Is Deportation Just?

An Introduction:
The issue of deportation is very much present today. This essay came out of a series of chats on Facebook involving reports of a mother of three, her children now grown, who had been in the US since 1999. She was deported last week, (For details on that story. . .). As I went browsing the web to confirm the details of this first, I came across another more recent article, this one detailing a transgender woman who was recently deported back to El Salvador, where she was murdered. 

The standard, most common argument for the deportation of illegal aliens. . . undocumented immigrants is that we have laws. These laws require all immigrants to apply for the appropriate visa and so forth. If one fails to apply for a visa, if one simply enters the US without such, then you can be removed. and there is a legal process in place for such. That is basically deportation and it is the law.

That. however, does not really answer the question. It only defers to the law. We assume that the law is just and we know that is not always the case. That is why the US Constitution has processes in place both to amend the Constitution and too simply write new law. It is simply understood that we will need to update and refine our laws.

The concept of justice evolves. Simply look at the tale of slavery in the United States. From a group that were indentured servants to becoming simple property to citizens with voting rights certainly indicates an evolution. Certainly a progression. Things, including justice, at the very least change.

So regarding undocumented immigrants, it is routinely seen that deportation is unfair, problematic. The argument is that these people have made lives here. They are part of the community, often with families. Their husbands and wives are often American citizens, their children were raised here, or were simply born here. They work here. They commonly pay taxes here, which often requires them again committing fraud. That is an amazing fraud! They commit a crime so as to pay taxes.

Yet regardless of all that, they did commit a crime, granted what is seen as a misdemeanor, but still a crime. And their continued presence in the US from the day they entered till the day they depart from the US is a violation of US law. In short, the fact that they have established roots here, does not justify it. Such roots and history complicate the story, but it does not justify or allow for the disregard of the law.

So we return to our original question. Is deportation just? Is it unjust?

It is a law that most of us do not like, but most likewise feel is necessary. Most Americans agree that we need to regulate who enters and who does not enter our country. We do want to have some say regarding who enters the United States. and with that, we do want to have some consequence, and some process for dealing with those who ignore and disregard these statutes.

So there is a tension here. Those who point to the law and all it entails, and those who point to the cost of the law. It again brings us back to the question: Is the law, in this case, deportation, is it just?

Three Grounds for Deportation:
Now there are three other arguments, at least three, for why deportation is just. These are in fact arguments against immigration, or at the least undocumented immigration, and therefore also support claims for deportation. Those arguments are: 1) the cost of these immigrants is too great, 2) these immigrants are often violent dangerous criminals, and 3) these immigrants are stealing our jobs.

I will address the first two, cost, and criminals simply arguing that they are not true. The third, however, I grant is true, but I believe if you consider it for a moment, you will arrive at the conclusion that deportation is not just.

The first argument is that it just comes down to cost. The United States cannot afford undocumented immigrants straining our social services, our entitlements and as such we need to deport them to their country of origin. These immigrants illegally enter our country, and take advantage of our healthcare, our schools, our welfare systems, etc.  We simply cannot afford this.

They simply are not entitled to the rights and privileges afforded US citizens, and other legal residents of the US. I acknowledge this is something that needs to be addressed, but I believe it need not be dug into here. I will make only two claims regarding this argument. The first is that typically undocumented immigrants in fact do not indulge our entitlements at rates comparable to US citizens. I offer up a CATO Institute's policy brief titled Immigration and the Welfare State.

Aside from the links above, I am not providing further facts to support the above claim. I rather appeal to my second and larger point, that most entitlements, healthcare, education, welfare, are offered by the state and local government. The point is that within our system, whether an undocumented immigrant has access to our various entitlements is largely contingent upon where he or she resides and whether that state and local government will welcome or challenge such people. And that is a different question from the one I am posing here, whether deportation is just.

