Listen
On Now : Drama
The Great Scott - Heart of Midlothian
BBC Radio 4
The Radio 4 Blog

The Public Philosopher: Prof Michael Sandel on immigration in Texas

Tagged with:

Editors note: You can hear The Public Philosopher on Radio 4 at 9am on 23 and 30 Oct and 6 Nov 2012. Here, Mukul Devichand who worked on the programme with Professor Sandel talks about the issues raised in the first programme. PMcD

If you think Texans attitude towards illegal immigrants is simple - lock 'em up and shut the borders - the first programme in a new series of Radio 4's The Public Philosopher may surprise you.

With the US presidential vote around the corner, we took Harvard political philosopher Prof Michael Sandel to the University of Dallas in Irving, Texas to ask a public audience: how far should an open society go in accepting outsiders?

In other words, what's the moral case for and against immigration, and to what extent should illegal immigrants be punished?

These are tough issues in Britain but in Texas, which borders Mexico, the issue has a unique resonance.

Over a million "undocumented" people, who have crossed the US border illegally, live in the state and across the United States there are an estimated 11.5 million such people - many from Latin America.

That led us to the first moral issue addressed in the programme: now that they are in the USA, what should be done about this huge population living in the shadow of the law?

In particular, what is the right moral attitude towards the children of illegal immigrants, who were brought to America when they were very young?

Some argued that it was their parents, not them, who broke the law - so does that give them a moral right to become US citizens?

One passionate speaker told Prof Sandel it was a double standard for other law abiding Americans to have to tolerate illegal acts - even if the children were not to blame. Then, she revealed that she herself was a (legal) immigrant.

But another young woman - herself the child of an "undocumented" worker - said that her own hard work and contribution to American society gave her a moral right to citizenship.

The future for the children of illegal immigrants is a hot political issue in the US election. The scale of the issue - and the fact that Hispanic Americans are an increasingly important source of votes - meant Barack Obama and Mitt Romney offered their own solutions in their second televised debate last week.

But our approach in this programme was different because it addressed morality, as well as politics. In turn, Prof Sandel encouraged the audience to pull back and ask some difficult, prior, questions:

  • Is it morally legitimate to have any border controls at all?
  • If yes, should they be based on economics - on the skills a country needs - or an idea of shared citizenship, culture and values?
  • If immigration policy is dictated by economics alone, what does that tell us about the political community we create?

Immigration, argues Professor Sandel, is so passionately debated precisely because it lays bare our idea of citizenship political community.

Therefore, to form a view, Americans - and anyone else debating immigration - have to ask what values they, as a nation, really stand for?

Mukul Devichand is a Senior Broadcast Journalist in News and Current Affairs, Radio

Tagged with:

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 32. Posted by Jeremy Passmore

    on 30 Oct 2012 08:40

    My comment no. 27 was on the same topic as Prof. Sandel's debate: immigration.
    It is to be deplored if the BBC denies me freedom of speech concerning this important issue, stifling debate.
    I did not use bad language (though the BBC often allows offensive bad language).

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 32: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 32: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 31. Posted by All for All

    on 28 Oct 2012 23:38

    The BBC blogosphere has suffered limitation of comments to a pitiful 400-characters, the comment facility is subject to 'unaccountable breakdowns', and in the wake of Peter Rippon's elegant 'attempt to take responsibility' we see BBC personalities falling over each other to supply tabloid-patrician diversion of perspective.

    Must we wait for Professor Sandel to try to hold-up the mirror of moral philosophy for us, again? Or might salvation come from Lord Leveson?

    To seek 'state control' of 'press standards' in a society that is captive to money, its law-makers, judges, 'owners', reporters and audiences all trapped under Fear & Greed, in the service of Money-Advantage, is to prepare the way for deeper servitude.

    Failing to understand, explain and clearly commend universal liberty, the rule of conscience, our advocates of 'statutory regulation' and our defenders of 'press freedom' all must be counted possessed, either of a naive ignorance or of a faithless cowardice, to accept as 'right' or 'best' continuance of a regime that has sold 'human nature' as damned.

    On the subject of selfish folly, I think it was St Eric Pickles who thought that St Thomas Jefferson might have said the 'river of a free press' had to 'flow without restriction': no stronger advocacy of Equal Democracy than that even inadvertently from one enduring office at high-rank.

    Under tyranny, we all are to some extent victims, all to some extent 'Quisling of Mammon'. For all, the remedy is universal liberty, not self-righteous vigour in scapegoating, and not vain pursuit of an after-the-fact 'independent scrutiny'.

