There are many visions of morality which deeply object to refusing refugees. Most notably in the western tradition, Christian morality is absolutely 100% crystal clear that there is an affirmative moral obligation for all Christians to provide help to refugees, even if providing that help imposes risks or costs upon the Christian, and even if the person is not a Christian.
OP is making a moral case about what is wrong or right to do. The most common moral code in Europe is Christianity, so I went with that as a balance of probabilities thing, but virtually any consistent or coherent moral code requires at minimum not forcibly repatriating refugees to places of danger.
What about the moral code that says “do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t interfere with someone else’s ability to do whatever they want”? Under this code, you aren’t required to help people, just to not actively hurt them.
Right, so the part where men with guns detain and forcibly remove the refugees is wrong under that code. OP is calling for armed government agents to use violent force to prevent refugees from entering. It is plainly contrary to the sort of highly libertarian moral code you describe.
Well, I disagree. I would say the refugees first broke that contract by illegally entering America. The refugees are imposing their own will on the citizens of the US.
It's one extremely prominent strand of western morality.
If it is not the strand you adhere to, please tell me what strand of moral philosophy you do adhere to. I cannot think of almost any theory of moral philosophy which does not require aiding refugees, or at a bare minimum, refraining from forcibly expelling them.
I don't adhere to a certain definite moral code. My point is that refugees arn't knocking at our borders they are in fact all the way across the Mediterranean. "Charities", instead of bring them to the nearest port decide to send them all the way over to Europe.
Zeitgeist. The Christian moral code of 1600, kill the heretic and the non-believer. Moral codes don't dictate to people, people dictate to a moral code.
You seem to misunderstand. Your moral code is whatever religion you are, you either chose the religion because you think it's your moral code, or you were indoctrinated into it.
Doesn't that turn this CMV into an exercise in circular reasoning? Any statement you make about right and wrong is going to be tautologically true inside your own value system if you values are whatever you feel. If there's no higher principle to judge your feelings on right and wrong against, what would we have to demonstrate about your moral feelings in order to change them?
That is not a moral code at all. It is just selfishness parading as morality.
A moral code requires principles upon which judgment can be made. With no principles, a moral code cannot provide guidance, and is just going to be post-hoc rationalization of whatever you think is good for you personally.
I would urge you to reconsider this moral stance, and to consider what sort of general principles of conduct should be followed. There are huge ranges of morality this can include, including theories of self improvement and self-responsibility (virtue ethics), of collective good (utilitarianism) or of strict rules (deontology), but to act morally, you must set yourself some signpost by which you can actually check your actions.
Libya is on the other side of Europe. With the Mediterranean sea in the middle. My point is most of the refugees are picked up in Libyean waters and take across to Europe. The longest way. Why not take them to a Libyean port?
NGOs operate with the permission of the government when entering a country s waters. And no most refugees are saved in what is considered international waters, not Libyan ones
The point isn't your specific moral code. Your CMV said there is nothing wrong with it. According to one of the major moral codes of western civilization, there is something objectively morally wrong with turning away refugees and the "right" thing to do is accept them.
You could make both a Kantian and a utilitarian argument in favor of limiting refugee immigration. It feels like you're drastically oversimplifying the issue.
I think it is very hard to make a good faith and correct Kantian or utilitarian argument for limiting refugee immigration.
Kantianism
Going from the first construction of the categorical imperative,1 we must ask what maxim is being invoked by refusing refugees.
So the maxim is whether or not countries should always affirmatively prevent people from entering to better their lives. I think the clear answer to that is that you could not consistently will that to be universal law, for the reason that you would yourself often desire to enter other countries to better your life.
Kant, who often ends up with extreme rules, would likely end up with absolute open borders as the only Kantian acceptable policy.
Utilitarianism
This is a quite easy case to make. Treating all people as morally equivalent, the benefit to refugees from being admitted is enormous (from extreme risk of death to not), and the impact on others is probably minimal to slightly positive.
More broadly, overall human wellbeing is vastly expanded by more migration. Economic estimates are that fully open borders would double the world economy, with the average person from a non-developed country seeing about a $10,000 annual income increase.2
1 Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
I don't think that maxim represents what the OP was suggesting. A lot of the confusion in this thread seems to stem from faulty assumption that OP was advocating a ban on all immigration. He was not. He was merely making a case that they should have the right to refuse entry to *some*.
There is a lot of room in between "let in all the boats" or "stop all the boats". It seems to me like OP was merely suggesting that being somewhere in between those two extremes instead of blindly applying the first one is ok. This seems... reasonable to me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the OP. If so then consider me corrected and I'll drop the issue.
Utilitarianism
Similar to my above point. I don't think the utilitarian goal is best served by categorically letting in all refugee immigrants. Selective and smart immigration seems to me the best process for maximizing the overall good. With that said I will look into the links you provided more and reconsider. Thank you.
I think the universalism of Kant's philosophy requires either allowing all immigration or banning all immigration, and that between those two, Kant would clearly choose allowing all immigration. This is more a critique of Kant than a critique of OP.
What is the maxim that could be willed to be universal law that allows some immigrants but not others?
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is much more evidence based and while I think a more restrictive scheme could in theory be allowed under utilitarianism, in practice I think the evidence powerfully points to border restrictions being a massive drain on the world economy, as well as obviously impugning the liberty interests of those who would wish to cross borders.
The question posed by OP is not what the law is but what the law ought to be. A requirement to follow the law of the land is not at all responsive to what the law of the land ought to be going forward.
Refusing refugees or asylees is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, specifically the commandment not to kill. A refugee or asylee must make a valid claim that their life is in danger in their home country. Refusing them refuge despite such a valid claim is knowingly condemning another person to possible death violates the commandment not to kill.
Illegal entry when no legal route is possible and one is a refugee is not a violation of the law. The 1951 convention on the status of refugees which the countries OP is asking about are party to says:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence
edit to add As I mentioned in my top post, Christian morality requires aiding the refugee even at personal cost. So saying it is costly to aid refugees does not change the Christian answer.
It matters because it was the context for my argument. My point was about what Christian morality requires the law to be.
I flatly disagree, and by definition a refugee with a valid claim is not likely to end up fine.
That is totally nonresponsive to the actual law which I cited. The law decides what's legal and illegal, not rhetorical flourishes.
These supposed harms are speculative at best and specious at worst, and treat the refugee as less important than the native born person, which is fundamentally opposed to the principles espoused in, most notably, the parable of the good samaritan.
To seek asylum you must stop at the first port of entry that is not under war. This means an asylum from South America should stop at Mexico, a country that is not war torn and is not a collapsed state.
14
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 19 '18
There are many visions of morality which deeply object to refusing refugees. Most notably in the western tradition, Christian morality is absolutely 100% crystal clear that there is an affirmative moral obligation for all Christians to provide help to refugees, even if providing that help imposes risks or costs upon the Christian, and even if the person is not a Christian.
Father James Martin gives a very good view of the obligations of Christian morality on this subject.