Jeff Sessions responds to protesters: "I don't believe there's anything in my theology that says a secular nationstate cannot have lawful laws to control immigration ... not immoral, not indecent and not unkind to state what your laws are and then set about to enforce them"There's a reasonable argument that the 'social contract' we hear about is not a defensible philosophical concept: most of us never asked to join the polity, never consented to the terms (which pre-existed us), and probably joined as a consequence of a decision made by some ancestor of ours rather than by ourselves alone. There are several approaches to the consequences of that argument.
But one class of people do explicitly consent to join something like the 'social contract' of a nation, and that is the class of first-generation immigrants to that nation. They really are making an election to join a polity, and presumably this entails a contract they personally make with that polity to abide by its terms.
It's not unreasonable for a nation to refuse to accept those who will not make this contract, and abide by it. Why on earth would they do so? Yet, as Sessions' reply suggests, the public discussion has run entirely in the other direction. He is defending the idea that he isn't religiously required to accept people who reject the terms of the contract; that morality doesn't obligate a polity to accept people who refuse any obligation to abide by its terms.
That's madness, yet it has clearly passed into the realm of commonly held opinion.
3 comments:
...one class of people do explicitly consent to join something like the 'social contract' of a nation, and that is the class of first-generation immigrants to that nation. They really are making an election to join a polity....
It takes two to make a contract. The polity has no obligation to accept the newcomers, even if the newcomers accept the polity's underlying terms. That may be bad policy by the polity, but the question of policy a separate question from that of obligation.
In the case of the "caravan" currently making its way to our border, those folks have already rejected our terms. They cannot claim refugee status, they've already explicitly rejected Mexico's explicit offer of refugee status. They cannot claim to be coming here for work; they've already explicitly rejected Mexico's explicit offer of work permits, albeit the permits are temporary.
Many--not all--have stated their intent to enter the US illegally if that's what it takes to enter.
The "caravan" doesn't care about the terms of our contract.
...defending the idea that he isn't religiously required to accept people who reject the terms of the contract; that morality doesn't obligate a polity to accept people who refuse any obligation to abide by its terms.
That's madness....
Have I misunderstood? How is it madness for a polity to reject those who reject the polity's terms?
Eric Hines
It’s madness, I mean, that he finds himself in the position of having to defend this idea. The discussion is mad.
A valid contract requires the parties entering into it in good faith.
Clearly, violating the law of the country you intend to enter, isn't entering that relationship in good faith, to put it another way.
Post a Comment