Killing People For Infractions of Minor Laws: Prohibition and Immigration

From an article about the government’s program of deliberate poisoning during Prohibition:

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.” […]

Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. “Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?” asked Nebraska’s Omaha Bee.

The article is fascinating in its own right. But it also reminded me of our current policies to block undocumented immigrants, which have the known effect of forcing immigrants to cross in dangerous areas of the border where they are likely to die.

Miriam Raftery writes:

Before construction of the border wall began in 1994 as part of Operation Gatekeeper, one or two people died each month attempting to cross into the U.S. To date, only about 100 miles of the proposed 2,000 border wall have been built.

Since construction began, Morones estimates, the death rate has climbed 15- to 30-fold. Two immigrants each day are now dying, he said—a total of 10,000 nationwide since construction of the wall began, more than three times as many deaths than occurred in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

“They are forced to cross in harsher areas,” he said of the ill-fated immigrants. “It’s inhumane. The U.S. preaches human rights.”

Some die from violence, shot by Border Patrol agents, vigilantes or thieves. Others are killed in accidents: stumbling in rugged terrain, falling over the wall, or struck by vehicles. Many others perish of dehydration and exposure – conditions made worse by the recent sabotage of water stations set out by Border Angeles and other humanitarian groups.

So who is destroying the water stations? In part, it’s “patriotic” citizen activists. But sometimes, it’s agents of the US government.

Visible on the tape, which will be broadcast for the first time tonight on the PBS show “Need to Know,” are three Border Patrol agents, two men and a woman, walking along a migrant trail and approaching half a dozen one-gallon jugs of water. The female agent stops in front of the containers and begins to kick them, with force, down a ravine. The bottles crash against rocks, bursting open. She’s smiling. One of the agents watching her smiles as well, seeming to take real pleasure in the spectacle. He says something under his breath, and the word “tonk” is clearly audible. “Tonk,” it turns out, is a bit of derogatory slang used by some Border Patrol agents to refer to undocumented immigrants. One agent told me it’s derived from the sound a flashlight makes when you hit someone over the head — tonk. After destroying the entire water supply, the three agents continue along the path. […]

The event was not an anomaly.

Trying to make drinking booze deadly, or trying to make crossing the border deadly; in either case, what we have is a policy of killing human beings as if they were vermin. What could justify that?

Well, as one person wrote in Free Republic’s comments:

Deaths on the border? Who’s fault is that? It sure isn’t our fault. If these people don’t want to die, stay out of the desert and stop trying to enter the US illegally.

Another commenter, this time from the Washington Post website:

When some one intentionaly breaks the law they take the risk of something going wrong and getting caught or hurt in the proccess. These people that cross the dessert know there are risks involved. The bottom line is they are breaking a law and that was by choice.

The logic seems identical to the logic justifying poisoned alcohol. Those drinkers had a choice, after all. Not our fault if they die from the poison.

This entry posted in Immigration, Migrant Rights, etc. Bookmark the permalink. 

15 Responses to Killing People For Infractions of Minor Laws: Prohibition and Immigration

  1. 1
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Nobody wants people to die on the border. Their deaths are a horrible thing. But your analogy is flawed.

    Poisoning took something which was normally safe–alcohol–and turned it into something which was, undetectably, designed to kill people. It increased the threat of death for something that had previously not had the threat. Moreover, it did so for a population which the government was sworn to protect. (You don’t have an inherent right to buy alcohol. But you do have an inherent right to assume that your own government won’t poison you.)

    From an immigration perspective, a more accurate analogy would be “placing random minefields on roads leading to the border.” Or, if you’d prefer a Prohibition analogy to immigration, it would be “stopping legal booze made it more likely that folks would use moonshine, which often contained methanol and could kill or injure you.” That second point (which undoubtedly caused some deaths as well) doesn’t seem ethically flawed.

    But in the end, the argument is a lot more general: Nobody wants people to die on the border. Their deaths are a horrible thing. However, nobody wants people to enter illegally, either. And that’s where you run into the “ends v. means” issue.

    It would be bizarre if we could bar unwanted people from our borders, but could not prevent others from making it easier for those same unwanted people to sneak in. I don’t see a way that your argument makes sense if you acknowledge that we have an inherent right to keep people out.

    (and this thread would be odd without noting that authorized crossings, through which660,000 people PER DAY enter the U.S., are 100% safe.)

