANING. The word is just empty sound to him. I don't think it worthwhile to pursue the nonsense here, I would just leave it as read that those who hate polities, who hate nations and states, who think borders are silly mind-games, are not going to be contributing much to discerning good immigration from bad.

Lest anyone miss my point: Yes, I do understand that when people talk about "illegal immigrants" they're not talking about two-year-olds. That is my point.

So, Aaron, does this mean that you would be in favor of a policy that sent the PARENTS back to Mexico, and either (a) let the parents take the kids with them; or (b) let the kids become citizens here eventually, when in due time an opening in the quota levels allows them to get in line and get official papers to start the SAME process that all other (legal) immigrants have to accept?

Once we decide to be rational about immigration, solving the issue for kids is not all that hard. Solving it for "broken families" is not that hard. Solving it for employers is not that hard. The hard part is getting people to just accept the rational solutions.

Would there been an America in the first place if the settlers were equally recognizant of moral wrong of transgressing foreign territories?

I do not hold the borders to be illegitimate. Americans have all the right to honor their borders and their laws. But I do not see why others are morally obliged to honor the American self-declared borders.

I grant you the prudence of limiting of immigration by Americans and have no problem of justification. There is nothing wrong in limiting immigration and Americans are justified in all they can to limit it.

But I do not see why a non-American sins if he just crosses the boundary without permission from Americans. What sin is it?

Tony, I agree that the hard part is getting people in power to accept the solutions.

My point wasn't to suggest any particular policy, just to remind people that categories like "illegal immigrants" are more complicated than we often think. I don't want immigration reform held hostage to those who'd be hurt - there will always be innocent people hurt in immigration reform - but I don't want the reformers to ignore those innocent people who would be hurt, either. Just have a good picture of the immigrants as human beings, not as numbers or stereotypes.

Regarding policy, I agree with John Zmirak. Of course any kind of serious immigration reform is just a complete fantasy, but anyway: First, do something to really deal with the problem of ongoing illegal immigration (building a wall, employer sanctions, whatever) and mostly freeze all immigration. Then, afterwards, for the illegal immigrants who are already here, offer them green cards (but never citizenship).

If you disagree with that, fine. Neither this proposal nor your own alternative has even the slightest chance of being realized.

Jeffrey, I didn't start reading David Frum until around 2007 or 2008 when he got interesting, so I don't have references for any of his earlier writings (except for the worst - Iraq war, "Unpatriotic Conservatives"). But I do remember that Sam Francis in VDARE.COM criticized a speech by him that called for immigration reform for the "wrong" reasons. (I thought that Francis was extremely unfair to him; while it's true that Frum is no blood-and-soil nativist himself, the speech was to mainstream Republicans). You could look that up for the date.

Speaking of VDARE.COM, Peter Brimelow and David Frum are personal friends - read the beautiful eulogy Frum wrote for Brimelow's late wife - and Brimelow has praised Frum for being on the right side of immigration. Sometime around 2008, I think, Frum called for a moratorium on immigration. I think the only other mainstream pundit who's done that is Pat Buchanan.

Frum himself has written that he became critical of immigration while working at the Wall Street Journal, of all places, around 1990. But I'm not motivated to search through his old writings from the 1990s.

*I meant, two comments above, green cards for illegal immigrants who are here more than a certain amount of time, not for those who came over just yesterday.

OK, Jeffrey, I didn't search for old David Frum articles on immigration but I did find this from Peter Brimelow at VDARE.COM (my italics):

But I`ve been watching Frum for many years on this issue—John O`Sullivan and I maneuvered him into publishing his reservations about immigration in the pre-purge National Review back in 1996—and my impression is he`s been distinctly more outspoken since his break with Conservatism Inc.

This won`t do Frum any good at all on the Left. And it cannot be explained by opportunism.

My point wasn't to suggest any particular policy, just to remind people that categories like "illegal immigrants" are more complicated than we often think. I don't want immigration reform held hostage to those who'd be hurt - there will always be innocent people hurt in immigration reform

So maybe the "right" solution would be a set of rules that are rational about it - like a real wall and a moratorium for several years - along with the freedom on the part of INS people to be merciful on a person-by-person level of choices? I wouldn't mind that as long as the rule is enforced much more than 50% of the time, say more like 90% of the time, as I am in favor of officials having the authority to make exceptions. Putting that responsibility and power in the hands of low level officials to decide FULL enforcement vs partial or non-enforcement is contrary to how Congress (and high level executives like Department Secretaries) like to run things, though.

I do not hold the borders to be illegitimate. Americans have all the right to honor their borders and their laws. But I do not see why others are morally obliged to honor the American self-declared borders.

So if a Mexican wanders across the Rio Grande and continues to follow Mexican laws (and thus breaks some American ones) because he care nothing for American borders, that's OK? That's Americans following honoring their own laws, and Mexicans honoring their own laws, right?

Or, to put it correctly, that's pure nonsense. If borders are only legitimate to those interior to them (and only to those who choose to feel loyal to the polity that makes such border rules), then THEY AREN'T BORDERS in any serious sense. Just as the polity itself (under such an hypothesis) isn't a real state in any serious sense. If a polity doesn't have the authority to demand compliance to its laws by those who live in its jurisdiction, it isn't a polity. If a state doesn't have the authority to demand recognition and compliance with its borders by those outside of its jurisdiction, then it fails to be a state just to that extent.

