Editor: Rebecca Marcus
Cover Designer: Ed Veras Martinez and Rebecca Marcus
Faculty and Staff Collaborators: Ali Beaudette, Kristen Berkos, Stephanie Carter, Maryella Gainor, Jennifer Horan, Bryan Knapp, Qin Leng, Laura McNulty, Allison Papini, Judi Rix, Wendy Samter, Joan Zaretti
Cover Art: From top to bottom: Sarah Lostowski, “Quarantine Reflections”; Anna Sidiropoulos, “A Garden of Complementary Colors”; Sarah Lostowski, “Spring Blessings”; Bryant University students for LCS 220 Creativity and the Arts, Spring 2023.
Mission Statement: The Bryant University Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies aims to promote undergraduate scholarly work that builds bridges between various disciplines to engage with problems that no single discipline can effectively address. The journal encourages individual submissions in various forms like case-studies, scholarly research, critical reviews, original works of creative writing, visual art, and mixed-media productions. The highest objective of the Journal is that its student contributors find themselves in scholastic and creative collaboration with one another With the hope that they gain an appreciation of the possibilities of interdisciplinary thinking and community, as well as a recognition of the commitments to living a thoughtful existence.
Submission Guidelines: Bryant University undergraduate students may submit original work to be considered for publication in the Bryant University Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies provided they own the copyright to the work or are authorized by the copyright owner(s) to submit the work Student work may be submitted to rmarcus1@bryant.edu
We do not accept previously published work. We accept work from the previous academic year. All work must be submitted by early April. For samples of previous volumes, please visit our website at: https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/isbhs/. Any questions may be directed to the editor, Rebecca Marcus at rmarcus1@bryant.edu
©2023 Bryant University Digital Repository.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Agroforestry is the intentional integration of trees and shrubs into crop and animal farming systems to create environmental, economic, and social benefits. It has been practiced in the United States and around the world for centuries.” However, for many practitioners in the past, agroforestry was not simply an “integration of trees and shrubs into animal farming systems,” nor was it simply a means to produce foodstuffs. For them, agroforestry defined a way of life where trees were fixtures in the landscape which bore many life-giving gifts: fruits and nuts to eat, sap to drink, wood to stay warm, and shade to keep cool. Especially in temperate biomes, trees defined the
relationships human cultures had with the land itself. The purpose of this paper is to offer a historical perspective on agroforestry by examining the land ethics of southeastern Native American and European cultures.
Part One: Introduction
On August 9th 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released part one of its Sixth Assessment Report, “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.”
The same day, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres described the results of the report as being a “code red for humanity,” stating “greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.” The report’s dire implications were recognized by government officials around the world.
Secretary General Guterres was not exaggerating, the findings of the report were alarming. A disastrous 1.5 degree Celsius warming of average temperatures on earth will occur by 2040, a rate “unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years,” and driven by atmospheric concentrations of CO2 “higher than any time in the last 2 million years.” According to the IPCC, this warming will result in a greater “frequency and intensity” of hot temperature extremes, heavy precipitation over land, and agricultural and ecological droughts. Each incremental increase in global temperatures will result in a proportional increase in weather events, meaning simply reducing our emissions will not be enough to stop the positive feedback loop of climate change.
The IPCC suggests that the only way to reduce global temperatures is to achieve not only net zero, but net negative emissions. Anthropogenic CO2 Removal (CDR) offers the potential to do so. CDR is defined as “Anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.” The carbon
capture technologies associated with CDR are known for being expensive and experimental. However, the earth already has a natural carbon cycle which has reliably sequestered carbon for millions of years, and an important part of this carbon cycle involves trees.
Afforestation is a simple and effective means of sequestering carbon. The IPCC’s FAQ page chapter 4 states “Afforestation (planting new trees) and reforestation (replanting trees where they previously existed) are also considered forms of CDR because they enhance natural CO2 ‘sinks.’” Pennsylvania State Extension describes trees and forests as “the best carbon capture technology,” and for good reason: American forests are estimated to sequester 16% of the United States’ emissions yearly (US Forest Service). Woody trunks, branches, and roots are entirely made of carbon, meaning long living trees can keep carbon out of the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Trees sequester carbon through the process of photosynthesis, where carbon is drawn from the atmosphere and converted into sugars the trees use to grow. Some of these carbon based sugars are stored in the roots, which secrete them into the surrounding soil (rhizosphere.) These released sugars are called “root exudates.” Different species of beneficial bacteria colonize the rhizosphere to consume root exudates as a food source, preventing the incursion of harmful microorganisms (Badri, Dayakar V., and Jorge M. Vivanco. “Regulation and Function of Root Exudates”). Bacteria store carbon in their bodies, and sequester carbon in the soil as organic matter when they die. Therefore, trees also sequester carbon by facilitating the life cycle of carbon based organisms in the soil (“Soil Organic Matter - Cornell Cooperative Extension”).
The decomposition of leaf litter, branches, roots, tree trunks, and dead organisms acts as also a powerful source of carbon sequestration in forested ecosystems: according to the USDA Office of Sustainability and the Climate, 50% of a forest’s total carbon is stored in its soils. In
the past, most scientists thought that leaf litter and fallen branches slowly decaying into the soil (Scientific American) built soil carbon. However, a 2014 study by Karina Clemmensen found that an astonishing “50–70% of the carbon stored in humus during the past 100 yr originated from carbon allocated to roots and associated fungi rather than from above-ground plant litter.” (Clemmensen, Karina E., et al. “Carbon Sequestration
Is Related
to Mycorrhizal Fungal Community Shifts during Long‐Term Succession in Boreal Forests”). Clemmensen’s research reveals that a forest’s carbon sequestering potential is not only driven by the growth of trees, but by the complex relationships they have with bacteria, fungi, and other soil dwelling organisms. Historically, the study of ecology in western countries has been reductive. In her bestselling book “Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants,” Robin Wall Kimmer recalls how she was taught botany at State University of New York College (SUNY). “My natural inclination was to see relationships, to seek the threads that connect the world, to join instead of divide. But science is rigorous in separating the observer from the observed, and the observed from the observer… following the path of science trained me to separate, to distinguish perception from physical reality, to atomize complexity into its smallest components, to honor the chain of evidence and logic, to discern one thing from another, to savor the pleasure of precision… to walk the science path I had stepped off the path of indigenous knowledge” (Kimmerer 43). Recent scientific research (such as the Clemmensen study) exploring the innumerable relationships between living things has increasingly validated the holistic understanding of nature Kimmerer was led to abandon during her time studying botany. Therefore, when we consider planting trees to combat climate change, we must also move beyond the sterile, mechanical understanding of ecology that is the norm in western
science. We should recognize that soil, bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, and humans are all interconnected, interdependent, and equal parts of the whole we call earth.
The practice of agroforestry affirms the holistic understanding of ecology necessary to defend against the danger of climate catastrophe. The integration of trees alone provides a wealth of ecosystem services and economic opportunities to people and the environment. Using trees as the foundation, we can build additional layers of complexity and opportunity into agroforestry systems using annual crops, pollinator belts, shrubs, animals, fungi, and more.