    Maybe you’ve got a better answer though:
    1) DO you think we have an inherent right to keep people out if we want?

    2) Should we permit unauthorized folks to make it EASIER for illegal immigrants to break the rules of entry? Should we allow people to mark trails, cut fence holes, build tunnels, smuggle in vans….?

    3) Do you think that potential entrants should functionally be able to override our entry choices by exposing themselves to enough danger? If someone says “let me in, or I’ll risk death in the desert,” do we need to let them in?

    4) Ranging from “none” to “all,” how much agency and responsibility for outcomes do you assign to people who do, in fact, elect to try to cross the desert? It seems completely heartless to say “well, they asked to die” because obviously they want to live. But it also seems odd to suggest that it’s a foregone conclusion, and that their deaths are properly laid at our feet. Where do you fall between those extremes?

    5) Imagine for a moment that your job was “stop illegal immigration.” How would you propose that we reach that goal in a manner that is both reasonably effective and financially feasible? (I realize that you don’t appear to WANT to stop illegal immigration. But if I’m going to try to see things from your perspective, you should do the same.)

  2. 2
    Jake Squid says:

    However, nobody wants people to enter illegally, either.

    I may well be an outlier here but I don’t mind people entering illegally given the absurd requirements to enter legally. If the rules on who could and could not enter were different, I might be part of the “nobody” in your statement.

    It would be bizarre if we could bar unwanted people from our borders, but could not prevent others from making it easier for those same unwanted people to sneak in.

    Under current rules, sure. If the rules were changed so that their were relatively few people we wanted to keep out, I don’t think it would be bizarre.

    I don’t see a way that your argument makes sense if you acknowledge that we have an inherent right to keep people out.

    Accepting that we have an inherent right to keep people out doesn’t mean accepting the choices we’ve made wrt who to allow entry and who to keep out.

    In order to have a productive conversation about this, imo, we’d really need to identify the differences in our positions and go from there. As it is, your comment is full of disbelief of Amp’s positions due to your wildly different assumptions about the possibilities. As a result, your questions are bound to create friction rather than allow you to understand each other.

    Here’s what I mean…
    Question one is fine, here. It identifies what may be a basic difference. We can either agree that, yes, we do have an “inherent right” to keep people out or disagree on that. If it’s the latter, that is the proper place to end the series of questions and begin discussing that single major difference of opinion. If it’s the former, on we go to question two.

    And question two is where we have to stop. The way you’ve phrased it is akin to “When did you stop beating your spouse?” There are things to discuss that are much more reasonable to ask long before we get to this kind of question. Things like:
    Are the current requirements for entry too lenient, too stringent or just right? Who is it that we want to keep out and why?
    What are the consequences of lowering the bar for entry? Raising the requirements? Keeping them the same?

    These kinds of questions, when confronting someone with wildly different opinions – some of which you aren’t even aware are possible due to the huge gap in where you’re starting from – have the potential to facilitate discussion rather than shutting it down.

    Questions 3, 4 and 5 aren’t even worth addressing due to the incorrect assumptions that define them.

  3. 3
    Myca says:

    Nobody wants people to die on the border.

    I don’t think that’s remotely true.

    Poisoning took something which was normally safe–alcohol–and turned it into something which was, undetectably, designed to kill people.

    Wasn’t the point of prohibition that they didn’t believe alcohol to be ‘normally safe’?

    It would be bizarre if we could bar unwanted people from our borders, but could not prevent others from making it easier for those same unwanted people to sneak in.

    I think this is more than a little unfair. The water stations are on US soil. Destroying them doesn’t “bar unwanted people from our borders.” It doesn’t prevent “unwanted people” from sneaking in. If they get to a water station, they’re already in. The only thing it does is make it more likely that they’ll die in the desert.

    In this way, it’s utterly unlike every other example you offer: “mark trails, cut fence holes, build tunnels, smuggle in vans.” Eliding that difference isn’t fair or reasonable, as Amp’s argument rests on it.

    I realize that you don’t appear to WANT to stop illegal immigration. But if I’m going to try to see things from your perspective, you should do the same.

    I’m not sure you’ve tried to do that.

    —Myca

  4. 4
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Jake Squid says:
    December 28, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    I may well be an outlier here but I don’t mind people entering illegally given the absurd requirements to enter legally. If the rules on who could and could not enter were different, I might be part of the “nobody” in your statement.

