Category: Current Affairs

Can Federalism Save Us?

I fear that we are coming apart as a nation.   We are disagreeing about things we ought not be disagreeing about, such as the need to secure the borders.  The rifts are deep and nasty.  Polarization and demonization of the opponent are the order of the day.   Do you want more of this?  Then give government more say in your life.  The bigger the government, the more to fight over.  Do you want less?  Then support limited government and federalism.  A return to federalism may be a way to ease the tensions, not that I am sanguine about any solution. 

Federalism, roughly, is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that both the central and the constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will and meddle in their affairs.  Federalism is implied by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

Federalism would make for less contention, because people who support high taxes and liberal schemes could head for states like Massachusetts or California, while the  conservatively inclined who support gun rights and capital punishment could gravitate toward states like Texas. 

The fact of the matter is that we do not agree on a large number of divisive, passion-inspiring issues (abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, affirmative action, legal and illegal immigration, taxation, wealth redistribution, the purposes and limits, if any, of governmental power  . . .) and we will never agree on them.  These are not merely 'academic' issues since they directly affect the lives and livelihoods and liberties of people.  And they are not easily resolved because they are deeply rooted  in fundamental worldview differences.  When you violate a man's liberty, or mock his moral sense, or threaten to destroy his way of life, you are spoiling for a fight and you will get it.

Worldview differences in turn reflect differences  in values.  Now values are not like tastes.  Tastes cannot be reasonably discussed and disputed  while values can.  (De gustibus non est disputandum.) But value differences, though they can be fruitfully discussed,  cannot be objectively resolved because any attempted resolution will end up relying on higher-order value judgments.  There is no exit from the axiological circle.  We can articulate and defend our values and clarify our value differences.  What we cannot do is resolve our value differences to the satisfaction of all sincere, intelligent, and informed discussants. 

Consider religion.  Is it a value or not?  Conservatives, even those who are atheistic and irreligious, tend to view religion as a value, as conducive to human flourishing.  Liberals and leftists tend to view it as a disvalue, as something that impedes human flourishing.  The question is not whether religion, or rather some particular religion, is true.  Nor is  the question whether religion, or some particular religion, is rationally defensible.  The question is whether the teaching and learning and practice of a religion contributes to our well-being, not just as individuals, but in our relations with others.  For example,  would we be better off as a society if every vestige of religion were removed from the public square?  Does Bible study tend to make us better people?

For a conservative like Dennis Prager, the answer to both questions is obvious.  As I recall, he gives an example something like the following.  You are walking down the street in a bad part of town.  On one side of the street  people are leaving a Bible study class.  On the other side, a bunch of  Hells [sic] Angels are coming out of the PussyCat Lounge.  Which side of the street do you want to be on?  For a conservative the answer is obvious.  People who study the Bible with its Ten Commandments, etc. are less likely to mug or injure you than drunken bikers who have been getting in touch with their inner demons  for the last three hours.  But of course this little thought experiment won't cut any ice with a dedicated leftist.

I won't spell out the leftist response.  I will say only that you will enter a morass of consideration and counter-consideration that cannot be objectively adjudicated.

My thesis is that there can be no objective resolution, satisfactory to every sincere, intelligent, and well-informed discussant, of the question of the value of religion.  And this is a special case of a general thesis about the objective insolubility of value questions with respect to the  issues that most concern us.

Another  sort of value difference concerns not what we count as values, but how we weight  or prioritize them.  Presumably both conservatives and liberals value both liberty and security.  But they will differ bitterly over which trumps the other and in what circumstances.  Here too it is naive to  expect an objective resolution of the issue satisfactory to all participants, even those who meet the most stringent standards of moral probity, intellectual acuity, knowledgeability with respect to relevant empirical issues, etc.

Liberal and conservative, when locked in polemic, like to call each other stupid.  But of course intelligence or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the intractability of the debates.  The intractability is rooted in value differences about which consensus is impossible.  On the abortion question, for example, there is no empirical evidence that can resolve the dispute.  Empirical data from biology and other sciences are of course relevant to the correct formulation of the problem, but contribute nothing to its resolution.  Nor can reason whose organon  is logic resolve the dispute.  You would have to be as naive as Ayn Rand to think that Reason dictates a solution.