There are limitless combinations of species which could make up an agroforestry system, so it is a massive undertaking for researchers who are trying to quantify and compare the ecosystem services, yields, and biochemical relationships between different schemes. In studying agroforestry, it’s easy to become discouraged by the tension between our lack of knowledge and the need to produce food on an economically viable scale. Yet, many people in the past implemented agroforestry systems without any conception of science or scientific research, and certainly without the assistance of machines, chemicals, or fossil fuels. Learning from these people and their cultures can arm us with the courage we need to transform the character of modern agriculture.
Part Two: The Indigenous Tribes of Southern New England
Most modern agroforestry practitioners are concerned with conservation, and much research has been done on how ecologically planned plantings of trees, shrubs, and annual crops increase biodiversity. Some farmers practice syntropic agroforestry, which “helps the farmer replicate and accelerate the natural processes of ecological succession and stratification, giving each plant the ideal… position in space (strata) and in time (succession)” (Andrade, Dayana, and Ernst Götsch. “What Is Syntropic Farming?”). Syntropic agroforestry, which suggests farming
follows from natural processes, challenges the idea that simplicity and control should be the designers of our agricultural landscape.
In a sense, the Wampanoag, Nipmuc, Pokanoket, Pequot, and Narragansett indigenous tribes of southern New England were masterful “syntropic agroforestry” practitioners. However, they did not simply replicate natural ecologies within an agricultural context: their agricultural context was ecological. By managing mosaic landscapes, the southern New England Indians created a complex land ethic that benefited both themselves and the ecology they relied upon.
The natives were not simply living off the abundance of the landscape as many European colonists mistakenly observed. In fact, their non-invasive management of the landscape produced the very abundance which European settlers thought they were not properly exploiting. Under the assumption that natives made no “improvements” to the land, they were denied property rights by colonial governments. A baptist minister from Rhode Island sneered, “The Indians in this Part of America appear to have been some of the least improved of the human Species, without any Learning or Knowledge in any of the politer Arts of Life, even without Iron and the Improvements which depend on that. The strange Destruction of this People, now since the Wars ceased, and within Memory, is very remarkable. Their insuperable Aversion to the English industry and Way of Life, the Alteration from the Indian Method of living, their Laziness, and their universal Love of Strong Drink, have swept them away, in a wonderful Manner” (Callender 88). Many British colonists shared the minister’s cruel sentiments, and similarly condemned the natives for their ignorance of “the politer arts of life,” and importantly, their rejection of intensive European farming practices. Indeed, a land ethic centering upon complexity contrasts strongly with that of the Europeans, naturally evading their understandings. However, the
southeastern tribes of New England undoubtedly made improvements to the landscape which can be understood through the cultivation context of agroforestry.
The land ethic of the southern New England Indian tribes involved the maintenance of mosaic landscapes: a patchwork of forests, meadows, swamps, and crop fields. In “Changes of the Land,” William Cronin describes what a hillside may have looked like in pre-colonial New England: “The descent of a single hillside in southern New England, for instance, could easily carry from a sunny dry forest of white and black oaks, white pine, and an occasional huckleberry or lowbush blueberry to a shaded valley buzzing with mosquitoes and containing red oak, tulip poplar, hemlock, and beech. In between might be chestnut and black birch, with the ubiquitous red maple appearing up and down the entire hillside” (Cronin 31). European settlers were amazed by the numbers of wild animals which thrived these mosaic landscapes, as shown by the following poem included in William Wood’s “New England’s Prospect:”
“The kingly Lyon, and the strong arm'd Beare
The large limbed Mooses, with the tripping Deare, Quill darting Porcupines, and Rackcoones bee, Castelld in the hollow of an aged tree; The skipping Squerrell, Rabbet, purblinde Hare, Immured in the selfefame Castle are, Least red-eyed Ferrets, wily Foxes should Them undermine, if rampird but with mould.
The grim fact Ounce, and ravenous howling Woolfe, Whose meagrepaunch suckes like a swallowing gulfe. Blacke glistering Otters, and rich coated Bever, The Civetsented Musquash smelling ever” (Wood 21).
Contrary to what many settlers thought, this incredible biodiversity was not a naturally occurring feature of the New England landscape. In fact, fires set by the native Americans were responsible for the abundance European colonists often attributed to God.
The settlers first noticed how fires created excellent hunting grounds. Wood spoke of the “…diverse acres being [so] clear that one may ride ahunting in most places of the land if he will venture himself for being lost” (Cronin 25). The controlled burns improved hunting for native Americans by opening up the forest, but settlers also recognized they improved soil productivity: “[The Indians burn the ground] to suppresse the under-wood, which else would grow all over the Countrey, the Snow falling not long after, keepes the ground warme, and with his melting conveighs the ashes into the pores of the earth, which doth fatten it” (Wood 8). By burning woodland, nutrients locked up in woody debris were quickly conveyed back into the soil in plant available forms. This spike in fertility greatly benefited surviving plants and the succeeding ecosystem at large.
Open landscapes with fertile soils made ideal habitat for gather-able food species. William Wood commented on the abundance of these edible plants, noticeably missing from today’s forest ecosystems: “There is likewise Strawberries in abundance, very large ones, some being two inches about; one may gather halfe a bushell in a forenoone: In other seasons there bee Gooseberries, Bilberies, Resberies, Trea’ckleberies, Hurtleberries, Currants; which being dryed in the Sunne are little inferiour to those that our Grocers fell in England…” (Wood 15). Burns also cleared crop fields, and the increased soil fertility benefited the annual crops as well. One University of Idaho study found that when amended with wood ash, wheat “grew faster on six different soil types than the control” (L. Etiegni , A. G. Campbell & R. L. Mahler). Another study from the University of Pisa, Italy concluded “wood ash is a rich source of nutrients, and
maize plants grown in wood ash amended soil had improved the shoot and root growth, the uptake of important elements, and retarded the inhibition of leaf transpiration under drought conditions” (Romdhane, Leila et al). For the Indians, it was the women’s job to clear crop fields. First, they piled wood at the base of trees and set fires. In doing so, the trees died and crops could be planted around them. The standing deadwood eventually toppled, and the logs could be burned as well, adding more wood ash to the crop field (Cronin 48). The gradual toppling and burning of dead trees provided additional fertility that extended the period of usability of a plot of cropland before nutrients were depleted. Thus, without any fertilizer inputs, Indian women could plant the same crop field for 8-10 years before having to choose a new site.
The burns resulted in more readily available game, wild fruits, and agricultural crops for Native Americans, but they also benefited the entire ecosystem. Slow moving, low intensity fires result in an opening of the forest canopy, allowing light infiltration towards the forest floor. The increased levels of light allow light hungry plant species to thrive, and the well drained soil benefits keystone nut bearing tree species like oaks and chestnuts (Cronin 51). In addition, the clearing of woody undergrowth and non-fire adapted plants reduces competition and begets the succession of a greater diversity of plant species (Juli G Pausas and Jon E Keeley). As William Cronin observed, “Selective Indian burning thus promoted the mosaic quality of New England ecosystems, creating forests in many different states of ecological succession. In particular, regular fires promoted what ecologists call the ‘edge effect.’ By encouraging the growth of extensive regions which resembled the boundary areas between forests and grasslands, Indians created ideal habitats for a host of wildlife species…” With an understanding of modern ecological science, Cronin demonstrated that fires set by natives improved the environments around them. He continued, “because the enlarged areas actually raised the total herbivorous
food supply, they did not merely attract game but helped create much larger populations of… elk, deer, beaver, hare, porcupine, turkey, quail, ruffed grouse, and so on. When these populations increased, so did the carnivorous eagles, hawks, lynxes, foxes, and wolves. In short, Indians who hunted game animals were not just taking the “unplanted bounties of nature”; in an important sense, they were harvesting a foodstuff which they had consciously been instrumental in creating” (Cronin 51). In one paragraph, William Cronin efficiently explained how native American improvements to the land created diverse habitats which supported larger populations of wildlife.