    Fair ’nuff. I’ll revise to “many people.”

    Accepting that we have an inherent right to keep people out doesn’t mean accepting the choices we’ve made wrt who to allow entry and who to keep out.

    But that’s not the topic of discussion: we’re talking about HOW to keep out folks, not WHO to keep out. I think it’s pretty obvious that there will always be some people who want to get in and who we want to keep out. Even if you and I could only agree on “convicted violent felons” there would be a nonzero group. The question of entry would apply to them just as well as it would apply to anyone else.

    Once you’ve decided that you’re going to keep out Group A, then the question is “how are you going to do it?” It’s not reasonable to force the question of Group A’s admission with every discussion of border security.

    As it is, your comment is full of disbelief of Amp’s positions due to your wildly different assumptions about the possibilities.

    Huh? I believe Amp’s position entirely. And FWIW I agree that there are quite a few people who are callous or even evil; I am certain that some of those folks are surely involved in border security. Neither do I dispute that a lot of people simply can’t get into the US without an illegal crossing.

    I don’t agree with Amp’s analogy or the conclusions Amp drew from it, but that’s not disbelief or a lack of good faith.

    And question two is where we have to stop. The way you’ve phrased it is akin to “When did you stop beating your spouse?”

    It isn’t intended to be that way: my understanding based on other threads is that Amp is supportive of illegal immigration and opposed to many measures designed to control it. But I am not entirely sure I’m right and I’d prefer not to guess. Answering those questions would make that more clear. The questions are pointed but not one-sided; there’s a difference.

    ETA: Imagine that you asked “well, if you support the destruction of water bottles, are you OK with people dying as a result?” That’s a fair question, albeit a pointed one.

    Are the current requirements for entry too lenient, too stringent or just right? Who is it that we want to keep out and why? What are the consequences of lowering the bar for entry? Raising the requirements? Keeping them the same?

    Well, if I did this I’d probably be tagged for derailing the thread. This is a “border security” argument, not a “immigration policy” argument. It’s unreasonable to start talking about border security and then, when pressed for specifics, to switch to immigration policy.

    Questions #3 and 4 are precisely on point. The original post quotes people discussing the role of agency. I’m asking about agency. The original post discusses the decision to expose them to danger. I’m asking about the degree of danger which is inappropriate.

    I understand, again, that these are pointed questions which may be difficult to answer. But they’re not unfair questions given that Amp raised those precise issues in his post.

  5. 5
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Myca says:
    December 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Nobody wants people to die on the border.

    I don’t think that’s remotely true.

    Edited, above.

    Wasn’t the point of prohibition that they didn’t believe alcohol to be ‘normally safe’?

    The evils of alcohol and drunkenness didn’t include death by poisoning. Neither did the stated reasons of the lawmakers reflect the reality: having a drink of bonded whiskey wouldn’t kill you.

    I think this is more than a little unfair. The water stations are on US soil. Destroying them doesn’t “bar unwanted people from our borders.” It doesn’t prevent “unwanted people” from sneaking in. If they get to a water station, they’re already in. The only thing it does is make it more likely that they’ll die in the desert.

    That’s a good point. I’ll switch to “deter” rather than “prevent.” I’m happy to have a discussion about whether that particular form of deterrence is appropriate, though.

    In this way, it’s utterly unlike every other example you offer: “mark trails, cut fence holes, build tunnels, smuggle in vans.” Eliding that difference isn’t fair or reasonable, as Amp’s argument rests on it.

    But we can’t actually BAR people from getting in; that much is obvious. The best that we can do is to make it more difficult, and therefore DETER them. People climb fences, tunnel under borders; go around heavily trafficked areas, etc. From my perspective all of those are on the same scale. We can certainly discuss the rightness of any particular method of deterrence: I’m not personally sure that breaking water bottles is defensible.

    I realize that you don’t appear to WANT to stop illegal immigration. But if I’m going to try to see things from your perspective, you should do the same.

    I’m not sure you’ve tried to do that.
    —Myca

    That’s unfair. I’m willing to consider the question of whether we should vastly increase immigration (though that’s been in other threads) and in fact I’ve argued for a significant increase in legal immigration. I’ve even tried to put on the “open borders” hat, with some difficulty. That’s my side. I’ve acknowledged many times that IF we have no right to keep people out, or IF we have a moral obligation to take their interests into account, then we have a major immigration problem which needs to be fixed.