Recognizing these facts, we must ask ourselves: How can we keep from tearing each other apart literally or figuratively?  Guns, God, abortion, illegal immigration — these are issues that get the blood up.  I am floating the suggestion that federalism and severe limitations on the reach of the central government are what we need to lessen tensions. 

Example:  Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned and the question of the legality of abortion is returned to the states.  Some states will make it legal, others illegal.  This would be a modest step in the direction of mitigating the tensions between the warring camps.  If abortion is a question for the states, then no federal monies could be allocated to the support of abortion.  People who want to live in abortion states can move there; people who don't can move to states in which abortion is illegal. Each can live with their own kind and avoid having their values and sensibilities disrespected.

I understand that my proposal will not be acceptable to either liberals or conservatives.  Both want to use the power of the central government to enforce what they consider right.  Both sides are convinced that they are right.  But of course they cannot both be right.  So how do they propose to heal the splits in the body politic?

A Mosque Grows Near Brooklyn

Here.  Where is the money coming from?

Sarah Palin calls the building of this mosque an "unnecessary provocation."  As opposed to what, a necessary provocation?  But don't let Palin's infelicitous language distract you from the serious point she is making.  It is indeed  a  provocation, and the Islamists are testing us to see how far they can go and to see how weak and supine we are.  Will New Yorkers, sophisticated liberal fools that  many of them are, put up with this abomination a couple of blocks away from where their fellow citizens died horrible deaths because of a terrorist attack fueled by Islamist ideology?

The fact that the building of this mosque will be perceived as a provocation by a majority is sufficient reason to block its construction.  How can its construction do anything to improve relations between decent Muslims and the rest of us?

The first clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "free exercise" of religion.  True.  But is Islam a religion?  You will say, "of course!"  But perhaps you should be a bit more thoughtful.  Islam is a political ideology as much as it is a religion, and in this respect it is unlike Buddhism, or Christianity, or Judaism.  I have never heard any Jew call for the destruction of any Islamic state.  Muslims, however, routinely call for the destruction of the Jewish state.  When I lived in Turkey in the mid-nineties I was warned that preaching Christianity there could get one thrown in prison — not that I was about to do any such thing.  And Turkey in those days was a relatively 'enlightened' country compared to the rest of the non-Jewish Middle East. 

Muslims aren't very 'liberal,' are they?    They are intolerant in their attitudes and their behavior.  Now the touchstone of classical liberalism is toleration.  Toleration is good, but it has limits.  (See the posts in the category Toleration.)  So why should we tolerate them when they work to undermine our way of life?  The U. S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.  We are under no obligation to tolerate the intolerant. 

I said above that Islam is as much a political ideology as a religion. That is reflected in the fact that they have nothing like our church-state separation.  And please note that church-state separation has a good foundation in the New Testament at Matthew 22: 21: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the the things that are God's."  Please point me to the Koranic verse that enshrines the same idea.

Apologists say that Islam is a religion of peace.  Now 'peace' may be one of the meanings of Islam, but its dominant meaning is 'submission to the will of Allah as revealed to the propher Muhammad in the Koran.'  Let us also not forget that Muhammad was a warrior.  Was Jesus a warrior?  Buddha?  A religion founded by a warrior.  An interesting concept, that.  Somehow, I am more drawn to a religion whose founder says, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

So here is something to think about. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.  But to apply the Amendment, one must raise and answer the logically prior question, What is a religion?    I rather doubt that the Founders had Islam in mind when they ensured the right to the free exercise of religion.  So we need to ask the question whether Islam counts as a religion in a sufficiently robust sense of the term to justify affording it full First Amendment protection.  To the extent that Muslims work to infiltrate and overturn our institutions and way of life, to the extent that they violate church-state separation, to the extent that they demand special privileges and refuse to assimilate, to that extent they remove  themselves from any right to First Amendment protection.

Addendum and Corrigendum (7/22)

I made a mistake in the last paragraph that I will now correct.  Although the sentence "I rather doubt that the Founders had Islam in mind when they ensured the right to the free exercise of religion" was true when I wrote it, expressing as it did a fact about my mental state, I now see that it is simply false that the Founders did not have Islam in mind.  See The Founding Fathers and Islam.  I thank Mark Whitten for the correction. 

