Of course, the actual immigration violator the New York Times “Ethicist” wants a reader to turn in to the state is unlikely to be blonde and light-skinned. (Illustration: Tomi Um)
As Donald Trump issued an executive order intended to single out Muslims for immigration restrictions, many Americans searched their consciences for the right way to respond to this act of discrimination by their government. “First they came for the Communists/And I did not speak out/Because I was not a Communist,” begins the famous poem by Martin Niemoller. How can we avoid making the same mistake that the Germans made who failed to stand up against the first acts of repression by the Nazi regime?
Fortunately, the New York Times Magazine publishes a column called “The Ethicist” that offers advice on complex moral questions. In the most recent column (1/25/17), “The Ethicist” offers some advice that’s relevant to the Trump era of heightened xenophobia, ethnic scapegoating and threats to civil liberties: If someone confides to you about an immigration violation, he says, you should inform against them to the government.
A reader wrote in to “The Ethicist” to ask what they should do about an acquaintance who admitted to them that she had married a US citizen only in order get US citizenship. “Do I have an ethical obligation to speak out about marriage fraud when it is used to gain US citizenship?” the reader asked.
No, but it would be a good thing to do, was the response of
It is the nature of the nation-state arrangement that states have a right to regulate who crosses their borders. You may disagree with one feature or another of our system, but over all it is fairer than many others. And if someone abuses it by the sort of fraud you have described, they are not only breaking the law, they are jumping a queue that millions of other people have formed by applying properly and then waiting their turn.
Given that you’re clearly not the only person who has the relevant information, and given the diffuse nature of the harm, you’re not obligated to report what you know. But provided you are morally certain about your conclusion, it would be a good thing if you did. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a website where you may report anonymously. (Filing false information is a crime.) It would be up to them to confirm what you say.
Presumably such advice would also apply to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States whom Trump has threatened to deport. Has your neighbor admitted to you that they don’t have a green card? Homeland Security has a website where you can anonymously report them!
The New York Times can publish an updated version of the Niemoller poem: “First they came for the immigrants—and I said people should secretly turn them into the government.”
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Liz Spayd at public@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes or @SpaydL). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Laws (ideally) exist to promote good and prevent harm.
When considering the harm in breaking a law, we have to ask who is harmed by doing so, and who is harmed by not doing so.
If “jumping the queue” meant that someone who’s legally applied for citizenship would be denied their place, the harm is obvious, but in this instance, no one is harmed in this manner.
We don’t know this person’s circumstances. She may have a valid reason for her action, based on her situation in her homeland. Even if that weren’t the case, who would be harmed if she were turned in? Does she have children or others who depend on her?
You have to wonder why Appiah the Ethicist apparently either doesn’t consider these factors, or finds them unworthy of consideration, don’t you just?
“Presumably such advice would also apply to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States whom Trump has threatened to deport.”
Seems like there is enough going on that we needn’t presume in order to find some media failing to write about.
Turning in your neighbor isn’t ethical (or lawful); it’s unscrupulous.
0bama’s “See something, Say something” wasn’t under such a microscope as this so-called ‘unscrupulous’ retread of an already enacted law from December 2015 signed by the former president himself.
President Obama NEVER said to single out “certain” people of “certain” religions or from “certain” countries – NEVER. Don’t try to excuse Trumps obvious bigotry, racism, hatred and white nationalism by falsely claiming that President Obama did the same thing. It is lame. Please try to show ANYWHERE that President Obama EVER named specific races, religions or cultures to be targets of
“special suspicion”. Doesn’t sell. You are simply a Trump apologist trying to explain away open racism.
No, the profiling is implied. He left it to ordinary citizens. The Good Nazis of the United States. Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of experiencing the consequences of the “if you see something, say something” campaign. Not as bad as it could have been had I been black or middle-eastern looking, I suppose. But just enough to give me a tiny taste of what this policy leads to.
I was in Boston for a conference, and I took an afternoon off for some sightseeing. I went to see the USS Constitution. The security theater alone is enough to put you off. As you stand in the airport-like security line, an officer comes around yelling, “Have your photo ID ready! Put your photo ID in the right hand, and leave your left hand out to be stamped!” They’re quite specific about the handedness. To underscore the point, he goes on to yell, “If you are over 18 years old and do not have your ID, you will not be allowed into the ‘yahd,'” which is Bostonian for “yard.”
