A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

migration

Implausible Deniability: Racism & Migration

by 16 Comments

Since most Americans find overt racism unpalatable, racists and “pragicists” (pragmatic exploiters of racism) must put on a public face that conceals their racism. However, they also want to recruit and advance their agenda, so they need a way to express their racism while also maintaining what they would like to be plausible deniability.  The example I will focus on involves racism and migration.

If a politician said, “I will build a wall to protect the purity of the white race from becoming mongrelized by the brown rapists swarming across our border” they would probably not last very long in office. If a recruiter for the alt right said to “normies” that “the inferior non-white races are defiling our women and robbing us of both our blood and soil…let me also warn you of the covetous Jew…” they would not be very effective at turning normies into racists. But racists need a way to get the message out in public while also being able to deny that they are racists, should someone point out their racism. This is where such things as dog whistles, coded language and chocolate chipping (see my upcoming essay) come in. The basic idea is presenting racism in a way that does not seem racist.

When it comes to migration, open racism is generally not effective in the public arena. Fortunately for the racist, centuries of American racism against migrants have provided a set of tools to lure in non-racists and provide deniability. These tools are effective because they involve presenting concerns that can be rational and non-racist.

One stock approach is to speak of migrants as criminals who are coming here to commit crimes. It is certainly rational to be concerned about crime and being worried about crime does not make a person a racist. As such, casting migrants as criminals allows a racist to appeal to non-racists and if pressed they can say they are not racists—they are just worried about crime.

Another stock tactic is to associate migrants with disease—they are bringing diseases here that will infect us. As with crime, it is rational to be concerned about disease and this does not make a person a racist. This also allows racists to appeal to non-racists and gives them cover in the form of a professed concern about health.

A third tactic is to assert that migrants are causing economic harm by stealing American jobs and exploiting social services like schools, food stamps and welfare. It is sensible to be worried about economic harms and such worries do not make one a racist. Once again, this tactic provides a cloak for the racist—they can deny their racism and assert they are just looking out for American jobs and protecting the taxpayer.

Since it is rational to be concerned about crime, disease and economic harms, how can one discern a non-racist from a racist? While this method is not foolproof, the logical way is to use the facts.

While migrants do commit crimes, they commit crimes at a rate lower than native born Americans. While having more migrants does entail more crime, so does having more babies since more people results in more crime. As such, reducing migration to reduce crime makes as much since as reducing the number of babies in order to fight crime. That is, not much sense as a general policy. If one has doubts about migrants and crime, one can examine the police data to see the truth.

While migrants do get sick, they do not present a significant health risk when one considers that Americans are already infecting each other. It is, of course, rational to be concerned that war-torn countries and failing countries might be suffering from a decline in vaccination. But Americans are also falling behind in their vaccination rates, so this is not a threat unique to migrants from certain places. In any case, worries about vaccinations and disease are better addressed by health care solutions rather than broad migration policies. Examination of health data will show that migrants are not a health threat.

While it is true that illegal migrants can lower wages because businesses engage in illegal hiring practices and can exploit undocumented workers, illegal migrants are not stealing jobs. Rather, they are being given jobs illegally. Migrants that are here legally are also not stealing jobs, they are being hired.

The main reasons Americans lose jobs is not because migrants take them. Rather the causes tend to be technological change (such as automation), economic factors (such as natural gas being cheaper than coal), and decisions by business leaders (such as sending jobs overseas). As far as checking on whether migrants have stolen jobs, think about this—how many legally run American businesses have fired their American workers and replaced them with migrants here in America? Is there, for example, a big GM plant in Michigan being staffed entirely by Mexicans?

When a person who endorses harsh migration policies and professes that is because of concerns about crime, disease and economic harms, the method to test them is to present the facts of the matter. If the person is not a racist, they will be willing to reconsider their position. After all, if they favor harsh migration polices directed at brown people because they believe that they would meaningfully reduce crime and they learn that they will not, they should change their position. If the facts have no impact on their position, then that serves as evidence that they are a non-racist who rejects facts or a racist (or perhaps a pragicist).

