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.

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.