Periodic burns are instrumental to ecological succession in habitats across the United States. In recent years, we have seen the consequences of land management techniques that do not take this reality into account. In 2018, a series of devastating wildfires ravaged the state of California. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Services, “The 2018 wildfire season was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire season on record in California, with a total of over 7,500 fires burning an area of over 1,670,000 acres, the largest area of burned acreage recorded in a fire season.” The Camp fire alone burned “a total of 153,336 acres, destroyed 18,804 structures and resulted in 85 civilian fatalities and several firefighter injuries” (Cal Fire News Release).
The state of California declared the event a natural disaster and footage of the destruction shocked the nation. Those of us who watched on at the time wondered who such a thing could possibly happen in a state with a 3.36 trillion dollar GDP. Yet, catastrophes like these should be of no surprise to us. By preventing the periodic yearly burns that are natural to places like California in the name of safety, governments are creating the conditions for catastrophic fires fueled by years of built up dry material.
The native peoples of southern New England understood the important ecological impacts of fires. By setting controlled burns yearly, they prevented the accumulation of dry material that results in catastrophes like the 2018 California wildfires. In doing so, they consciously created diverse, fertile mosaic landscapes that mutually befitted them and the ecosystem as a whole. Moreover, the mutually beneficial relationship between people and the ecosystem meant the Indians did not see themselves apart from or hostile to the natural world. Therefore, the controlled burns practiced by the southern New England Indians remained central to the complexity which drove their land ethic.
Part Three: Temperate European Agroforestry
While some modern agroforestry practitioners focus their efforts on maximizing biodiversity, most are faced with the reality of making ends meet. Modern farm economics dictate that an operation must be highly mechanized, highly productive, and highly efficient. As a result, concerns about the environment are greatly overshadowed by economic necessities. In Europe, the ecological goals of agroforestry are often strangled by economic factors such as the price of labor, poor government policy making, economies of scale, and a lack of technical support. Accordingly, the vast majority of European farming is conventionally managed (Eichhorn, M. P., et al. “Silvoarable Systems in Europe – Past, Present and Future Prospects”).
Contrary to what we see today, Europe has a long and rich history of temperate agroforestry systems, beginning around 2,500 BCE (Eichhorn, M. P., et al.). According to the “History of Temperate Agroforestry” by Dr. Jo Smith from the Organic Research Center, “The earliest stages of [European] agricultural history were dominated by shifting cultivation, with alternating periods of agriculture and forestry.” During this time called the Chalcolithic age, Europeans transitioned from nomadic hunter gatherer societies to permanent settlements where
their calories were largely supplied by annual grains (Naugler, Christopher. “Hemochromatosis: A Neolithic Adaptation to Cereal Grain Diets.”). To accommodate these settlements, forests had to be cleared, animals domesticated, and crop fields weeded, plowed, and planted. A great deal of effort was exerted to control the landscape so that it would suit human needs. For the successors of the Chalcolithic age civilizations, the woods remained a place of agricultural production. Forested landscapes provided nuts, fruits, and wild game which amended the diet with the essential nutrients grain lacked. Chalcolithic age Europeans raised domesticated animals in the woods, where they grazed on trees, shrubs, tubers, and nuts. Forests supported the cultivation of annual crops through a transfer of fertility from the woodlands to the fields via manure. Farmers cultivated the forests with silvoarable, silvopastoral, pollard, and coppice systems. Up until the last century, managed forested landscapes were a ubiquitous part of the European landscape (Dr. Jo Smith).
Contrasting with the indigenous land ethic that centered around ecological complexity, the style of farming in Europe aimed to control the ecology demonstrates a reductive drive towards simplicity, the ethos of which is at the heart of modern day conventional farming. However, the European’s intensive management of trees under temperate agroforestry regimes reconciled their desire to master the natural world with ecologically resilient landscapes. European farming has historically been seen as a burdensome profession. This is demonstrated by the story of Adam and Eve. After God created the earth, he formed man from “the dust in the ground,” and placed him in the garden of Eden. In this paradise, “there was not a man to till the ground,” and “out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food…” Also located within the garden was the tree containing the knowledge of good and evil, from which he instructed Adam not to eat from.
After creating Adam and placing him in the garden of Eden, God “formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air,” which Adam named. A piece of Adam’s flesh formed Eve, and she was convinced to eat from the tree containing the knowledge of good and evil by a serpent. When God found out, he banished the pair from paradise, saying: “Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
Banished from paradise, Adam thus had to take up the laborious practice of farming and “till the ground from whence he was taken” and “[by the sweat of his brow] eat bread.”
Compared to life in paradise, European farming, which was defined by the intensive management of crop fields and domesticated animals, was seen literally as a punishment from God.
In nature, annual plants occupy the earliest stages of ecological succession following a disturbance. These plants rapidly colonize the disturbed soil and die, kick starting the soil biology through the decay of roots and above ground detritus. As the soil quality improves, perennial weeds, shrubs, and eventually trees succeed and form more mature ecosystems. However, the grains which occupied a significant proportion of the European diet were annual plants that could only be grown in disturbed soils. Therefore, Europeans artificially maintained a state of early ecological succession by permanently disturbing the soil. Over time, they manufactured different plows and other technologies to create the right growing conditions for annual crops.
Europeans raised, domesticated, and managed animals like oxen to pull the heavy plows and other equipment necessary to maintain this state of early ecological succession. By
preventing succession, farmers also prevented the natural accumulation of fertility and needed to artificially supplement it through animal manures. Ironically, the attempt to simplify and control ecological succession required the use of complicated, labor intensive farming techniques.
A major goal of any agroforestry operation is to establish a perennial system of production where the environmental and economic resilience is greater than that of an annual system of production. Perennial systems increase environmental resilience by preventing erosion, improving soil fertility, by forming micro climates that mitigate extreme weather, and by enhancing biodiversity. When trees and shrubs are planted, their root systems form a fibrous net that holds the soil together and prevents it from being washed away by wind or rain.
(Schoeneberger, Michele M, et al. “Agroforestry: Enhancing Resiliency in U.S. Agricultural Landscapes under Changing Conditions”). In addition, these roots create a below ground habitat called the rhizosphere, which is colonized by soil improving bacteria and fungi. The above ground portion of the trees intercept desiccating solar radiation and protect the soil from drying out. By casting shade, trees naturally form a cooler microclimate that protects understory species and provides relief to animals during the hottest days of summer. Trees and shrubs also increase biodiversity by building habitats for many species of insects, amphibians, birds, and mammals. For example, many pollinating insects essential to agricultural production often live in trees or overwinter beneath leaf litter (Dawson, Cathy. “Delay Garden Cleanup to Benefit Overwintering Insects”).