Pockets get emptied, belts come off… well you know the drill. But my experience gets worse…
As we’re entering the ship through the third layer (!) of security going past the officer in the guard box, I hear the group in front of me talking in hushed tones about some guy they think they saw without a stamp. Oh, heaven forbid! Well little did I know, the guy they erroneously thought had no stamp, was me! They whispered something to the guard, he let me go by, but then came from behind and stopped me for a further check. By the time he looked at me, I kind of started to figure out what was going on, but you gotta love the whole “sneak attack tactic.” I demonstrated that I did indeed have a stamp -the ink was just faded. He eventually let me through, but not before some further scrutiny of my papers- in this case my driver’s license. Just in case, the number on my ID card was duly recorded. All this to see a historic ship, a tourist attraction, mind you.
I quickly caught up with the busybodies who turned me in to the authorities based on their misguided hunch, and the conversation went something like this:
“Excuse me? What the **** gives you the right to do that to someone? You could’ve just asked me, rather than turn me in to the rent-a-cop, but frankly it’s none of your **** business in the first place whether I have a stamp or not. ”
“You know what? We’re told to do this. If you see something, say something.”
“I don’t care what you’re told to do. I’m a tourist and you have no right to make me feel like some kind of criminal because you think you saw something. So mind your own **** business.”
“We just had the Boston bombing here in case you haven’t heard.”
“You know what? F*** the Boston bombing. You don’t do that to other people. Period.”
“What did you say?” [puffing up his chest and getting closer a bit more aggressively]
“What are you going to do? Hit me? You wanna hit me? Go ahead.”
Mind you, he’s a bigger guy. But maybe my eyes gave away the rage I was in. The women in his group wound up pulling him away before things got uglier.
But I’m saying this just to give you an idea of what it feels like when you’re on the receiving end of “if you see something, say something.”
The government that foments this type of campaign is stoking racism, distrust, a coursening of human relations. They’re breeding obedient citizens for a totalitarian dictatorship. This is not normal, and frankly Trump’s just the logical continuation of the same BS that’s been going on for years. It’s not normal that we have to be irradiated before we get on a plane either, and we can’t even take a bottle of water with us. It’s not normal that we can’t sell an unused plane ticket on craigslist, or not be allowed on if you misspell your name by one letter. It’s not normal that police can demand a swab of your DNA at a routine traffic stop. None of this is normal. A free society doesn’t ask people to spy on each other for the government, and there is no WAY I will EVER accept that as normal.
Nice to see all those people protesting in their pink pu$$y hats. Nice to see war criminal Madeleine Albright saying she’ll register as a Muslim. Where was she when Bill Clinton was murdering all those Iraqi kids for 8 years? “Oh, we think the price is worth it.” Where will all these people be when the Democrats get their turn at the wheel after Trump is gone, and continue the same disgusting policies but under a nicer sounding name? Will they go back to sleep like they did for 8 years under Obama? Attitudes like yours aren’t very encouraging.
Holy crap, Greg! That is terrible.
One of the things that has always bothered me is that during Democratic administrations, the media stops paying attention to Progressive protesters, for the most part. Apparently, they don’t think those people matter because supposedly “their guy” is in the White House.
I don’t think the protesters of civil rights abuses “went to sleep”: we were still here, but I don’t think the media was bothering to cover the protests against prosecuting whistleblowers, NSA overreach, illegal drone wars, etc.
I am frankly a little surprised that they managed to cover the Black Lives Matter movement.
My one major hope in this Presidency is that all Americans are woken up to how bad these policies are, how they hurt our freedom, but don’t make us safe. And we never fall asleep at the wheel, regardless of who controls what levers of government.
“They’re breeding obedient citizens for a totalitarian dictatorship.”
Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“I don’t think the protesters of civil rights abuses “went to sleep”: we were still here, but I don’t think the media was bothering to cover the protests…”
True. Perhaps I was being a bit unfair. When I think about it, there was Occupy, BLM, Keystone, NoDAPL, the net neutrality fight, and many smaller actions. All of it under Obama. Just that the “liberal” media was missing from all these fights.
