We've been told collectively (and I've been told personally) that until you've "walked a mile in someone else's shoes", you don't have the right to comment on the situation. The topic here is illegal immigration. The notion is this: Until you've endured the hardships of living in poverty in Mexico (or Guatemala or ...), it is wrong for you to condemn anyone for illegally crossing the border into America. The idea is that you cannot know what you would do if you were in the same situation.
The notion sounds reasonable ... but like so many other such notions, whatever you do, don't think it through. This would require, for instance, that federal lawmakers would not be allowed to pass laws on immigration until they first lived in poverty in the places that people live who want to enter this country. It would require that no nation which does not suffer from such conditions would be allowed to regulate their own borders. It would mean, further, that law enforcement and the citizens of such a nation would be wrong for coming to any conclusions about such laws. Do you think that people who enter this country illegally (this is not a question of legal immigration), take up resources, or cheat the system for their own benefit are wrong? Do you consider it immoral for people to cross into this country to traffic in drugs or in human smuggling or a host of other illegal activities? Well, you mustn't. You haven't walked in their shoes.
You see, when you begin to think it through, it becomes bizarre. If you've never been responsible for a family short on funds and in dire straits, you cannot consider it "wrong" for stealing bread or whatever other goods they might need. No laws could be passed that were not, first, considered from the first-person experiential perspective. A single man couldn't have an opinion about married life. An American couldn't have an opinion about life in other countries. And if you were quite precise, you'd discover that no one can actually walk in another man's shoes, which would preclude all options entirely. All opinions and all laws would be ... wrong.
Now, consider this from another perspective. Is it really the desperate family that you want to determine the laws of this country? A person living in real poverty, for instance, might (has) conclude that the best thing (based on their experience) would be to take from the rich and give to the poor. There! Pass that law! (Of course, since the person living in real poverty has never walked in the shoes of those with more, that would be problematic, wouldn't it?) In fact, isn't it likely that people in desperate situations are likely to do desperate acts? Is it required, then, that all laws be addressed to desperate acts -- making them legal?
The laws that we have are in place because thinking people believe them to be the best option for all concerned. It doesn't require a different set of shoes to conclude what would be best for people. There are a variety of good sources to consider. There are sources like history and experience and statistics. There is a common perception of right and wrong (much smaller than it used to be, unfortunately). For Christians, there is the Bible. The Bible doesn't wait for "walk in my shoes". Not knowing what I would do in a given situation doesn't preclude knowing what I should do in that situation. In fact, wise people know that it's best to put the "should" into place before the situation occurs to prevent us from making stupid decisions in those events.
I understand that I've never been in the conditions that so many who illegally enter our country have endured. And I feel for them; I really do. And I have to admit that, despite all my hopes and confidence, I don't really know what I would do in the same circumstances. Still, I disagree that it is wrong to conclude what is the right thing to do until I've experienced those conditions. Frankly, that makes no sense. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold that people should be held responsible for breaking the law without first having walked a mile in their shoes. Unless, of course, you're going to let me break whatever laws I might choose to break since you haven't walked in my shoes. No, not even then.
4 comments:
Stan,
Excellent points. I've had this same discussion myself (to no avail). The problem, I think, is that making decisions in this country (sense the adoption in this country of relativism and the lack of absolute right and wrong) is based purely on emotion.
I have seen in some cases, and heard of in others, people who are making a totally logical point on a topic be completely disarmed by the usage of the other party of an emotional appeal.
To be sure, experience is one factor in determination of right vs. wrong, but is only one factor. There are others. If we jettison everything but experience then every discussion devolves into a completely circular discussion, something like:
Person #1: "I think we should tax the rich more, after all look at all those people making $25,000 a year paying 25% income tax who are struggling to feed their families, what about them?"
Person #2: "But I know several small business owners that combine business and personal assets who show on paper making over $200,000 a year but if their taxes went up they would have to close their business and fire 15 employees, what about them?"
And on and on. That discussion can go on ad naseum without ever even discussing the problems with passing a budget that projects a deficit that requires taxes to be so high for everyone in the first place. The emotional appeal is all that is considered without even considering assumptions, beginning conditions, human nature, reasons for passing laws, fundamental function of laws, etc.
I've gotten long winded. Great post, needs to be addressed more often. Most especially I think on the talk radio and television news shows that give 3 minute spots to such important issues and give most people the idea that immigration, war, poverty, taxes, etc. can be comprehensively discussed and fully determine the right course of action in 30 seconds of stated opinion.
"... those people making $25,000 a year paying 25% income tax ..."
I know ... just an example, but included in your example is an egregious violation of the truth. I only bring it up because that, so often, is part of this whole emotional appeal concept. You know how it goes. Whether or not it is true, if I can equate your candidate with Hitler (as an example), the emotional response is strong. So they'll make a heart-wrenching claim and you're completely without recourse. "But wait," you might say, "that's not the way it works." "Oh, sure," they'll respond, "you obviously don't care about poor people who can't feed their families" and the debate has devolved into nonsense.
This, in fact, is exactly the condition of the whole SB1070 debate here in Arizona. It was a law-enforcement law, but the opposition has framed it as racist, anti-family hate. We're no longer able to even suggest that it's a good idea to enforce the law without being accused of being racist, anti-family, and hateful. Sigh.
I think the pathetic thing about the whole situation is that AZ passed a law to make it legal to enforce a law already on record. If we'd enforce the laws already on the books, legislation such as this would be unnecessary.
Great posts, glad I stumbled on your blog!
Yeah, can't figure that out. If the feds are the only ones who are allowed to enforce federal law (and, oh, by the way, everyone knows they are not doing it), then what about, say, bank robbery or kidnapping or ... ? Should we also ask the police to stand down from those? Should we tell the 911 operators, "If someone calls with a violation of federal law, give them the phone number to the FBI and hang up"? Not getting it. Not getting it at all.
Oh, and hope you come back to visit again. Always good to have new visitors.
Post a Comment