Advocates of agroforestry consider annual agriculture a brittle system of production because it is vulnerable to erosion, soil fertility loss, extreme weather, and a lack of biodiversity. The shallow root systems of annual plants fail to hold the soil together in the event of heavy rains or flooding, and after the crop is harvested the bare field is at the mercy of wind gusts which
gradually blow the topsoil away. The annual crops which are removed from the field drain soil fertility and their shallow roots are constantly plowed up, preventing the colonization of beneficial bacteria and fungi. The minimal above ground cover of annual plants are unable to protect the soil from drying out, further killing soil biology and leading to serious water management problems during dry periods of the year. The lack of above ground cover also means that there is minimal habitat available to pollinating insects, and virtually none available to other animals. Unsurprisingly, the brittleness of annual production systems results in significant crop losses for farmers due to soil degradation and extreme weather events.
In the past, perennial systems of cultivation were common in central Europe. Silvoarable agriculture, which involved widely spaced plantings of trees intercropped with annuals or perennials, provided not only environmental, but economic resilience through the reliable production of fruits, nuts, animal fodder, fuel, and timber (Eichhorn, M. P., et al.). One example of a silvoarable system that was once common in central Europe was the Streuobst, in which ‘tall trees of different types and varieties of fruit, belonging to different age groups, which are dispersed on croplands, meadows and pastures in a rather irregular association’ (translated from Lucke et al. 1992). According to Eichhorn, M. P., et al., streuobst “generally consisted of paired rows of fruit trees, intercropped close to the tree trunks, with relatively low branches to facilitate fruit harvest. The most common fruit trees were apple, pear, plum (Prunus domestica L.) and mazzard cherry (P. avium L.)”
In France, another silvoarable system exists where walnuts and other fruit trees, particularly pear and apple, were planted in annual crop fields. In the early years of tree growth, the plantations were intercropped with “maize and other cereals, sorghum, soybean, oil-seed rape, sunflower, tobacco, alfalfa, lavender and bush fruits (Ribes spp.).” Farmers harvested the
trees for timber at the end of their productive lives. 19th century writers who saw these plantations were amazed by their beauty and utility. The French writer Marie-Henri Beyle, also known as Stendahl, wrote “I cannot imagine a greater impact than these fields covered with spaced, strong and vigorous trees; and underneath there is wheat and hemp (Cannabis sativa), the most beautiful of crops.” John Evelyn, an English writer and gardener said “walnut delights in a dry sound and rich land; …in cornfields. …Burgundy abounds with them, where they stand in the midst of goodly wheat lands, at sixty and an hundred feet distance; and it is far from hurting the crop, that they look on them as a great preserver, by keeping the grounds warm, nor do the roots hinder the plough” (Dupraz, C., et al. “Temperate Agroforestry: The European Way”).
Through silvoarable agroforestry systems, Europeans buttressed their annual crop fields with rows of fruit, nut, and timber trees.
The benefits of forested landscapes in Europe also extended to domesticated animals. Planted or natural forests managed for livestock grazing are referred to as silvopastoral. One silvopastoral practice common dating back to Roman times was pannage, wherein domesticated pigs were “released into beech and oak woodlands to feed on the acorn and beech mast, and into fruit orchards to eat fallen fruit” (Dr. Jo Smith). Graziers found pannage so advantageous that pigs were moved across long distances to access forested pasture, in one case up to 50 kilometers (Bruun, Hans Henrik, and Bo Fritzbøger. “The Past Impact of Livestock Husbandry on Dispersal of Plant Seeds in the Landscape of Denmark”). The pannage season lasted from September to November, and the abundant oak and beach nuts fattened the hogs for winter. Today, pannage is most widely practiced in Spain and Portugal, which produce an internationally famous acorn finished pork known for its deep marbling and “nutty, evocative flavor” (Crawley, Tash. “What Makes Iberico Pork so Special?”).
Aside from the fruits and nuts of trees, animal husbandry in Europe was also strengthened by the use of branches and leaves as fodder. In times where cold or drought reduced the amount of herbaceous forages available to grazing livestock, farmers harvested branches from tree species including poplars, oaks, ashes, and elms to feed their animals (Emanuelsson et al., “The Rural Landscapes of Europe: How Man Has Shaped European Nature”). Tree fodder for animals could be obtained through another tree management practice called pollarding, where branches were cut 2-3 meters above the ground, leaving the trunk intact (Dr. Jo Smith). Some trees have adapted to severe disturbances like animal browsing or fires. Following the disturbance, these resilient species rapidly sprout numerous suckers, which grow in a bushlike form. For these hardy survivors, coppicing is another viable method of management. Coppicing is another historically common practice in Europe that involved cutting trees very close to the ground, removing most of the above ground growth. As with pollarding, the harvested material was fed to livestock or used as firewood. Some species, such as the hazelnut, benefit from regular coppices because the heavy pruning removes old growth, thereby maintaining the health and vigor of the bush. In Europe, some coppices possibly date back over a thousand years (Unrau, Alicia. “Coppice Forests in Europe”).
By intensively managing trees, Europeans provided their animals with an important source of food during times of scarcity. However, modern scientific research has revealed that chemical compounds in tree fodder may assist animals in reducing parasite loads. In nature, plants produce chemicals called secondary metabolites that are not required for growth, but confer other selective advantages (Monfil, Vianey Olmedo, and Sergio Casas-Flores. “Molecular Mechanisms of Biocontrol in Trichoderma Spp. and Their Applications in Agriculture”). When consumed by animals, secondary metabolites interfere with digestion or damage the nervous
system, which protects the plant from browsing. Tannins are a secondary metabolite commonly found in tree leaves which, when consumed in moderation, are actually beneficial to the health of grazing animals. One 2009 study found that lambs infected with parasites seek out foods with tannins, even if the source (grape pomace) was of poor nutritional quality (Larry D. Lisonbee et al. “Tannins and self-medication: Implications for sustainable parasite control in herbivores”). The researchers observed that when compared with the control, the grape pomace containing tannins were associated with a lower fecal egg count (the count of parasite eggs found in the feces of infected lambs.) This research importantly suggests that livestock self medicate for parasites by consuming tannin rich sources of food. Thus, the ancient practice of feeding tree fodder to livestock provided not only nutritional benefits, but medicinal benefits as well. Labor intensive systems of cultivation that aimed to simplify and control natural ecologies characterized European agriculture. Annual crop cultivation was especially reliant upon burdensome external inputs of resources and labor and detrimental to the environment because it resulted in erosion, habitat loss, and declining soil fertility. However, silvoarable contexts where annual crops and trees grew together provided Europeans with a sustainable source of annual crops in addition to fruits, nuts, and timber. Silvopastoral contexts extended the benefits of trees to domesticated livestock through the practice of pannage and the harvesting of tree fodder through pollarding or coppicing. The prevalence of these intensively managed systems demonstrate that the European land ethic was defined by control, which produced environmental degradation in annual agricultural contexts. However, intensively managed agroforestry contexts produced environmental resiliency. Accordingly, brittle and resilient systems of cultivation both exist within the European farming tradition. Today, we see the
tension between these systems borne out in discussions of sustainability, climate change, politics, and our planetary future at large.