Let us never forget that part of the Obama Legacy that was Rahm Emanuel, who, as Barack’s White House Chief of Staff, publicly denounced the President’s left wing critics as “fucking retards.” Obama, per his silence, seemed to agree; and the good citizens of Chicago then made good old Rahm, their Mayor. Lucky them.
It was during this early period when many progressive voices realized what a disaster the Obama presidency portended: neo-liberal austerity for the economy, and eight full years of neo-conservative warmongering, all from an administration that was allowed to do those things, without criticism from those in his party, because what was being done by not only a Democratic president, but by the first black President. The Republicans made it worse, by their Congressional “leadership” publicly announcing their intentions to bring down his presidency based solely on whom he was instead of what he did. And people like Trump still doubt his birthplace.
And Obama became the best Presidential act since Truman played the piano while his daughter, Margaret, sang. His smooth act made news.
Like Harding and Nixon, Obama will be remembered in history–though he might not like what’s remembered. A Legacy can be a lonesome thing.
Greg, I feel your pain and your anger and I totally agree. Thanks for your personal experience. When you stated:
“They’re breeding obedient citizens for a totalitarian dictatorship” it made me think of a recent comment I heard that made real sense when I’ve heard some bizaar stories taking place in the classroom lately. And it is this: Have you heard about some of these very strange episodes in schools when students are sent home, disciplined, or even arrested for innocent little acts they have done? Well, I guess these school henchmen are training our little ones to be completely obidient citizens too. Welcome to our police state.
The self-proclaimed “ethicist” needs to seriously rethink his personal ethics. In this case and under these circumstances he sets a horrific example of hatred, bigotry and misunderstanding of basic human decency. Maybe there’s a place for him in the Trump Admin.
That’s surely true, but your fact avoiding apologetics above re: the Obama administration’s deportation record- particularly with reagrd to Central American families, renders this post little more than the shallowest of hypocrisy.
Might be worthwhile to follow your own advice: “seriously rethinking personal ethics.”
One wonders what Mr. Appiah would have advised, had the inquiry involved informing on someone who was secretly homosexual, where the sexual orientation remains a crime–Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.
Applying the same logical process, i.e., that the questioner clearly was not the only person who knew, and given the “diffuse” nature of the harm, s/he’d probably not be obligated to report. But, just like with the immigration issue, provided you are morally certain about your conclusion (your neighbor is gay), it would be a good thing if you did. There seems little difference between the two “sins.” I’m betting that Kwame is as constant as Polaris in his righteous moral positions.
Mr. Appiah sets a high standard for deciding to inform on ones neighbors, no matter how deviant they might be. In this hypothetical case, however, one has to wonder how would the openly gay, Mr. Appiah explain himself to his husband, Henry Finder, when the advice was published?
I was appalled by Appiah’s response, but this is just one step further than his “advice” usually leave me, which is an eye-roll. I only read these letters now to see if there is anything to challenge my assessment of his work as rigid, lacking the capacity for compassion or context. This one is a doozy by his own low standards, however.
For a minute, I was starting to think that under Trump, the media might start to do its job as journalists for a change.
No, as usual, FAIR snaps us out of our delusions. The corporate media are already settling in to their familiar role as stenographers for the regime.
This so-called ‘ethicist’ should go back and read some stories about denunciations in totalitarian regimes before lending any advice on the subject.
If this letter had been written in, say, 1935 in Germany, and the woman in question married a German to hide her Jewish lineage [which the German government at the time considered a citizenship issue], and the neighbor knew about it, does this master of ethics believe that the neighbor reporting the marriage to the authorities- anonymously or otherwise- would constitute the correct step?
I have wondered about the whole concept of “sham marriage.” If two people are legally married, then they are married. period. The nature of their relationship is not involved in the legality of the marriage. People marry for many reasons. Two friends could marry, with a large part of the reason being that it would help one of them, who does not have US citizenship while the other does, to obtain citizenship. Surely people marry for dumber reasons than this. I am 71 years old and remember when marriage was about setting up a household and having children, but today marriage has changed and so has creating a family. People have children who are not married and people marry who do not intend to have children. People marry and don’t live together because of careers. Just what exactly is a “sham” marriage?
I’ve wondered about this myself. Perhaps I just don’t know enough about the law, but it seems that if the immigrant can somehow manage to get through all the bureaucratic red tape it takes to get a marriage license, then they’re good.