A migrant who peacefully trades, works, and rents by consent has harmed no one. The real moral wrong begins when protestors or the state threaten force against peaceful people.
The argument works only if the state is a neutral referee and all interactions are voluntary. But modern states also provide tax-funded services. If undocumented migrants make use of those services, the costs are borne by taxpayers who never consented to those additional obligations. At that point, the situation is no longer one of purely voluntary exchange. Before concluding that "no one has been harmed," the article must first address whether expanding claims on publicly funded services constitutes a harm to those who finance them.
What an absolute load of bollywock! Yes I agree that it was the states error to allow them in and they should therefore not use force to remove them. But they are here ILLEGALLY and that IS a moral issue! Heavens sakes! If I go to Europe on a tourist visa and then stay and get a job, if they find me they have every right to make me leave irrespective of whether I am there peacefully, I am there illegally. Its like we always have to treat the situation in Africa with kid gloves... removing moral (and legal) obligations and standards that apply everywhere else. Its these double standards that result in wrong responses and then wrong arguments are used to justify those responses.
The sheer practical brilliance of the late Trevor Watkins, the originator of the Harm Consent Rule, the HCR. An excellent article Charl ... You show how the HCR can be applied crisply and clearly ...
The argument works only if the state is a neutral referee and all interactions are voluntary. But modern states also provide tax-funded services. If undocumented migrants make use of those services, the costs are borne by taxpayers who never consented to those additional obligations. At that point, the situation is no longer one of purely voluntary exchange. Before concluding that "no one has been harmed," the article must first address whether expanding claims on publicly funded services constitutes a harm to those who finance them.
What an absolute load of bollywock! Yes I agree that it was the states error to allow them in and they should therefore not use force to remove them. But they are here ILLEGALLY and that IS a moral issue! Heavens sakes! If I go to Europe on a tourist visa and then stay and get a job, if they find me they have every right to make me leave irrespective of whether I am there peacefully, I am there illegally. Its like we always have to treat the situation in Africa with kid gloves... removing moral (and legal) obligations and standards that apply everywhere else. Its these double standards that result in wrong responses and then wrong arguments are used to justify those responses.
The sheer practical brilliance of the late Trevor Watkins, the originator of the Harm Consent Rule, the HCR. An excellent article Charl ... You show how the HCR can be applied crisply and clearly ...