Part Four: Discussion and Conclusion
On October 13th, 2021 Star Trek actor William Shatner boarded billionaire Jeff Bezos’ “Blue Origin” space shuttle and at 90 years of age became the oldest man to travel into space. Contrary to the sentiment his Star Trek character Captain Kirk expressed when he resolved “to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before,” Shatner reflected “when I looked in the opposite direction, into space, there was no mystery, no majestic awe to behold . . . all I saw was death. I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her. Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong… I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us.” Nobody expected to hear something like existential dread from Captain Kirk.
Instead of being swept away by the egotistical notion that humankind’s destiny is to leave earth and colonize space, Shatner grieved for our planet. He continued, “It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna . . . things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with
dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral.”
Unfortunately, Shatner’s sadness is scientifically validated: rather than seeking new life, human civilization has instead annihilated it.
The 20th and 21st centuries have been disastrous for non-human life on earth. According to the World Wildlife Fund’s living planet report, 70% of all individuals of vertebrate species have disappeared since 1970. In the last 100 years, we know of 400 species that went extinct, and many more function as “ecological zombies,” where populations exist but have no significant impact on the ecosystem. A prominent example of this are the American Bison, who once numbered in the tens of millions and played a keystone role in the nutrient cycling of American ecosystems (Knapp, Alan K., et al. “The Keystone Role of Bison in North American Tallgrass Prairie: Bison Increase Habitat Heterogeneity and Alter a Broad Array of Plant, Community, and Ecosystem Processes”). William T. Hornady, a Superintendent of the National Zoological Park, described their original range. “Between the Rocky Mountains and the States lying along the Mississippi River on the west, from Minnesota to Louisiana, the whole country was one vast buffalo range, inhabited by millions of buffaloes… They lived and moved as no other quadrupeds ever have, in great multitudes, like grand armies in review, covering scores of square miles at once. They were so numerous they frequently stopped boats in the rivers, threatened to overwhelm travelers on the plains, and in later years derailed locomotives and cars” (Hornady 388-389). Once American settlers identified Bison as an impediment to colonization, they exterminated them. Columbus Delano, who served as the Secretary of the Interior during the 1870s, identified the buffalo with the livelihoods of native Americans. He wrote, “The rapid disappearance of game from the former hunting-grounds must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas and compel them to abandon their nomadic
customs” (Delano, Columbus. “Report of the Secretary of the Interior/1872.”). Significant efforts have since been made to save the bison, but modern populations are frequently culled to prevent the bison from entering private property.
Bison and other large mammals are believed to be responsible for the deep, fertile soils that are the breadbasket of the United States (Knapp, Alan K., et al.). By destroying the prairie in order to make way for farms, Americans have eliminated the ecosystem services that created the corn belt’s soils. Without the soil building powers of the prairie ecosystem, the corn belt’s topsoil is being lost to erosion. According to a 2021 study, over a third of the region’s topsoils have already been eroded (Thaler, Evan A., et al. “The Extent of Soil Loss across the US Corn Belt”), and the UN Food and Agriculture organization found that “A full 90 per cent of the Earth’s precious topsoil is likely to be at risk by 2050.” The anti-ecological land ethic of modern societies has not only led to the annihilation of other species, but also the means of our own subsistence.
There are many more cases where entire species vanish from the earth due to human driven habitat destruction and degradation, over exploitation, invasive species, climate change, and pollution. The widespread loss of life results in a global destabilization of earth’s ecosystems, which are responsible for the proper function of the carbon, oxygen, and water cycles. When these cycles are out of balance, the planet experiences extreme climate change, the impacts of which are expected to be catastrophic for human civilizations (McElwee, Pamela.
“Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss”). The severity of the threat towards our home planet demands an immediate transition towards ecologically minded development. Agriculture, which occupies 38% of the global land surface (Food and Agriculture Organization), should be a
central theater of transition. The adoption of agroforestry practices would be a significant move towards an ecological mode of production.
The societies of the southern New England natives and the Europeans contrasted in many ways, but sustainable agroforestry models remained important to both. The former employed controlled burns which created mosaic landscapes with incredible ecological abundance. The latter implemented silvoarable and silvopastoral systems of agricultural production which, with intensive management, sustainably produced grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, timber, and animal products. Using modern technology, traditional management techniques like controlled burns, coppicing, and pollarding can be safely and efficiently implemented on large scales. For example, 11 states in the southeastern region of the United States train and certify technicians to carry out controlled burns. In 1998, Florida strengthened a law that encourages prescribed burns following a series of firestorms which burned 500,000 acres of land. Instead of fearing property damage, Director of fire research at Tall Timbers research station Morgan Varner said local communities “love [their] green space[s] and they associate [them] with the burning that takes place.” According to Varner, private landowners also employ technicians to carry out controlled burns, and these technicians can secure a permit quickly and easily: often over a 15 minute phone call. Additionally, technicians are protected from any liability in the rare case where property damage occurs (Sommer, Lauren. “Why the South Is Decades Ahead of the West in Wildfire Prevention”). In this case, the southeastern United States is a perfect example of how ecologically and scientifically minded laws and government policies can breathe new life into ancient land management techniques.
The modern implementation of agroforestry, informed by historical practices and supported by scientifically informed legislation will create landscapes of abundant agricultural
production and ecological diversity. The adoption of an regenerative land ethic based on stewardship would equip societies with the ability to combat existential threats like climate change, biodiversity loss, and the erosion of topsoils. However, practicing agroforestry is not simply about “saving the planet,” a notion comedian George Carlin called “the greatest arrogance of all.” As Carlin asserted, nature is resilient: “[it’s] been through volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles… hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, [and] recurring ice ages… the planet is going anywhere, WE are.” Implementing agroforestry as an alternative land use model to conventional farming is not about saving the planet, but instead choosing what kind of planet WE want to inhabit. It is the choice to create vibrant landscapes that offer the gifts of life to all species, from humans to soil bacteria and fungi. By understanding historical agroforestry practices and the land ethics of the past, we can make the informed choice to create landscapes that will nourish us and future generations.
Part Five: Bibliography
1. “Agroforestry.” USDA, https://www.usda.gov/topics/forestry/agroforestry.
2. IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3−32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001
3. “Secretary-General's Statement on the IPCC Working Group 1 Report on the Physical Science Basis of the Sixth Assessment Secretary-General.” United Nations, United Nations, 9 Aug. 2021, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/secretary-generals-statementthe-ipcc-working-group-1-report-the-physical-science-basis-of-the-sixth-assessment.
4. “IPCC Report: 'Code Red' for Human Driven Global Heating, Warns UN Chief | | 1UN News.” United Nations, United Nations, 9 Aug. 2021, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362.
5. “FAQ Chapter 4.” Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, 2021, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faqchapter-4.
6. Norman, Calvin, and Melissa Kreye. “How Forests Store Carbon.” Penn State Extension, https://extension.psu.edu/how-forests-store-carbon.