Aaron,

Thanks for that research on Frum -- it is both surprising that he's friends with Brimelow and that he would become skeptical of the benefits of immigration while working at the pro-immigration WSJ. Wonders never cease.

Tony,
Mexicans have prudential reasons to respect American borders. I am only speaking of moral reasons. Are other polities morally obliged to honor (self-defined) American integrity?

I wonder if the great heroes of the West, say Pizzaro or Clark and Gable or Livingstone or the great British spies and explorers that took part in the Great Game, would care about this particular moral obligation.

I wonder too when the Holy Family moved to Egypt, did they worry about the moral aspects of clandestine and unofficial movement.

When they went to Bethlehem for a census, were inordinately awed by the moral stature of Roman census law?

The moral obligation to observe duly constituted law is only ambiguous in Christian doctrine off at the end, when an iniquitous government has duly constituted wicked law. Where laws are sound and reasonable, there is not even a hint of the Christian endorsement of idle lawlessness in pursuit of interest. The idea that Christian ethics offers no clear counsel on the proposition: "Shall I, desiring greater material wealth, leave Mexico and, with no thought for American law, take up illegal residence in Texas?" really can't hold up to scrutiny. Peaceable obedience to reasonable law cannot be dismissed as mere prudence. It includes a moral dimension.

M

exicans have prudential reasons to respect American borders. I am only speaking of moral reasons. Are other polities morally obliged to honor (self-defined) American integrity?

Of course they are. You know what they normally call a mass exodus from one country into another against the second country's express permission?

An invasion.

Obviously there are moral obligations associated with established law.

Well, that formatting certainly got weird.

Mexicans have prudential reasons to respect American borders. I am only speaking of moral reasons.

So was I. As anyone with 2 neurons to rub together could have seen.

I wonder if the great heroes of the West, say Pizzaro or Clark and Gable or Livingstone or the great British spies and explorers that took part in the Great Game, would care about this particular moral obligation.

Heroes? PIZARRO?! Are you out of...well, we already discussed that.

The varying extent to which the various men you mention did or did not observe the moral constraints implied by national boundaries doesn't really speak to the reality of those moral constraints. Apparently you prefer to say that they were not actually subject to any moral constraints therein simply because they chose not to accredit the victims of their attention as bearing any political obligation for them (including those attached to rules about boundaries). But such a preference by no means constitutes an argument that the obligations did not exist, it is merely a fiat of pure will. Which, obviously, is exactly consistent your overall tenor: reasons? what reasons? I don't need no stinkin' reasons!

What you hold to be the "legitimacy" of borders amounts to smoke and mirrors. It means nothing of an obligation TO ME unless I decide that I want it to be an obligation to me. Then and only then does it have legitimacy for me. Well, I got news for you, that's what other people would say is "not a legitimate border". You got confused on the right words to use to describe what you are talking about.

But of course, you are probably a Humpty-Dumpty-ist about words, too.

Two or three responses in this thread to Bedarz's comments seem to me partly to miss his point. When the United States routinely mocks her own immigration law, when she usually, typically, normally sets it at naught, then how does an illegal immigrant sin by disregarding it? Indeed, how is any immigrant to make sense of U.S. immigration law?

I believe that halting all U.S. immigration, legal and illegal, would be a pretty good idea. However, I can hardly blame the immigrant for breaking a law we ourselves so conspicuously refuse to enforce.

If Caesar had long made a habit of mocking his own census law in the way we Americans mock our own immigration law, then maybe Joseph could have been excused for not showing up.

Howard,

You raise an interesting question (one that we've probably tackled here previously, I just don't have the time to Google the old posts right now): to what extent must individuals obey natural, moral laws when civil authorities refuse to enforce those laws? In this context, we first must ask are national borders part of the natural law? Then we can come to your question -- which probably finds a better application today in states that legalize recreational pot use. If the state says one can legally smoke pot, can you without violating a more fundamental natural law against such use?

Anyway, before I go too far afield of this post, I think it is worth noting that most illegal immigrant are perfectly aware that what they do is illegal -- that's why they pay smugglers, or other unsavory characters for fake identity papers, etc. They know what they do is wrong -- they just hope they can get away with it (because, as you suggest, so many others are doing the same).

One of the things I, personally, have always had (ethical) trouble with, in the way of Howard J. Harrison's point, is the confiscation of duly-earned property from illegal immigrants; duly-earned, as it were, in violation of laws *we ourselves fail to enforce.* I would get rid of them all (illegals), but would not relieve them of their acquired property in the process.

Legal immigration is another issue, but I agree that it should be severely curtailed. And the quicker the better! ...

However, I can hardly blame the immigrant for breaking a law we ourselves so conspicuously refuse to enforce.

There's failure to enforce, and refusal to enforce. And a big difference. In 2011, President Obama came to a decision to REFUSE to treat Article 3 of DOMA as constitutional. In effect he was telling the Justice Dept. not to enforce it against anyone who claimed they didn't have to obey that Article 3.