The second argument for deportation being just is that undocumented immigrants are criminal not only in their crossing the border, but in that they simply are criminals. It is believed by many that undocumented immigrants simply engage in often violent criminal acts more so than American citizens. They are a violent bunch and we need to get them out of here. That is the argument here. To such arguments, I simply say no. It is a false claim. Numerous studies illustrate that undocumented immigrants engage in less criminal acts, violent and non-violent, than do American citizens. For further reading on this please consult this article, Illegal Immigration Does Not Increase Violent Crime, 4 Studies Show, found on the NPR site, detailing four recent academic studies involving such.

In short, I do not find either of these arguments, that undocumented immigrants are costly, or that they are violent criminals convincing, and as such neither is grounds to say that deportation is just. As I said above, the cost of undocumented immigrants is a state and local issue, and immigrants in general, documented and undocumented, do not for the most part commit violent criminal acts. American citizens are for more likely to take advantage of the entitlements our systems offer, and likewise are for more likely to commit violent crimes than immigrants.

That leaves us with the third argument. Undocumented immigrants steal American jobs. There is no refuting that claim. A good number of these jobs may be unwanted, but a job is a job. It likewise, cannot be disputed that the wages for such positions are typically lower than what most Americans would accept. The presence of undocumented immigrants does facilitate such wages. So their presence in the American market does limit the options of some American workers. So a case can be made that deportation is just, as undocumented immigrants do steal jobs from Americans.

Just Laws:
Is that the whole story though? Is there more to this story? Let me pause here again and question what makes a law just. If we are asserting that the rule of law allows for justice, then part of that must entail that all are equal before the law. The law must be fair to all. It must not be the case that it applies to some but not others. For the law to be seen as just, all must be treated equally before it.

When in an American court, or signing a legal contract, it should not matter if you are rich or poor, black or white, or brown, Muslim or Christian. In short, the law should not recognize any caste or class in its processes. To function properly, it is required that justice be blind to such differences. And if any of these do factor into the decision-making process of our courts and contracts, it is a problem. It raises questions of legitimacy for the law and legal process, it raises questions of justice.

Considering this requirement of fairness in pursuit of justice, conspiracies are a challenge. In such crimes we have one or several crimes committed by multiple parties, multiple individuals. Often times these individuals will come from different classes, rich and poor, different races, different cultural backgrounds. The challenge here is to insure that all of those involved in the crimes are investigated, charged and prosecuted regardless of these details. If such is not the case, there is a problem. To have a criminal conspiracy where only certain people are investigated, prosecuted and ultimately convicted and others not to be touched indicates a failure of justice. Again, it is simply a case of fairness.

Two conspiracies come to mind where we had various levels of success regarding pursuing all participants. The first is the Watergate scandal, which ultimately lead to the President of the United States resigning. Shortly after, he was pardoned by the man who followed him in the office, ending the pursuit of justice. Was his resignation enough? Here I point simply to the fact that this began with the men responsible for the actual burglary of the Democratic National Committee's offices and did ultimately lead to the President's resignation, despite the power of that office. We had some success.

One that was perhaps not as successful was the Iran-Contra scandal, a much more involved conspiracy involving members of the CIA, the US military, and various members of the Reagan White House. In the end, ultimately that scandal ended when many of those under investigation were pardoned by President Bush, who some claim was  in the scandal himself. He was after all Vice President throughout the Reagan administration.

So the law must be fair in its application. Likewise, we must insure that the law is not biased. Perhaps the President was right when he claimed that the judge in his case was Mexican. The judge perhaps was biased and the President or soon to be President was not getting a fair trial. Likewise, regarding the infamous Central Park Five rape case, where you had five young black men convicted of brutally raping a women in Central Park in NYC. A crime, it was ultimately found, they had not committed.

Regardless of the fact that the judge in the first case, the Trump University case I allude to, was not biased, we simply do not want nor can we accept such. We cannot accept biases against one's race, or one's sexual preference to effect a legal decision. Nor do we want public figures making such charges against our judges and our courts, our legal systems without some proof of such. In the second case I point to, the Central Park Five rape case, it was such a bias as I point that allowed for these five to be convicted for a crime they did not commit.

The system despite its successes, and there is some success, is biased. and with that, the system is at times unjust. It must continually be refined and improved.