7. Badri, Dayakar V., and Jorge M. Vivanco. “Regulation and Function of Root Exudates.” Plant, Cell & Environment, June 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13653040.2008.01926.x.
8. “Soil Organic Matter - Cornell Cooperative Extension.” Agronomy Fact Sheet Series, 2008, https://franklin.cce.cornell.edu/resources/soil-organic-matter-fact-sheet.
9. Clemmensen, Karina E., et al. “Carbon Sequestration Is Related to Mycorrhizal Fungal Community Shifts during Long‐Term Succession in Boreal Forests.” New Phytologist, vol. 205, no. 4, 2014, pp. 1525–1536., https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13208.
10. “Mycelium Matters: How Mushrooms Can Address Climate Change | Climate Academy | BBC Storyworks.” BBC News, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/storyworks/climateacademy/mycelium-matters.
11. Ellerbeck, Stefan. “Is Fungi the Most Underused Resource in the Fight against Climate Change?” World Economic Forum, 4 July 2022,
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/fungi-forests-carbon-climate.
12. Fischetti, Mark. “Root Fungus Stores a Surprising Amount of the Carbon Sequestered in Soil.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 28 Mar. 2013,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/root-fungus-stores-a-surprising/.
13. Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass. Langara College, 2022.
14. Andrade, Dayana, and Ernst Götsch. “What Is Syntropic Farming?” Agenda Gotsch, 3 Aug. 2019, https://agendagotsch.com/en/what-is-syntropic-farming/.
15. Callender, John. “AN Historical Discourse ON THE Civil and Religious Affairs of the COLONY of RHODE-ISLAND AND Providence Plantations IN NEW-ENGLAND in America. From the First Settlement 1638, to the End of First CENTURY.” Evans Early American Imprint Collection, University of Michigan,
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N03553.0001.001?rgn=main%3Bview.
16. “2018 Incident Archive.” Cal Fire Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018.
17. “Caal Fire News Release - California.” California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 15 May 2019, https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5121/campfire_cause.pdf.
18. Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, 2003.
19. Wood, William. New Englands Prospect. Da Capo Pr., 1968.
20. Etiegni, L., Campbell, A. G., & Mahler, R. L. (1991). Evaluation of wood ash disposal on agricultural land. I. Potential as a soil additive and liming agent. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 22(3-4), 243–256. doi:10.1080/00103629109368412
21. Romdhane, Leila, et al. “Effects of Soil Amendment with Wood Ash on Transpiration, Growth, and Metal Uptake in Two Contrasting Maize (Zea Mays L.) Hybrids to Drought Tolerance.” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 12, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.661909.
22. Eichhorn, M. P., et al. “Silvoarable Systems in Europe – Past, Present and Future Prospects.” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 67, no. 1, 2006, pp. 29–50.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-1111-7.
23. Naugler, Christopher. “Hemochromatosis: A Neolithic Adaptation to Cereal Grain Diets.” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 70, no. 3, 2008, pp. 691–692.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.06.020.
24. Smith, Jo. “The History of Temperate Agroforestry.” The Organic Research Center, 2010.
25. The Holy Bible, King James Version
26. Schoeneberger, Michele M, et al. “Agroforestry: Enhancing Resiliency in U.S. Agricultural Landscapes under Changing Conditions.” Nov. 2017,
https://doi.org/10.2737/wo-gtr-96.
27. Dawson, Cathy. “Delay Garden Cleanup to Benefit Overwintering Insects.” Penn State Extension, 17 Aug. 2020, https://extension.psu.edu/delay-garden-cleanup-to-benefitoverwintering-insects.
28. Dupraz, C., et al. “Temperate Agroforestry: The European Way.” Temperate Agroforestry Systems, 2018, pp. 98–152., https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644851.0098.
29. Bruun, Hans Henrik, and Bo Fritzbøger. “The Past Impact of Livestock Husbandry on Dispersal of Plant Seeds in the Landscape of Denmark.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, vol. 31, no. 5, 2002, pp. 425–431., https://doi.org/10.1579/00447447-31.5.425.
30. Crawley, Tash. “What Makes Iberico Pork so Special?” Fine Food Specialist, 2018, https://www.finefoodspecialist.co.uk/blog/what-makes-iberico-pork-sospecial#:~:text=Iberico%20Pork%20comes%20from%20the,it%20a%20nutty%2C%20ev ocative%20flavour.
31. Emanuelsson, U., Arding, M. and Petersson, M. (2009) “The Rural Landscapes of Europe: How Man Has Shaped European Nature.” Formas, Stockholm, Sweden.
32. Unrau, Alicia. Coppice Forests in Europe. Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg(IS), 2018.
33. Monfil, Vianey Olmedo, and Sergio Casas-Flores. “Molecular Mechanisms of Biocontrol in Trichoderma Spp. and Their Applications in Agriculture.” Biotechnology and Biology of Trichoderma, 21 Feb. 2014, pp. 429–453., https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-595768.00032-1.
34. Lisonbee, L. D., Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., & Hall, J. O. (2009). “Tannins and selfmedication: Implications for sustainable parasite control in herbivores.” Behavioural Processes, 82(2), 184-189. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.009
35. Shatner, William. “William Shatner: My Trip to Space Filled Me with 'Overwhelming Sadness' (Exclusive).” Variety, Variety, 10 Oct. 2022,
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/william-shatner-space-boldly-go-excerpt-1235395113.
36. Ceballos, Gerardo, et al. “Vertebrates on the Brink as Indicators of Biological Annihilation and the Sixth Mass Extinction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 24, 2020, pp. 13596–13602., https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922686117.
37. Thaler, Evan A., et al. “The Extent of Soil Loss across the US Corn Belt.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922375118.
38. “Fao Warns 90 per Cent of Earth's Topsoil at Risk by 2050 | | 1UN News.” United Nations, United Nations, 27 July 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1123462.
39. Knapp, Alan K., et al. “The Keystone Role of Bison in North American Tallgrass Prairie: Bison Increase Habitat Heterogeneity and Alter a Broad Array of Plant, Community, and Ecosystem Processes.” BioScience, vol. 49, no. 1, 1999, pp. 39–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1525/bisi.1999.49.1.39. Accessed 18 Nov. 2022.
40. HORNADAY, WILLIAM T. Extermination of the American Bison. Government Printing Office, 1889.
41. Delano, Columbus. “Report of the Secretary of the Interior/1872.” Wikisource, the Free Online Library, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Secretary_of_the_Interior/1872.
42. “Land Use in Agriculture by the Numbers.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 7 May 2020, https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219.
43. McElwee, Pamela. “Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss.” Current History, vol. 120, no. 829, 2021, pp. 295–300., https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2021.120.829.295.
44. Sommer, Lauren. “Why the South Is Decades Ahead of the West in Wildfire Prevention.” NPR, NPR, 31 Aug. 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1029821831/to-stopextreme-wildfires-california-is-learning-from-florida.
45. “Saving the Planet.” Performance by George Carlin, YouTube, YouTube, 21 Oct. 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c. Accessed 18 Nov. 2022.
