Immigration and Deportation

Immigration and Deportation

When the European settlers arrived on the American continent four hundred years ago, they did not enter the country legally. The native inhabitants did not give them permission to enter or to stay permanently. I don’t know if the natives had any laws prohibiting entry unless it was formally granted; they may well have had territorial laws of some kind applicable to other tribes. In any case, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that they did have such laws, so that according to their laws the settlers were illegal immigrants.  We know what happened next, but that is not my concern. My question is whether they had a legal right to deport these immigrants from Europe. And the obvious answer is yes. They had laws making it illegal to enter the country without a formal immigration procedure, and the newcomers were in violation of their laws. There might have been a debate among the native population about what to do with these people—with some advocating deportation and some in favor of accepting them into the population. After all, they might prove useful. Apparently, the settlers were escaping persecution and deportation could land them in hot water. If the Indians had prevailed in their conflict with the Europeans, but accepted the settlers and their children into the community, there might have been a movement to expel them. Some would have committed serious crimes, while some were simply here illegally, having broken the immigration laws established by the native population. The Indian majority might have had the power to implement these rulings. Would this be morally right? Would it be the decent thing to do? Would it be acceptable to deport the children of the original illegals? After all, it’s a big country, capable of supporting a large population, and compassion would recommend leniency for the original delinquency. The settlers could hardly claim that they had not violated the law of the land when they arrived. The question, obviously, is whether this situation is any different from what we are seeing today, mutatis mutandis.

Let’s go back even further in time. The human race is a race of immigrants: it originated in Africa and has since spread all over the globe. They went where they pleased and there were no laws to stop them. But suppose, contrary to fact, that there was another quasi-human population occupying the lands the Africans entered; and suppose they had enacted laws that prohibit access to territories they felt they possessed—let’s say the European continent. Then all those African migrants would be illegal immigrants, as far as the non-African population was concerned. Some no doubt had criminal tendencies and all were illegals going by the prevailing laws. The non-Africans might move to repel and deport the African migrants, irrespective of what they faced in their country of origin. They might even succeed in confining the human race to the African continent. Humans would not be dispersed as they are today. Some sort of intelligent giraffe-like species might rule the rest of the planet. Does this seem like a desirable state of affairs? Does it have any moral or legal justification? It’s a big planet, capable of housing large numbers of humans—why limit them to a small part of it? All animals migrate and spread—it’s natural. What to do about possible conflicts can be a difficult question, but simply declaring illegality is not a defensible solution. What if a country decides it doesn’t like blue-eyed people and enacts a law prohibiting them from living in the country in question? They are thereby rendered illegal and moves are made to expel them for violating the law by having blue eyes. Is it morally justifiable to deport them somewhere? No, so sheer illegality is not sufficient to warrant deportation. Some other reason has to be given—for example, that blue-eyed people are more prone to violent crime (and then we have to verify that claim). Deportation is a very severe penalty merely for living in a country illegally, i.e., according to the prevailing laws, and should not be applied absent other incriminating considerations.[1]

Suppose a volcano erupts in a certain country and the only way to survive is to flee to a neighboring country. Overnight people flood into that country, illegally. They do no harm and are quite willing to return when the danger is over. Is it reasonable to deport them on the grounds that they are there illegally, knowing that they will certainly die if they return to their volcano-ravaged country? That would rightly be seen as a very flimsy, extreme, and inhumane policy. Illegal immigration is not ipso facto an adequate ground for deportation.[2]

[1] What if a country makes it easy to break its immigration laws, with light punishment if apprehended (a small fine); then it decides to crack down heavily on those who break the law, deporting them to countries in which their lives will be in danger? Is that morally defensible? Of course not.

[2] The points I am making are very obvious, but are routinely ignored by contemporary apologists for mass deportation of “illegals”. Don’t forget that if you park your car illegally you are also an “illegal”, i.e., a person who has done an illegal thing.