Here is the peroration of Michelle Alexander’s New York Times op-ed about the terrible immorality of birthright citizenship:
It’s tempting to imagine that our position as gatekeepers is morally sound — since we’re frequently reminded that “all nations have a right to defend their borders†— but our relationship to those who are fleeing poverty and violence is morally complex. Not only does birthright citizenship bestow upon us a privileged status that we haven’t earned; our nation’s unparalleled wealth and power, as well as our actual borders, lack a sturdy moral foundation. But for slavery, genocide and colonization, we would not be the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world — in fact, our nation would not even exist. This is not hyperbole; it’s history. There’s good reason some Mexicans say: “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.†That is, in fact, what happened.
It is terribly difficult to debate someone at a distance, especially when you have so little common agreement with them about morality, law, or even language.
Let’s start with language. Here is the second definition of “earn” as thoughtfully provided by Merriam-Webster:
2a : to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to
she earned a promotion
b : to make worthy of or obtain for
the suggestion earned him a promotion
Those of us born in the United States have earned citizenship in that sense by virtue of U. S. law. Those whom she cites who have entered the United States in contravention of U. S. law have not. They have committed crimes in doing so. Their guilt from those crimes may be mitigated by virtue of their motives but they are not eliminated by them. We are legally entitled to punish them for those crimes as long as we do so justly.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had its 70th anniversary the other day, a most expansive document, does not recognize a right of immigration. Emigration but not immigration. It also does not recognize a universal right of U. S. citizenship. Prudently, it recognizes that it is up to the governments of individual countries to determine who is a citizen and who is not. Just as Mexico may determine who is a Mexican citizen the United States may determine who is a U. S. citizen. It is not up to Americans to determine who is a Mexican citizen any more than it is up to Mexicans to determine who is an American citizen.
Two hundred years ago Mexico had acquired its territory at the time in the same way that every present country has: by seizing it by force of arms from its previous owners. The status of territory 200 years ago has no legal or moral relevance today.
Morally, we are required to treat people decently, kindly, and justly. We are not required to give them jobs or citizenship. If we are Christians, we are required to treat them in a caring way. We are not required to make them citizens or even grant them legal residency. “Render unto Caesar, etc.” We should feed them, clothe them, and care for their wounds.
Finally, neither Emma Lazarus nor Margaret Mead have any political, legal, or moral standing. Margaret Mead may have some authority in cultural anthropology but even that is a matter of some doubt. Just about everything she ever wrote has been challenged by later anthropologists.
“We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.â€
No, under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, residents of land “purchased” from Mexico following the War could apply to become U.S. citizens (90% did) or relocate to Mexico.
PD:
They want what they want. They don’t care about history, law, or morality.
I appreciate the efforts to elevate the arguments against Ms Alexander, but the more direct approach is to just state that her points are moronic.
In effect she is arguing for constant reset to zero of the game. It discounts the efforts of current and past citizens and societies, discounts the past and current errors of other countries citizens and societies actions, and supposes dumbing down the globe as a whole to the least common denominator. It is neither moral or practical. I didn’t “earnâ€the secret to making iron, so I guess we have to reinvent the Iron Age. Right.
I strongly suspect that if Ms Alexander was forced to live by what she implicitly advocates, distribution of her net worth down to a few pennies and contribution of almost all of her income now and in the future to the unfortunate by birth citizens of the world, she would have a sudden loss of interest in childish virtue signaling. These arguments remind me of those who would take inheritances and confiscate them for the benefit of the state because they are unearned. But the state has earned them?
I do not really understand what her views are or whether she’s thought them through. She seems to be arguing that a radical form of distributive egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That isn’t Marxist, Engelian, socialist, or Rawlsian.
My working hypothesis is that she follows a modern confusion about morality.
I doubt she expects for the radical form of distributive egalitarianism she espouses to include her, her friends, or anybody she knows. Why should it? They are the ‘woke’.
I think she is a civil rights lawyer. This doesn’t seem to be her area of expertise. Comes off as confusing mostly. I dont see any basis for claiming that anyone has a right to citizenship anywhere. Individual countries decide that. Agree with Dave that there is a moral imperative to treat people well, but not to make them citizens.
Steve