Hidalgo’s article, “The Duty to Disobey Immigration Law,” was a very interesting read, which provided a viewpoint uncommon for American ideology. A focus of American culture is trust in the justice system and the sanity of laws, especially regarding obedience–but, the article focuses on a guiding factor even more important than the law, morality. Hidalgo argues the moral responsibility to disobey immoral immigration laws, as it is more important to follow moral values rather than an unjust law. Additionally, he focuses on the unconstitutionality of immigration laws, describing the violation of individual liberties/freedoms. In his argument concerning the unconstitutionality of these laws he ironically utilizes the justice system to his advantage. This article highlights the problem of authority, although we are taught to follow the leader/authority figure, they are not always correct, and when they act unjustly one must disobey. The guiding factor in these situations should be ethics and, in this case, the violation of rights of immigrants. However, the argument becomes difficult with different assumptions of the law/morality.
I, personally, agree with most of Hidalgo’s view points, as the prosecution and treatment of of undocumented immigrants is completely immoral and unconstitutional and must be rejected despite the written law. However, in Dr. Bezio’s podcast, the formation of assumptions is explained, especially about our assumptions concerning culturally/racially different people. Donald Trump and other republicans fomented the assumption of undocumented immigrants as criminals, dangerous, and rapists, convincing their followers to believe the same, when the statistics clearly point to the contrary. These assumptions are based in morality, it is seen as immoral to allow undocumented immigrants in the country because they are “predators” so they need to protect their community. Additionally, they argue the stance of law and order to respect the laws in place because they are just. These ideas, which I strongly disagree with, are based on the same principle as Hidalgo’s argument. It is interesting to note the different, polarizing ways in which both morality and lawfulness can be implemented to argue opposite viewpoints–this is the power of our assumptions.
You highlight an important nuance: Although Hidalgo’s argument is based on morality superseding the law, the morality of the law itself is subjective. Living in a country that is as geographically and demographically diverse as the United States has its tradeoffs. On one hand, we have the potential to be exposed to many different cultures and ideas, thereby broadening our horizons. On the other hand, so many different walks of life and perspectives exist that it can be difficult to make people see eye to eye when it comes to policy. Even though we have a federal system where the states have authority over certain laws, there is so much variance of people even within the same state. For example, if you compare a town in northern Virginia to one in southern Virginia, you will find that the culture, political beliefs, infrastructure, jobs, and so forth are remarkably different. This is why it is so difficult to agree upon legislation. There are so many different standards by which to judge what is “moral” or not.
I think that your points are extremely valuable, especially since we instinctually presume the moral and logical superiority of those we agree with and the opposite of those we disagree with. Although I believe that Trump’s immigration policies are morally wrong and racist, most of his followers do not which leads to a question (which you pointed out) on where we can allow morality to take us in lawmaking. Obviously, we need to have morals when creating laws, but how much is too much?