Prosecutorial Discretion

[shirgall]

So, let me get this straight.

 

Prosecutorial discretion in self-defense cases where the races go a particular way is wrong.

 

Prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases where races go a particular way is not only right, but supported by executive action.

 

Did I get it right?

[J. D. Stembal]

So, let me get this straight.

 

Prosecutorial discretion in self-defense cases where the races go a particular way is wrong.

 

Prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases where races go a particular way is not only right, but supported by executive action.

 

Did I get it right?

 

You have a good point.

 

However, self-defense in an ethically justified action whereas immigration (the movement of humans globally) has no moral content by itself. Does promoting or restricting immigration have any moral value? It only takes on an amoral meaning when it is regulated by a federal governmental authority because that authority trumps all other property right holders who live under it. I could see a restriction on immigration or emigration as a violation of property rights because the state in question presumes to own the whole geographic region in order to oversee it.

 

In theory, if Obama had decreed all immigration and emigration is henceforth deregulated, that would be a moral act. However, we can safely assume at this point that freedom is never the unseen angle of the federal government. Government never willingly seeks to limit its power.

 

On the other hand, on the local level, property owners should have a right to form communities as they see fit, which means allowing or excluding people entry based on specific criteria. Deregulated, small-scale immigration between communities would be heavily scrutinized in some cases. For example, not many people with any other options would want to live in a community such as Ferguson. They would seek to live in a community where rioters and looters don't burn down local businesses.