But I do not retract my main point, which is that we ought to give careful thought to the question whether, as I put it above, "Islam counts as a religion in a sufficiently robust sense of the term to justify affording it full First Amendment protection. "  I am raising this as a question.  So-called liberals, however, being politically correct and therefore opposed to truly open discussion, will no doubt haul out their list of abusive epithets: racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe . . . .

I should point out that 'Islamophobe,' a term employed by the benighted Karen Armstrong, the renegade nun, is a particularly silly expression that only a liberal could love.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  If you use the word in any other way you are misusing it.  Fear of militant Islam is a rational fear.  One would hope that Armstrong, a Brit, would have a better grip on the English language.  These' -phobe' constructions are a dead giveaway that one is dealing with a PC liberal.  Take 'homophobia.'  Those who oppose homosexual practices neither fear it nor fear it irrationally.  Some have arguments against it.  In this case, then, the construction is doubly idiotic.  As for 'xenophobe,' that is a real word of English, but our benighted liberal pals seem not to know what it means.  It means 'irrational fear of foreigners.'  It does not mean 'someone who combats liberal-left nonsense.'  As one who has travelled the world and has lived for extended periods in Austria, Germany, and Turkey, I am hardly one who could be called a xenophobe.  Someone who opposes the infiltration of  his country by militant Muslims is not a xenophobe:  his fear is rational and it is directed not at Muslims qua Muslims but at Muslims qua militant subversives.

Over at Gnosis and Noesis, Professor Richard Hennessey rather pedantically and uncharitably picks at my "Muslims aren't very 'liberal,' are they?"  Do I mean that no Muslim is liberal?  Of course not.  A universal proposition can be refuted by a single counterexample.  (And it is worth noting en passant that a necessary universal proposition can be refuted by a single merely possible counterexample.)  Since it is obviously false that no Muslim is liberal, it is uncharitable to take my sentence as expressing that proposition.

One cannot assume that a sentence of the form Fs are Gs is always elliptical for a sentence of the form All Fs are Gs, or that a sentence of the form Fs are not Gs is always elliptical for a sentence of the form No Fs are Gs.  For example, 'Old people go to bed early' would not naturally be taken to mean that all old people go to bed early, which is plainly false, but that most do, or that old people tend to go to be early, or something similar.

Professor Hennessey seems also to be ignoring the context of my remarks, which is the construction of  mega-mosque near Ground Zero.  That, I submit, is an outrageous  provocation, a bit like building a Japanese  Shinto shrine in close proximity to the U.S.S. Arizona. (See here.)  I don't see how any rational person can fail to see that or fail to see that such a project cannot possibly bring together moderate Muslims and the rest of us.  And so it is reasonable to interpret the project as an initiative on the part of militant Muslims to take advantage of our tolerance and naivete in order to spread their religion and culture whose values are antithetic both to the Judeo-Christian tradition and to our Enlightenment values.

So that is the context in which a sentence like "They are intolerant in their attitudes and their behavior" is to be read.  The 'they' refers to militant Muslims: Muhammad Atta and the boys,  their enablers and supporters, those who flog and stone to death adulterers, those who would would impose Sharia, the clitorectomists, the Muslim fathers who murder their own daughters for adopting Western ways.  Our constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."  Perhaps Hennessey can point me to the passage in the Koran that does the same.  And then there are Muslim taxicab drivers who refuse to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs because of some lunatic Muslim aversion to dogs.  Others won't transport a person who has an alcoholic beverage in a closed container. That sort of fanaticism has no place in America.  I could go on, but the point is clear.

Just at the threat to the West in the 20th century was Communism, the threat to the West in the 21st is radical Islam. Both are totalitarian and internationalist.  Both are extremely skillful in recruiting young fanatic followers.  In one way the threat posed by militant Islam is far more dangerous than that posed by the Commies.  The Commies, being atheists and materialists, had a good reason not to deploy their nukes.  Muslims have no such reason.  (And it seems clear that they will soon be getting nukes thanks to Obama the Appeaser.) They are eager to move on to their crude paradise wherein they will disport endlessly with black-eyed virgins and get to wallow in the sensuousness that is forbidden them here.

For more on this delightful topic, see my Islamism category.

Is Rhode Island in Violation of the Supremacy Clause?

Rhode_island%20coin Rhode Island is already doing what Arizona is fixin' to do come the end of this month. As William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School,  reports over at Legal Insurrection, ". . . Rhode Island already has implemented the critical piece of the Arizona law [S.B. 1070], checking the immigration status of people stopped for traffic violations where there is a reasonable suspicion, and reporting all illegals to federal authorities for deportation."