Final – Ethics in U.S. Immigration
Christy Mak
Department of Literary and Cultural Studies, Bryant University
LCS260: Introduction to Philosophy
Dr. Jennifer Horan
December 17, 2022
Immigration is a contentious issue in the United States, one factor behind the increased political polarization among Americans. While a Gallup Poll found that in the past decade, around 60 percent of Americans are satisfied with the current level of immigration in the U.S., Americans’ views on whether the level of immigration should decrease, remain the same, or increase are more split. As of 2022, 38 percent ofAmericansbelievethelevelshoulddecrease,31percentbelieveitshouldremainthesame,and27percent believe it should increase (Duffin, 2022, pp. 35-36).
According to the Migration Policy Institute, there are around 44.9 million foreign-born citizens in the U.S., comprising 13.7 percent of the total U.S. population (Esterline & Batalova, 2022). Furthermore, approximately a quarter of immigrants in the U.S. are undocumented. Abby Budiman (2020), a former research analyst at Pew Research and current research scientist at New York University, writes: “From 1990to2007,theunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationmorethantripledinsize–from3.5milliontoarecord high of 12.2 million in 2007. By 2017, that number had declined by 1.7 million, or 14%.” The decline here stems from more restrictive policies on immigration, which will be addressed later.
We cannot further discuss immigration without knowing its terminology in federal court. Deportation is when the government removes a non-U.S. citizen from the country who came here illegally, while exclusion is when the government denies entrance to a non-U.S. citizen attempting to enter the U.S. It is important to note that since 1996, deportation and exclusion are no longer official legal terms. Instead, the U.S. government combined them into one term: Removal. There is another term commonly used concerning immigration: Return or voluntary departure (Lind, 2014). The difference between the two is small and can confuse people when discussing immigration or recording its statistics.
Removal can range from deportation to exclusion and is under court order (“Table 39,” 2018).
Despite this definition, an immigrant being subjected to the removal process does not necessarily mean they will stand before an immigration judge. Low-level U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers can determine whether to deport an immigrant as fast as in one day. They have 14 days to decide after apprehending an immigrant not possessing the proper documentation near the border. There is no trial and
opportunity to consult an attorney unless the immigrant claims asylum. This process is known as expedited removal (Siskin, 2016, p. 6).
Meanwhile, return is when a non-U.S. citizen is denied entrance at the Canadian or Mexican border and moved outside the U.S. without a court order (“Table 39,” 2018). Return is more informal, not on legal record, and therefore holds no legal consequence, unlike removal. In fact, after the first instance of removal, a non-U.S. citizen cannot return to the U.S. for a minimum of five years. If a non-U.S. citizen does so before this period, DHS officers can immediately deport them; the U.S. government defines this process as reinstatement of removal. The immigrant must also wait for a longer period before they can return to the U.S. again (“Removal System,” 2022, p. 2).
There is a trend in the past three decades of the number of removals increasing, while the number of returns has decreased, beginning with former U.S. President George W. Bush’s tenure in office (Duffin, 2022, p. 31). Alarmingly, more immigrants are subjected to the expedited removal process and less so to hearings in immigration courts. According to the American Immigration Council, only 19 percent of removals in 2022 happened after hearings in said courts. The remaining 81 percent are in the hands of DHS officers, whether being expedited removals or reinstatements (“Removal System,” 2022, p. 2).
The U.S. is currently at a turning point concerning immigration policy; the last two U.S. presidents took or are taking proactive action on immigration, not seen before. According to Boundless, an immigration law firm, former U.S. President Donald Trump enacted 472 executive actions throughout his four-year term, impacting every facet of the U.S. immigration system (“State of Immigration,” 2022). Trump adopted an anti-immigration stance, claiming to put Americans, their safety, and the U.S. economy first (Boak, 2019).
Notable changes Trump implemented include limiting opportunities for asylum, requiring that immigrants attempt to apply for it in other countries on their way to the US, and Title 42, allowing border officers to deport all immigrants without proper documentation, even those seeking asylum, because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Bolter, Et al., 2022, p. 3). Moreover, Trump emphasized the need for stricter public charge vetting, where officers must consider an applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources,
financial status, education, and skills for green cards or visas (Bolter, Et al., 2022, p. 103). (Public charge vetting is the process for determining whether a non-U.S. citizen will depend on government assistance in the U.S.)
Current U.S. President Joe Biden, who supports immigration, is set on beating Trump’s record. In just his first year in office, Biden passed 296 executive actions on immigration, 89 reversing Trump’s changes. In November 2021, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whom Biden nominated, added more flexibility to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) enforcement guidelines, “instructing ICE officials to make individualized enforcement decisions based on the totality of circumstances and taking into consideration ‘aggravating’ and ‘mitigating’ factors in each case,” i.e. focusing more on the person and not the crime. This contributed to halving the number of ICE arrests (Chishti & Bolter, 2022).
In September, Biden announced plans to streamline the asylum process, giving asylum officers, not just immigration judges, the power to deport immigrants, after interviewing immigrants who within 21 to 45 days applied for asylum (Shear & Jordan, 2022). A compromise between Democrats and Republicans is currently in the works. While the compromise seeks to preserve Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), it also seeks to increase border security (“Rare Opening,” 2022). Similarly, the Biden administration continued to use Title 42 to deport families and single adults at the U.S.Mexican border, despite the decline of COVID-19. The Biden administration plans to stop doing so only after a federal judge forced them to in November (Spaget, 2022).
The course of action the executive and legislative branches take on the U.S. immigration process today will have massive consequences, affecting people across the world seeking a new life in the U.S., as well as future generations. Changes, especially those passed by Congress or ruled by the Supreme Court,willbedifficulttoundo.Therefore,itisprudentandcrucialthatweevaluatetheethicsbehindvarious immigration policies before choosing a position to support. To do so, it might be helpful for some to evaluate these policies from a few classical philosophers’ perspectives.
Aristotlewouldapproachtheissuefromtheperspectiveofvirtueethics.InBookIIof Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes: “[We] do not regard man as an individual leading a solitary life, but we also take account of parents, children, wife, and in short, friends and fellow-citizens generally, since man is naturally a social being” (IP, 12th ed., p. 466). Thus, the virtues we possess relate to our roles in society. While one extreme proposes severe and xenophobic restrictions and the other extreme proposes complete hospitality, Aristotle would be somewhere in the middle. He believes in the Golden Mean or “the means between extremes.” He says: “[We] may say generally that a master in any art ... seeks for the mean and chooses it—not the absolute but the relative mean” (IP, 12th ed., p. 471).
Aristotle would justify why the Golden Mean should be between the two extreme positions, as said previously,becausetheGoldenMeanisrelevanttothepersonorperson(s)athand;inthiscase,immigration is an issue relevant to the nation, and therefore Americans as a whole. Aristotle would advocate for the U.S. government to be selective of immigrants, considering whether immigrants possess virtues aligning with American ones and can integrate into American society, claiming that Americans have the right to choose who they can associate and live with.
In the vetting of unauthorized immigrants, Aristotle would combine both Biden’s and Trump’s policies. Like Biden, Aristotle would consider how the immigrant came to the U.S., how they handle the stress of being detained and questioned at the border, and overall, their personality and circumstances that led them here, even disregarding decades-old crimes that do not indicate danger and rose from the immigrants’ poor circumstances. Like Trump, Aristotle would also consider the immigrant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills.
