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.