Will Eric Holder and colleagues at the DOJ be going after Rhode Island?  If not, why not?  I'm not legally trained, but isn't there supposed to be something wrong with selective enforcement? Isn't there something objectionable about suing Arizona for a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution while turning a blind eye to Rhode Island, not to mention those sanctuary cities such as Los Angeles which are, because of their sanctuary laws, really in violation of the Clause in question?

One gets the impression that the reasons adduced in the complaint are just a smokescreen to hide venal and  'political' motives.  A need to curry favor with Hispanics in order to stay in office?  A desire to flood the country with potential Democrats so as to secure a permanent victory for the Left?

Actually, the latter is what this is all about to anyone astute enough to penetrate the thick veil of liberal-left mendacity.  Obama and the boys have no desire to control the border or solve the problem of illegal immigration. This is why they mouth and hide behind the vacuous phrase 'comprehensive immigation reform.'  Like 'change,' it means nothing definite.  To them, that is a virtue allowing as it does for maximal obfuscation.


Gallup Poll: Americans Oppose Federal Suit Against AZ Immigration Law

Here.  The notion that the Obama Justice Department would waste millions suing  a state for passing a law that mirrors the content of a Federal law is absurd on the face of it, especially when the same Justice Department turns a blind eye to sanctuary laws which actually do violate the Supremacy Clause; but also from a purely political standpoint the suit is idotic harming as it does the Dems' chances in the November elections and beyond.

By the way, did you see Sarah Palin on The O'Reilly Factor tonight?  Mr. Bill did a good job grilling her and exposing the shallowness of her thinking about illegal immigration. She has obviously given little thought to the problem of the 12 or so million illegals already in the country, many of whom stay out of trouble, have jobs, and have children who are U. S. citizens.

The Empty Suit Suit: U.S. vs. Arizona

The ridiculous lawsuit the DOJ is bringing against Arizona could be called the 'empty suit suit' inasmuch as  behind it are a bunch of empty suits in line behind the Empty Suit in Chief. See Lawrence Auster, The Gravamen of the DOJ's Case Against Arizona.

It is nice to know that not everything in The Arizona Republic, the local rag of record, is liberal-left buncombe.  See Chuck Coughlin, Secure Border Can Provide Big Dividends.  But the journalistic crapweasels of The AZ Republic really do deserve our contempt.  How many weeks did it take them before they began correctly reporting the content of S.B. 1070?  Like Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Obama, they apparently believed that one can speak responsibly about something about which one knows nothing.  But I do admit that the aforesaid journalistic crapweasels have cleaned up their act somewhat.  One wonders what goes on in the J-schools around the land.  I'm not sure I want to know.

While I'm on the illegal immigration topic, let me draw your attention to Heather Mac Donald's The Illegal Alien Crime Wave.  Here is but one of her astute observations:

But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders.

That's certainly right: the numbers now drive the policy.  And it may be  too late to stop the illegal immigrant juggernaut which is of course aided and abetted by the intellectually irresponsible elision of the legal/illegal distinction by its  liberal-left enablers.  

Feds Sue Arizona Over S.B. 1070 and the Etymology of ‘Shyster’

Here is the full text of the complaint.  Dive in if you can stomach it.  It lends credence to Martin Luther's "Reason is a whore."  But these days, with the upgrading of prostitutes to 'sex workers,' the saying should go, 'Reason is a lawyer.'  Pay them enough, and they will argue anything.

The complaint alleges that S.B. 1070 violates the Supremacy Clause (article VI, paragraph 2) of the U. S. Constitution.  How's that for a legal stretch?  Said clause  reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2.

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982).  

Since 1070 essentially mirrors Federal immigration law, I suppose the argument will not be that 1070 is  in conflict with Federal law but that its enforcement will somehow interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.  Good luck with that, government shysters. 

I've often wondered about the etymology of 'shyster.'  From German scheissen, to shit?  That would fit well with the old joke, "What is the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit?'  "The bucket." I am also put in mind of scheusslich: hideous, atrocious, abominable.  Turning to the 'shyster' entry in my Webster's, I read, "prob. fr. Scheuster fl. 1840 Am. attorney frequently rebuked in a New York court for pettifoggery." 

