Immigration, The 9th Circuit Court, and Virtue Ethics
Forward: As a student in a social work program, I found myself involved in many debates concerning immigration. I could never wrap my head around the idea that the students around me actually believed people had the right to immigrate here while foregoing any responsibility to assimilate to our culture. This, however, is exactly what they believe because our entire system of morality and philosophical thought is being changed from within, and it is affecting the way laws are passed. One day, a professor of mine – a left wing zealot mind you – acknowledged the fact that if you cross into Mexico, you will not be treated the way we treat immigrants when they come here. She asked a simple question: “What kind of country do you want to be?” At this point, it dawned on me that students are being trained to argue from an emotional standpoint and their ability to reason is being replaced by a thought process based on feelings as opposed to fact. The students did not want to feel like they were prohibiting people from being able to pursue better lives, so they became advocates for open borders because it made them feel good.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
Americans continue to watch in absolute bewilderment as the left fights tooth and nail to put a wrench in the Trump administration’s agenda. The recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has shown that they are firmly committed to carrying on with the Obama agenda insofar as attempting to change the demographics of our nation. Rush Limbaugh often points out that labeling the left as hypocrites has little to no affect, as no one seems willing to take them to task. Not only were the seven countries in question regarding Trumps ban identified as terrorist hotspots by the Obama administration, the former president himself is on record saying illegal immigration will hurt the wages of blue collar workers in our country. How was it that Obama had such a shift in immigration policy, and what basis does the developing narrative on the President’s authority to issue executive orders regarding immigration have to do with actual law? The right is arguing that the court’s ruling ignored the constitution as well as an established precedent; and the left – well, as usual, the left is arguing from a position of moral superiority while claiming the president’s order is unconstitutional. Some on the left even believe that people have the right to immigrate to the United States. Unfortunately, when it comes to illegal immigration, not many are familiar with what the law really is, nor are they prepared to fight back against the alleged moral superiority argument so often played by the those on the left.
According to Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the powers over naturalization rest exclusively in congress. In 1965, the U.S. congress passed a law, which was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, that drastically changed immigration and set America on a course that would change her demographics forever. This law was known as the Immigration Act of 1965. Up until this law was passed, immigration was based on a quota system. Immigrants from around the world were let in based on the percentage of people from that part of the world already in the U.S. This was known as the National Origins Quota and was passed into law in 1924, in order to slow the massive migration into the United States and protect our cultural identity. This was later considered a racist policy, as most of the immigrants were coming from European countries. The Immigration Act of 1965 was written to change the demographics of America by opening immigration up to the third world.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.
This bill grew out of the growing civil rights movement. Whereas new laws preventing discrimination based on skin color were being passed, pressure was also mounting to change the laws related to how America took in immigrants. Immigration to America literally became a human rights issue. According to Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, the new immigration law was the manifestation of the civil rights movement on the world stage. Opponents of this bill were labeled as racist and bigoted for standing in opposition because the bill itself was an extension of the civil rights laws being passed in the U.S. Edward Kennedy, who was serving as the chair for the senate subcommittee hearing this bill, claimed that the number of immigrants coming into the country would not increase and that our country’s demographic make up would not change, as opponents of the bill argued they would. According to the Center of Immigration Studies the number of immigrants coming into the country tripled over three decades, with over 18 million coming from Latin American and Asian countries. Furthermore, the education gap between native born Americans and those immigrating also widened significantly. This created a strain on the system because America is a high tech society who now had a large population of people unable to compete in those jobs and, therefore, live their lives courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. This 18 million does not represent the untold millions of illegal immigrants who have also crossed our borders and taken advantage of the system.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is most likely basing it’s ruling on the immigration act of 1965. They call it unconstitutional because the law itself made the issue of immigration one of universal human rights; people now have the right to immigrate to the United States. This is ridiculous. There is no human right to immigrate to the U.S. and live off of the taxpayer. The left, arguing from an emotional standpoint, believe they have a superior “moral virtue” and that they are more compassionate than the rest of us. They are basing their argument for unfettered immigration on virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics is based purely on the idea that it is the intentions behind an action that are more important than the consequences. This is why the left so effortlessly gets away with anything because the intentions behind their actions are based on the superior virtue of their character: they acted out of love and compassion, therefore, consequences don’t matter. Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe was a British philosopher who argued that philosophical thought should do away with making decisions based on what was once understood as morally correct. Her argument suggested that morals were derived from an established law made by legislatures and that this was an outdated system that should be done away with. Instead, Anscombe’s idea on virtue ethics suggested that the good of man should come first. A concept known as eudaimonia, which translates as human flourishing, or the highest human good, has replaced traditional moral thinking with a moral code that is based purely on what makes those making the rules feel good. In other words, it doesn’t matter if there are potential terrorists in the midst of refugees and other immigrants, it is for the greater good of mankind that borders be eliminated and people move freely, with no responsibility to their host nation. To the liberals, the idea that people have to assimilate and follow a legal process of becoming a citizen flies in the face of their morally superior belief that all people have the right to immigrate here. In the end, any victims of potential terrorist attacks are but a statistic in the never ending quest for Utopia.
Article reposted with permisssion from In Defense of Our Nation. Article by David Risselada.