There has been no such formal policy to refuse to treat immigration law as valid law. There has been, as far as I am aware, continuous treatment by the US justice system to treat immigration law as basically valid. A few years ago I was on jury selection for a trial to try a woman accused of immigration law violations.

Compare to tax law. in every year, of the 120 million personal income tax returns, probably 30% harbor some kind of lie: either exaggerating charitable deduction amounts, or pretending gambling winnings didn't include the $40 you won at poker that good night, or whatever. Or the non-returns of girls who had more than $400 of babysitting money and never reported a dime (and the boys who had equivalent lawn money). Of the returns submitted, something like 2% are audited. By far the vast majority of tax lies are uncaught and unpunished. But nobody thinks "we don't enforce the tax law". Because we DO spend time, money, and effort to enforce the tax law. The effort expended keeps most of the cheating down to a level that is bearable by the system - petty ante stuff that won't make or break anyone. The big stuff has more attention focused on it.

Similar things can be said about immigration law. It is one thing to say that the system is lackadaisical about catching individual illegal immigrants. It is quite another to say that there is a formal executive policy to treat the law as if it were not valid law. We do go after major violators including businesses who make a point of hiring illegals. And so on. The fact that our efforts are anemic, and poorly advised / poorly coordinated to actually stem the tide, and probably damaged by corruption at certain points, is not sufficient to establish that the law is unenforced. (Indeed, corruption of law enforcement officials would be evidence that the law IS being enforced, for dealing with the moral point of whether a law is no longer binding because not enforced: an unenforced law needs no corruption to get around it.)

If illegals are coming here under the mistaken moral theory that they are not bound to obey our immigration law, their plight deserves nothing but a shrug of the shoulders when they are caught and punished or sent away. What is far, FAR more heinous is religious officials, like Archbishop Gomez, telling them they can disregard our immigration law as if it carried no moral obligation on them. To me that almost smacks of sedition, as well as obvious moral incoherency.

Jeff, one of our earlier posts is here.

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2013/11/illegal_immigration_is_not_a_c.html

Terry, while I agree in theory that an illegal immigrant can legitimately own things, I also think it gets dicey in the extreme with property that is affixed in location, like a home or a business building. They usually had to do illegal things to get the income with which they bought the property. If that income was never subject to income and payroll taxes, their purchase of the property put other potential buyers at a disadvantage.

If they own stock in large corporations, fine, let them keep that. IF they own real estate and other property that cannot be carried across a border, force them to sell it. And in either case force them to pay (a) the taxes that normally would have accrued to their income, and (b) fines for failing to obey the laws. If something is left over, they can keep it when they get sent home.

If they came here to begin with with significant property, that's a different story. Owning such property isn't due to their crimes. They should still have to pay fines for not obeying laws (fines which go some small distance to paying for enforcement efforts), they should not in principle be relieved of such property just because we are sending them out of here.

It is never a great idea to mix theology with politics. Clearly, Americans are justified in keeping out trespassers, even shooting them.
What more does one hope to achieve by claiming that the trespassers commit sin by crossing national borders?

A non-sectarian person is not bound by the dogma of a particular sect, but I note that the present Pope has never called trespassers sinners by virtue of trespassing.

National borders are not sacred. Perhaps the conqueror of Peru is politically incorrect now but I wonder if any non-Left account of history holds the great conquerors of the past as sinners on account of trespassing of borders.

Per Locke "Princes exist in a state of nature". which means that they respect borders only for prudential reasons. America was won on this basis. It is very convenient to claim sanctity of borders when it
are American borders that are imperiled now.

By your logic if a country is invaded trying to fight them off would be immoral.

It is a confusion of thought to speak of legitimate and illegitimate borders. Borders are just borders, as assertion of will of a particular nation or people, and prudential concurrence or defiance by other nations or peoples.

It is a confusion of thought to speak of legitimate and illegitimate borders. Borders are just borders, as assertion of will of a particular nation or people, and prudential concurrence or defiance by other nations or peoples.

Okay. A country decides to march large numbers of people into another country because they decide they want to have their people outnumber the people currently living there. Can you fight back with force, or not?

The question is, essentially, if you are invaded, is it legitimate to fight back? Or are you supposed to just sit back and let them come?

Your response does not address this fundamental issue.

Per Locke "Princes exist in a state of nature".

Since we reject both Locke and his highly hypothetical "state of nature" your comment will hold little weight here.

A non-sectarian person is not bound by the dogma of a particular sect, but I note that the present Pope has never called trespassers sinners by virtue of trespassing.

You might have noticed that the current pope is comfortable saying contradictory things, because (as he himself said), he isn't careful. The previous pope said that a people has a right to maintain their culture, and other popes have explicitly upheld the right of countries to enforce their borders. And said that violating borders is wrong. And the reason is that even "non-sectarian" person is bound to obey the natural law, and to obey the POSITIVE law of duly formed legitimate governments. That's not a "sectarian" obligation.

It is a confusion of thought to speak of legitimate and illegitimate borders. Borders are just borders, as assertion of will of a particular nation or people, and prudential concurrence or defiance by other nations or peoples.

