All governments in liberal democracies, when they are accused of violating international conventions, and regardless of their political color, say almost all the same. Governments react instinctively on the basis of the need to defend an ethnic logic which is inherently linked to the protection of the territory.
For the thoughtless apologists of the technocratic power, the protection of the borders in every way is paramount, even if the moral principles are violated by international conventions. Of course, they do not say so openly, but they imply this, since they even refuse to wonder if such a thing happens or accept the state assurances indiscriminately.
Experience shows that governments, especially democratic ones in the United States and Australia, have every reason to embellish their behavior: they claim to defend the borders of their countries, respecting the rule of law and humanitarian principles. And this is of course understandable. A government that does not seem to be defending its borders is accountable to the people and unworthy of its confidence to run the country.
It is morally acceptable when the government shows repulsive cruelty by showing immigrants to understand that they are unwanted in the country. All the governments, some less, some more, have committed illegal repulsions and deportations of immigrants.
Should it bother us? Yes, we must, if we are really interested for the truth, if we take care of the moral control of the actions of our political community. If we enroll ourselves in the “western tradition”. The only one that has the ability to ask itself the question of orthodoxy of actions.
Should not a government protect the country’s borders? Of course it should. As it must protect citizens from crime. But how? In both cases, the liberal rule of law, precisely because it is not just a state but a value-legally organized collective, sets binding rules. Just as there are rules for the use of weapons by police, there are rules for selection and ethical principles for the use of force in border protection. Who said it is easy to live in a liberal state governed by the rule of law? As a citizen, you should constantly worry and not rest on a priori certainties.
When is it morally legitimate to display escalating violence in immigration attempts? When the latter are used by the government of a neighboring country as a siege ram. Proportionally articulated resistance to methodical invasion is a moral act of self-protection, since, firstly, it opposes an unfolding violence and, secondly, it defends the common good of the survival of the organized community.
The problems arise in the gray area where ethnocratic logic is in direct conflict with humanitarian principles such as when a boat of migrants enters the country’s territorial waters illegally.
Violent repulsion may endanger the lives of occupants. State authorities defend the limited political community they serve. NGO activists remind us of our universal moral obligations to our fellow human beings. Certainly, the question can not be answered definitively. But we must constantly ask and try to find the intersection that will intersect the two positions.