    Today's debate risks being no more than symptomatic, one more reflection of money-corruption society-wide.

    If there is no call for the rule of conscience, the Leveson Inquiry will be but one more foot-note in a tragic history, our tempting of Fate.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 31: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 31: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 30. Posted by Jeremy Passmore

    on 27 Oct 2012 07:59

    I hope this comment and my previous one (no. 27) will be accepted.
    Thanks, Jeremy Passmore

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 30: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 30: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 29. Posted by Jeremy Passmore

    on 27 Oct 2012 07:56

    The 3 pillars of the European Union are: democracy; human rights; the rule of law.
    Yet millions of people are in the EU illegally. (About a million in Britain alone.)
    For decades "sans papiers" (with rare exceptions, all young men) have been heading for France's Channel ports in order to get to England.
    The French don't deport them.
    If you take away 1 pillar....

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 29: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 29: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 28. Posted by Paul Richards

    on 24 Oct 2012 11:58

    As mentioned by other posters, possibly the greatest value of this debate is showing the value of gentle, but firm, Socratic questioning. Done well, this helps participants unpack their beliefs and show the depth and quality of their reasoning.

    I, for one, would pay good money to see Michael Sandel moderate a couple of sessions of Prime Minister's Questions.....

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 28: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 28: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 27. Posted by Jeremy Passmore

    on 24 Oct 2012 08:11

    This comment was removed because it broke the house rules. Explain

  • Comment number 26. Posted by gw

    on 23 Oct 2012 21:38

    I was going to make the very first comment or similar. The notion that we have rights or entitlements and can exclude others from these is so short sighted. We can have rights but not many folk seem to have notions of responsibilities. If it was ok and possible for everyone to have 6 kids then problems with immigration and resource shortages would be rather worse. Ok we are where we are. Then have a responsible policy to limit population, stop at 2 kids and allow limited immigration for those who do the same. Prices are going up, natural resources are deleted and degraded and the climate is changing.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 26: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 26: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 25. Posted by cecilyan

    on 23 Oct 2012 21:28

    Caught the broadcast en route thro' fog and mist nd, as usual was delighted with the articuly of most speakers - particularly students. The first blog really covers my comment /question 'And where do yoy think yor forbears came? and did they ask the native Indians if they wanted 'immigrants' Those immigrants/settlers were all from comunities with religious/political persecution or sent by (reedy) governments anxious to add more territory and wealth from (unexplored) lands without so much as a by yiour leave! American citizens please emember this and that it is not YOUR country. so sad that there is so much intolerance and bigotry in the world.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 25: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 25: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 24. Posted by Peter Browne

    on 23 Oct 2012 21:26

    None of those interviewed stated that there were 46 million Americans living below the poverty line, with over 20% of American children living in poverty. Further the US unemployment rate is about 8%. America should sort its internal problems out before it considers allowing illegal immigrants US citizenship, or allowing unskilled people to enter the country.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 24: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 24: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 23. Posted by All for All

    on 23 Oct 2012 15:06

    michael allen @22
    "success"
    In unfair fight…
    Not the American Dream

    Ever more clearly - 'extremes of behaviour', achievement & criminality, correlating with factors such as home background, nutrition, education, brain-scans showing 'damage, deviation, or deficit' - we come to face OUR need NOT to be divided by the differences that we inherit, carry and might need, SERVING our adaptability in not just family-life, in teams and nations, but - as we hope - in our stewardship of the Earth, for generations and perhaps aeons to come.

    To 'pull together', to survive and 'bounce back' as President Obama envisages, we have to trust each other with 'belonging', with equal partnership, a status to be lost only from 'established' laziness or criminality.

    To agree such partnership, to be able to win each new generation for democratic self-rule, we all have to understand - albeit in our own ways - the argument for equality.

    From whatever mix of emotion and reason, of care and calculation, of knowledge and imagination, to prosper free from corrupting conflict of interest, we have to know 'our enlightened self-interest' in sharing the shareable, all of us then at liberty 'to be ourselves'.

    Using our own time and energy, our own shares of 'market command', and our own preferences, we do not need - and cannot afford - inequality of 'command over each other'.

    Perhaps always, at the extremes of psychotic illness or of psycho-sociopathy, some will need special help, and for a few - at least at times - 'detention in care'. We owe no mystical 'moral obligation' to give the voices of the Ayn Rand antisocial any more than 'instructive mention', in our education and adult discourse.

    I ask, again, any thought here on freedom to live 'in conscience'?

    Would you - all others agreed - reject equality?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 23: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 23: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next