Has anyone ever figured out what Sen. Clinton was actually talking about? has she been pressed for a clarification? I mean, deporting all immigrants convicted of a crime would include stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship and deporting them. I can’t imagine that she meant that, unless the crime involved falsifying the information they supplied during the naturalization process - that’s been done repeatedly. So, is there any clarification? Did she mean deporting legally resident aliens without due process, or just illegal aliens? And did she really mean without due process (although if you write the laws that way, I guess it is due process).

RonF, I agree that refugees have human rights. But should that extend to granting them preferential treatment in immigration?

That’s a function of a few factors:

a) What’s the likelihood that they’ll be able to go back home and not get killed in the future?
b) Do we have a national interest in admitting them as immigrants?

Factor a) places the most extreme example of human rights first, and it also emphasizes that today’s refugee may be able to go back home tomorrow, and so can be given temporary refuge without committing to admitting them on a permanent basis (i.e., classifying them as immigrants rather than temporary visitors). That gets sticky if they stay here for 5 years and make lives, but that can be addressed. Factor b) breaks down further to include (but not be limited to):

1) Do we support/oppose any faction in their homeland that’s involved in the reason why this person is a refugee? Will then providing that person a platform to speak/act further our support/opposition?
2) Did we cause the problem that has caused this person to become a refugee (and no, the U.S. is not the source of all the problems in the world)?

It’s a calculation. People from Cuba are fleeing the only Communist regime in the Western hemisphere; it’s been judged as being in our national interest that we designate people fleeing from Cuba as refugees. If they make it to shore, that is. Don’t ask me to justify it, I can’t. But I offer it as contrast to our policies regarding the island next door, where people fleeing from Haiti are not so favored, as we have not judged it in our national interest to designate them as refugees. Personally, I don’t see the advantage; Communist, socialist, dictatorship, it’s all the same to me. All I can figure is that the pretense is that everyone fleeing Communism in Cuba is doing so because of political repression and not because of the economic failures there. Hah!

Two corrections that it won’t let me fix:
“As a result, my personal view of refugees is that it doesn’t bother me if we decline to let most of them in. ” (in third-to-last-paragraph) should be “As a result, my personal view of potential immigrants is that it doesn’t bother me if we decline to let most of them in. ”

and “Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting few, and deporting more, citizens.” (second to last paragraph) should be “Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting few, and deporting more, potential/illegal immigrants.”

This is going to be confusing, so if some mod is willing to make a cut-and-paste fix and delete this post, that’d be great.

I do not think, as a theoretical manner, that we owe anything to potential immigrants. I do not think, as a theoretical manner, that we owe anything to potential refugees, either.

On a practical view, refugees are 1) a small population; 2) often preselected by the countries who are expelling/killing them; and 3) just so happen to also be one of the small preselected categories who are most in need of assistance. As a result, my personal view of refugees is that it doesn’t bother me if we let them in.

I believe this view is reasonably justified. There’s probably some cost to the country of doing so, but it’s small (see #1 and #2). And it makes us feel better as a nation (see #3), which IMO offsets the cost in the case of refugees..

As a theoretical issue, I think it would be a perfectly valid decision to refuse entry to refugees, and/or to treat them in the same manner as all other potential immigrants are treated.

Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting some, if not more, refugees.

So, that’s refugees. Now, for potential immigrants:

Potential immigrants are 1) a large population; 2) not preselected (it takes more work to choose who to let in; it takes even MORE work if you want to be very personal about it); and 3) are not, as a general average, nearly as in need of assistance as are refugees.

As a result, my personal view of refugees is that it doesn’t bother me if we decline to let most of them in. And as with refugees, I believe this is reasonably justified. There’s a possible cost to the country of letting in potential immigrants, which is much higher than for refugees based solely on the different numbers (see #1.) Similarly, the cost of “sorting” the immigrants we want from those we do not want, or the ‘deserving’ from the ‘nondeserving,’ is more expensive and difficult than for refugees (see #1 and #2.) I don’t particularly think that admitting large numbers of immigrants makes us feel better as a nation (see #3), and I would also note that the costs are much higher.

Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting few, and deporting more, citizens.

This is not a contradiction, any more than it is a contradiction to like apples and not oranges (but they’re both fruit!) Refugees are not the same thing as potential immigrants who are not refugees. Those differences are an acceptable basis on which to make a choice to treat the groups differently.

Ok, your turn.

You’ve said that the US owes nothing to immigrants, but we should treat refugees differently because their lives suck. Do you really not see the contradiction there?

If your argument is that the US’s immigration policy should depend on what its citizens want, I’m a little confused, because you seem to be arguing that you don’t care if USCIS actually follows immigration law - you know, the laws that the citizens of the United States enacted through their elected representatives and all that?

RonF, I agree that refugees have human rights. But should that extend to granting them preferential treatment in immigration? In other words, if we use Sailorman’s basis (no obligation to immigrants; what is in the best interests of the US), you’re going to have to argue that admitting refugees is in the interests of US citizens.

No. See your commentary about “what the citizens want”.

As far as what qualifies someone as a refugee, that’s a question that could fill an entire blog. But granting that there is such a thing, qualifying for that status may well qualify someone to stay here for a length of time. But depending on what the issue is, it doesn’t mean that they get to immigrate here. If the issue changes (e.g., the shooting stops and a political settlement is reached), such persons can lose their refugee status and be repatriated to their home country. Refugee status may give you preference to attain legal resident status, but that status can be temporary and by no means need grant you immigration and naturalization preference.

Sailorman:

Apparently none, since apparently she doesn’t exist. But can we leave religion out of it?

It’s not possible to leave religion out of a discussion of rights in the United States. Our country was founded on the premise that rights come from the Creator and are granted to individuals. It is a further founding premise that the government’s job is to preserve individual rights, not grant them. Now, you are of course free to disagree that the Creator actually exists. But there’s no arguing away the fact that this is the philosophy on which the country was founded, and that it’s still central to how our country is governed and how rights and privileges are differentiated.

Did you even read my post? I’ve been fairly clear about what is a general statement (”governments should…”) as opposed to my own personal beliefs (”this is mostly an issue of personal morality.”) I don’t give a shit whether or not you agree with me personally. And you sure as hell haven’t done much to support your OWN position, or to present your OWN views, which–if you claim a “coherent” argument–should be visible by now.

But if you want to go back to generalities: If it makes enough citizens happy that the U.S. gives money to the Sudanese, this justifies giving money to the Sudanese, even though the money is not going to the citizens. The government’s role is still to see to the safety and happiness of its citizens, but that happiness can sometimes be achieved indirectly.

Put in another way, self-interest does not mean that you can’t do anything nice for other people.

So if there are enough citizens who are desirous that refugees be admitted to the U.S., this justifies admitting them. And as we both know, these citizens DO exist, and the existence of such citizens is pretty much driven by the moralities behind refugee status. That is why the situation of the refugees becomes relevant.

Are you stating that you consider the immigration status of refugees and other non-refugees to be equivalent or identical? If not, why does it seem odd that two different categories of people would be treated differently?

Oh, and RonF:

The worthy debate is, what rights has our Creator granted us?

Apparently none, since apparently she doesn’t exist. But can we leave religion out of it?

But to be honest, their lot is among the worst in the world, and I’m comfortable giving them advanced status over “ordinary” immigrants

And, again, you’re proposing a rule based on “Sailorman’s Gut Instinct”. If you have a coherent reason that the we-owe-them-nothing rule should be relaxed for refugees, I’d like to hear it. Yes, their situation is awful. So’s the situation of many people who would like to come to this country. Why should we give them immigration preference, if your stated preference is that US law should first and foremost reflect “what is best for America”?

RonF, human rights and compassion could also extend to a lot of groups of potential immigrants who don’t have preference. For example, some of the illegal aliens you mention didn’t come here with the intent of violating our laws, because they were infants or very young children when their parents brought them over. Do they deserve special compassion? Or are they merely one more kind of intruder?

(Off the top of my head I believe that we are party to international treaties on the treatment of refugees, but blasted if I can remember which ones.)

“Not incidentally, this morality also extends to the desires of citizens. The government exists to serve the desires and needs of its citizens.”

Or, as it’s been stated elsewhere at more length by a bunch of dead white guys:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

A government’s funtion is to secure rights. It doesn’t grant rights; those have already been granted by a higher power than the government. Those rights thus necessarily include the right to dissolve a government and replace it with one that they deem better suited to secure their rights.

The worthy debate is, what rights has our Creator granted us? What rights belong to people who have come to our country in conformance with our laws? What rights belong to people who have come to our country in violation of them?Some people think the very existence of a border violates those rights. I disagree.

Sorry - what I meant was, are there any treaties that we have entered into that define certain persons as refugees - and if so, what are the terms/criteria?

My personal understanding of “refugee” is someone who has fled their homeland because they face being subjected to loss of liberty, possibly violently, there, especially as the result of discrimination; being or having the “wrong” race, religion, sex, politics, etc. Giving them at least temporary shelter and support is a matter of human rights and compassion. Whether our interests are best served by admitting them on a permanent basis is a question to be decided in the legislature.

Sailorman - don’t forget that the term “immigrants” does not define someone’s citizenship status. There are immigrants we owe the same rights as an American citizen because they ARE American citizens. There are immigrants that have proper claim on somewhat limited rights to because they are legally resident aliens, and there are immigrants that we have very limited obligations towards because they are illegal aliens.

And there are illegal aliens that we owe almost nothing to (except for certain basic human rights) because they are not even immigrants; they did not come here with the intention to live here permanently and their allegiance is to their home country, not the U.S.

The word “immigrants” is not suitable as a “catch-all” or summary classification in discussing rights.

If the argument is predicated on “they’re not citizens, we owe them nothing”, why does that argument change for refugees?

We don’t necessarily owe them anything–they’re not citizens. But to be honest, their lot is among the worst in the world, and I’m comfortable giving them advanced status over “ordinary” immigrants (who I will refer to as “immigrants.”)

This is mostly an issue of personal morality. It also involves some practical issues: there simply are not nearly as many refugees as there are potential immigrants. I’m guessing that you also would not bar refugees, right?

Not incidentally, this morality also extends to the desires of citizens. The government exists to serve the desires and needs of its citizens. Sometimes (as with refugees) those desires are met by providing services or benefits to others.

I don’t understand your question. If we have no external obligation, such as a treaty, requiring us to accept refugees - why set them apart as a category of immigrants? If you agree that we don’t owe noncitizens the right to enter, and we should limit immigration only as it benefits us, then why set up a special class of “refugees” whose only claim on us is that some other government treated them abominably? Because it would be a little too obvious to turn them aside, or what?

I agree.

that’s functionally the same as saying they should be given the right to immigrate.

Nobody has the right to immigrate. Immigration is a privilege. There are moral and non-moral reasons and methods for the U.S. or any other country to extend that privilege, but it’s not a right inherent to or in any person.

The US should retain the rights to bar immigration of any sort given a special emergency.

The U.S., and any other country, is properly described as having the right to bar immigration of any sort for any reason it chooses, including skin color or sexual orientation. Whether it is moral for it to exercise that right in those fashions is - well, in those cases it’s not worthy of debate. But for other reasons it very well is. Certainly on the basis of whether or not the U.S. believes, based on a specfic set of criteria, that the immigrant is likely to be a net contributor to the U.S.’s economy or culture. The nature of those criteria gets debated every time the immigration law comes up for revision. But once set, the U.S. has every right to enforce them. The U.S. is under no obligation to take everyone who wants to come in regardless of education level, employable skills, health, or intent to pledge allegiance to America. It has every right to discriminate on the basis of those criteria and others as well.

The constraint lies in our moral code, that says it is wrong to treat someone badly because of the shape of their ears. The constraint does not lie in a duty already assumed to the group of oddly-eared people. We cannot say “no, you cannot come in, because your ears are a funny shape”; we can say “no, you cannot come in, because there are people ahead of you in our list of unfulfilled obligations”.

We owe them treatment as human beings, but we do not owe them treatment as citizens. The constraint on our behavior is not deriving from their status, it is deriving from our moral choice.

I do not understand that to be his argument. He’s saying that governments are unconstrained by any obligation to the members of the pool, not that they are generally unconstrained in their choice.

I’m failing to see the difference between the two. If they are not unconstrained with regards lining up southrons by skin color, detachment of earlobe, and sexual availability, I say that’s the same as saying as they have the obligation of not being racists or weird perverts. The difference between “constraints” and “obligations” here is that they’re spelled differently.

I am not sure what you mean by this, sorry–can you elaborate?

I think we both agree that there are metrics the government can use that would be the most deplorable. The flip side to that is that there are those that would be the most preferable. For instance, those with family already here and who intend on staying and living here. Are these people entitled to entry? Entitled is such a dirty word. But I’m comfortable with saying that if anyone should be let in, it should be them. Since I believe the number of people who should be let in is non-zero, that’s functionally the same as saying they should be given the right to immigrate.

The US should retain the rights to bar immigration of any sort given a special emergency. But I’m having great difficulty imagining such a situation playing out outside of some dystopian novel.

But I would have to say that a refugee’s rights stem from a sort of exception.

Refugees aren’t citizens, yet here you speak of their “rights”. Clearly, rights aren’t dependent on any sort of citizenship.

We’ve already established what you are, ma’am. Now all we’re doing is haggling over the price.

Why? If we have a specific treaty obligation we’ve assumed, then yes, it’s a separate situation. Otherwise, why do we owe a refugee anything more than we owe the spouse of a citizen? If the argument is predicated on “they’re not citizens, we owe them nothing”, why does that argument change for refugees?

sylphhead Writes:
February 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Sailorman, I agree that a nation should have a good deal of control of who can enter its borders. But I disagree with the implication that thus this means that governments can use any criteria they want in picking and choosing amongst the available pool. If it did, then we’d be perfectly justified taking in only the men, the heterosexuals, or the ones with the least Amerindian blood. …If, as I suspect, you and I agree that these reasons aren’t legitimate,

Thanks for the assumption of non-insanity; I agree that those are not acceptable. Daran accurately summed up the crucial distinction.

I merely extend that if there are *least legitimate* measures the government can use, there are correspondingly *most legitimate* ones. And those are the ones they should apply.

I am not sure what you mean by this, sorry–can you elaborate?

The logical corollary of your argument as I read it seems to be that people who belong to no country are not entitled to any residency rights from any territorial government anywhere. Where does this leave refugees, I wonder? The ocean?

I haven’t really been addressing refugees, mostly because the issue of immigration seems to me to be somewhat separate from the issue of refugees. But I would have to say that a refugee’s rights stem from a sort of exception. It’s not that the refugee status affects whether or not someone is in the category of people who we want to immigrate (that would be silly–their “resume” doesn’t change with their refugee status), but rather that refugee status makes the category question sort of moot.

Here in the US, which is where my now-ex emigrated, we have something called the Selective Service.

I know. I was objecting to your implication that I only object to the war because I’m afraid I might be drafted.

As for the efficacy of the vote, again: if you felt that your vote had absolutely no effect on whether the UK goes to war, regardless of why you oppose the war, then why are you bothering to vote?

Because it makes me feel better.