It might be objected that someone could actively argue that migrants are disease carrying criminals who come here to steal jobs and exploit the social system and that they are not racists. While this is possible, they would need to prove their claims and thus overturn all existing evidence to the contrary. It is also worth noting that the notion that migrants are disease carrying criminals is a very old one. If your family is not pure WASP, it is rather likely the same was said about your family. So, which is more likely: that past and present migrants were or are disease carrying criminals coming here to steal jobs or that these assertions are just tired racism hidden under a badly worn and threadbare cloak of deceit?

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Demonizing IV: Demonic Justification

by 5 Comments

As noted in the earlier essays, demonizing is a rhetorical strategy that aims at casting the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening. Demonizing can also be used to fuel or intensify other fallacies. One such fallacy is demonic justification.

Image Credit

Demonic justification is a fallacy in which a target is demonized in order to justify how the target is being treated, such as actions taken against the target or policies enacted that are detrimental to the target. The fallacy has the following form:

Premise 1: Target person or group T is demonized.

Conclusion: Action A against T is justified.

The reason that the conclusion does not follow from the premises is that the action taken is justified by demonization rather than actual reasons. Since demonization, by definition, involves making either selective, exaggerated or false claims, demonization cannot justify an action. It must also be noted that committing this fallacy does not entail that the action is unjustified; as with any fallacy the conclusion is not disproven because it is the conclusion of a fallacy (to think otherwise is to fall victim to the fallacy fallacy).

This fallacy is, as would be expected, often used to try to justify damaging, harsh and even brutal actions or policies. It derives its power from the willingness of people to engage in demonizing and the not unreasonable belief that harsh measures must be taken against the wicked. This technique is often used in war to motivate and try to justify the killing of enemy soldiers. It is also a powerful tool in domestic politics and is often used to try to justify discriminatory and racist policies under the guise of dealing with bad people. For example, throughout history migrants have been demonized as diseased criminals who are out to steal jobs from native workers. This demonizing has been used to try to justify harsh immigration policies and even violence against migrants. As another example, Stalinists and Maoists have historically demonized their targets, thus attempting to justify their harsh and brutal measures.

The main defense against demonic justification is being aware that demonization is occurring and this can happen when one takes the time to seriously ask if the claims are true. Since people are influenced strongly by their biases, prejudices and stereotypes, this can be very challenging. People also like to believe that they are on the side of good and are battling evil, and demonization plays right into this.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Migration & the Abortion Analogy

by Leave a Comment

In the previous essay I drew an analogy between the ethics of abortion and the ethics of migration. In this essay, I will develop the analogy more and do so with a focus on the logic of the analogy. Because everyone loves logic.

Image Credit

Strictly presented, an analogical argument will have three premises and a conclusion. The first two premises (attempt to) establish the analogy by showing that the things in question are similar in certain respects.  The third premise establishes the additional fact known about one thing and the conclusion asserts that because the two things are alike in other respects, they are alike in this additional respect. Here is the form of the argument:

  • Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R.
  • Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R.
  • Premise 3: X has property Z as well.
  • Conclusion: Y has property Z

X and Y are variables that stand for whatever is being compared, such as rats and humans or Hitler and that politician you hate. P, Q, R, and Z are also variables, but they stand for properties or qualities, such as having a heart. The use of P, Q, and R is just for the sake of the illustration-the things being compared might have many more properties in common.

It is easy to make a moral argument using an argument from analogy. To argue that Y is morally wrong, find an X that is already accepted as being wrong and show how Y is like X. To argue that Y is morally good, find an X that is already accepted as morally good and show how Y is like X. To be a bit more formal, here is how the argument would look:

  • Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R.
  • Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R.
  •  Premise 3: X is morally good (or morally wrong).
  • Conclusion: Y is morally good (or morally wrong).

