As with all of the more recent rationalizations added to the list, #71, the first non-sub rationalization in a while, and thus the highest number so far, should have been included years and years ago. Who hasn’t been hearing and reading “They only want a better life!’ from illegal immigrant enablers, apologists and accessories after the fact for decades? Jeb Bush said it during his mercifully short Presidential run in 2015. Axis media like the New York Times may not use the exact words, but that is the underlying argument in their routine reporting of “good illegal immigrant” stories.
Why am I dubbing this annoying rationalization after Dick Wolf, the prolific TV producer and writer responsible for about a third of the dramas on TV among the reality shows quiz shows and sitcoms? It is because he drops the line into his productions virtually every time an illegal immigrant appears in the story line. I was tempted to call #71 “Mariska’s Rationalization,” because the star of “Law and Order: SVU” mouths the sentiment repeatedly throughout the show’s apparently endless seasons (after Mariska Hargitay finally dies on the job, the show will probably have her mummified corpse leading the police unit, like El Cid).
I confess: after announcing last year that I would be boycotting all Wolf shows after a particularly disgusting woke lecture in one episode I was unfortunate enough to hear, I tuned-in to an SVU re-run last night when my pathetic options were that, “Two-and-a-Half Men,” “Smile 2” and even worse junk. Sure enough, Olivia Benson was tracking down a white monster who was trafficking poor teens from Mexico and who set one of them on fire when she balked at being forced into prostitution to pay for getting across the border. When one of the other girls told Benson that she was afraid of being sent back to Mexico if she cooperated with “policia” to shut down the operation, Mariska, her face full of sympathy and her voice oozing motherly concern, said, “I know. But you you’ve done nothing wrong: you just want a better life!” At least in this episode Mariska didn’t talk about ICE like it was the Gestapo.
Wolf putting this social justice fallacy into the mouth of a policy officer is particularly offensive. Immigration laws are essential to any nation’s security, stability and culture. Immigrants who break those laws are harming the nation whose laws they have broken. The attitude being forced into the brains of American children, weak-minded adults and those whose hearts routinely veto their brains that illegally entering this country is beyond reproach because the illegal immigrants “just want a better life” is as seductive as it is deceitful. Bank robbers want a “better life.” Gang members want a “better life.” Drug dealers want a “better life.” People who murder their spouses to get the insurance or to run off with a paramour want a “better life.”
Wanting a better life is not only not a legitimate “Avoid Accountability Free” card in the Monopoly game of life, the widespread acceptance of that fallacy is a catalyst for the expensive, divisive and destructive illegal immigration crisis that the Trump Administration is finally trying to address, using the innovative process called “enforcing the law.”
Ethics Alarms 
This rationalization is so, “If only one child could be saved…” These appeals to emotion rarely held sway until the advent of social media, and now the ooze out of every corner of popular culture and politics.
It is sickening. Aristotle is doubtless banging his head against the walls of his crypt.
And yet…I guarantee that there are readers here who regard calling these rationalizations and fallacies as proof of a black soul and a hollow heart. Which was Jeb Bush’s stated position.
Gee, I wonder where all those measles cases in Texas and New Mexico are coming from?
Yeah, no doubt it just cropped up from an anti-vax sentiment there.
Oh, wait…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness. Just rationalizing their way to a better life.
In the debate over Tom’s poetry, nobody in the Continental Congress raised the objection that the Declaration needed to specify that those rights were still subject to the rule of rational law in order to prevent chaos and societal disintegration. The Founders correctly assumed that such limits were implicit.
And yet, those rights were sought through treason, certainly outside the rule of what many considered rational law. Some chaos may have ensued. So, I guess it comes down to who defines rational law.
Many may have considered it rational law, but a significant enough many considered it contrary to the “…consent of the governed.”
So they put in place safeguards and processes yada yada yada that eventually resulted in the laws we have today.
Not enforcing the laws is a valid check/balance of the three divisions of government. A growing many of the populace disagree and have voted in an administration more strict.
Therefore, not enforcing the laws is contrary to the consent of the governed.
And that’s why the Constitution is the activating document for the Declaration’s mission statement rather than the other way around.
Absolutely but within the confines of the existing law. Otherwise Jack’s examples of bank robbers or drug dealers would be off the legal hook.
Apparently, those who sought independence believed the existing law to be the laws of nature and of nature’s God, not the existing law of the King of England.
They were rebelling against that King of England. They knew full well that, if they lost, their lives would be forfeit, likely their property seized and their families attainted.
For the most part, illegal immigrants are seeking to join in the riches of this society, not rebel against it and replace it with something else.
If they want a better life, why don’t they stay home and fix their shithole country?
It has been known for years what the masses of society watches is what conditions the societies beliefs. The writers and producers will keep producing along these lines because that is what brings the largest amount of income.
