The Political Philosophy Of Unauthorized Immigration By Jose Jorge Medoze
1095 Words
4 Pages
Should one say illegal, unauthorized or undocumented, and how about immigrant or alien? And which combination of these words should be used? Is it an immigration problem, per se, or a problem of unauthorized immigration? The words and their used-order depict a different meaning, with many drawing an array of solutions. Jose Jorge Medoze, from the University of Oregon, took a look at some of this in his article ‘The Political Philosophy of Unauthorized Immigration’ published in the American Philosophical Association’s Spring 2011 Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino issues in Philosophy. Although Medoze looks deeper than this label-semantics to find an ‘equal’ resolution for all, his evaluation of this matter falls short in taking an ‘equal’ approach,
…show more content…
He further eludes to the derogatoriness of the terms ‘aliens’ or ‘illegals’. Those words have a stigmatism of being a lesser person or repressive. As they came here, or stayed, in ways that are against the laws of this land, they therefore are lawbreakers, giving those here a dominate position over them. Ethically, no one should be ‘intentionally’ treated and/or labeled in such a fashion, let alone be socially acceptable to do so; Medoze believes there is an obligation here to treat them as equals.
Medoze, in his argument, favors a Latin American philosopher’s work, Enrique Dussel, with his proposed solutions to work towards for the future of all. Dussel uses “three key values of political liberalism—solidarity, equality, and liberty” (Medoze, 2011, pg. 6). Earlier in his article, he broke it down like this:
“…in order to understand or pinpoint the failure of a system…we need to first locate its victims, those who suffer the brunt of its exclusion and oppression. When we locate this group…we need to address the failure from their perspective and not from the perspective of privilege” (pg.
He further eludes to the derogatoriness of the terms ‘aliens’ or ‘illegals’. Those words have a stigmatism of being a lesser person or repressive. As they came here, or stayed, in ways that are against the laws of this land, they therefore are lawbreakers, giving those here a dominate position over them. Ethically, no one should be ‘intentionally’ treated and/or labeled in such a fashion, let alone be socially acceptable to do so; Medoze believes there is an obligation here to treat them as equals.
Medoze, in his argument, favors a Latin American philosopher’s work, Enrique Dussel, with his proposed solutions to work towards for the future of all. Dussel uses “three key values of political liberalism—solidarity, equality, and liberty” (Medoze, 2011, pg. 6). Earlier in his article, he broke it down like this:
“…in order to understand or pinpoint the failure of a system…we need to first locate its victims, those who suffer the brunt of its exclusion and oppression. When we locate this group…we need to address the failure from their perspective and not from the perspective of privilege” (pg.