Is Trump's plan to "impound" remittances of undocumented immigrants intrinsically evil?

[fnr]

No. It is not immoral to “impound” money earned illegally. The DEA does it all the time with regard to the fruits of drug trafficking. No one has a “licit moral right” to money earned illegally.

Remittances sent from the U.S. by undocumented migrants are generally used to keep family members out of abject poverty, even starvation if we look at the case of Haiti after the earthquake (see the research of Athena Kolbe, University of Michigan). Many of the migrants coming to the U.S. have been put out of business through anti-competitive U.S. agriculture policy (e.g., flooding their markets with subsidized corn).

Drug traffickers maintain their supply network and suppress competition through brutal violence, intimidation of people and institutions, and murder.

There is an enormous moral distinction between someone crossing the border without a visa to ensure their family doesn’t starve and a drug trafficker who makes millions of dollars based on violence and exploitation of addicts.

I see it as absolutely unfair that any foreign company that wants to open a factory or store in this country to manufacture or sell its goods may do so under “free trade” policies such as NAFTA and the WTO, but when workers from foreign countries wants to participate in the labor market within our country, we say that there is a cap on the number of people who can come in. It’s a clear illustration of how our nation favors the global wealthy over the global poor.

 

[LethalMouse]

If it is illegal to hire an illegal, then by the same argument you just gave above, all the work performed by that employee is illegal. And the benefit derived by the employer is also illegal. Therefore the employer must surrender any benefit derived from the illegal worker. If that worker was picking oranges in Florida, then the company that hired him would have to surrender all those oranges. Or be fined an amount equal to the benefit that company derived from the worker. So in a sense, it should be the employers of illegals that end up building the wall, right?

I am not exactly a wall lover

Anyway I don’t disagree with you… the employers are doing it on purpose in many cases to more detriment than the illegal. The issue that could save the company would be if the illegal was well papered ie: fraud.

But a straight illegal hiring business should face worse as they are then saving on required costs of providing for the illegal. So not only are they harming the society at large, they are doing so while providing substandardly for the worker… so yeah they should be hit harder than a poor illegal who picks fruit.

 

[LethalMouse]

You’re mistaking legal for morally licit. Every human being has the obligation to support their families (this extends from Rerum Novarum to Laborem Exercens to Caritas in Verite).
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/the-dignity-of-work-and-the-rights-of-workers.cfm

Where does the line end? In that they broke laws and boudaries, tax laws they benifit from what is paid etc… they could in many cases “provide” or try to in the same place their family resides.

There is also a diff between provide and survive vs grow and thrive.

People talk of what could be afforded before… before when you had 1 TV, one car, youdidnt pay for TV service, 1 phone, not 1 for each person that is a mini super computer, and such…

If you live in most places TV is still available free just now cable is a right…

Why not a single house phone?

Etc… etc… we conflate rights with wants and it all gets hinky…

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Remittances sent from the U.S. by undocumented migrants are generally used to keep family members out of abject poverty, even starvation if we look at the case of Haiti after the earthquake (see the research of Athena Kolbe, University of Michigan). Many of the migrants coming to the U.S. have been put out of business through anti-competitive U.S. agriculture policy (e.g., flooding their markets with subsidized corn).

Drug traffickers maintain their supply network and suppress competition through brutal violence, intimidation of people and institutions, and murder.

There is an enormous moral distinction between someone crossing the border without a visa to ensure their family doesn’t starve and a drug trafficker who makes millions of dollars based on violence and exploitation of addicts.

I see it as absolutely unfair that any foreign company that wants to open a factory or store in this country to manufacture or sell its goods may do so under “free trade” policies such as NAFTA and the WTO, but when workers from foreign countries wants to participate in the labor market within our country, we say that there is a cap on the number of people who can come in. It’s a clear illustration of how our nation favors the global wealthy over the global poor.

Umm…allowing billionaires to get rich off of cheap labor provided by illegal aliens is a much clearer illustration of how our nation favors the wealthy.