It is a deformation of language to pretend that the people who don't belong to a polity have no obligation to observe the rules of that polity even when in contact with the people and territory of that polity. There's your confusion of thought. Borders are not "just" an assertion. They are positive law, which is morally binding on those who decide to be present to the territory of the polity. If you don't want to be morally bound to observe the laws of America, STAY AWAY FROM AMERICA. That's a simple way not to be morally obliged to obey its laws.

Perhaps the conqueror of Peru is politically incorrect now but I wonder if any non-Left account of history holds the great conquerors of the past as sinners on account of trespassing of borders.

You mean right-ward historians like Warren Carroll? Yes, they do. See, being a conqueror doesn't relieve you of being moral to those around you.

other popes have explicitly upheld the right of countries to enforce their borders.
And this is what I wrote above:
Clearly, Americans are justified in keeping out trespassers, even shooting them.

I don't think there is any contradiction here.

Three positions that exist on the question of free movement of people.

1) Libertarian eg. Prof Caplan at GMU who blogs at EconLog
It is morally wrong for Govts to thwart free movement of people in any way.

2) Position taken in OP:
Free movement of people is wrong and Govts are right to thwart it,

3) My position:
Free movement of individuals is not wrong and Govts are also not wrong to thwart it.

I submit that (3) is not incoherent and in fact, is held by most people in the world. Peter Hitchens in his blog at Daily Mail yesterday on boat people in Mediterranean sea:

Nobody can blame the migrants, whose bravery is admirable and whose plight in their coffin ships is pitiable, for seeking a better life. But can this development possibly benefit our already-troubled continent?

MarcAnthony,
The question is, essentially, if you are invaded, is it legitimate to fight back? Or are you supposed to just sit back and let them come?

I have answered this question more than once. To quote from above:
Clearly, Americans are justified in keeping out trespassers, even shooting them.

Clearly, Americans are justified in keeping out trespassers, even shooting them.

Okay. So what, exactly, are you contesting?

MarcAnthony,
Pls see the post at 10.46PM. Essentially, I maintain that people that do not follow American procedures to cross American borders do not commit wrong in some absolute sense.
However, I have not maintained that it is alright for people to misrepresent themselves, either in America or anywhere else.

If one claims benefit from a Govt then one should respect procedures of that Govt. The question of a person that maintains a policy of total non-recognition of a Govt is, I suppose, hypothetical in this era of universal totalitarian Govts.

I don't think there is any contradiction here.

You don't think there is any contradiction because you didn't finish the quote:

The previous pope said that a people has a right to maintain their culture, and other popes have explicitly upheld the right of countries to enforce their borders. And said that violating borders is wrong.

Hey, if you disagree with the thesis, that's one thing. But at least REPRESENT correctly what you are disagreeing with.

You apparently think that a country has all the authority it needs to use force to achieve its goals for whatever purpose - conquest, repel immigrants, whatever - merely because it wants to. That's what force is for. You see no moral limitations on that - that to mix "moral" into the equation is a category mistake. But such a position has a logical consequence, that a polity is not real being but only a nominal being, one of words alone, and thus has no moral weight. This actually implies that, so far from there being "legitimate" borders, there isn't even legitimate law, there is only rules (words) that someone declares that I either fear enough to obey or don't fear enough to obey.

Bedarz,

For what it's worth, please see the previous post Tony linked to above (Feb. 17, 3:18 PM). The comment deals with the issue of whether or not borders should be considered part of the natural law at some length (and does a nice job -- it is funny to go back and read me giving Tony praise back then -- I knew there was a reason I liked the man!)

I think Tony's latest comment also does a nice job of summarizing the problem with your position (3) -- there is an inherent tension in saying that "free movement of individuals is not wrong" (I'm assuming you mean morally wrong) and yet individual governments around the world are right to stop this movement. The natural follow-up question is why? If the freedom is morally good, why should governments be in the immoral business of stopping all this moral free movement? It doesn't make sense.

FWIW, the Catholic Church actually has an officially more nuanced position on the free movement of people -- it is only allowed when those people must move to protect their health and life (e.g. refugees from war, some sort of natural disaster, a terrible plague, etc.) BUT, that doesn't mean they have carte blanche to move anywhere in the world. Their own government should have first responsibility in trying to help them (e.g. to recover from a natural disaster, it only might be necessary to move to a different region of the country). Only when the government can't help (e.g. modern-day Syria or Iraq) are people morally justified to flee to another country to seek refuge.

Only when the government can't help (e.g. modern-day Syria or Iraq) are people morally justified to flee to another country to seek refuge.

Very true, Jeff. And a follow-up to that: The act of seeking refuge, is INHERENTLY one of seeking a privilege, a boon, a favor. It is not and can never be that of a _right_. While it is right for the country of which you are seeking refuge to HEAR your plea, you as the refugee have no right that they GRANT your plea. If they do it is pure gift.

This is the difference between an obligation in justice, and an obligation in mercy. Good Christians have many obligations that are those of mercy, which goes beyond justice. That I have an obligation to succor the hungry or homeless when I can is an obligation on me that lands on me not through their right to my help, but through my owing that help to God. That is, the Person by whom my "ought" exists is God, not the hungry person: it is due to God's love of me, and my love of God, that I love my neighbor so as to help him. I owe it to God to respond with love to this man here, I do not owe it to this man. That is not a RIGHT on the part of my needy neighbor: he has no claim in justice on my merciful help, his request is a call for mercy.