Now, I want to point to one other case that most are familiar with - the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. In this case we have the President of the United States become sexually involved with an intern. Ultimately, it was the fact that the President lied under oath regarding this involvement that brought him to be impeached, but it is not that which I am interested in here. this is not strictly a legal case, but it allows for something to be seen

What I want to point to or contrast here are the two participants. We have the President of the United States and an intern. If that were to happen today, I think it safe to say the President would be urged to resign, regardless of the matter of lying under oath and the associated obstruction of justice. Simply the imbalance of power between the two and what occurred would be unacceptable. There was no crime in the act, but it was still wrong. It was an unethical and improper action on the part of the President. and I say that not due to the sexual aspect but because of position that he put that subordinate, an intern at the White House. How does an intern at the White House deny the President of the United States?

We empathize with persons in such a position. And this is a common theme in justice. Lewinsky might have in some sense been a willing participant, but it is the person with status, who has the power in such an imbalanced relationship. It is the person with power, with status, who is seen as responsible for those events. They are culpable for what takes place. The other person, it could be argued, is powerless. Certainly, the second's options are much more limited.

Those in positions of power are simply seen in various events and situations, good and bad, to lead. Their participation effects the outcome, regardless of what event or action we are describing. Through their status, they take ownership of events and actions. And this is just as true in conspiracies. They are more culpable than those without status. To be in a position of status, in a position of leadership has certain obligations including taking ownership for the good and the bad. The buck does stop here.

What of the person without power or status in a conspiracy, the White House plumber, or the White House intern? They participate, but their actions are almost discounted or diminished considering the other participants, those in power, who directed or led the conspiracy. Our eyes are focused on the later and I would say, rightfully so. In short, I am suggesting that we distribute responsibility, culpability, based not only upon the actions of the participants, but also upon who those participants are.

It seems almost paradoxical, but we must in the end factor in status, race, wealth, etc. Such things can neither eliminate nor determine who is a suspect or who is guilty, Yet these same aspects, are required in recreating the crime and understanding what happened, understanding who did what, and ultimately in attributing guilt and innocence to the individuals.

To sum up the above, justice must be fair, meaning that all are treated equally before the law. Wealth and power cannot allow one to escape prosecution. Likewise biases towards race, gender and sexual preference cannot lead to prosecution. I go on, however, and argue that those with wealth and or power also have a larger liability in a criminal conspiracy. One's status often does make one more culpable. Further, justice is often aligned with mercy. Those who though not innocent but without status, who have been treated unjustly, should have that considered regarding their guilt or innocence.

A Challenge to the Justice of Deportation
With the above considerations: That all are equal before the law and that one's status does factor into one's culpability, I return to the original question: Is deportation just?

Above, I had accepted that undocumented immigrants do steal jobs from Americans and that this is a valid argument to stop their entry into this country, and likewise justify their removal. Considering my recent comments on justice, however, I wonder if we are missing something.

The grounds for stopping undocumented immigrants from entering the country, and deporting those who are here is that they take jobs that otherwise Americans could have. Not only do they take these jobs, but they accept them at a lower wage. That said, these are market transactions. Employers are not forced to hire undocumented immigrants. They willfully hire them. In short, undocumented immigrants can only steal jobs from Americans if American employers hire them.

And considering the roughly eleven million undocumented immigrants we have in the country, I refuse to believe that employers and others are not aware that the worker(s) he or she has employed are undocumented and with that not legally authorized to work in the US. Rather I believe that there are many employers who choose to ignore such laws or even actively work with these employees to evade immigration law. Not all but many.

Not only employers, but the general public. We accept that the people cutting our grass and grooming our yards are possibly undocumented immigrants. We still hire them. We know that the house painters that gave us a quote which is half the price of the American painter is probably using undocumented labor. We know the Mexican dude that just came out of the kitchen of a Chinese Restaurant for a smoke is probably undocumented. We still like the place - they make the best damn General Tso's, regardless.

What about the cleaning crew at my office? None of them speak a word of English. Maybe. . . Hello. Oh, you say I am being awfully judgmental now, perhaps racist. I see a janitor who does not speak English and looks Hispanic and I think undocumented. You might be right, but I would bet a good percentage of the time, I am right. The same is true of those who harvest our fruits and vegetables. And the list goes on.