    I’d like to see something on the other side from Amp, or someone on the other page: IF if you accept for a moment that illegal immigration should be significantly deterred, and IF you want to change how we control the border: how would you propose that we change our border control without making it less effective?

  6. 6
    Jake Squid says:

    Why not ask me how best to prevent teenagers from having sex? That’s also something I don’t have as a goal. So, preventing illegal immigration (under current standards) is not something I wish to see achieved. Just as I don’t wish to see teenagers die when they attempt to have sex, I don’t wish to see immigrants die when they try to enter the country illegally. So I would say that the best way to prevent illegal border crossing is the way that causes the least number of deaths. The methods documented in the articles are not the best by my standards.

    I’ll suggest placing federal employees at 50 foot intervals along the border as a possibility. That accomplishes two things. It reduces illegal border crossing without killing people and it creates a shitload of jobs.

    But then we’ll also need to do the same thing along the coasts since the snakeheads’ll just switch back to that point of entry. Even more jobs created.

    But then we’ll also need to figure out a way to prevent the next route and the next route.

    And on and on and on and on. If you’ve ever spoken to people who’ve crossed borders illegally to find work you know that there is no deterrent, no matter how cruel or awful or fatal, that will keep people from crossing. If Jews from Eastern Europe were illegally entering and working in early Nazi Germany – where they knew that if they were caught that they were done for – I’m not sure what kind of deterrent will prevent illegal entry into a country.

  7. 7
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Seriously?

    When I asked questions that are directly aimed at the original post you accused me of bad faith “beat your wife” style (although this was not true).

    But when I ask you to address a hypothetical you won’t even deign to answer it without mockery, because it’s not something you want to happen?

    This is not good faith, here.

  8. 8
    Kohai says:

    Wow, my first real post here! Ahem.

    I think g-and-w’s comments about border security are worth responding to seriously, so here goes.

    I’m going to answer your five questions as honestly as I can, but let me preface that first. In comment 4 you speak about wanting to talk about the efforts to enforce U.S. border security without getting into a debate about what our preferred forms of immigration policy would be. I’m afraid I must reject such a distinction. That’s like claiming during the prohibition of alcohol that you want to talk about how to fight organized crime without having a discussion about public policy on alcohol. Very much of the power that was accumulated by bootlegger operations came about because U.S. banning of alcohol created a black market that otherwise would not have existed.

    Likewise, if you are interested in improving U.S. border security with regard to illegal immigration, then then only thing that makes a lick of sense is to liberalize immigration. Most of the problems that we associate with illegal immigration and border security are created by our own immigration policy. By denying otherwise peaceful, law-abiding individuals the ability to work with anyone who is willing to hire them, the U.S. has created a black market of human traffickers and professional border crossers that otherwise would have little cause to exist. Why hire a coyote to sneak you across the border if you could travel legally on roads? You yourself acknowledge that that way of entry is 100% safe.

    Our immigration policy and our border security are simply not two separate conversations, and they cannot seriously be treated as such. Now on to your questions.

    1) DO you think we have an inherent right to keep people out if we want?

    I think we have a right to ban entry for a limited selection of reasons. Preventing the entry of people who have committed violent crimes, theft, property damage, etc. I also think there is at least an argument to be made for banning entry to people with certain highly-contagious diseases. I’m also not opposed to the idea of a reasonable processing fee as a requirement for verifying an immigrant’s information, doing a background check, etc. That’s not an exhaustive list, but it should at least give you the flavor of what sorts of things I regard as legit for banning entry.

    In short, yes, I think there are some reasons to deny entry to potential immigrants, usually based on a history of crime or public health. Outside of that limited range, no. We do not have a right to deny entry simply based on fiat. My opinion at least.

    2) Should we permit unauthorized folks to make it EASIER for illegal immigrants to break the rules of entry? Should we allow people to mark trails, cut fence holes, build tunnels, smuggle in vans….?

