Saving Lives Gets Shut Down By the Government: An Introduction

On February 22, 2008, Daniel Millis and three colleagues were stopped by US Fish and Wildlife Service officers who spotted gallon-sized bottles of water in the back of their Toyota 4Runner. They are members of a group called No More Deaths and they work with another group called Samaritans to leave life-saving supplies in the desert. Millis admitted that he and his friends had been placing plastic bottles of water along the refuge’s trails and picking up discarded bottles as well. Daniel Millis was arrested that day for littering. His crime was leaving bottles of drinkable water for immigrants who were dying of thirst. Sometime in the first week of September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Millis’ conviction by a 2-1 vote. What was so disturbing, however, was how limited the court’s decision was. As a result, people can still be arrested for doing exactly what Millis did. The government claimed that the water bottles Millis left behind were “garbage.” The appeals court disagreed. The court concluded that the water bottles left did not meet the common meaning of the word garbage. Although Millis got off the hook, the next person to leave water bottles where he did risks going to jail.

Illegal immigrants enter the United States to enjoy a better economic life. Most of them are fleeing economic oppression, unemployment and poverty. Whether entry is legal or illegal, it doesn't matter to them. Entering illegally is their only way to get in. Many of them have risked their lives in order to live the American dream. . To illegal immigrants, the benefits far outweigh the risks so they take their chances. The lack of balance between law and human compassion causes heated debates over the illegal immigration issue. It involves right and wrong, legal and illegal issues. One of the main questions I have come across in researching is weather or not immigration is even an issue or not for the US. Many scholars say they stimulate our economy and others say they are corrupting it by taking all the low wage jobs for citizens. It is an important research question to ask because as society changes and immigrants make there way across the US borders our opinions will be the one thing that can make a difference in improving society.

When researching this particular subject of immigration I did not know what to expect. I personally have not formed my own definite one-sided opinion because I agree with so many different views. I found out many statistical facts that are overwhelming and frightening. Thousands of immigrants cross the California border every day and Millions of dollars are spent on their healthcare, and education. Many people feel that immigrants are dangerous to American Citizens. In California 80% of homicides and drug-related crimes are committed by foreigners. One of the popular themes I came across was American economy. Many argue that immigrants take citizen’s jobs, and live off of American resources. The opposing viewpoint is that migrants stimulate the economy. Many of the sources I found talked about different immigration policies recommended. Some of the policies are based on religion, some on economy, but all face the problem if they are unconstitutional. One interesting point that I would never of thought of was the fact that the first colonized Europeans in America were immigrants too and look at how far our country has come. The sole reason immigrants take such a big risk in seeking a new start in America is their pursuit of happiness. Many immigrants send all the money they make back home just to feed their families. Immigration will never end in the U.S. and it will always remain a controversial issue. The hard part is forming your opinion in order to make future decisions that will potentially improve society for everyone.

A Moral Dilemma

Macedo, Stephen. "The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy." Debating Immigration. Ed. Carol M. Swain. Cambridge University Press, 2007. 63-81 Print.

Preview the book

Stephen Macedo says that, “Citizens have special obligations to one another: we have special reasons to be concerned with the distribution of wealth and opportunities among citizens.” He argues that it is as members or co-participants in self-governing political communities that we have special obligations to our fellow members. He believes, “We do have significant moral obligations to poor people abroad, although these are different from what we owe to fellow citizens.” In his opinion, some measures designed to “tighten up” the borders may do more harm then good. He suggests that Americans should accept ongoing high levels of movement back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border. Macedo writes, “Over the last 40 years, Amercan immigration policies and practices have become, in some respects, more accommodating to the less well-off abroad.” He argues that America does indeed have urgent reasons to shape major public policies and institutions with an eye toward the distributive impact. “We must consider the justifiability of policies from the standpoint of the least well-off among our fellow citizens.”

Macedo stresses that it is the duty of American citizens to help the needy if we are thankful for what we have. This anthology is very important because it deals with a moral dilemma we are facing. Just as Daniel Millis felt it was his duty to help thirsting immigrants Macedo writes, “We should be concerned for the lives of people around us because it is our duty as citizens.” Daniel Millis was concerned when he placed water bottles in the desert. He felt it was morally the right for him to do so. This anthology digs deep with the ethical controversies facing immigration. What is morally right and wrong about immigration policies? How can we solve this migrant problem and still be constitutional? These are some questions that Macedo answers based on his personal opinion. He first addresses the immigration issue, then the duty of American’s, and then he suggests policies that have the potential to change the future. “We must consider the justifiability of policies from the standpoint of the least well-off among our fellow citizens.” What Macedo writes relates closely with the Daniel Millis trial and suggests potential solutions to the immigration problem.

We Don't Want the Chicken to Cross the Road

Thorton, James "Ati-Illegal Immigration Laws Would Benefit Society." Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Mary Williams. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 113-118. Print.