American employers and consumers have accepted that we have an undocumented labor force available to us at a substantial discount. We have accepted this for roughly the past thirty years. And that leads to what I call a conspiracy. We have collectively in our day to day lives ignored these laws. If undocumented immigrants are stealing American jobs, than the employer and the consumer are receiving stolen goods. We have and continue to facilitate the crime. We are co-conspirators. I have yet to see employers punished for hiring such workers, much less consumers. And employers can be prosecuted for such. They rarely are.

I think it is hard to deny that there is a conspiracy here, of massive proportions. And yet it is only the undocumented immigrant who is being prosecuted. And consider the deal they get. They fight to enter our country. They abandon their towns and villages and often times walk thousands of miles to arrive here. They pay men to smuggle them across the border, an act that often enough can cost them their lives. They knowingly risk getting arrested by the American Border Patrol and ICE. They pretty much know all of this awaits them and yet they still come.

They know that with a little bit of work, they will find a job working for an American business, making what they consider a good wage, and knowing that it is a shit-rate for American workers. They know that they steal jobs from Americans. They know they are tolerated, but largely despised by Americans. Yet, they come. They come only because of the expectation of employment. They know they can get a job in America. Once again America is the land of opportunity, even if you are undocumented.

And it is with this that I argue that deportation, and our immigration system is unjust. Again, consider what they must endure to get here and what they must do once they arrive, what they are typically paid, and then, after so many years, they still risk being deported. That is their reward for their service to our businesses, our industry, the American economy. You talk of American workers being challenged. . .  and they are. Both American workers and undocumented immigrants have in many ways been played.

Ultimately, considering the above, deportation of undocumented immigrants is unjust. They have done nothing but migrate here and work for American employers, Yes they have engaged in a criminal conspiracy with their employers, their co-conspirators, who are not being prosecuted. There is no reference to these co-conspirators in the cases pursued. And it is their co-conspirators who are profiting here. At the end of the day, we just ship the  undocumented immigrants home, not considering at all their employers, their co-conspirators. Considering that lack of fairness, considering the bias shown these people, and considering the status of their co-conspirators, considering the fact that the law ignores all of this, our treatment of undocumented immigrants, especially their deportation, is unjust.

The Death of the Internet. . .

This is another case of Facebook providing me with material. 

"Lol! Your rebuttal to everyone’s opinion that his speech was amazing is a blog written by YOU? I can’t get off the floor, I’m laughing so hard! . . ." Mary Ganis  on Facebook in response to one of my posts, a response to the President's SOTU, which was simply a link to another of my posts, A Dangerous Speech.  

How dare I offer up a blog written by me.

The internet came into existence in the mid-nineties, and no doubt it thrives today, but a piece of the internet is gone. It is done. 

Originally the internet was a small group of academics that used it for file sharing. It was simply a way to share their research, data and various papers among themselves. that was the original intent of the internet, at least the abridged story. Enter the Netscape Browser, and soon after the arrival of commercial enterprises. Shortly after that you had Amazon arrive. Back then it was Amazon and E-Bay. Google arrived a few years later. Jump ahead to 2007, and we had the advent of smart phones and social media.

So the internet and likewise the World wide Web is far from dead. Today, we have the beginnings of the Internet of Things. And soon enough we have the coming of 5G, the next generation of mobile connectivity. These standards define how data is transmitted, transferred. Wireless phone networks and the internet are merging. What were two different beasts are becoming or basically are one today. All of that innovation in one's hands, in one's pocket or purse!

So it is far from dead.

Yet a piece of it is. I point back to the quote I offer up top. "Your rebuttal to everyone’s opinion that his speech was amazing is a blog written by YOU?"
How dare I offer up a response, and to expect it to be considered. How silly of me! Yet when the Internet and the web first arrived that was the hope. It was seen as a tool of democracy. A platform for all to express their opinions, hopes and dreams. Of course, the question becomes how do you manage all of those opinions, all those pages, posts and blogs? It quickly becomes an ocean of crap. So perhaps the dream was not realistic from the beginning. 