In Illinois (Chicago) it’s apparently worse to threaten to have immigration law enforced than to break it.
https://www.westernjournal.com/perverse-landlord-couple-ordered-pay-80000-threatening-help-ice-find-illegals
That’s an interesting statute, Wim. I think it’s basically an anti-extortion statute. The landlords’ mistake was threatening reporting them to authorities in order to get them to pay the rent. They should have just reported them to ICE. Extortion statutes are definitely a weird trap for the unwary.
Is it truly “extortion” if you threaten to trigger a perfectly legal action against a criminal while demanding what you’re legally and contractually due from them? I can see it being a problem if the demand were for something else illegal, like sexual favors or an additional $500 rent above the normal lease amount, to not report them. It hardly seems like “discrimination”, either.
The whiningly entitled-sounding statements from the “victims were particularly infuriating.
The issue here is whether or not “they only want a better life” is a rationalization being used to explain away unethical behavior. Depending on one’s viewpoint, the statement could be either a rationalization or a simple statement of fact.
The colonists supporting revolution wanted a better life, and in their view, it was ethical to act in accordance with the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and not in accordance with the law of the king; it would have been unethical to act otherwise. Thus, they were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in support of revolution
Would it have been better for them, in a manner of speaking, to instead fix their shithole country, perhaps by persuading the king to renounce the throne and establish democracy throughout England and the colonies? Their judgment was not to take that course of action, but to take a course with a better chance of success.
Similarly, those who abandon the country they happened to be born in and seek a better life are acting in accordance with an ethic that supersedes the laws governing national borders. They, themselves, are not rationalizing, they are acting upon their beliefs. Those who without intimate knowledge of the immigrant(s) they are talking about say, “They only want a better life”, may be rationalizing or they may be stating a simple fact. That kind of uncertainty always is the case when anyone is presumptuous enough to try to explain the actions of others.
So, should it be rationalization #71? That decision, of course, is the prerogative of the list maker. In my view, whether or not it is a rationalization depends on the circumstances and the usage.
Like many rationalizations, it’s true but being used to reach a false conclusion. That somebody breaks the law to have a better life is irrelevant to judging the act.
This emphasis that, unlike the more commonly discussed logical fallacies, ethical fallacies aren’t fallacies because they’re not factual but because they don’t actually carry ethical weight, is important. And a distinction I’m not sure I entirely grasped until this comment.
we need term limits. Not only in the political realm but in entertainment. SUV has been on air for 26 years. In other words began in the last century. It has devolved from telling tales of grisly sexual crimes to now being a propaganda tool for wokism of all sorts.
I find this false equivalence of the American Revolution and illegal immigration extremely distasteful.
The American Revolution became a thing because of tyranny by the government in power at the time. An all-out war resulted because although war is a terrible thing, there are worse things.* Throughout the annals of human history, tyranny is generally recognized as one of those very few things.
So please explain to me how it is tyrannical to expect immigrants to follow a process. Explain to me how it is tyrannical for the US to refuse entry to people with criminal–especially violent criminal–backgrounds.
We can have a discussion about the process itself and whether it should be made easier and more streamlined, or whether we should allow more immigrants per year than we do.
But that’s a far cry from a tyrannical government. If you want to suggest the two are equivalent, then advocate for Mexico to replace their government with one that is less corrupt.
–Dwayne
* See what I did there? As Jack wrote, a rationalization can sometimes simply be a truthful statement, but becomes a rationalization when used to arrive at a fallacious conclusion.
I was not proposing an equivalence. I was, first of all, making the point that the statement being added as a rationalization could just as well be a simple statement of fact, and, secondly, pointing out that, there being no universal truth in the matter, different peoples operate under different ethical systems. Many colonists had a different ethical system than the king of England, and many migrants have a different ethical system than those who draw borders.
It’s been observed before that most of the rationalizations on the list are valid in certain circumstances, the problem is using those rationalizations to justify unethical behavior.
And at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what other culture’s ethical systems are (third world countries tend to have very underdeveloped ethical philosophies). What matters is Our House, Our Rules. It’s understandable why some would want to jump the line, but that doesn’t make it acceptable.
While it is entertaining to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the harsh reality is exactly as Jack describes. Making a better life ought not involve unethical, immoral or illegal behavior. Every country in the world observes its borders to protect culture, institutions and national security. Nowhere else could millions of people cross into a country, uninvited with expectations of a better life, except under a corrupt democrat regime with a subversive agenda. Now we have a chance to clean house and allow the legal process to resume. Thank goodness we have an administration with the cajones to ignore the caterwalling and racist slams.
And just maybe I’ll cash in my insurance policy so my husband won’t be tempted …