Exploring Immigration Through a Philosophical Lens
Friedrich Hayek encourages us to consider who should make decisions, while Abraham Lincoln reminds us to ponder the extent of those decisions. This brings us to a crucial question surrounding immigration: Where exactly do we draw the line?
The concepts of subsidiarity and federalism suggest that issues should be tackled at the lowest level of authority capable of managing them. Many functions that the central government has taken over could be better handled by state and local governments, families, and community organizations.
States that view laws as arbitrary and borders as fluid risk creating chaos that erodes freedom.
The very framework of the Constitution was designed to uphold the separation of powers and protect local autonomy against the threats posed by centralized authority.
However, it’s essential to recognize that subsidiarity isn’t an absolute principle, nor is federalism inherently moral. The founders of America envisioned federalism not as a goal, but as a means to promote justice, liberty, and the common good.
When the principles of federalism conflict with the equal dignity of all individuals, federalism must yield. This pivotal lesson emerged from the Civil War, which illustrated that there are moral bounds which governments—federal, state, or local—should never cross, even if they claim to uphold divided sovereignty. The Declaration of Independence clearly asserts that human equality sets limits that cannot be violated by claims to states’ rights or local preferences.
Prior to 1861, supporters of slavery clung to an argument that still seems relevant today: that each state should have the freedom to determine the very foundations of the nation. This was backed by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, but Lincoln firmly refuted it.
Lincoln recognized that human rights are not subject to geographic boundaries or popular vote. The assertion that all men are created equal means that no majority, state legislature, or city council can lawfully declare any individual unworthy of freedom based on factors that deny their humanity. Enslaving a person is a direct violation of their fundamental rights. Undermining federal authority on crucial matters directly threatens the federation that exists to protect those rights.
Lincoln didn’t eliminate federalism. Instead, he maintained it by placing it under the framework of higher natural law. Federalism can endure only as long as it is rooted in moral truths, supporting a system committed to the equal natural rights of all.
This distinction becomes crucial when we delve into immigration. This issue isn’t merely a question of domestic policy; it strikes at the heart of what defines the American political community—who is allowed entry, under what conditions, and by whose authority.
The power to establish citizenship and regulate foreign entry is a key trait of sovereignty. The Constitution explicitly assigns this power to the federal government. Our borders shape “We the People,” and the consent of the governed informs our government. If a people lose control over their borders or cannot dictate who becomes a citizen, they cannot govern themselves adequately or uphold the equality before the law that underpins our government.
The federal government isn’t meant to bestow human dignity—dignity is inherent. What it should do is safeguard it among its members. Human dignity mandates that no one be enslaved or stripped of life or liberty without due process, but it does not equate to an absolute right to join a political community or claim citizenship.
Understanding the right to immigrate as distinct from the right to enter any country of choice is important. Merging the two blurs the lines between universal natural rights and the specific rights of a populace—something the Founders were careful to delineate.
The pressing question isn’t merely about whether authority lies with the federal or local sphere, but rather if policies are aimed at justice, human dignity, and the collective well-being of the nation. Lincoln believed that democracy must be bound by moral limits, or it risks becoming incoherent and self-destructive. States that treat laws as negotiable and borders as irrelevant create disorder that ultimately threatens freedom.
Federalism serves as a tool towards justice. It shouldn’t be viewed as a way to escape moral responsibility. Localities, even those considering themselves self-governing (like sanctuary cities), cannot override federal authority on matters critical for maintaining a self-governing society, much like Southern states couldn’t ignore the Fugitive Slave Clause or impede the enforcement of laws vital for the nation’s integrity.
Influenced by radical activists in places like Minneapolis, some interventions reflect notions of nullification and secession that Lincoln condemned as destructive to the republic. In a message to Congress in 1861, he described such “principles” as a “sugar-coated revolt” that “has been drugging the minds of the masses.”
The teachings of Lincoln and the Founders resonate to this day. Without moral support, decentralization can spiral into chaos, while centralization lacking moral purpose can become tyranny. True leadership channels power towards the enduring truths of the Declaration of Independence. Only then can America continue its journey as a government of, by, and for the people—a commitment to the idea that “all men are created equal.”