Regardless, there was something there. There was the idea, the hope that all can offer up interesting ideas and positions, regardless of one's place, and the web would be a platform for such. It was seen as a way to express one's self. This hope appealed to our ideals regarding freedom of expression and the value of diversity. It becomes another marketplace of ideas, another meritocracy, a place where the better ideas, the more useful and interesting ideas can rise to the top as opposed to being lost in an ocean of crap. Of course, some value a compost pile. 

That is different from what we have today. Few folks offer up their lone blog and posts today. They are out there, but have to be searched for. What we have today are major news sites and various writers and commentators associated with each. Smaller sites today imitate larger sites in their look and feel. You will find the graphics and arrangement of content almost identical. Making it impossible at times to differentiate sites.

And these sites are commercial ventures today. The New York Times recently acknowledged their goal of 10 million digital subscribers by 2025 and $800 Million in digital sales by 2020. The idea of a private individual expressing their opinion has nothing to do with this. This is pure commerce. 

Further, those subscribing to the New York Times can be defined pretty quickly. Most live on the two coastlines of the United States. Again the type of information we get, where we get it, and what we do with that information is so tied to who we are, what we believe, what we value. This is not surprising, but the consequences of such had not been thought out when we moved our lives online. And for those who think this is unique to the New York Times, just think Breitbart or Infowars.

This idea of expression versus commerce can especially be seen in music. Rockers were fascinated with the potential of the web in the mid to late 90's. Musicians and artists saw it as a way to have direct access to their fans. (Hmmm. That does remind me of a current political phenom, No doubt!) The hope was that they would no longer need their record labels. They could just focus on their music and share it with their fans courtesy of the World Wide Web. And today we do have Sound Cloud and other sites such as Pledge Music. Reverb Nation was another I use to go to. So there are some cool sites out there, but the idea of just maintaining a simple website for all to come to never happened. No.

So when I say the internet died, I am pointing to the hope of individuals being able to simply express themselves and more importantly being heard on it. The reason for that not happening are many. It is in part because it was a pipe dream to begin with. In the end it comes down to that the web is not all that different from the rest of the world. It offers some hope, some opportunity, but a lot of shit too. And like the rest of the world, when one is  mocked and told that their opinion does not matter, the common and appropriate response is the middle finger. 

A Dangerous Speech

The President offered a fairly solid State of the Union Address this Tuesday night. It simply was in line with what one typically expects from such fare and with that, he appears to have gotten good grades from the public at large.  He told us he could act "Presidential" and this Tuesday night, he basically did. Below is my take on it from various angles. In the end, however, I do believe it is a dangerous speech, a controversial speech. The end of the essay explores that briefly.

Oh no doubt there were interesting moments. Comments such as peace and legislation can only happen without war and investigation? He said something like that. Not sure what that was. In short, that was the exception.

Again he basically did offer up a pretty typical State of the Union. He boasted about his achievements, perhaps exaggerated on a few of those. Surprise, surprise, surprise. He also boasted about America's and American's achievements. He talked of and introduced World War II Vets, a former federal prison inmate who had been sentenced to life for a first offence if I heard correctly.

He introduced a family who suffered a home invasion and lost their parents to illegal aliens, a Holocaust survivor and Pittsburgh shooting survivor, and the police office who basically stopped the later. Oh and let us not forget a Hispanic Border Patrol Officer. So he had in his speech a full house of Americans, and American achievements.

In some respects it could be suggested that these were custom tailored to his agenda or issues. In the Holocaust and Pittsburgh shooting survivor and police officer, he acknowledges both the uptick in antisemitism and gun violence. One of the Vets he introduced in fact had participated in the liberation of the camp the survivor was in. It tied together nicely. So the first comment is that the speech worked and helped the president with various populations, black prisoners, Hispanic Border Patrol Officers, Jewish shooting victims, etc.

And no doubt his speech writers were probably cognizant of such things. They of course want to address various issues that he might have missed or they simply want to bolster. That is one of the intents of the State of the Union, past and present.