And a good citizen cannot willy-nilly go around giving "help" to illegal immigrants, particularly by helping them escape the notice of the law, because the law regards the common good for all the citizens not just you and your immediate neighbors. Such aid would be damaging to the common good itself, so you would be doing a lesser good and causing a greater harm. This is not true charity or true virtue, it is (at best) imprudent, and all true virtue must be prudent (for all the virtues run together). It is, thus, a false charity - like that of stealing from the collection plate to help a poor person.

So, in the circumstance that a person simply must flee his country, that he must do so does not create an obligation in justice on any SPECIFIC new country to take him in. It may be that his true role is to try 3, or 5, or 20 times to find a country before he finds the one God wants him to be in. That one specific country is the recipient of his request only means that they must hear his plea, not that they must say yes - it may be that some other country is the right new home for him. For him just to assume the first country he wants to settle in must receive him is no better than a child in a toy store deciding that the fact that HE WANTS that spiffy toy is all that matters to his getting it - and taking it.

Another aspect of uncontrolled immigration is something that hinges on what Jeb Bush glibly ignores: if our country "needs" good workers, entrepreneurs, and smart university graduate students from other countries, that means we are doing a brain drain on other countries. While I am sure that WE don't mind that, how do you think other countries would feel about their best and brightest always leaving for brighter shores? How is it that a just way to proceed in international affairs? If justice comes into immigration at all, it comes in on BOTH SIDES of the coin, not just one. And the only way justice can be served in immigration is by having CONTROLLED immigration. Which means rules, and laws, and enforcement, and repatriation of those who ignore the rules.

Tony,
Not being a philosopher, I am unable to appreciate the sense in which a polity may or may not be a "real being". I incline towards a pragmatic view of things, in general and it certainly seems that you are asking for a great deal more than our duty to obey the just laws of the land Apparently, we should feel loyalty too.

it is their duty to assimilate to their host country's culture in all the important ways

Including religion? So the 19th century Catholic and Jewish immigrants were morally obliged to convert to Protestantism?
In fact, the old world was and still is, full of minorities and immigrant communities that kept their separate culture and most certainly did not assimilate.

The moral claim "borders should not be violated"-- is it a primitive moral law akin to "innocents should not be killed" or is it a more derivable type?

When one makes moral claims i.e. this particular border, of a private property or a national territory is inviolable, then others may ask for justification. How does the inviolability of national border arise.

BTW, it has been claimed that "Property exists when an owner exercises fungible authority over subjects with respect to one or more objects.". But the answer to the natural query "how come a person gets to exercise this authority" i.e., how is this relation generated in the first place. The answer is not forthcoming.

Similarly, moral status and moral obligations related to "borders" are too often reiterated but the natural query "how are these moral obligations generated" i.e. how come a particular polity gets to exercise sovereignty and exercise universal moral obligation, this answer is not forthcoming.

Let me ask whether Columbus or Pilgrims when they landed in the New World, did they fulfill their moral obligations vis-a-vis inviolable borders of polities they came into contact with?
Or somehow the native polities were not sufficiently polity so that their borders or territorial claims could be disregarded?

Let me ask whether Columbus or Pilgrims when they landed in the New World, did they fulfill their moral obligations vis-a-vis inviolable borders of polities they came into contact with? Or somehow the native polities were not sufficiently polity so that their borders or territorial claims could be disregarded?

The notion of "polity" was set forth by the Greeks, who distinguished what they had from the "barbarians" precisely by this body politic. The barbarians generally went by clan or tribe arrangement, except when they were an empire of subjugated clans by a reigning tribe, as they considered Darius and Xerxes empires.

The Indians had...tribes. And the Aztecs had an empire of subjugated tribes. The conclusion would be NO, they did not have a sufficiency of polity to be considered a polity.

But that STILL would not be, of itself, sufficient reason to invade their land if they had a settled tribal land. Interestingly, I never claimed that what Columbus and the Pilgrims did was moral. In fact, some years ago I suggested that SOME of the European methods were out and out immoral. (They didn't all do the same things - negotiating a price over Manhattan was different from Pizarro's technique.) If some people did something morally wrong years ago, that doesn't invalidate the truth now.

it certainly seems that you are asking for a great deal more than our duty to obey the just laws of the land

It seems rather that you are rejecting that anybody has any duty to obey even the just laws of the land unless they decide they WANT to - which makes it not a duty. Which makes them not laws but suggestions. Which makes "law" to be nothing of the sort, which undermines the very possibility of law, and thus of "polity". For a polity, if it is ANYTHING, harbors the authority to specify laws as binding obligations.

What is precisely the matter with clan or tribal lands that they lack the moral status of lands that "polities" occupy?
Does the Catholic dogma make reference to this distinction?

The Greeks may have considered non-Greek lands as free for taking. As all nations do, this being my point. But why the parochial Greek distinction be universally morally binding?

"If some people did something morally wrong years ago, that doesn't invalidate the truth now."

