Professor AAA wrote: “So 6000 unarmed poor people who might get
here by Christmas if they walk fast requires us to talk about assigning 800
members of the military to the border to do what exactly[?]” The ability of our
officials to process arguably legitimate asylum claims depends, in part, on the
human and physical resources at their disposal, but it also depends on the
willingness of those crossing the frontier to present themselves to our
officials for processing. Border control officials cannot process arguably
legitimate asylum claims if would-be asylum seekers cross our borders, and
knowingly and surreptitiously circumvent inspection and identification, and
purposefully refuse to file for asylum. So one thing U.S. troops at the border
might do…is to present a credible threat incentivizing law-abiding behaviour.
Go figure: it is not so mysterious. This is the norm, if not at most borders in
the world, at least at many. Believing otherwise is tantamount to some
religious adventure in American exceptionalism.
Professor AAA suggested that the “caravan” (I use this term for want
of a better one) “might get here by Christmas.” (I assume he meant “by
Christmas or some time thereafter,” as opposed to “no later than Christmas.”) I
applaud his making a falsifiable claim. I do not imagine this claim will age
particularly well—but we will see.
Finally, Professor AAA wrote: “Sounds like we might need
more people to process their asylum claims and offer them some food and water.”
What precisely does Professor AAA mean by “need”? Did he mean, these people are
a credible threat, particularly if desperately poor and travelling with
children who are suffering and vulnerable? Did he mean that a spouse might be
moved to engage in violent crime in order to “protect” a pregnant wife in
urgent need? In other words, “need” is a code word. We “need” to help them
because otherwise they are a “threat”?
Or, alternatively, as I expect he meant,
what Professor AAA meant by “need” is that we “need” to help them because they
are poor and vulnerable. But if that is what he meant…won’t he please share
what precisely he has done to date acting on this profound moral
intuition? Surely if he really believes the force of this moral intuition, he
can point to some meaningfully significant action or contribution (beyond
paying lawful taxes) that illustrates his sincerity—i.e., that he really
believes what he has written—i.e., that he really believes that we (including himself)
need to affirmatively aid those in the caravan. If not, is not the obvious
conclusion that he does not really believe the moral claim he is making, and
although he does not believe it, he seeks to convince the rest of us to act
upon it via his post here. Surely, it cannot be right that the only duties the “needy”
caravan members impose on Professor AAA and on the rest of us are to write
posts on Conlawprof and to vote for the politically correct party?
Furthermore, has Professor AAA considered if his moral claim is
robust? Surely there are a great many people in the world—some in our
nation—and some at home in the nations of origin of the caravan itself—who are more
poor and more vulnerable than the people in the caravan. The
people in the caravan are relatively young and relatively healthy. For those of
us unwilling to see the moral force of the claim that we must give up all that
we hold dear to those in greater need, we must choose or select the objects of
our bounty in some fashion other than the not-so-happy “accident” of television
presenting newcomers to our immediate view. If our means are limited, as mine
are, these newcomers have no particular or strong claim on us based on “need,”
as in their need, to the extent that we can identify many others
in greater need who we are willing to share our bounty with.
So I write it yet again. I don’t really believe Professor AAA
believes what he has written. In my opinion, his position is a cultural
artefact…an expression of virtue signalling to an audience who appreciates such
views. But in my opinion, the reality is the speaker does not mean what he
wrote, does not act on his own advice (at least, he has not indicated
otherwise), and does not actually expect his immediate audience to act on his
advice. This sort of thinking may very well be the norm in academia, including
legal academia. And if true, contra Professor BBB, it is a very good thing that
law professors don’t fully engage with our students about the right, the just, and
the good. In regard to these permanent things, we have no greater insight than
the rider on the Clapham omnibus.
Seth
Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof and the Caravan, New Reform Club (Oct. 26, 2018, 1:53 AM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/10/conlawprof-and-caravan.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment