While I understand what Hildago is arguing in this essay, I have a hard time accepting that it is okay to break laws. Basically, Hildago is saying that because immigration laws are morally unjust, it is okay to break them. But saying that these laws are unjust is subjective. Also, we live in a democracy where we elect leaders to make these laws. If we don’t agree with the laws that our leaders make, then we can elect new leaders. Furthermore, perhaps the laws are unjust, but if the goal is to be moral, then breaking the law is immoral as well.
Hildago addresses these counter arguments, but not well. Essentially he claims that immigration is an outlier in our democracy. Again, this is subjective. Just because a person does not agree with a law, does not mean that it is moral for them to break it.
I agree with the stance you take against Hidalgo’s argument, because I noticed a few flaws and subjections within it. For once, he is saying it is okay to break immigration laws specifically because they are morally unjust. However, what if one believes the law against physically harming someone is unjust. Would Hidalgo agree to let them cause physical pain to someone just because they believe the law is unjust? Also, the idea that immigration is an “outlier” in our democracy is influenced by Hidalgo’s opinion, and just because someone agrees with this argument, does not mean it should be alright for them to break immigration laws.
While I understand Hidalgo’s argument that immigration laws are morally unjust, the duty to break a law is not something that should be encouraged though. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize and amend laws that are deemed unfair to the general population. If we seek to uphold the values of a representative democracy, people should peacefully protest and use their free speech to voice concerns. The moral reasons for breaking immigration laws can be exploited for other laws people deem as ‘unfair’ to their personal liberty.