The strength of an analogical argument depends on three factors. To the degree that an analogical argument meets these standards it is a strong argument. If an it fails to meet these standards, then it is weak. If it is weak enough, then it would be fallacious. There is no exact point at which an analogical argument becomes fallacious, however the standards do provide an objective basis for making this assessment.

First, the more properties X and Y have in common, the better the argument. This standard is based on the commonsense notion that the more two things are alike in other ways, the more likely it is that they will be alike in some other way. It should be noted that even if the two things are very much alike in many respects, there is still the possibility that they are not alike regarding Z.

Second, the more relevant the shared properties are to property Z, the stronger the argument. A specific property, for example P, is relevant to property Z if the presence or absence of P affects the likelihood that Z will be present.

Third, it must be determined whether X and Y have relevant dissimilarities as well as similarities. The more dissimilarities and the more relevant they are, the weaker the argument.

In the case of drawing a moral analogy between the ethics of abortion and migration, the challenges are to determine the properties that make them alike and to establish the relevant moral status of abortion.

Since my goal is to show that those who already think abortion is morally wrong should also think expelling migrant children is wrong, I can assume (for the sake of the argument) that abortion is wrong. The next step is showing that abortion and expelling migrant children are alike enough to create a strong analogy.

Opponents of abortion tend to argue that human life has intrinsic worth and often speak in terms of a life being precious and a sacred gift from God. Since they tend to believe that a child exists at or soon after conception, it follows that the wrongness of abortion stems from the harm done to that precious life and sacred gift. While some opponents of abortion do allow exceptions for incest and rape, some do not—so they reject abortion even if the pregnancy occurs against the mother’s will. Obviously enough, all opponents of abortion agree that in most cases the mother should be compelled to bear the child, even if they do not want to and even when doing so would cause them some harm. One way to see this is that the child has a right to remain where it is, even when it arrived there without the consent of the owner of the womb (the mother) and when she does not want it to remain.  What, then, are the similarities between abortion and expelling child migrants?

While this makes for a very problematic analogy, one could note that a child who is brought into the United States illegally would be similar to a child implanted in a woman (or girl) by rape—that is, their presence is the result of an illegal act and is against the will of the host. While expelling a fetus would certainly (given current technology) result in death, expelling a migrant child generally results in harm and can result, indirectly, in death. As such, if abortion is wrong for the above reasons, then expelling migrant children would be wrong—even if they were brought into the United States illegally.

There are a few obvious ways to counter this reasoning. One is to focus on the distinction between expelling a fetus and expelling a migrant child. As noted above, the fetus will certainly die during an abortion, but expelling a migrant child back to a high-violence area does not result in certain death. This requires taking the moral position that only certain death matters. Interestingly, if artificial wombs became available, then abortion opponents who take the only death matters view would have to accept that a woman would have every right to expel a fetus into a womb, if death was not certain. That is, if the odds of the fetus would be comparable to the odds of a child being expelled back into a dangerous region.

A second difference is that migrant children are already born, so they are not unborn children. Those who are anti-abortion often seem unconcerned about what happens to children and mothers (anti-abortion states tend to have the highest infant mortality rates), so it would be “consistent” for them to not be concerned about the fate of migrant children. This requires accepting the moral view that what matters is preventing abortion and that once birth occurs, moral concern ends. While not an impossible view, it does seem rather difficult to defend in a consistent manner. As such, those who oppose abortion in all cases would need to accept that expelling migrant children into danger would be morally wrong—and they should oppose this with the same vehemence with which they oppose abortion. But what about anti-abortion folks who allow abortion in the case of rape and incest?

Those who oppose abortion but make exceptions for cases of rape and incest would seem to be able to consistently advocate expelling migrant children, even when doing so would put them in danger. This is because they hold to what seems to be a consistent principle: if a child is present against the will of the property owner and as the result of a crime, then the child can be expelled even if this results in death whether this is an abortion or expelling a child who is an illegal migrant. But if the child is present due to consensual activity, then it would be wrong to expel the child.

