![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've seen a lot of people opposing immigration, and often hurling slurs against immigrants. And I've never seen any plausible ethical counter-argument against free immigration.
And actual American immigration restrictions were originally based on racism and eugenicism. And there have been attempts to rework these, remove the blatant racism, etc. but they're still continuations of many of the same policies, the same institutions, etc.
An actual argument is that immigration sometimes reduces wages, but the immigration restrictions, which leave people vulnerable to exploitation, also reduce wages. I really doubt that free immigration would reduce wages in America, if immigrants can join unions, etc., and I think it would increase wages globally, and eventually in America.
And I think violence against human beings, such as deportation, razor wire on the river-banks, imprisonment, extraordinary rendition, etc. needs stronger justification.
The most common "argument" is that free immigration is politically unpopular. But that's not an argument that it's wrong, or that the current cruelty is somehow not wrong.
A similar "argument" is that "every other country restricts immigration," or even that "every country has a sovereign might to restrict immigration." But again, that's not an argument that free immigration is wrong, and I don't think a government can have rights.
Another "argument" is that free immigration would somehow lead to more human smuggling, but it's the restrictions that force people to turn to smugglers.
Another "argument" is that allowing immigrants into the country is somehow comparable to allowing all of them into our home. Which just doesn't make sense to me. Current restrictions literally keep people from visiting friends and family who have invited them into their homes.
Another "argument" is that it's some kind of conspiracy or invasion. Which is blatant nonsense, and allows people to dismiss thical arguments, and encourages violence against immigrants and refugees and, in the case of the Pittsbugh Synaogue shooting, against people who support immigrants and refugees.
Another "argument" is that they're "poisoning the blood" of America. Which is worse.
P.S. I don't feel any responsibility to steel-man these arguments.
If this were an abstract discussion, maybe, but these anti-immigrant policies have hurt and killed people. So it feels sick to try to argue for them.
And plenty of other people offer their versions of these arguments every day.
And actual American immigration restrictions were originally based on racism and eugenicism. And there have been attempts to rework these, remove the blatant racism, etc. but they're still continuations of many of the same policies, the same institutions, etc.
An actual argument is that immigration sometimes reduces wages, but the immigration restrictions, which leave people vulnerable to exploitation, also reduce wages. I really doubt that free immigration would reduce wages in America, if immigrants can join unions, etc., and I think it would increase wages globally, and eventually in America.
And I think violence against human beings, such as deportation, razor wire on the river-banks, imprisonment, extraordinary rendition, etc. needs stronger justification.
The most common "argument" is that free immigration is politically unpopular. But that's not an argument that it's wrong, or that the current cruelty is somehow not wrong.
A similar "argument" is that "every other country restricts immigration," or even that "every country has a sovereign might to restrict immigration." But again, that's not an argument that free immigration is wrong, and I don't think a government can have rights.
Another "argument" is that free immigration would somehow lead to more human smuggling, but it's the restrictions that force people to turn to smugglers.
Another "argument" is that allowing immigrants into the country is somehow comparable to allowing all of them into our home. Which just doesn't make sense to me. Current restrictions literally keep people from visiting friends and family who have invited them into their homes.
Another "argument" is that it's some kind of conspiracy or invasion. Which is blatant nonsense, and allows people to dismiss thical arguments, and encourages violence against immigrants and refugees and, in the case of the Pittsbugh Synaogue shooting, against people who support immigrants and refugees.
Another "argument" is that they're "poisoning the blood" of America. Which is worse.
P.S. I don't feel any responsibility to steel-man these arguments.
If this were an abstract discussion, maybe, but these anti-immigrant policies have hurt and killed people. So it feels sick to try to argue for them.
And plenty of other people offer their versions of these arguments every day.