The point is, the Pilgrims or Columbus did morally wrong then their titles are shaky and consequently the American titles to the lands deriving from Pilgrims or Columbus are shaky.

In my view of course, there is no problem at all, territorial occupations being always extra-moral. But it would present problem to your view since you must show that American title to ALL American territories is valid.

In my view of course, there is no problem at all, territorial occupations being always extra-moral.

You are confusing my bringing in "polity" into the discussion with the rightness of territorial integrity. They do not (and don't need to) run together. A tribe that isn't a polity but has lived on a piece of land for 200 year has a moral right to that piece of land - they don't need to be a polity to have that moral claim. The only reason I mentioned polities in THIS regard is that in today's world most of the valid territorial claims are by polities, not by tribes. (Though Indian tribes have valid claims, at this point their claims are sub-claims to the polity's claims.)

Your notion that territorial occupation is "extra-moral" flies directly in the face of humans being rational and social in nature. Whether organized by tribes or polities, a fixed society which inhabits a place and has done so for many generations has the moral right to remain so (absent additional factors): it has a relationship to others around them, which demands recognition. That's what social means, for beings with intelligence. The validity of their claim to their land is part and parcel with the reality of their being human alongside the others near them who might also want the land. Your simply ignoring this social dimension is, morally speaking, no better than the amorality of Machiavelli, or the typical barbarism of barbaric tribes whose word for themselves is "People" and word for others is equivalent to "animal". Claims of territory can be universally extra-moral only if outsiders are not human.

What is precisely the matter with clan or tribal lands that they lack the moral status of lands that "polities" occupy? Does the Catholic dogma make reference to this distinction?

You could look to the Greeks and what they said about the matter of what distinguishes "tribe" from "polity". Since the Greeks of 600 BC to 300 BC didn't have the advantage of Catholic dogma, I think we can definitely settle that it doesn't depend on Catholic dogma.

They came to distinguish themselves from clans and tribes by a couple of features. The core notion is that tribal community structures revolve explicitly around the authority of parents over their descendants, and maintain ordered (hierarchical) relationships by reference to an ancestor. The Greek polis had left behind the explicit social ordering of familial relationships for regularizing social order in favor of NON-familial ordering principles. While some were kingdoms and others were democracies (and other forms), they were no longer organized by clan structure, they did not depend on the hierarchy of clans for social ordering with respect to authority. A polity doesn't organize its lines of authority by lines of clans - particularly at the top.

In the Greeks and Romans, this generally amounted to rule of law rather than rule of paterfamilias. A polis, a civitas, a "state" is different from a clan or a tribe because a person's relationship to the larger social order (say, whether he has authority or not) is not primarily based on his familial relationships. A person could BECOME the ruler of many families and do so, for example, without any ceremonial "adoption" into their families or vice versa.

But why the parochial Greek distinction be universally morally binding?

It isn't "morally binding" because it is Greek. I look to the Greeks to explain their own word, since they invented the word they ought to know what it means.

If the idea is "morally binding" in any sense it isn't because the Greeks invented the word for it, it is because they recognized a distinctive truth about human social nature, and being true of humans it bears on all human social matters. Either "political entity" is a concept recognizing a REALITY of human nature, or it is just a name for "what people pretend when they want to get others to go along with them" or something equally nominal.

The point is, the Pilgrims or Columbus did morally wrong then their titles are shaky and consequently the American titles to the lands deriving from Pilgrims or Columbus are shaky.

Wrong verb tense. The correct verb would have been "were", as in "were shaky". I agree - at least for some of the claims. After many generations of stability, though, that ceases to be the case, and the current titles to the lands are not shaky.

rule of law rather than rule of paterfamilias.

equivocates on rule. It is well-known that all tribal societies are ruled by Custom , the immemorial custom of the East, as Kipling calls it.

The rule of headman, be it the father-figure or strongman, is normally custom-bound, no more and no less than the customs that govern the rule in a modern country like USA.

And, if indeed, a polity is a distinctive thing found in Greeks, Romans and Americans, then how do you maintain at the same time that:

recognized a distinctive truth about human social nature, and being true of humans it bears on all human social matters. Either "political entity" is a concept recognizing a REALITY of human nature,

Do you mean that the polity or the "political entity" is a reality of human nature or is a atypical custom found in a few, rare societies?

In any case, we agree that the question of polity is irrelevant to the point under discussion, and may be left.

I am interested in this assertion:
The correct verb would have been "were", as in "were shaky". I agree - at least for some of the claims. After many generations of stability, though, that ceases to be the case, and the current titles to the lands are not shaky.

So, the moral obligations are generated by mere passage of time? The tribe A invaded the lands of Tribe B, and after 200 years or 20 years (who can say), now tribe A is the rightful possessor of those lands, and it is absolutely immoral of any person in the world to step an inch over its self-claimed borders, unless the Govt of Tribe A permits him?

What is the moral reasoning behind these claims?. Suppose Tribe A says that only 50 years are sufficient to legitimize its conquest and Tribe C says 500 years are more appropriate, who shall adjudicate between them and on what basis?

1) Tolkien's take on this question can be guessed by the remark
But it is not your Shire that an elf makes to Frodo in the The Fellowship of the Rings. "There were others before you and there would be others when hobbits will be no more."

