The Ethics of Deportation

On January 17th, 2017, during a campaign rally in Miami, President Donald Trump declared that a Trump administration would take decisive action to halt illegal immigration, deport all criminal aliens, and consequently save American lives (PolitiFact. com). This declaration was indicative of an administration committed to enforcing stringent immigration policies. Trump's aim to deport approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants (Wessler) highlights the aggressive nature of these policies. However, such measures raise significant ethical concerns. Deporting individuals to countries they may no longer recognize, tearing families apart, and confiscating their properties is an approach that seems excessively harsh and ethically questionable.

The Deontological Perspective

The heart of the ethical debate surrounding deportation can be viewed through the lens of deontology. This moral philosophy, often associated with Immanuel Kant, emphasizes actions that align with universal moral laws (ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu). Kantian ethics prioritize doing what is inherently right, such as saving lives, telling the truth, helping others, and refraining from stealing. When considering the issue of deportation of illegal immigrants, a deontologist would argue that the action is morally wrong. Deporting individuals for the sake of national safety or economic benefit might lead to favorable outcomes, but it overlooks the moral imperative to support individuals and foster human flourishing. It is right, according to deontology, to help people live and work, support their families, and contribute to society rather than deport them and separate their families.

The statistics reinforce this moral standpoint. Gustavo Lopez reports that of the 340,000 immigrants deported in 2016, only 40% had criminal convictions, while 60% had not been convicted of any crime (pewresearch.org, Key findings about U.S. immigrants). This indicates that a significant portion of deportations affects individuals who have not engaged in criminal activity. Moreover, data from 2015 indicates that the IRS received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers without Social Security numbers, a group that includes many undocumented immigrants (vox.com). This demonstrates that undocumented immigrants are contributing to the U.S. economy and supporting their families without government assistance, thus challenging the narrative that they are economic burdens.

The Utilitarian Perspective

Contrastingly, utilitarianism, as articulated by philosophers like John Stuart Mill, assesses the morality of actions based on their outcomes. Utilitarianism focuses on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. From a utilitarian viewpoint, deportation might be justified if it results in a net benefit to society by preserving jobs for citizens, reducing crime, or alleviating strain on public resources. However, this perspective often relies on misconceptions about immigrants. For instance, the belief that undocumented immigrants significantly increase crime rates is unfounded. Data from Texas in 2015 showed 1,794 convictions against native-born Americans per 100,000, compared to only 782 convictions for every 100,000 illegal immigrants (cato.org). This suggests that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

Moreover, claims that immigrants exploit welfare systems are misleading. Undocumented immigrants generally do not have access to welfare benefits, except for emergency medical care (cato.org). In terms of fiscal contributions, the government has profited from immigrants. The Social Security Administration's earnings from taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names or social security numbers increased by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998 (cato.org). This indicates that undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to public funds.

A Call for Compassion

The reasons driving immigration are often rooted in desperation—escaping violence, poverty, inadequate healthcare, and discrimination based on religion or gender. A humane approach to immigration policy would involve aiding illegal immigrants in obtaining legal documentation to remain in the U.S. lawfully. Helping individuals achieve their dreams and protecting them aligns with moral imperatives, regardless of the consequences. The ethical stance supported by deontology emphasizes compassion and support for those seeking a better life.

In conclusion, the debate over the deportation of illegal immigrants requires careful consideration of ethical frameworks. Deontology underscores the importance of moral actions, advocating for the protection and support of individuals over punitive measures. Meanwhile, utilitarianism, while focused on outcomes, must be cautious of relying on unfounded assumptions. Ultimately, the U.S. government should prioritize humane and ethical policies that recognize the contributions of immigrants and provide pathways to legal residency. By doing so, we can uphold the values of justice and compassion that are foundational to a fair and equitable society.

Did you like this example?

414

17