Socrates on illegal immigration

Jewish World Review ^ | June 15, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[conservativecorner]

After Socrates was convicted by a court of questionable charges, his friends planned to break him out of his jail in Athens. But the philosopher refused to flee. Instead, he insisted that a citizen who lived in a consensual society should not pick and choose which laws he finds convenient to obey.

Selective compliance, Socrates warned, would undermine the moral integrity of the entire legal system, ensuring anarchy. And so, as Plato tells us, the philosopher accepted the court's death sentence and drank the deadly hemlock.

Socrates' final lesson about the sanctity of the law is instructive now in our current debate over illegal immigration.

There are, of course, many objections to illegal immigration besides that it is against the law: Unlawful workers undermine the wages of our own citizen entry-level workers. Employers who depend on imported labor find common ground with ethnic chauvinists; they both exploit a large, vulnerable and unassimilated constituency. And security analysts warn us that it is insane to allow a 2,000-mile open border at a time when terrorist infiltrators are planning to kill us.

Yet few have criticized illegal immigration solely because millions have, with impunity, flouted the law — aliens, their employers and the officials who look the other way.

[dropzone]

excellent article.

We need a lot more of this sort of historical context injected into the debate (and for that matter, into ALL our debates!)

[Socratic]

Selective compliance, Socrates warned, would undermine the moral integrity of the entire legal system, ensuring anarchy.

We do find method in logical extension.

[ClaireSolt]

Exactly! I used to play that speech by Socrates as read by Moses Hadas in the history classroom. However, it always brought tears to my eyes and high school sophomores really thought that was corny. So I stopped doing it. It is in the Crito, by Plato, if youi want an inspiration.

[Gondring]

great point ping

[LurkLongley]

As usual, VDH drives home the salient points in the discussion. Never mind all of the arguments for and against the influx of large numbers of people who have no desire or incentive to assimilate, it is simply AGAINST THE LAW!

[radar101]

This applies to more than immigration.
How many of you have witnessed promotions based on race, sexual preference, or gender?
How many have seen criminals go free because they are stereotyped into a "Victim" class?

[Tolik]

...Ignoring the law is not only hypocritical and anarchical; it also creates cynicism.

...So, besides the money to be made on both sides of the border, why do we disregard the immigration laws?

Are the laws wrong and cruel, and even if they are, would it be moral to ignore them? The answers are no and no.

...breaking the immigration law is not really civil disobedience but, typically, an expression of jaded self-interest by workers, employers and government officials.

Nevertheless, what distinguishes the U.S. from nations in the Middle East, Africa and, yes, Mexico is the sanctity of our legal system. The terrain of Mexico may be indistinguishable from the landscape across the border in the U.S. But when it comes to the law, there is a grand canyon between us.

Only on one side of the border is title to private property sacrosanct, are police held accountable and is banking conducted transparently. Public hiring in America is based on civil service law, and judges are autonomous. And the American public has a legal right to investigate and even sue its government. That maze of legality helps to explain everything from why the water is safer to drink in San Diego than in Tijuana to why a worker makes $12 an hour in Fresno but less than $1 in Oaxaca.

Yet once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness.

That worry is why Socrates, 2,400 years ago, taught us that the deliberate violation of the rule of law would have been worse for ancient Athens even than losing its greatest philosopher.

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links: FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
His website: http://victorhanson.com/     NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

[Loud Mime]

The Selective Application of law is the foundation of our political parties, the liberals to a greater extent than the conservatives.

VDH makes good points by repeating the points of Socrates. It's old history, which shows how ignorant our politicians and citizens are.

[DumpsterDiver]

This is being mailed to Mayor Villaraigosa and a few other politicians.

And does the city council that orders its policemen not to turn over arrested illegal aliens to the border patrol similarly allow townspeople to ignore their municipal tax bills?

When thousands operate cars without state-mandated licenses and car insurance, why should other drivers bother to purchase them?

If police pull over motorists and do not verify the legal status of aliens, why do they check for outstanding arrest warrants of citizens?

[afnamvet]

Good read.

[DumpsterDiver]

ping

[GOPJ]

Yet once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness.

BINGO

[gubamyster]

ping

[metesky]

What a great column!

Thanks for the ping, Tolik, this was well worth the read.

[oldbrowser]

Instead, he insisted that a citizen who lived in a consensual society should not pick and choose which laws he finds convenient to obey.

When people start choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore the whole system breaks down.

I heard a discussion on the radio yesterday where someone was arguing that only a fool would obey the law if there were no penalties.

It then follows that if you can game the system to avoid penalties, you should.

I think that is the conventional wisdom and that is why society is deteriorating.

We've lost our sense of honor.

[TheLion]

"Yet once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness."

This nails the problem in a nutshell! And this is were we are unfortunately headed.

[TheRobb7]

How many times, ad nauseum, have we heard liberals argue that we are "a nation of laws"????

"Yeah, but let's look the other way on this, (it's one of our constituencies)."

Great article.

[garbageseeker]

Logical Ping