Preview this book

James Thorton believes that anti-illegal immigration laws would benefit society. “Providing public benefits to these illegals is extremely costly; Proposition 187 will allow legal residents and citizens to take control of their lives by diminishing the aliens’ averse impact on society and the economy.” He states the outrageous number of immigrants that enter California every day. He says that taxpayers of California paid $3.6 billion per year. Thorton believes they are a danger to the citizens in California because, “60 percent of homicides, and 80 percent of drug-related crimes are traced to illegals and foreigners.” In his opinion illegals are potentially harming voting results because, “Investigators are discovering that many non-citizens are registered and voting in American elections.” He stands behind Proposition 187 and believes it is the answer to America’s problems. “Proposition 187 represents a potential turning point for our beloved country and it is proof that a few determined, patriotic citizens can stand up to cowardly politicians an public official to change the course of history.” Thorton’s opinion backs up everything that Proposition 187 stands for and potentially prevents.

Even if the Proposition was set aside for being unconstitutional, it is important that Thorton writes about it. This important piece of forgotten legislation potentially has the power to arise again if the support is present. This article is highly opinionated and is loaded with lots of statistics that really help the readers for there own opinion. “Health care for illegals in Los Angeles alone, one of the areas most heavily impacted by the immigration invasion, cost $203.1 million in 1992 and continues to escalate extremely every year.” Personal one question that comes to mind after reading this article is, “Do I feel sorry for someone who commits so much crime in my home country and costs me so much?” Thorton’s purpose is to make his readers think just as I did when responding to his article. He writes, “The reality is that illegals have chosen to live outside the law, so in turn they should choose to live outside American luxury resources.” In the same sense, if they choose to live outside the law, aren’t they choosing to take a risk? Readers may relate this risk to the hazard immigrants face when choosing to cross the Arizona/Mexico desert.

What Would Jesus Do?

Edwards, James R. "A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy." Debating Immigration. Ed. Carol M. Swain. Cambridge University Press, 2007. 46-62 Print.

Preview this book

In James Edward’s opinion, immigration is a problem. He believes there are principles in the Bible that are made clear about immigration and the principles should be used by Christians. He has translated the insights and commands of the Bible in order to better explain the purpose of civil government, and what the Bible says about immigration and a biblical immigration policy. Edward translates, “In addition to the duty to punish criminals, government has the duty to defend the nation against foreign invaders.” He makes it clear that while the Bible commands us to obey legitimately constituted authority, Scripture specifies no particular form of government as being favored by God. From researching and studying the Bible Edward has noticed that the Bible speaks more on how we should treat immigrants more then it does about some sort of immigration policy. Edward quotes from Leviticus, “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. He must be treated as one of your native-born.” He also translates Philippians by explaining to us that God made the earth we are blessed to live on therefore we are all aliens and equal. Edward believes in the Bible and he accepts that immigration should not be ignored but the was we treat immigrants should be the way God intended. “Immigration policy has an important effect in shaping the future of our nation.”

Just as Edward is a firm believer In the Bible and Christianity, Daniel Millis is a follower of God. When Millis illegally placed water in the Arizona/Mexico desert he believed like any other Missionary, that he was doing the will of God. Millis was treating those immigrants with kindness, which according to Edward is in fact God’s will. What Millis may not of known is that God also wants us to follow the law of civil government. Edward writes, “Civil magistrates hold responsibility under God for the protection of the people whom God has placed authority.” He believes there are principles obvious in the Bible that Christians should follow. “I believe they are the principles that should guide all Christians in making public judgments, even if we do not always agree as to their application in specific cases.” What Edward is saying is very important because anyone who is a believer of Christ and is unsure of what political decisions to make, this is a great source. Religion is a factor in almost every political debate and Edwards makes a great argument for readers to think about.

DO NOT ENTER!

Davis, Garrett "America Should Discourage Immigration (1849)." Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Mary Williams. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 25-31. Print.

Preview this book

In 1849 Garrett Davis delivered a speech promoting America to discourage immigration. In his opinion immigrants endanger America. “It is because the mighty tides of immigration, each succeeding one increasing in volume, bring to us not only different languages, opinions, customs, and principles, but hostile races, religions, and interests, and the traditionary prejudices of generations with a large amount of the turbulence, disorganizing theories, pauperism and demoralization of Europe in her redundant population thrown to us.” He admits that among masses of immigrants there are men of noble intellect and great moral worth, “but the number is lamentably small.” He states that there is no way to distinguish the noble from the vicious. Davis mentions a problem in the government with the German and Slavonic races and how they attempted to elect candidates of their own blood to congress. “This is the beginning of the conflict of races on a large scale.” Davis says he has anxiety for the future of America and that, “No well-informed and observant man can look abroad over this widespread and blessed country without feeling that way.”

Davis’ opinion is very important because his main concern is the safety of Americans. He has evidence that nationalism has become a threat to the government and his fear comes out in his writing. He also questions the nobility of the immigrants and their loyalty to the country. By purposing that immigration is a threat to American’s safety he challenges his audience to consider agreeing with his point of view in order to fix this so called problem. Davis stresses that immigration is and always will be a problem and as far as fixing it, “the sooner the better.” Davis writes very convincingly, “If they are more vicious, they will corrupt; if less industrious, they will promote idleness; if they have different ideas of government, they will contend; if the same, they will intrigue and interfere.” Davis’ fear of the future comes out in his writing, which can potentially strike fear in his readers. He makes a believable argument that is very enticing for readers that feel that immigrants possible pose a threat to the safety of American citizens.