According to Robert Hendrickson, Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, p. 659:

Shyster, an American slang term for a shady disreputable lawyer, is first recorded in 1846.  Various authorities list a real New York advocate as a possible source, but this theory has been disproved by Professor Gerald L. Cohen of the University of Missouri-Rolla, whose long paper on the  etymology I had the pleasure of reading. Shakespeare's moneylender Shylock has also been suggested, as has a racetrack form of the word shy, i.e., to be shy money when betting.  Some authorities trace shyster to the German Scheisse, "excrement," possibly through the word shicir, "a worthless person," but there is no absolute proof for any theory.

A little further research reveals that Professor Cohen's "long paper" is in fact a short book of 124 pages published in 1982 by Verlag Peter Lang.  See here for a review.  Cohen argues that the eponymous derivation from 'Scheuster' that I just cited from Webster's is a pseudo-etymology.  'Shyster' no more derives from 'Scheuster' than 'condom' from the fictious Dr. Condom.  Nor does it come from 'Shylock.' It turns out my hunch was right.  'Shyster' is from the German  Scheisser, one who defecates.

The estimable and erudite Dr. Michael Gilleland, self-styled antediluvian, bibliomaniac, and curmudgeon, who possesses an uncommonly lively interest in matters scatological, should find all of this interesting.  I see that the ASU library has a copy of Gerald Leonard Cohen's Origin of the Term "Shyster."  Within a few days it should be in my hands. 

 

A Case for Open Immigration?

Spencer Case sent me a link to a short op-ed piece by Michael Huemer who teaches philosophy at the University of Colorado.  Huemer's thesis is that

. . . U.S. immigration policy is fundamentally unjust. It disregards the rights and interests of other human beings, merely because those persons were born in another country. It coercively imposes clear and serious harms on some people, for the sake of relatively minor or dubious benefits for others who happened to have been born in the right geographical area.

Huemer's argument stripped to essentials and in his own words:

1. It is wrong to knowingly impose severe harms on others, by force, without having a good reason for doing so. This principle holds regardless of where one's victims were born or presently reside.

2. The U.S. government, in restricting immigration, knowingly and coercively imposes severe harms on millions of human beings.

3.  The U.S. government has no good reason for imposing such harms on potential immigrants.

——–

4. It follows that U.S. immigration policy is morally wrong.

Before addressing Huemer's argument, some preliminary points need to be made.

A. First, a difficult issue such as the one before us cannot be resolved via some quick little argument like the above.  Numerous considerations and counter-considerations come into play.

B. Here is a consideration in the light of which Huemer's argument has an aura of the fantastic.  The U. S. is a welfare state.  Now no welfare state can hope to survive and meet it commitments to provide all sorts of services at taxpayer expense if it opens its borders wide.  Without trying to estimate the tsunami of humanity that would flood into the country from all sides were immigration restrictions removed, it is clear that open borders is a wildly impractical proposal.  And note that this impracticality itself has moral ramifications: if bona fide citizens have been promised that they will be taken care of by some such system as Social Security into their old age, and the government reneges on its promises because of an empty treasury, then the rights of the retirees will have been violated — which is a moral issue.

If state functions were stripped down to 'night watchman' size as certain libertarians would advocate, then perhaps an open borders policy would be workable; but obviously such a rollback of governmental powers and functions  has no chance of occurring.  Let the quixotic rollback occur; THEN and ONLY THEN we can talk about open borders.  Meanwhile we do have border control, half-hearted as it is.  It is not obviously unjust to those who immigrate legally to allow others in illegally? 

C.  An open borders policy is impractical not only for the reason mentioned, but for many others besides. I catalog some of them in Immigration Legal and Illegal.

Now to Huemer's argument.

I see no reason to accept premise (2) according to which the U. S. government imposes severe harms on people by preventing them from immigrating.  Suppose you have foolishly gone into the desert without proper supplies.  You soon find yourself  in dire need of water.  Coming upon my camp, you enter it and try to take my water.  I prevent you from doing so.  Have I harmed you?  I have not inflicted any harm upon you;  I have merely prevented you from getting something you need for your well-being.  But you have no right to my water, even if I have more than enough.  If you steal my supplies, you violate my property rights; I am therefore morally justified in resisting the theft.  You are morally obliged to respect my property rights, but I am under no moral obligation to give you what you need, especially in light of the fact that you have freely put yourself in harm's way.

