Letters to the Editor on Morals Legislation and Immigration

I submitted these to my college newspaper, the LSU Reveille. Unfortunately they were not published in the print edition, but they were posted online.

Morals legislation incompatible with Christianity and morality
(11-08-06)

In her opinion column on the separation of church and state on Wednesday, November 8th, Emily Byers makes several egregious errors. First, in a fallacious argument from authority, she argues in part that morals legislation is justified because the Founding Fathers allowed for it, but just because some, most or all of the Founding Fathers allowed for morals legislation does not make it right. They were only human after all. Second, she fallaciously moves from the correct claim that personal (im)morality affects others to the conclusion that therefore it can and should be legislated, but this does not follow automatically. Third, she seems to equate advocacy of morals legislation with Christianity and, I would guess with conservatism, and being against morals legislation with secularism and, she seems to imply, with liberalism. She seems to be entirely ignorant of the libertarian tradition which includes both Christians and non-Christians who believe that it is wrong to force your moral beliefs on others. Libertarians believe that we all have a right to liberty — to freedom from the initiation of physical force (including violence, murder, theft, and fraud) against us, which is clearly unjust and harmful to the well-being of both the aggressor and the victim. Beyond the prohibition of, and provision of restitution for, such unjust acts, it is immoral to impose our personal moral beliefs on others. It is also un-Christian. Because it prohibits freedom of choice, morals legislation can only produce correct behavior; it cannot directly produce moral behavior and personal salvation, which must be freely chosen. Morals legislation is also paternalistic, treating competent adults as children who need to be protected from themselves and bad examples, and has been proved by theory and history to be generally counterproductive. Does anyone recall the monumental failure of the Eighteenth Amendment, for example?

Clarification on Immigration
(11-16/06)

I’m afraid that I must chide my fellow political science grad student, Michael S., for making some sorely uninformed or misinformed claims in his Thursday, Nov. 16th letter to the editor. First, there is no essential similarity between the jobs of illegal immigrants in the US and legal/chattel slavery. He may view their wages as substandard but these jobs are voluntary and the wages are for them a huge improvement over the opportunities available in their home countries. As for whether illegal immigrants are a drain on our society, well if they are it is only because the social welfare state and stupid immigration policies make this possible. Abolish the welfare state and/or fix our immigration policies and this objection to immigration no longer holds water. Second, I can say as the husband of a citizen of India that he has no idea how much visas, temporary work permits, and green cards cost in money and time. My wife’s parents were forced to miss our wedding because it took them three tries, a lot of time applying and traveling to and from the American consulate each time, and a good deal of money to get a visa that allowed them to visit for a mere six months. Imagine the difficulty for poorer immigrants. Temporary work permits cost over one hundred dollars and several months minimum of wait-time. And green cards cost at least one thousand dollars and take a year or more to get. The Department of Homeland Security and its Citizenship and Immigration Services (which used to be part of INS) are a big political and bureaucratic mess. I too have visited China and had no trouble getting a Chinese visa and a 10-year visa for India, but it is much more difficult for foreigners to get a US visa than for a US citizen to get a foreign visa. Finally, I want to encourage the Reveille to print more often columns and letters that express views other than typical left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican talking points and dogmas.