This is also clear that there is free entry to all peaceable travellers into Shire.

2) The Jews maintain their claim on the Land of Israel partly in virtue of their rule that ended 20 centuries ago.
The Arabs maintain their claim on the same piece of land in virtue of their settlement since last 13 centuries.

Is there any way to adjudicate between these claims based upon your moral principles?
I note that this is only one of the endless series of problems that any moral theory would need to solve.

Assuming Locke (even though he is not an authority at W4), moral claims to private property are generated by an individual mixing his labor with an unowned thing. For land, it is held that one must improve it. But the questions raise themselves, how much labor, what kinds of things, what precisely consists in improvement of land and who defines and settles these matters.

Now, the consensus of a tribe may be necessary to settle these questions, since there does not seem to be an absolute answer from the moral theory.But, then a person from Tribe B may object, that the improvement that a person from Tribe A had done on a piece of unowned land does not count by his tribal consensus and thus he is free to take the piece of land from the tribe A person.

So, the private ownership of landed property is dependent upon the tribe that is dominant in the land. So, you can not derive the justification for tribal title for a particular land (such as American title to Texas, for instance) from extrapolating the moral argument for private ownership.

Now, you may be basing the yet unstated argument for possession of lands by a polity or a tribe on some other grounds, in which case I would be interested in learning it.

So, the moral obligations are generated by mere passage of time?

I am not claiming that the moral claim to land is generated by the mere passage of time. I made that point at least implicitly in the past, such as here . The mere passage of time, without any other factors at all, such as (a) the involvement of other parties, (b) the tacit acquiescence of at least some of the original owners, and a thousand other issues, would not necessarily do it. It so happens that along with the passage of time you always get more factors involved, because land and property have qualities that people get involved with. People are not static.

If we were gods, with infinite power, maybe we would have the power to correct an injustice in land assignment 500 or 2000 years ago. But we aren't, and we can't. Some things we are unable to correct, because simply trying to return to the status quo ante can't be done given that new people are involved (including people who were not party to the injustice), and often new customs, new ways of social improvement, etc. And since we cannot simply return to the status quo ante, we cannot simply "give back" the land to a person who died 500 years ago. In some cases, even though we cannot achieve the status quo ante, we can achieve a different sort-of-just resolution, something that satisfies justice by another route, or at least approaches justice. This will, often enough, leave the CURRENT holder of the property in place and mollify the other party in some other fashion (i.e. with some other good), because leaving the current holder in place also conduces to other social goods besides justice.

Suppose Tribe A says that only 50 years are sufficient to legitimize its conquest and Tribe C says 500 years are more appropriate, who shall adjudicate between them and on what basis?

Now, the consensus of a tribe may be necessary to settle these questions, since there does not seem to be an absolute answer from the moral theory.

Have you never heard that some things are a matter of degree? Take a moment and look up the concept of sorites. There are moral matters that are fundamentally subject to gray areas and degrees. Take, for example, eating ice cream for dessert tonight for you: 1 ounce is not too much, but 30 ounces is. 4 ounces might be "close" to just enough, or maybe 5 ounces, or maybe 5.2. And it might be that ANY amount between 4 and 5 is a good amount, ANY amount over 10 is not good, and ANY amount between 5 and 10 is GRAY, neither definitively right nor definitively wrong.

In discussing territorial ownership, there are many more factors than how long. Because of that, it will rarely (if ever) come down PRIMARILY to "but we have been on the land for 100 years and by YOUR rules, 100 years is enough to establish the matter." That's not how it works when you look at all the factors involved. The fact that it takes real wisdom and prudence to sort through the issues doesn't mean there is no moral point of view on the matter, it only means that moral work is sometimes difficult. Many other moral puzzles are very difficult also, such as "are things bad enough that I should get a divorce?" That's very difficult to solve much of the time.

So, the private ownership of landed property is dependent upon the tribe that is dominant in the land. So, you can not derive the justification for tribal title for a particular land (such as American title to Texas, for instance) from extrapolating the moral argument for private ownership.

Attestation and social recognition of private ownership of property (whether land or some other kind of property) takes a society, and thus social rules. The ownership itself doesn't arise solely and completely as a result of the social recognition granted. But that's (mostly) a side point. You are right this far: normally, private ownership of land doesn't change even if the political order changes: if Texas was a Spanish sub-province, and then a province of independent Mexico, and then an independent sovereign country, and then a state of the US, a private person who held a plot of land in San Antonio the whole time wouldn't be dislodged from ownership just because the polity making the laws changed. ALL of the said polities would have been morally obliged to continue to recognize in general the ownership of property that was morally valid under the prior polity.

Acquiring a new territory for an existing state is a quite different matter from an existing territory making a new government for its own self. And, although the basis will look somewhat different in detail from that of a private individual acquiring new property of his own, both answer to moral principles grounded in human nature. For the private individual, it is morally fine to acquire a new property that nobody else has any desire for or claim to (say, off in the frontier where there is nobody to claim it) by seizing it and making something with it, or by buying / trading for it with someone who already has a good claim to it. For a state, if they are adjacent to a frontier that no other state claims, they can lay claim to it in something approaching the same way, though it is more inchoate and less definitive because (usually) the claim on a whole territory will come about through claims of a smaller nature by individuals and families associated with the state. See above comment about matters of degree and gray areas.