Similarly, the U. S. government does not harm those whom it does not allow to enter its territory, for they have no right to enter its territory in the first place, and in so doing violate the property rights of the U. S.

Once this is appreciated it will also be seen why (3) is false.  The U. S. does have a good moral reason to prevent foreigners from entering its territory, namely, to prevent them from violating the property rights of the U. S.

Now at this point I expect someone to object as follows.  "I grant you that illegal aliens are not justified in violating private property rights, but when they cross public lands, travel on public roads, use public facilities, etc. they are not violating any property rights.  The U. S. has no property rights; there are no public property rights that need to be respected." 

This objection is easily rebutted.  It is based on a false analogy with unowned resources. An incursion into an uninhabited region not in the jurisdiction of a state does not violate property rights. But the public lands of the U. S. are within the jurisdiction of the U.S.  These lands are managed and protected by the state which gets the werewithal of such management and protection, and in some instances, the money to pay for the  original acquisition, from coercive taxation.  Thus we taxpayers collectively own these lands.  It is not as if the land, roads, resources and the like of the U.S. which are not privately owned are somehow open to anyone in the world who wants to come here.  Just as an illegal alien violates property rights when he breaks into my house, he violates property rights when he breaks into my country.  For a country belongs collectively to its citizens, not to everyone in the world.

The fundamental point is that foreigners have no right to immigrate.  Since they have no such right, no moral wrong is done to them by preventing them from immigrating even though they would be better off were they to immigrate.  Furthermore, the U.S. government and every government has not only the right, but also the moral obligation, to control its border for the the good of its citizens.  After all, protection from foreign invasion is one of the legitimate functions of government.

 

Undocumented Democrats

Despite  the inaptness  of the phrase, liberals call illegal aliens 'undocumented workers.'  'Undocumented Democrats' is equally inapt but better expressive of why liberals are so tolerant of their presence.  If the invaders from the south were potential Republicans, liberal tolerance would morph into its opposite.

Are Illegal Aliens Acting Immorally?

Victor Reppert raises the question:

People like [Arizona's] Governor Brewer often say that we are a nation of laws, and that is why we must make a strong stand enforcing our immigration laws. Are people who insist on a strong stand against illegal immigration gratuitously assuming that persons who enter the country illegally are acting immorally?  If the only way to support your family was to enter another country illegally, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to break the law, since you have a moral obligation to support your family which trumps your obligation to obey the law?

As a conservative, I find it self-evident that the rule of law is a precious thing, that it must be upheld, and that part of upholding it is enforcing the nation's laws against illegal immigration.  Someone who takes this position, and insists on a strong stand against illegal immigration, needn't thereby assume that every illegal border-crosser is acting immorally.  I concede to Victor that there are circumstances in which the moral obligation to support and protect one's family trumps the moral obligation to respect the laws of another country.

But if it is morally permissible for some to enter illegally, it does not follow that the law making it illegal is without moral justification.  Indeed, the Federal and State authorities have a moral obligation to protect their citizens against the threats posed by border violators.  Juan may be morally justified in attempting to cross the Rio Grande, but border control agents are morally justified in preventing him from doing so and deporting him if he does.  The law cannot cater to each individual case.  In the eyes of the law one is an illegal alien whether one is a common criminal, a member of a criminal gang, a drug trafficker, a human trafficker, a terrorist, a carrier of a contagious disease, or, like Juan, just a poor man down on his luck trying to provide for his family.

The rule of law must be upheld despite the unfairness to some.  One of the reasons we are not not like Mexico, and why everybody and his monkey's uncle's brother wants to come here,  is precisely because we have hitherto maintained the rule of law.  Analogy: it is reasonable and just that felons not be allowed to vote or purchase firearms.  The fact that this is unfair to some felons is not a good reason to question the rightness of the law.  As I said, the law cannot cater to individual cases.  Examples like this can be generated ad libitum.  Consider laws regulating drinking age and driving age.  Fourteen year olds are not allowed to drive despite the fact that some drive better than forty year olds.