 

[Corki]

Remittances sent from the U.S. by undocumented migrants are generally used to keep family members out of abject poverty, even starvation if we look at the case of Haiti after the earthquake (see the research of Athena Kolbe, University of Michigan). Many of the migrants coming to the U.S. have been put out of business through anti-competitive U.S. agriculture policy (e.g., flooding their markets with subsidized corn).

Drug traffickers maintain their supply network and suppress competition through brutal violence, intimidation of people and institutions, and murder.

There is an enormous moral distinction between someone crossing the border without a visa to ensure their family doesn’t starve and a drug trafficker who makes millions of dollars based on violence and exploitation of addicts.

I see it as absolutely unfair that any foreign company that wants to open a factory or store in this country to manufacture or sell its goods may do so under “free trade” policies such as NAFTA and the WTO, but when workers from foreign countries wants to participate in the labor market within our country, we say that there is a cap on the number of people who can come in. It’s a clear illustration of how our nation favors the global wealthy over the global poor.

And drug dealers build schools and hospitals. Having a good intent does not excuse the fact that illegal means were used to obtain the money.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No. It is not immoral to “impound” money earned illegally. The DEA does it all the time with regard to the fruits of drug trafficking. No one has a “licit moral right” to money earned illegally.

There is an important difference between drug trafficking and illegal residence and employment. In the case of drug trafficking, the activity they are engaged in is inherently evil and immoral - not merely illegal. Therefore it is proper to deny criminals the proceeds of those activities that should not have generated any proceeds in the first place, under any circumstances.

But an illegal immigrant is different. His activity - plucking chickens in a poultry processor, picking oranges on a citrus farm, or landscaping - is a good and wholesome activity. It is normally seen as a benefit to the common good and rewarded accordingly. Thus it is nothing like drug trafficking or similar activities that are rightly impounded, since those activities do nobody any good at all.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I agree with the poster above who mentioned the responsibilities of the employer.

If Trump wants to build his hateful wall, it would probably be moral to fine companies who hire illegals and use those funds.

Is his wall more hateful than the fences we have already built? More hateful than the border police who already attempt to prevent people from crossing our border? More hateful than Obama who already deports those who have come here illegally? More hateful than our current immigration law that limits the number of people who can enter our country legally from any one country? Is it hateful to suggest that we should enforce our current laws?

Perhaps it is our current law that you have an issue with? Perhaps it is our current law that you find hateful? Perhaps you should take that up with your representatives and with those who passed the law in 1965–why is no one calling them haters–they’re the ones who limited immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time.

I’m no fan of our current immigration law but I’m also not a fan of running around calling anything I disagree with hateful.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Corki]

There is an important difference between drug trafficking and illegal residence and employment. In the case of drug trafficking, the activity they are engaged in is inherently evil and immoral - not merely illegal. Therefore it is proper to deny criminals the proceeds of those activities that should not have generated any proceeds in the first place, under any circumstances.

But an illegal immigrant is different. His activity - plucking chickens in a poultry processor, picking oranges on a citrus farm, or landscaping - is a good and wholesome activity. It is normally seen as a benefit to the common good and rewarded accordingly. Thus it is nothing like drug trafficking or similar activities that are rightly impounded, since those activities do nobody any good at all.

That’s not usually the way drug money works. The money is generated through legitimate businesses but had its root in an illegal act. The same is true about someone working illegally. The final work is not necessarily immoral (though it is often illegal) but the acts leading up to it are.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

Why not go after the ones who employ illegals and fine them heavily?

Yes, absolutely! Fine the big corporations!!!

I just hope that it doesn’t result in higher prices for said corporations goods and services…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s not usually the way drug money works. The money is generated through legitimate businesses but had its root in an illegal act.

More than that, it had its root in an immoral act. The same cannot be said of illegal immigrants working to support their families.

