Illegal immigrants have broken the law. For many, that’s reason enough to want them all deported, and reason enough to oppose amnesty of any sort, including DREAMer legislation, and to go as far as arguing against birthright citizenship, declaring that the children of illegals should not benefit from their parents’ crime.
In the world of logic, this is known as appeal-to-law, and is considered an informal fallacy. The fallacy lies in conflating legal with morally correct.
Yes, many laws are morally proper. Laws against murder, theft, robbery, rape, assault, burglary, and bearing false witness all have strong moral underpinnings, and are found in just about every major and successful society in history (government murder and theft is another matter, of course…). But, not all laws have moral underpinnings, and there are countless examples of bad laws, on the books today and on the books in less enlightened times. There are also laws that may not be considered “bad,” but that are violated routinely.
Have you ever employed a nanny or hired a local teen as a baby sitter? If so, did you pay the employer’s share of the payroll tax to the government? No? Congratulations, you broke the law, and many would-be politicians have seen their appointments and careers derailed by this transgression.
Have you ever exceeded the posted speed limit? Better yet, have you ever gone a day without exceeding the posted speed limit?
Have you ever opened junk mail addressed to someone else?
Have you ever cursed at another driver in a road rage incident in Maryland? Thrown a snowball in Topeka? Mispronounced “Arkansas” in Arkansas?
We all know that there are laws we honor only when convenient or when the risk of getting caught is high. We also all know that there are many stupid, pointless, and/or outdated laws on the books.
Clearly, this doesn’t obviate laws regarding immigration, just as it doesn’t obviate laws against murder or theft. But, it does make the point that the mere existence of a law doesn’t validate the premise of the law, and that’s the point here. Stating (or yelling, as I once witnessed Bill O’Reilly do in a heated argument many years ago) “They broke the law!” is not a compelling argument, logically or morally.
You can certainly argue that the law may be a good law, that there are reasons for its existence in its current form, and therefore that it should be enforced. That’s its own matter, and that’s how you should engage if you believe that illegals should all be deported. I leave that argument for another day.
It’s worth noting that Rosa Parks broke the law. Gandhi broke the law. The patrons of the Stonewall Inn broke the law. The Boston Tea Partiers broke the law. Emily Davison broke the law. The Chinese student in Tiananmen Square broke the law. Martin Luther King broke the law. Countless protestors throughout history have broken the law in acts of civil disobedience.
Do any of these instances serve, via their own moral uprightness, to convey moral authority on illegal immigrants, and obviate their transgression?
No. But, they do illustrate, however, that “the law is the law” isn’t cut-and-dried, and that it shouldn’t be used as a self-contained assertion.
Want to argue for a hard-line resolution to the illegal immigrant situation? Want to argue for strong borders (as I have)? Do so on the merits of the argument, not the fact of an existing law.
A law is a construct. Sometimes, it has moral underpinnings. Sometimes, it does not. Sometimes, it serves a goal desired at its inception, and it may succeed or fail at doing so. Sometimes, it is written to benefit those in power or to bestow benefit upon the favored. Sometimes, its premise is enteral, other times, its premise becomes antiquated. Laws are not self-validating, their mere existence is not a justification for what they say or require. And, they can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Bear this in mind before you think to proclaim “The law is the law!” in an argument over, well, anything.
Loading ...
I appreciate your blog, and I agree with most things you say, but this I do not.
Fine if a law needs to be changed (it’s archaic, biased, etc.) but until then, it is what it is and should be enforced by the people paid to do so. There are people outside our country who would do us harm if only they could get in, and they’ll pull at our heartstrings to do it (SOB stories, fake children). Coming back from Canada once, my brother and I were suspected of not being our parents’ actual children. I doubt they held us in custody for 3 hours to check the validity of my parents’ claims out of boredom. That was necessary for a reason.
Also, if we’re talking about deportation, arguing against amnesty/birthright citizenship, then we’re talking about those who have been caught (how else would we know?).
I get away with speeding because there aren’t enough police everywhere to catch me. Most of the time I keep it to 5mph or less over the limit anyway (not a threat). If I ever do get caught speeding, to such a degree that the officer feels he/she should write me a ticket or even arrest me, they should!
If people are caught without proof of citizenship or visiting papers, they should have a proper punishment levied upon them.
In your first paragraph, you argue “There are people outside our country who would do us harm if only they could get in, and they’ll pull at our heartstrings to do it.” This is not a “law is the law” argument, it’s an argument as to the substance of immigration restrictions. You continue on, presenting an opinion on immigration itself.
Furthermore, when we talk about deportation, amnesty, birthright citizenship, etc, we argue on questions of policy and legislation.
I think you’re not getting my point here – which is that a mere declaration of “they broke the law, deport them,” without any supporting arguments as to why it’s right that the law says to deport them, isn’t a logically sound or compelling argument.
Alright, I probably can’t come up with a satisfactory counter to your point. I doubt, however, if I used the same argument to dispute a speeding ticket (ever for a measly 3mph over limit) that I wouldn’t have to pay the fine.
I still don’t think you’re quite getting what I’m driving at. The argument here has nothing to do with enforcement of the law. That’s the proper role of law “enforcement” officers. The argument is about using the existence of a law to validate the correctness or justness of the law.
Just to go with the speeding limit analogy, if the speed limit on a straight stretch of Montana highway was 25, you would expect to be ticketed for going 70, but you can’t argue that the 25 MPH limit is appropriate or correct merely because it has been set at that speed. You’d have to present underlying reasons for it. That’s the point I’m making here.
But, to take it a step further, into policy, you could also make the case that, since the law is unjust, it’s worth considering an organized response or correction that wouldn’t require bringing the hammer down on *every* transgressor. This is its own debate, it’s at the core of what to do with the illegals in the country, and it’s *not* something I sought to address herein.
Ok, I see better now what you’re saying.
I agree wi most of this, a law that is not enforced is not much of a law. It seems to me we draw a line in the sand in the form of a wall. If you are here illegally and have a steady job, you can stay, (we obviously need you) we issue a green card and you follow all those rules. If you are here illegally without that steady job, we make it truly unprofitable for anyone to hire you lest incurring bankrupting fines. At the same time institute a merit based, streamlined immigration system. The chamber of commerce has all the statistics needed to filter applicants into the system.
As I noted in both the article and in my reply to Paul above, I did not seek to lay out an argument about what to do with illegals in this piece. This one’s strictly about the use of appeal-to-law in arguing.
Stay tuned – more immigration articles are in the works.