Immigration, Group Moral Rights…
and the Second American Revolution
by Glenn R. Jackson
Liberal political philosophy has showcased an increasing proliferation of rights and entitlements as the centerpiece of its explanation of how and why people interact with governments. And as you consider a people’s national identity and national course such discussions on rights and governmental interactions are appropriate. In the context of a nations’ growth such a discussion would undoubtedly ebb and flow around the needs, wants, and desires of the nations’ citizenry. The tenor of that discussion begins to change however when the rights and entitlements being discussed are categorized as “moral” rights and by the striking assertion that these new moral rights can be claimed only by a subset group of people within this national discussion.
The national discussion strikes a true sour note when the assertion of this new group moral right suggests that secession, the ability of any group to leave the national collective – taking land, resources, and infrastructure – can be claimed at anytime on purely perceived moral grounds. So in claiming this newly minted group moral right, any group of individuals – all with a shared common interest – can assert a moral right to secession with the weight of an apparent moral argument to support them, or so this argument would go.
If this discussion of secession as a group moral right sounds a sour note, then be prepared for that sour note to turn into an air-raid's screaming siren when unchecked mass immigration, as experienced by the United States over the last 40 years, comes into your focus. Mass immigration on the order experienced in this country overruns cultural immersion and creates a bypass to national assimilation. Instead of a united people the nation is left with multiple common interest groups of various sizes. After 40 years these common interest groups, some large and some dangerously large, all have their own cultural and historical commonalities that include the perceptions of group moral authority. Which is to say the authority under this new moral argument to claim a group moral right.
One proponent of group moral rights, J. Angelo Corlett, argues in The Problem of Collective Moral Rights that a group moral right is "an absolute and nonconflictable moral right" which can never "be legitimately infringed or violated." If true, given the context of unchecked mass immigration group moral rights, along with the derivative of a group right to secede, are clear recipes for national dissolution. Given the significance this outcome would clearly hold for the United States, and given our nations’ precarious position vis-à-vis immigration, lets explore that significance and offer an objection that reasonably can be made to refute this risky argument for group rights.
The strength of the objection deals with how groups exercise their moral rights, i.e. make moral choices, such as the decision on whether or not to secede. Inevitably in such cases it is up to individuals to make those choices. It has been argued that individuals in these cases are acting in the interest of the group - "one difference between a right the subject of which is an individual and one the subject of which is a collective is that a collective moral right, unlike an individual one, gives some member of the collective the power to claim that right for the collective.”1 Another proponent voice in this discussion is Allen Buchanan (Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec) and he states that "group rights are ascribed to collections of individuals and can only be exercised collectively or at least on behalf of the collective...". 2 These statements imply that it is individuals that must take a leadership role in exercising group moral rights.
Now this is a curious thing. Why would a group moral right, if it is indeed a right, require an individual to claim that right for the group? Claiming a right inevitably leads to exercising the right and thereby making a choice that will have moral consequences. That individuals can commit a group to a moral choice is problematic. It is founded on the troubling idea, advanced by Allen Buchanan for one, that the interests being served by an individual exercising a group moral right will serve each of the other individuals’ interests as members of their group. This implies that an individual or several individuals can commit the larger group to a course of action to which each member of that group has a moral interest and is in moral agreement.
What is to ensure that the few might not be committing the group to a path that may be immoral and deny rights to others? Through what mechanism do the claiming individuals determine that they are acting on a group right and in the group interest? It seems just as likely that the few acting for the many could be seeking their own self-interest. Clearly the individuals claiming the right for the group are, almost by definition, in leadership roles. That is to say that there is some individual characteristic about them personally that places them in a position to be claimers for the group. Historically this can be seen as true. There are always those individuals seeking their own ends who commit multitudes of others, who will not be so well served, to help realize their aims.
In the lead up to World War II, Hitler used the ethnic German minorities in many neighboring nations to build secession movements as a pretense to invasion. Leaders of these movements, whether as willing dupes or puppets, argued for the moral rights of their respective groups. In each instance there was a ready following among the minority population. Many participated in activities that furthered a perceived common interest, but only truly benefited the plans of one man and his closest aides. Clearly these activities in the end had immoral results, but who acted immorally?
Viewing this again within the context of the inundation of the United States by mass immigration, the rise of leadership teams associated with groups like MEChA (an acronym for Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán - the word mecha in Spanish means fuse), and the geopolitical shenanigans of national leaders like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and the warning alarm for the U.S. should be clearly perceived. The notion of group moral rights ignores the assignment of accountability to those acting on these supposed group rights. Without individual involvement in the claiming and exercising of a moral right there is no clear accountability for immoral actions, and no clear check on the leadership of a group to do that that will consider the moral rights and best interest of all.
Group moral rights lack any means by which to ensure a clear moral accountability. The interest in group moral rights can be traced to an unnecessary overreaching of the liberal political philosophy's reliance on equality. Not only is equality being argued as an individual right, but also is now being asserted as a group right. Whether the equality being sought is between groups or between individuals and groups, it has assumed a dominant role in liberal writings. This has led writers like Allen Buchanan and J. Angelo Corlett into advocating principles that only increase the likelihood of individuals being used in ways that are themselves immoral. Once you stray from individual rights and individual accountability immoral choices can be hidden by a group rights smoke screen.
Liberal political writers would serve better to strengthen peoples understanding of their individual rights and responsibilities. The proliferation of rights in liberal thinking adds far too much complexity to the discussion. More could be gained from an exposition on individual liberty, then from writing on yet another group moral right. It would be a valuable effort to help people to understand that only through the assertion of informed decisions and actions by each individual can freedom, without which equality is a meaningless right, be secured.
As to the issue we started with, i.e. the United Sates and its obviously growing problems with mass immigration? Secession is not of it's own nature a moral right. This is true to its nature as a group moral right, because group moral rights are problematic and an unnecessary extension of the right's discussion. And this is true as to its individual rights nature as well. Secession is not an individual moral right because it by definition includes separation of territory, wealth or resource, none of which can be done morally by any individual.
However mass immigration does lead nicely to discussions that fall under the heading of revolution as a variant of individual moral rights. Individuals start revolutions, but the number of individuals needed is irrelevant. Revolutions can start with one individual, or with one million individuals acting together. But regardless of the number there is the essential individual commitment and the individual accountability that allows for a moral judgment.
Only individuals can begin a process - revolution - to change the political order. And try as they might liberal political philosophy cannot hide accountability behind a façade of group rights. Individuals are the accountable agents, whether they are acting morally or not, and efforts to mask that accountability are only efforts to provide drastic political change with a semblance of the cover of righteousness.
Political change on the order that mass immigration is bringing to this nation cannot be made more palatable, the seeds of revolution are being planted and the individuals responsible need to be held accountable.
Footnotes
1 J. Angelo Corlett, "The Problem of Collective Moral Rights"(1994) Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 237-259
2 Allen E. Buchanan, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991)
Glenn Jackson is Chairman of the American Reformation Project and Board Member of Hire American Citizens. Glenn was an organizer of American Jobs Coalition (organizations fighting against the American Worker Replacement Program). Glenn is also a former State Chairman for Buchanan 2000 Presidential campaign, and former state Chairman of the Georgia Freedom Party. Glenn holds an MA in Philosophy from Georgia State University in Atlanta.
© Glenn R. Jackson