There was something lacking though. You have these various individuals. The WWII Vets, the law-enforcement officers, the former prison inmate, and the shooting and home invasion victims. What do all of these say to one? For me it says it is a crazy world. We have a concentration camp survivor who find himself in America sixty years later in the middle or at least in proximity to a shooting spree in a synagogue. A family who loses their parents in a home invasion by some illegal aliens. And then a Hispanic Border patrol Officer and a Black woman who was in prison for life for a drug charge. The last does not sound right, but that is what I heard during the course of the speech. I want to go largely by memory on this, as will most people.

It is a crazy and dangerous world. It is a world that requires walls. The elites have walls. If the family there in that hall had a wall, they might still have their parents. Interestingly, he did mention D-Day, which was the taking down of Hitler's Atlantic Wall. In general, though, what was conveyed is the danger of the world. and the need for protection. Not freedom but a violent world and the need for protection.

This is a theme he has stressed before. His is a zero sum game. In his world there can only be one winner. This time he did not state these claims, but rather illustrated them. Such is a rhetorical devise that allows one to slip something in quietly. The claim or assertion is unstated. He actually never made such a claim regarding how dangerous the world is - not last night. Yet, if we look at his guest list and their stories, it is there. The world is a dangerous place - that is the claim.

He is not the first to make such claims, but this President stops there. He does not explore what makes it dangerous. For the recent Bush Administration it was Saddam Hussein and radical Muslims. For Obama, I am not sure. For previous Presidents perhaps the Soviet Union. For this President it is illegal immigrants, ISIS, and perhaps socialists. In short, the list is left undefined.

The speech though, despite the guest and despite the rhetoric that went with these guests, did not leads us anywhere. It simply wandered. He had not grand bargain. he simply asked for or demanded his wall, and and likewise said that he could not be investigated. He offered no City on a Hill, but only the fear of being shot in a synagogue or in your own home, the threat of going to jail for life on a drug charge. There was not grand challenge. Despite the rhetoric, he did not challenge his audience, neither there nor those watching on their TVs.

No one left saying yes, I want to be part of this President's grand crusade. Again, all he asked for was a wall, no investigations of himself, and oh yes the elimination of AIDS and childhood cancer. The later two are noble but they do not inspire. For better or worse, AIDS is not the disease it was, not in the public consciousness. Cancer likewise has been chipped away at and hopefully that will continue. These are not in 2019 amazing startling claims.

There was no goal of a man on the moon or a man on Mars. There was no challenge to improve all of our schools. There was no challenge to insure all live a good life or at least a life out of poverty. All that we were offered is a violent world, the ability of American to use force, and that we need walls to protect ourselves, our property, and our jobs. This is our life. This is America.

That is my basic take on the speech. Now my critique and why I felt it was a dangerous speech.

Typically, when World War II is introduced in a speech such as the State of the Union, it is with a certain intent. The war is usually used to point to what followed it, a uniquely American era, a uniquely American world with a system we are largely responsible for. Things such as global trade, the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and even an emergent China. All of these could and probably should have a label slapped on them, "Made in the USA." All of these were inspired by and facilitated by America. And it was that global war, which we jumped into in 1941, and that we helped to win, which allowed us to define much of what followed.

None of that was mentioned. He did not discuss what we had accomplished since the end of that war. Nor did he go into why we engaged in that war. Yes he talked of the concentration camps and the Normandy invasion, but he did not talk about  nationalism, fascism, nor of a more global system to challenge such phenomena. All we were shown is a violent world. He did not explore the causes of that violence.

Rather what we witnessed is a progression from D-Day to concentration camps, to a synagogue shooting, to home invasions and MS 13.

In short, it was a speech to help us forget who we are, and what we have achieved. It offered nothing regarding an American past nor future. It did not help us determine our place in the world. It gave us nothing to pursue or strive for. It basically put us in a fog, leaving us uncertain of where we came from and more importantly where we are going. And this was done once again right there in front of us in the course of a pretty much standard State of the Union Speech. Such a standard speech is why people responded well to it, and that only makes it more dangerous.