    This is one of those situations where immigration policy matters a lot. Who are the people that are doing the crossing? If it’s violent criminals, then absolutely the border patrol is within its authority to interfere with them in the manner you’ve discussed (destroying tunnels, trail markings, arresting illegal crossers in vans). The problem is that many (I think most) of the people crossing illegally are coming to the U.S. simply to work peacefully. People who want to come here for nefarious reasons can find it very easy to blend in with that crowd. If you’re serious about targeting criminals who are foreign-born and preventing them from getting into the U.S., then liberalizing immigration policy isolates them and frees up a lot of border patrol resources. It also cuts off much of the flow of income for human traffickers. So liberalization is a big win for border security, right?

    3) Do you think that potential entrants should functionally be able to override our entry choices by exposing themselves to enough danger? If someone says “let me in, or I’ll risk death in the desert,” do we need to let them in?

    See my response to question 1, particularly with regard to whom we have the right to bar entry.

    4) Ranging from “none” to “all,” how much agency and responsibility for outcomes do you assign to people who do, in fact, elect to try to cross the desert? It seems completely heartless to say “well, they asked to die” because obviously they want to live. But it also seems odd to suggest that it’s a foregone conclusion, and that their deaths are properly laid at our feet. Where do you fall between those extremes?

    I’m genuinely unsure how to answer this one. Let’s take the issue Amp brought up about poisoning alcohol. Who’s at fault for the 10,000 deaths? It is the government’s fault for creating poisoned alcohol with the intent of making unauthorized consumption not merely criminal, but lethal? Was it the bootleggers’ responsibility for providing substances of unsafe origin for their customers? Was it alcohol consumers’ fault for refusing to comply with the Volstead Act, and fueling money into the black market?

    I honestly don’t care how one divvies up the share of “fault” in a case like that. I think knowingly poisoning people was a monstrously immoral policy. I think that Prohibition was a monstrously immoral policy. A world without those things is clearly better than a world with them. Who cares about the “fault” part?

    5) Imagine for a moment that your job was “stop illegal immigration.” How would you propose that we reach that goal in a manner that is both reasonably effective and financially feasible? (I realize that you don’t appear to WANT to stop illegal immigration. But if I’m going to try to see things from your perspective, you should do the same.)

    Your parenthetical comment wasn’t addressed to me, but it could just as well have been, so I want to respond to it. I DO want to stop illegal immigration, I just want to know that I’m preventing violence, theft, etc. when I’m doing it. The existing policy on deterring illegal immigration is not based on that. It’s based on a desire to bar entry to those who want to live and work here peacefully. I think the majority of the harms with regard to border security that are caused by illegal immigration exist because of our own bad policy. Liberalizing that policy would improve the U.S. border security by freeing up resources to target real criminals. Oh, and also save a lot of lives and make both the U.S. and the rest of the world into a more prosperous place. It’s effective, financially feasible, and much better than what we’re doing now.

  9. 9
    Jake Squid says:

    Seriously? Bad faith? When I say, “I don’t want that thing that is happening to happen at all but if it’s going to happen I think it should be done in a way that causes the least harm possible,” it’s bad faith? I think we have two very different definitions of the term.

    If you think that comment contained mockery, you haven’t read anything I’ve written here over the years. That comment contains not one iota of mockery. Granted, my proposal will never be seriously considered, but that isn’t because the proposal is offered to denigrate. No, it won’t be seriously considered because those deaths are considered trivial.

  10. 10
    KellyK says:

    I think that sabotaging water stations is equivalent to poisoning industrial alcohol. It’s a deliberate attempt to kill someone for committing a minor crime. By definition, it doesn’t prevent them from committing the crime, but punishes them when they do, potentially fatally. (It’s not clear to me how well publicized the poisoning of alcohol was, but the article certainly sounds like it came as a surprise to the doctors and investigators when it started killing people.)

    I wouldn’t say that walls and border guards, which lead people to cross in more dangerous areas, are equivalent in and of themselves. But you could certainly make the case, as Kohai did, that immigration policy as a whole creates the problem. Not just the black market in border crossing, but the fact that it’s easy and profitable to hire undocumented workers.