While sexual consent can be a thorny issue, migration consent is even more problematic. After all, there is a rather important question about what counts as consensual migration. On the face of it, one could simply go with the legal view: those who cross the border illegally are here without consent and can be expelled. But there is the fact that American business and others actively invite migrants to cross the border and want them here, thus seeming to grant some form of consent. Also, people can legally cross the border to seek asylum, thus there is legal consent for such people—which includes migrant children. So, the matter is less clear cut. But Even if we stick with strict legality, then asylum seekers are still here with consent and hence expelling such children would seem to be morally similar to abortion: children are being harmed by being expelled. As such, those who hold to an anti-abortion position would seem to be obligated to also oppose expelling migrant children if they arrived seeking asylum.

It is worth noting that if the analogy holds, it would also seem to hold in reverse. That is, a person who is opposed to expelling migrant children because of the harm it would do to them would seem to also need to oppose abortion. Pro-choice pro-migrant folks do have a way to get out of this. They can argue that while migrant children are clearly people and hence have that moral status, a developing fetus does not have that moral status and hence the choice of the woman trumps the rights (if any) of the fetus. This is a consistent position since the pro-choice pro-migrant person holds that people have rights, but that the fetus is not a person. In contrast, the anti-abortion anti-migrant person is in something of a bind; they need to argue that unborn fetuses have a greater moral status than already born migrant children.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Migration & Abortion

by 9 Comments

As J.S. Mill pointed out in his writing on liberty, people generally do not operate based on consistent principles. Instead, they act based on their likes and dislikes—which are often the result of misinformation. Comparing the view of many Republicans of abortion to their view of immigration illustrates this nicely.

Image Credit

To use a concrete example, Alabama recently passed the most restrictive anti-abortion law to date, forbidding abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Proponents of the law, such as Alabama governor Kay Ivey, claim that the motivation behind the law is to protect life. As the governor said, “to the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

On the face of it, the principle in operation here is that because each life is precious and a sacred gift, if a man impregnates a woman (or girl) against her will, then she is obligated to host the zygote until birth. The expenses and risks of doing so fall on the woman (or girl)—the United States generally does shockingly little to assist pregnant women. Looked at in the abstract, the principle is that if a child manages to get inside a certain area, then there is an obligation on the part of the owner of that area to care for that child until the child can safely exit the area. If removing the child would kill or harm the child, then the child cannot be removed—regardless of how the child got there.

This principle would seem to also apply to certain migrant children who enter the United States—even if they are brought here illegally and against the will of the United States. Once they get within the United States, if expelling them would lead to harm, then the United States is obligated to care for them until they can safely exit the United States. After all, if the principle permits compelling women to bear a child from rape or incest, then it surely permits compelling the United States to care for even migrant children who are here illegally. At least until the children can safely leave the country.

It could be objected that abortion always kills a child while expelling a migrant child from the United States will probably not kill them. Hence the analogy breaks. One possible reply is to argue that if every life is precious and a sacred gift, then even harming a precious, sacred gift would be wrong. That is, the principle isn’t “killing them would be wrong, but anything else is probably okay” but that each precious life must be treated as a sacred gift and one does not throw a sacred gift out.

 But making the strongest analogy requires considering only cases in which expulsion would result in death. There are, of course, cases like that: there are migrant children (and adults) who are likely to be killed if they are sent back to their home country. It could be countered that, unlike abortion, they do have a chance of surviving. If so, the principle would have to be “each life is precious and a sacred gift, but this only entails that children should not be exposed to certain death. Likely death or great harm is morally okay.” While this is certainly a principle that one could hold, it is hardly commendable. As such, there would seem to be two options for anti-abortion folks who also want to be anti-migrant. The first is to consistently apply their avowed principle and accept immigrants when their expulsion would be likely to result in their harm. Or, of they want to be extremely strict, their deaths. The second option would be to abandon or modify their principle so that it applies only to abortion but not to migrants. The challenge is doing so in a manner that is not ad hoc or begs the question. For example, just saying that the principle only applies to the bodies of women but not to the United States would be ad hoc, as would saying that only zygotes deserve to be protected. It is worth noting that those who are pro-choice and pro-migrant would also need to consider the possible conflict between their principles as well.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Soap, Toothpaste and Migrant Children