Church, State, and Arizona SB 1070

E. J. Montini of the Arizona Republic reports that ". . . one of the lawsuits challenging SB 1070 is based on the notion that the law inhibits First Amendment freedom to worship."  As Montini correctly states, "Among other things, SB 1070 makes it a crime to knowingly transport, harbor, conceal or shield an illegal immigrant if you do so while committing a separate criminal offense."

This provision of the law will of course cause trouble for those pastors and other church members who transport illegals to and from church functions.  Suppose Pastor X is pulled over for a traffic violation while shuttling a group of illegals.  Said pastor is liable to prosecution under the 1070 law.  That is as it should be since the pastor is aiding and abetting the flouting of U. S. law.

But by what stretch of logic does one conclude that violators of U. S. immigration law are having their First Amendment rights violated?  They have no such rights!  Those are rights of U. S. citizens, not rights of anyone, citizen or not.  But even if you think that illegal aliens do have First Amendment rights, or some analogous universal human right, there is nothing in 1070 that prohibits the free exercise of religion on any reasonable construal of 'prohibit.'    The right to the free exercise of religion does not give one the right to do anything in the free exercise thereof.

Take a simple example.  Catholic priests cannot be prohibited by the state from saying mass.  To do so they need wine.  But there are laws against theft, so they need to come by their wine by some legal means.  Now suppose some benighted liberal argues that the laws against theft inhibit the First Amendment freedom to practice one's religion by prohibiting the stealing of wine and other supplies needed at mass.  Anyone can see that to argue in such a way would be a joke.  To take a more drastic case, suppose there is a Satanic ritual that requires the killing of cats.  No sane person could argue that the laws against cruelty to animals interfere with the First Amendment rights of satanists.

Similarly with 1070.  No rational person could argue that it inhibits First Amendment rights.  The right to practice one's religion does not give one the right to break laws in its practice.

Churchmen need to reflect carefully on their relation to the State.  If they flout its laws, and in so doing undermine the rule of law, then who will protect them when they need it?  Will the good pastors who aid and abet illegal aliens forego calling up the police when they need protection?  Will they try to have it both ways, deriving the benefits from the rule of law while undermining it?

A Diversity Paradox for Immigration Expansionists

Liberals love 'diversity' even at the expense of such obvious goods as unity, assimilation, and comity.  So it is something  of a paradox that their refusal to take seriously the enforcement of immigration laws has led to a most undiverse stream of immigrants. "While espousing a fervent belief in diversity, immigrant advocates and their allies have presided over a policy regime that has produced one of the least diverse migration streams in our history." Here

Helen Thomas Disgraces Herself

Good riddance to this superannuated leftist gasbag.  Former mayor of NYC, Ed Koch, delivers a just and fitting verdict:

Helen Thomas, 89, who is of Lebanese descent, claims to be a professional journalist. As such, she is subject to professional standards. Her statement that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to "Poland and Germany" is clear evidence that she is no longer in control of her emotions and cognitive powers and that she cannot carry out the impartial obligations of a journalist. She has disgraced herself.

Jews have lived in the area known in modern times as the British Mandate of Palestine, for thousands of years and up to the present time. Indeed, Israelite civilization goes back to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as to King David and King Solomon. We Jews spring from the loins of those patriarchs. The State of Israel sits where the Jewish Kingdoms of Judea and Israel reigned thousands of years ago.

Referring to the Israeli boarding of the Mavi Marmara, she spoke wildly of a “deliberate massacre, an international crime,” and said the U.S. response was “pitiful.” See here.  Thomas is  a fool of no consequence, but what is truly troubling is to observe leftist collaboration with Islamists.  An amazing phenomenon.  I take a stab at analysis in The Converse Callicles Principle: Weakness Does not Justify.

Addendum (8 June):  From Helen of Oy!:

Anti-Semitism: With the state of Israel facing an existential threat, journalism's grand dame advocates ethnic cleansing as a Mideast solution. Liberal intolerance has come out of the closet.

The "retirement" of Helen Thomas comes as no surprise. Neither did the remarks that prompted it. She's expressed such sentiments before, and her brethren in the White House press corps, which salivates over any politically incorrect utterance from the right, let her get away with it.

She got away with it for the same reason those on the left from Bill Maher to Keith Olbermann get away with similar over-the-top sentiments. It depends on whose political ox is being gored. Tea Partyers who oppose the policies of the first black president are racists. Genuine bigots on the left are celebrated. (emphasis added)

Once again the leftist double standard in action.