  11. 11
    closetpuritan says:

    I partially agree with gin-and-whiskey’s criticism of the analogy. But it’s flawed in different ways depending on whether you’re talking about the fact that our immigration/border policies lead to people crossing in the harsh, deserted desert, or whether you’re talking about Border Patrol agents destroying water stations. If you look at the Salon article, though it’s not clear whether any Border Patrol officials have taken any steps to prevent it besides sending out a memo telling them not to do it, destroying the water stations is not officially something the agents are supposed to be doing. In fact, the government promotes stories of Border Patrol agents rescuing dehydrated people who were attempting to cross the border illegally. I found these three from 2012 with a quick search for “rescue dehydration” on CBP’s website. (The second story mentions a man who “activated a rescue beacon” that summoned BP agents. Since BP agents responded, I’m assuming Border Patrol set up the beacon. It also says, “Since October 2011, agents from the Rio Grande Valley Sector have saved the lives of nearly 160 individuals and have discovered the remains of 48 people.”) On the other hand, the policies that lead people to cross in the desert are a natural result of official policy. This result works with g&w’s revised analogy of people drinking moonshine and poisoning themselves; the destruction of water stations would be more like groups of renegade Bureau of Tobacco & Firearms employees poisoning alcohol of their own initiative, and their higher-ups not putting resources into investigating. (I’m not sure that, morally, apathy towards the destruction of the water stations is better than encouraging agents to destroy the water stations, but the motivation is different.)

    Here are my thoughts on g&w’s 5 questions:
    1. I do. I’m kind of a fence-sitter about who, if anyone, we should be able to keep out for economic reasons, but certainly convicted violent felons are people we have a right to keep out. My list would also include people with a certain number of theft (even if nonviolent) convictions, people with a certain number of DWIs, and people who the balance of the evidence indicates would work on behalf of violent gangs or terrorist organizations, even if they personally have not committed acts of violence (e.g. if they’re crossing the border for money laundering purposes).

    2. I think I would draw the line at doing things that are realistically only going to prevent or deter people from getting in by killing them. Yes, destroying trail markers and such could indirectly lead to people getting lost and dying, but I think there is a moral line between that and destroying water stations–the only people whose journey that would stop are the ones who collapse from dehydration and die. (I don’t think Border Patrol agents occasionally coming along and destroying the water stations would have much deterrent effect; crossing the border will be dangerous whether or not the water stations are there.)

    3. No, I think that’s basically extortion. People should not be able to control others’ actions by threatening harm to themselves (or others).

    4. If people undertake something knowing the risks, their responsibility is not diminished because those risks are influenced by other people. U.S. border policy is partly responsible for the fact that so many people attempt to cross in the desert, but the people attempting to cross in the desert are still 100% responsible for taking on those risks. I actually saw a somewhat similar discussion WRT drug policy; a former addict was talking about how it was bad that he had risked his life taking drugs that might be cut with dangerous substances (I think on the NY Times website). Many commenters said that without the War On Drugs that wouldn’t have been a risk in the first place, but his response was that he knew that he lived a world that did have a War On Drugs, so he knew the risks and was still responsible for taking them.

    I think that the rescue beacons and the rescues of people attempting to cross the border in the desert (especially the former) are in part an acknowledgment of a degree of moral responsibility for deaths from crossing the desert.

    5. I don’t know–at least not in detail. But I think that preventing illegal immigration by means that kill almost everyone they prevent from immigrating cross a moral line. Indirectly increasing deaths by encouraging people to take more dangerous routes is acceptable, but ideally we should try to reduce these deaths–rescue beacons are a good example of a way to do this.

  12. 12
    closetpuritan says:

    After reading Kelly’s comment, I would like to add to my answer to #5 that if we want to keep people out for economic reasons, making it difficult for them to get jobs once they’re here by prosecuting those who hire them would deter many from attempting the trip in the first place, and therefore would not lead to death during the crossing attempt.

  13. 13
    Ampersand says:

    Kohai, great post! I hope you’ll keep posting comments here.

    This is an interesting thread so far. Thanks to everyone, and particular thanks to G&W for a comment that successfully set off a lot of discussion.

    1) DO you think we have an inherent right to keep people out if we want?

    This is honestly difficult for me to answer, because I have severe doubts about “inherent rights” as a concept.

    I believe we have the legal right to keep people out if we want. Is that a good enough answer to your question?

    2) Should we permit unauthorized folks to make it EASIER for illegal immigrants to break the rules of entry? Should we allow people to mark trails, cut fence holes, build tunnels, smuggle in vans….?

    You seemed to agree, above, that this question is an unfair response to my post.

    Let me ask you: Do you think that destroying water stations is acceptable behavior?

    Regarding deterrence, I think that some forms of deterrence are acceptable, and others are not. In particular, those forms of deterrence that significantly increase the number of deaths are unacceptable to me.

    3) Do you think that potential entrants should functionally be able to override our entry choices by exposing themselves to enough danger? If someone says “let me in, or I’ll risk death in the desert,” do we need to let them in?

    An irrelevant question, because I’m not talking about “let them in” versus “don’t let them in.” I’m talking about which methods we should use to keep people out.

    I’m not arguing we should never keep people out (although I do think we should keep many fewer people out). But when we do keep people out, we should choose methods that minimize cruel and inhumane treatment of huge numbers of immigrants. We should choose methods that don’t involve large numbers of avoidable deaths.

    But to answer your question: No.

    4) Ranging from “none” to “all,” how much agency and responsibility for outcomes do you assign to people who do, in fact, elect to try to cross the desert? It seems completely heartless to say “well, they asked to die” because obviously they want to live. But it also seems odd to suggest that it’s a foregone conclusion, and that their deaths are properly laid at our feet. Where do you fall between those extremes?

    In this case, I don’t believe that responsibility is a zero-sum game.

    So yes, in most cases, undocumented immigrants who cross the border in dangerous places bear responsibility for their own choices. And yes, their deaths are properly laid at our feet. Both are true.

    However, I don’t get to vote on the decision undocumented migrants make to cross the border. I do, however, get to vote (through my representatives) on what US immigration policy will be. So I am responsible for the latter, but not for the former.

    5) Imagine for a moment that your job was “stop illegal immigration.” How would you propose that we reach that goal in a manner that is both reasonably effective and financially feasible? (I realize that you don’t appear to WANT to stop illegal immigration. But if I’m going to try to see things from your perspective, you should do the same.)

    The policies I object to are “supply-side” policies – attempts to stop undocumented immigration by limiting the “supply,” that is, by making undocumented immigration less available.

    If I were in charge of lowering (not stopping, stopping is impossible, no matter who is in charge) undocumented immigration, I’d concentrate instead on “demand” – try and change things so that fewer people want to cross the border.

    I’d hire people to do whatever – build parks, hang out with the elderly, grant money to start-up entrepreneurs, grant money to small farmers, etc. Mainly in Mexico, since the large majority of undocumented immigrants either are Mexican or come through Mexico, but also in other countries.

    We currently spend around $10 billion a year trying to secure our borders. If we took 2 billion of that and spent it on employment in Mexico (concentrating in areas along common immigration routes) at $7000 a year (slightly above Mexico’s average annual income) , we could create a program with $200 million for administering the employment of 250,000 people. And of course, employing a quarter-million people would create tens of thousands more jobs through indirect effects.

    Since the total number of immigrants (including documented immigrants) from Mexico is currently around 140,000 a year, it’s completely plausible that we’d divert the large majority of low-wage job-seekers to new jobs in Mexico.

    This plan wouldn’t work perfectly, but neither would any other plan. It would be both more effective and less expensive than our current policies. And it wouldn’t involve killing anybody.

    I admit, this plan isn’t politically viable. But you didn’t include political viability on your list of conditions. :-)

    If we limit ourselves to more politically viable methods, another approach is to support much stronger laws aimed at punishing employers. Employers are much more likely to respond to legal threats than undocumented immigrants are. This would reduce the incentive to immigrate without killing people.

  14. 14
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Ya know, i should answer my OWN questions, given that you folks are doing so.

    1) DO you think we have an inherent right to keep people out if we want?

    Yes. Defining borders is an inherent aspect of sovereign nation status. The U.S. has the right to exclude anyone it wants for any reason whatsoever.

    Some of those reasons are more moral and acceptable than others. But so long as we have national sovereigns in the world–and that isn’t changing any time soon AFAIK–this is pretty much how it goes.

    I’ll add that the U.S. also has its primary obligation towards U.S. citizens’ needs. This is also like pretty much every nation on earth. And as with national sovereigns, this loyalty isn’t necessarily ideal, but is what it is. I would not want my country to deprioritize my needs in favor of non-citizens unless other countries do so for me.

    2) Should we permit unauthorized folks to make it EASIER for illegal immigrants to break the rules of entry? Should we allow people to mark trails, cut fence holes, build tunnels, smuggle in vans….?

    Generally this should be discouraged and not allowed. Cutting fences, building tunnels, and active smuggling should be illegal.

    3) Do you think that potential entrants should functionally be able to override our entry choices by exposing themselves to enough danger? If someone says “let me in, or I’ll risk death in the desert,” do we need to let them in?

    No.

    4) Ranging from “none” to “all,” how much agency and responsibility for outcomes do you assign to people who do, in fact, elect to try to cross the desert? It seems completely heartless to say “well, they asked to die” because obviously they want to live. But it also seems odd to suggest that it’s a foregone conclusion, and that their deaths are properly laid at our feet. Where do you fall between those extremes?

    If someone elects to go to the desert because they don’t want to (or can’t) cross where there’s a fence, and dies, I don’t think we bear any responsibility for that. Nor do I think it’s properly assigned blame as some sort of foregone result of our immigration policy; I think that there’s a heck of a lot of free will and choice involved in a particular outcome. Not to mention that the US government is only one player in many. If you were going to blame a government when a Mexican citizen dies in the desert, then in most cases the appropriate government to blame would be the Mexican one.

    If someone dies because we deliberately destroyed life-sustaining water, I think we bear full responsibility for that. Why not just leave the water and put a silent alarm under it, and pick folks up if they drink it? Or put a border agent at the water station? It’s not worth killing people for. (If someone decides not to drink available water because they don’t want to get picked up, and dies as a result, that’s on them. Our moral obligation is only to avoid forcing them to die of thirst. We’re not obliged to provide water under their preferred circumstances. See #3.)

    Amp asked: “Let me ask you: Do you think that destroying water stations is acceptable behavior?”
    No, I do not.

    5) Imagine for a moment that your job was “stop illegal immigration.” How would you propose that we reach that goal in a manner that is both reasonably effective and financially feasible?

    I’d significantly increase legal immigration–perhaps doubling or tripling it, though only if we select for the people we want (i.e. I would prioritize the needs and desires of the U.S., and not the needs and desires of the potential immigrants.) I think we have the right to do that; see #1.

    I’d also make the process more efficient. I hate bureaucracy. If we’re going to let people in, then do it in a reasonable amount of time. I also hate bureaucracy for another reason, namely 0the fact that I have to Google the spelling of it EVERY TIME and I am normally a good speller.

    Of course, doubling or tripling overall immigration, and selecting the pick of applicants, might not do much at all for the Mexican border. The world is a big place; people have lots of different qualifications; and many people worldwide want to come into the U.S. I would not prioritize someone at the Mexico crossing over a potential immigrant from Chad or Germany or India or Thailand. If we’re selecting for beneficial characteristics–education, English literacy, valuable skills, etc.–then other immigrants may be better off.

    Unless we prioritize land crossings–and I don’t think we should–then the problems of the Mexican crossing won’t go away.

    Coupled with that, I’d probably leave border controls in a similar state, and use laws and verification to make it very difficult and expensive to hire illegal immigrants. A drop in supply would do a lot.

  15. 15
    RonF says:

    My answers are pretty much in alignment with GiW’s. We have a right to decide who can and cannot enter the U.S.A. on pretty much any criteria that our
    government decides to set. No one has a right to enter the U.S.A. without our permission. No one has a right to help people violate our laws – but I do strongly disagree with smashing water stations, from a humanitarian viewpoint. I don’t think that people should have a right to override our choices purely by exposing themselves to a certain amount of risk – nor do I think they should be able to do so by successfully evading the law and then, when caught, appeal on the basis of “I’ve otherwise been a law-abiding resident”, “I have a good work history”, “I own property here”, “I have a family here now”, etc. Agency for deaths of people who attempt to cross the border in a hazardous location belongs to those people. If you want to start pointing fingers at governments, I echo the concept that I’d start by pointing the finger at Mexico City, not Washington, D.C.

    What steps should be take to stop illegal immigration? Start throwing the people who hire them into jail. Forbid banks who permit people who show evidence that they are here illegally (a.k.a. using “matricula consular” cards) to open bank accounts, get mortgages, etc. from participating in any FDIC or any other Federal programs.

    I have no problem with pushing the Feds to make the execution of current immigration policies more efficient and less time consuming, as long as the measures taken are consistent with maintaining the policies themselves rather than short-circuiting them. The idea of immigration policy is to serve U.S. interests, not those of immigrants. And one immigration policy is that the U.S. does not admit immigrants on the basis that they can’t make enough money to live on in their home country. We do not admit “economic refugees”.