by 6 Comments

The Trump administration set off yet another firestorm when it was revealed that migrant children were being detained without access to such basic items as toothpaste and soap. Apparently this is not just a matter of a lack of funds but of a policy decision—after all, donations are not being accepted from the public. One could argue that such donations cannot be accepted out of concern for the safety of the children or perhaps it is a standing policy to not accept any donations—these are points worth considering before immediately condemning the US Border Patrol. However, not having such necessities seems rather more dangerous than any risk presented by donations and polices can be changed if the will is there. As such, one would suspect that creating such conditions is a matter of policy.

Image Credit

On the face of it, denying anyone these necessities is morally wrong. Even the Taliban and Somali pirates give their captives toothpaste and soap; for the United States to be unwilling to rise up to the ethical level of pirates and the Taliban is certainly problematic. The fact that the United States is treating children in this manner makes it even worse—there can be no argument that the children are so terrible that they can be justly denied these necessities. First, they are obviously innocent children. Second, even terrible people are entitled to necessities when being held prisoner. Despite the obvious wickedness of denying children these necessities, the Trump administration not only did so, but defended their actions.

Sarah B. Faban, a Justice Department lawyer, was sent by the administration to defend their misdeeds. The gist of her argument was that the government is only required to provide “safe and sanitary conditions” and since this does not specify such things as soap and toothpaste, the government is not obligated to provide such things. In a now infamous video, the judges made it clear that they did not accept this argument. They contended that providing safe and sanitary conditions does require providing the necessities, such as toothpaste and soap. The judges’ reasoning seems correct. While Faban is right that the specific wording is “safe and sanitary” and that it does not specify that soap, toothpaste and such need to be provided, this is a rather easy entailment to draw. To use an analogy, if it was required that people be housed someplace warm and it turned out that the place was freezing cold, it would be unreasonable to say that this is okay because there is no specific mention of heaters or such. As such, the judges seem to be right about this matter: the children need the necessities, such as soap and toothpaste, to be in safe and sanitary conditions. As such, the Trump administration is wrong.

As would be expected in this age of rage, Faban has been subject to death threats and is the target of hate. While the death threats cross an obvious moral line, it can be contended that in defending an obviously evil policy she made herself worthy of hate and contempt. However, it must be noted that she was doing her job—as a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department she must defend the administration. It is almost certain that all of us have done things we do not agree with because it is part of our job; we should consider this fact when judging Faban. This does lead to the old problem of disobedience and the now well-established moral principle that “just following orders” is not an adequate moral excuse. That said, it can be too much to expect people to be moral heroes and a case can be made for choosing one’s professional duties over one’s conscience. As such, while I think that Faban had a terrible argument and was defending an evil policy, I will not get on the hate bandwagon.

As far as why the Trump administration has been denying children these necessities, the official line is that it is Congress’ fault. The Trump administration has been thwarted in its effort to shift funds to build the wall and they are asserting that they therefore lack the funds to provide the necessities. This is certainly a clever way to shift blame; but the responsibility for the decisions on how to use the available funds still falls on the Trump administration—they are choosing to deny children these necessities. As such, the strategy seems to be to use the children as a bargaining chip with Congress; essentially saying that if he does not get his wall, then children will go without toothpaste and soap. Using children as hostages in this manner is morally wrong; this is evident to anyone with basic humanity.