As for conquest and when does the conquest become a "done deal, we aren't morally obliged to reverse it", that's a different matter. As suggested, though, you can look to questions like when would it cause more and worse injustices to new persons to try to reverse than it would to leave things alone?

The fact that different tribes, or different states, might disagree with the actual concrete deciding criteria is not the least an argument that there is no moral principle involved. Let's take a simple example: you have a village where nobody mentions "official rules" about where you can build a house, but everyone observes certain rules and customs about it. One of them is "don't put up a house in the middle of where people have made a trail through the woods." Ok, so you start to put up a house where YOU think is safe, and along comes someone else who says "what are you doing - there's a trail there." You say, "no, a few people have passed this way, but it is still some ways short of being a TRAIL, it is just a momentary ad-hoc path." There is no definitive determination of when a path becomes a trail, it is one of those things that accrues by building up one layer of use after another. Both parties, though, agree completely on the moral obligation to observe the requirement "don't put up a house in the middle of a trail". The fact that deciding in the concrete where the obligation lands in this case is difficult doesn't eradicate the reality of the moral obligation as a general standard. You can't say "there is no such rule because some people disagree about how to apply it in some cases." There are lots and lots and scads of times when the rule is a perfectly good, applicable, and helpful rule that ought to be followed, even if there are other times when it is hard to apply.

I grant you all the gray but it is a wonder that a sharp black-and-white emerges at the end.

I went through the link you provided. Some comments.
1) you can look to questions like when would it cause more and worse injustices to new persons to try to reverse than it would to leave things alone
This requires a calculation, which is not humanly possible and in fact nobody attempts.
On the other hand,court cases have run for hundreds of years (perhaps not in USA). So it is not the passage of time and various ramifications etc etc.There is something else. And that "else"
is Conquest erases all previous property claims.. Pretty common experience of mankind. William the Conqueror did distribute Saxon estates to his Normals and similarly did the kings of England towards Indian lands.

I have a simple model for private property. It is just the obverse side of political authority. While political authority is the claim a community makes upon individuals, private property is the claim individual makes upon the community. If the community gets conquered, all the claims upon it vanish. As an American, not historically subjected to conquest, you may find it hard to appreciate, but it is the normal and universal experience of mankind. Your idea that
ALL of the said polities would have been morally obliged to continue to recognize in general the ownership of property that was morally valid under the prior polity.
may hold true for movable property at most.

2) it was any regulation of the ownership of the actual bulbs that he (Edison) created.
Suppose the bulbs pollute, maybe critically, even then the community has no right to regulate?

3)The buffalo example: A herd of buffalo 50 miles away does a man's family no good. If a man leaves behind the tribe and travels the 50 miles to get a buffalo, and then hauls it home, it is only his energy that makes the buffalo into a good that is real, present, and available to his family and tribe.
What you miss is that it is security that the tribe has provided that has enabled this man to travel 50 miles. Likewise, conquest of the West preceded any settlement and exploitation.

I must say that I lean towards Maximos in your debate. I go even further.

Conquest erases all previous property claims.. Pretty common experience of mankind.

Bedarz, you continue to posit a thesis about these things, but you haven't yet tried to argue to them, support them, or (much more importantly) signify in the least why any of the results you speak of can be valid while men have moral obligations to each other.

That men have often ignored borders, or ignored the claims of private property in conquest, SIMPLY ISN'T any kind of argument that what they were doing was morally upright. Men have also raped women wholesale in conquest, but that wasn't moral. Men have also done political conquests where they HAVE allowed claims of private property to persist: the US permitted Germany and Japan largely to retain their integrity land-wise after we beat them. Another fact is that for at least 2000 years, most wars of conquest ended up with the losers being slaves to the winners, but these days we don't think slavery is morally licit and we don't think wars - even wars of conquest - ought to result in the slavery of the losers. We humans CAN learn from the mistakes of the past, even if we find it difficult.

It is just the obverse side of political authority. While political authority is the claim a community makes upon individuals, private property is the claim individual makes upon the community.

In both sides of this coin you have ignored the moral: political authority is a claim the community makes upon individuals which they have an OBLIGATION to obey. Private property is a claim upon the community (and upon all other individuals) which they are obliged to respect. As Napoleon said: the moral is to the physical as 3 to 1. You are ignoring the bulk of the relationships.

We have showed political authority springing out of the same seed-bed as morality, and that this implies that we owe ("ought to") the polity our obedience. And that while the polity may arise through partially free choices among men at first, the obligation we have toward it is not simply a subject of whim and free choice to give it or not as we please. Since all men bear relations to each other through their humanity, even when other men are not bound to a given polity (i.e. not theirs), they are not free from obligations to respect such polities that bind their neighbors, they are not free to pretend as if such things were mere word games of their neighbors. You haven't even tried to address the argument or the principles, all you have done is disagree with the conclusions. A contradiction isn't an argument. You have failed even once to present a reason why someone should accept your thesis, it is merely posited.