 

[anon67074017]

It is not evil. The immigrants are in America illegally. The government can do anything within the law to make sure illegal immigration does not take place.

 

[estesbob]

Donald Trump has revealed that he plans to build his border wall by “impounding” (seizing) the remittances that undocumented immigrants send to their home countries.

Undocumented immigrants have a licit moral right to the money they earn in the United States. Therefore, does Trump’s plan constitute a massive government program to engage in theft, which is an intrinsic evil?

It is not morally permissible to commit evil to achieve a good, so the supposed benefits of curtailing immigration are not relevant to this conversation.

Are taxes intrinsically evil?

 

[pnewton]

Donald Trump has revealed that he plans to build his border wall by “impounding” (seizing) the remittances that undocumented immigrants send to their home countries.

I believe it to be highly immoral, as one of the sins that cries to God for vengeance.

 

[exnihilo]

More than that, it had its root in an immoral act. The same cannot be said of illegal immigrants working to support their families.

Illegal immigrants first act is to enter or stay in a country illegally. So yes, at the root of whatever they do is a violation of the law the same as with illegal drug dealers.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Illegal immigrants first act is to enter or stay in a country illegally. So yes, at the root of whatever they do is a violation of the law the same as with illegal drug dealers.

Crossing the border is illegal, but not an immoral act like dealing drugs. The work they perform is good - the same as if they were born here.

They also get married and have kids while they are here illegally. Would it be moral to take away their kids too? I think you can go too far with the assumption that everything they do after entering illegally is tainted.

 

[LethalMouse]

Crossing the border is illegal,** but not an immora**l act like dealing drugs. The work they perform is good - the same as if they were born here.

They also get married and have kids while they are here illegally. Would it be moral to take away their kids too? I think you can go too far with the assumption that everything they do after entering illegally is tainted.

So then is it moral if I just walk in your house and sit on the couch? Is it less moral if you have a fence and I cut it and you have to pay to fix it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So then is it moral if I just walk in your house and sit on the couch?

Well, if you walk into my house and have a baby on my couch, I may ask you to clean the couch, but I won’t take away your baby.

 

[LethalMouse]

Well, if you walk into my house and have a baby on the couch, I may ask you to clean the couch, but I won’t take away your baby.

How did we go from tax evasion money to taking babies?

What???

Mire like I sit on your couch to hide my tax evasion business were idk… I stuff envelopes for some comoany who pays me under the table. And you find me enjoyng the comforts of the home you pay for, getting there on the roads and sidewalks you paid for and decide I am free to sit on your couch and make money all while avoiding paying for anything I use and taking the money and sending it to pay for someone elses roads…

Idk I am not talking about taking the baby, just fining you for coming in my house… which as I mentioned I dont see in this country a constitutional way to enforce the fine really so I am not even supporting the law so much as debating the fact that its essence is not immoral.

 

[exnihilo]

Crossing the border is illegal, but not an immoral act like dealing drugs. The work they perform is good - the same as if they were born here.

They also get married and have kids while they are here illegally. Would it be moral to take away their kids too? I think you can go too far with the assumption that everything they do after entering illegally is tainted.

As pointed out by another I’m not sure crossing the border isn’t immoral. From a property rights standpoint it could be.

The work is not the same as if they were born here. The illegal workers are avoiding taxes, work place safety, wage laws, and other rules. In modern social welfare states we have all manner of rules that supposedly protect workers and citizens. The illegals are avoiding these rules and thus, by the logic of the welfare state, endangering themselves and others.

Regarding the kids that isn’t the issue at hand. I imagine in most cases kids aren’t taken from parents subject to civil asset forfeiture. You could make an argument that being illegal is an act of endangerment for the children just as dealing drugs may be.

 

[Thorolfr]

It is not evil. The immigrants are in America illegally. The government can do anything within the law to make sure illegal immigration does not take place.

How is the company (Western Union, for example) that sends the money to Mexico going to know if the person sending the money is an illegal immigrant?