It is also suspected that this approach is part of a broader strategy of trying to deter migrants from entering the country. Separating families was supposed to frighten people into not crossing the border and now terrible conditions are being used to try to scare people away. This leads to another moral question which needs to be addressed: is it morally acceptable to deter migration by doing wicked things to create fear? This will be the subject of an upcoming essay.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Migration & Disease

by 17 Comments

One stock racist rhetorical tool is to use the stereotype that migrants carry disease to generate fear of migration. This well-worn tool has most recently been deployed against the “migrant caravan” that became a fixation of Trump. Somewhat ironically, migrants to the United States make up 16% of healthcare workers, including 29% of physicians and 24% of dentists. As such, while there is little chance that a migrant will bring a disease into the United States, there is a good chance that one will provide your healthcare. Because of these facts, using disease as a reason to limit migration would seem to be irrational. While someone might advance the reason in sincere ignorance rather than from racism, it is primarily a tool of baseless fear and racism. But, is it true that migrants present no health risks?

Image Credit

If the safety standard is that migrants must present zero health risk, then this standard obviously cannot be met: there is a non-zero chance that a migrant will have an illness that gets passed on to American. As such, it could be truly said that migration does increase the number of cases of illness in a country: more than zero migrants will be ill when they enter, and more than zero Americans will catch some illness from migrants. However, this hardly warrants regarding migrants as health threat. After all, there are non-zero cases in which a migrant saves a life or does something else heroic. But it would be odd to speak of the great promise of a wave of migrant heroism—except in the economic sense. Likewise, speaking of the threat of a wave of migrant disease would be odd and unfounded.

It might be objected that my lack of terror about diseased migrants entails that I favor open borders and support allowing people to simply flow into the United States without regulation and without any health concerns. My easy and obvious reply is that my lack of terror about diseased immigrants entails nothing about my view of immigration policy or borders—except the obvious fact that I do not think that fears of diseased migrants should shape border policy. While I am not terrified of diseased hordes invading America, I do still have health concerns that do connect to the movement of people.

The fear that migrants can bring devastating diseases to the Americas is based on historical fact. When Europeans arrived in what they called the New World they brought with them Old World diseases that proved devastating to the native populations. Smallpox, in particular, decimated the native people—thus greatly assisting the Europeans in their conquest of these lands. If the natives had been able to enforce strong borders and keep the Europeans out, history would be radically different. As would be suspected, modern opponents of migration to the United States do not normally use this as an example when making their disease argument—it, after all, makes it clear that most people who are here now are migrants or descendants of recent migrants. There is also the fact that the situation now is radically different from then.

Back in the 1500s the native people had little or no resistance to European diseases and there was no modern medicine. The situation is quite different today. Migrants coming to the United States will not be bringing in diseases unknown in the United States that can cut down vast swaths of the population because there is no health care. That said, the possibility of global pandemics is a legitimate problem—but such pandemics are unlikely to arise from migrants coming from the other Americas into the United States. As such, legitimate worries about pandemics do not warrant restricting general migration. After all, what generally occurs is vaccinated people migrating from countries with health care systems to the United States. But, what about when this is not the case?

One matter of very real concern is the fact that Venezuela’s health care system is collapsing due to the corruption and mismanagement of its government. One consequence is an outbreak of measles. Health care professionals have been leaving Venezuela, which is making it even harder to address the outbreak—but this migration of professionals will potentially benefit other countries. Citizens of the country have also been trying to flee the disaster that is Venezuela and this creates the very real possibility that people infected with measles will spread to other countries.

Normally, this would not be a very serious problem—vaccination against measles is safe and effective. It was also widespread. However, some Americans have decided to forgo vaccinating their children—thus making some members of the population vulnerable to the disease. Because of this, having people bringing measles to the United States is now a potential problem.

While proponents of the disease argument against migration might be ecstatic about this situation, even this scenario does not warrant the sort of migration restrictions they favor. After all, measles is already here and does not need to be brought across the border. Rather than showing that the United States needs to tighten up the borders, this situation shows that the United States must tighten up the vaccination requirements for citizens to ensure that they are properly protected from diseases that are already here. Vaccines and health care, not a  wall, will keep us safe from disease.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: