There is an American culture that regards the law of the land immutable and absolute. People rooted in this common strain of thought often say things like, "the law is the law" and "it's the law." While laws are often necessary and conducive to a well-rounded, civilized society, they are often contrary to good sense and morality.
People typically regard human laws to be fundamentally disconnected from morality, or they have never formed an association between these two ideas. I am of the opinion that laws ought to conform to and be derived from accepted standards of morality, which ultimately spring from human nature and reason. This view is academically known as natural law theory and has been an object of speculation by philosophers and political theorists for hundreds of years.
I will relate, in this article, natural law to a pressing issue relevant to today's political and social atmosphere—contentions arising from immigration laws and policies.
I recently witnessed an online video depicting former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum, exchanging dialogue with a young woman who's an undocumented immigrant from Mexico. The woman was brought here as a young girl by her mother, who desired a better life for her daughter. She eventually went on to earn a college degree in engineering and now contributes immensely to her community and works in the technology sector. The young woman is a law-abiding citizen, taxpayer and hard worker, yet she fears her status will deprive her of her work license (allowable under Obama's Dream Act), and she will be labeled for deportation.
The Senator expressed sympathy; however, he told her that her story is unfortunate but not above the law. He told her that she was lucky to have had the opportunity to be so successful in America, but that she would have to go back to Mexico and reapply for citizenship the right way. The only problem is, she will probably never be able to come back because of the egregious difficulty of attaining citizenship in America through flawed immigration policies. To send her back to Mexico, along with many other law-abiding, educated immigrants, is to commit a moral atrocity, even if it is in accordance with the law.
Not surprisingly, Rick Santorum tends towards the political right. After the recent presidential nomination, the American government is now being run by fervent Republicans wielding immense political power, and who probably share sentiments with Santorum.
Trump wants to "make America great again," but he will most likely seek practical expedients to achieve his political ends, disregarding what may be considered virtuous in any moral, absolute sense. This is the lesson of history. Political leaders have, or at least should have, one objective: to uphold the welfare of the state, over which they have dominion. This, however, doesn't come without a grievous cost.
I am of the belief that political leaders have lost touch with their moral sensibilities, conflating law with what is good, virtuous, or moral. They seem to believe that law dictates morality, though it ought to be the other way around. Law is not absolute, it is a human convention. Morality may likewise be of this nature but, upon reflection, it seems to dwell closer to human nature, passions and sentiments.
I am not here to define any specific ethical or moral theory, as that may take some time. It is not always clear what is moral and what is not, which is why it has been a topic of contention among philosophers and moralists for thousands of years. I am here to say, however, that before law and policy makers execute or contrive the rules of the land, they must ask if it conforms to some standard of morality, or if they find it in agreement with their moral intuitions. This, I am sure, is not a question those in power often ask themselves.
Many laws from the past are now considered immoral and heinous--slavery, women's rights and Jim Crow Laws, just to name a few. Immigration is a sensitive topic, but it seems fundamentally immoral to shoulder the blame on immigrants, especially if they're law-abiding and educated. It's the government that needs reform. To scapegoat immigrants is fallacious and rash. But only after the crime is done, and the immigrants have been discarded and shamed, will we, just like with slavery, understand the malignity of our actions. Let's hope it does not reach that point.
The essential question still stands: Should law-makers and political leaders be strictly concerned with the welfare of the state, which may be achieved by any means necessary, or should they also concern themselves with the metaphysics of human morals, which often play a deep-rooted role in our psychology and spiritual life? In America, a so-called "Christian nation," I think it is the latter that wins the argument.
"An unjust law is no law at all." - St. Thomas Aquinas