With all of this in mind, Aristotle would evaluate whether the immigrant displays American virtues—such as self-sufficiency, hard work, determination, courage, and consumerism—allowing them to, as said before, integrate into American society to some extent and not live in a completely separate enclave. He would also evaluate whether the immigrant would ultimately provide more benefits to Americans than costs, such as the economy. It would not be sustainable for the U.S. to accept everyone.
Moreover, Aristotle would not agree with the xenophobic and racist language surrounding immigration. Xenophobia, no matter the extent, could not be considered virtuous. Concerning virtues and the Golden Mean, Aristotle remarks: “There are some [actions or passions] whose very names imply badness, or malevolence, shamelessness, envy, and, among other acts, adultery, theft, murder. These and all other like things are blamed as being bad in themselves … not merely in their excess or deficiency” (IP, 12th ed., p. 472). Dr. Ronald R. Sundstrom and Dr. David H. Kim (2014), both philosophy professors at the University of San Franciso, state that xenophobia is “the fear of others, and in particular the fear of foreigners” (p. 23).
In their article “Xenophobia and Racism,” they note how xenophobia is distinct from racism but can overlap. They stress how ultimately xenophobia leads to civic ostracism, which is “morally condemnable” because it strips immigrants, authorized and unauthorized, “the kind of agency that befits life in a modern polity and facilitates fulfillment within it” (p. 24). Meanwhile, racist language propagates prejudices against people of different races. Both xenophobia and racism invoke hatred, envy, and even violence from Americans—the irrational hatred of a group of people due to only their status as foreigners and/or of a different race, their envy of foreigners or other races receiving “better” treatment, and the subsequent violence to put them back into their place. Aristotle would instead advocate for the U.S. government and Americans to listen to immigrants and treat them with friendliness, compassion, and temperance (IP, 12th ed., pp. 472-473).
On the other hand, Kant would approach the issue from the perspective of duty ethics and justice theory. In his book Groundwork (or Foundation) of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant asserts that our goodwill is “good in itself” and dependent on our good intentions. Humanity’s purpose is to exercise our rational faculties and perform our duty, unlike Aristotle who believes it is to achieve happiness. Ideally, our duties should align with our inclinations; if they do not align, we should perform our duty (IP, 12th ed., pp. 485486). Kant elaborates on this, commenting: “I am never to act otherwise than so, that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (IP, 12th ed., p. 490). In other words, the moral laws we follow, inducing us to do what is right, should apply to everyone.
Kant’s whole perspective on duty ethics here stems from his belief that humanity is an end in itself. Kant emphasizes the following imperative: “So as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other in every case as an end withal, never as means only”(IP,12th ed.,p.494).Allthingsconsidered, Kant would argue for open borders in the U.S., accepting all immigrants aside from those that pose a danger to others’ safety. Many immigrants come to the U.S. in search of a new life—escaping war, poverty, violence, and/or persecution. According to Kantian ethics, we cannot discriminate between those who possess the right to live in safe zones and who do not. Living in safety with necessities alongside being treated with basic dignity and respect are rights that all humans are entitled to. Therefore, Kant would emphasize that we cannot instrumentalize immigrants for our own ends, especially for material ones, when leveraging these basic human rights.
However, Kant would not support less restrictive immigration policies if they negatively affect the most downtrodden in the U.S. In that case, the U.S. government should direct its efforts into helping the downtrodden in the U.S. first, instead of exacerbating existing problems in the U.S., such as income inequality, by bringing in more people who need assistance. When addressing our meritorious duties towards others, Kant mentions: “Now humanity might indeed subsist although no one should contribute anything to the happiness of others, provided he not intentionally withdraw anything from it” (IP, 12th ed, p.495).
Similarly, if accepting more immigrants would negatively affect the downtrodden in the U.S., it would be more efficient and beneficial to everyone to focus on those who need help the most in the U.S. before helping those outside it, instead of trying to split our resources among both groups. Fortunately, this is not the case in the U.S. The Pew Research Center projects that “as the Baby Boom generation heads into retirement, immigrants and their children are expected to offset a decline in the working-age population by adding about 18 million people of working age between 2015 and 2035” (Budiman, 2020).
Josh Boak (2019), a White House and economics reporter for the Associated Press, explains:
“[Because] a steady growth in the workforce helps the economy expand, economists say fewer immigrants would equal slower growth and fewer jobs.” Moreover, economists found that immigration has little effect
on wages, especially with other factors involved like “decline in unionization, an intensified push to maximize corporate profits, growing health insurance costs that supplant wages and the rise of a lowerwage global labor force.”
I, of course, support immigration. After all, immigration is integral throughout U.S. history, and not to mention, both of my parents are immigrants. Yet, I am unsure to what extent I support it, whether it be open borders or a more selective process. I still have more to learn about the current immigration process and how it came to be in the past two decades, although I vehemently disagree with the lack of support for immigrants at the border, such as a translator or attorney. Some may argue we do not have the resources, and that may be true, but I still do not believe it is right, especially when we Americans pride ourselves on having due process.
Additionally, Trump’s efforts to reduce immigration by forcing immigrants to seek asylum in other countries on their way to the U.S. goes against what the U.S. stands for in being a safe haven for immigrants and anew start. Likewise, I am skeptical of Biden’s efforts to streamline the asylum process and am worried that it will be like the expedited removal process, where immigrants have little opportunity or support to have their case heard. This is personal to me because my mother once informed me that she managed to move to the U.S. because of the asylum process.
Putting that aside, some DHS officers’ lack of respect and compassion towards unauthorized immigrants, after undertaking a difficult journey to the U.S. for a better life, is morally condemnable. It is the very least they could do before deporting them. I also have yet to hear others’ stories about immigration, especially from immigrants themselves. My own parents never discussed it much with me. How can I pass judgment on an issue that affects so many people and their livelihoods without listening to the very people impacted by it? The research behind this essay required more time than I anticipated, where I only saw the tip of the iceberg. Overall, this essay encouraged me to learn more about this topic in the future.
References
American Immigration Council. (2022, August 9). The Removal System of the United States: An Overview. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/removal-system-united-states-
overview#:~:text=Under%20the%20%E2%80%9Cexpedited%20removal%E2%80%9D%20syste m,or%20wish%20to%20seek%20asylum.
Boak, J. (2019, February 8). AP fact check: Trump plays on immigration myths. PBS.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-plays-on-immigration-myths.
Bolter, J., Et al. (2022, February). Four Years of Profound Change: Immigration Policy during the Trump Presidency. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/four-yearschange-immigration-trump.
Boundless (2022, February 23). The State of Immigration 2022. https://www.boundless.com/blog/bidenimmigration-tracker/.
Budiman, A. (2020, August 20). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/.
Chishti, M. & Bolter, J. (2022, January 19). Biden at the One-Year Mark: A Greater Change in Direction on Immigration Than Is Recognized. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-one-year-mark.
Duffin, E. (2022, September 30). U.S. immigration/migration - statistics & facts. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/topics/805/immigration-migration/.
Esterline, C. & Batalova, J. (2022, March 17). Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States. Migration Policy Institute.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-andimmigration-united-states.
Lind, D. (2014, April 11). Removals vs returns: how to think about Obama's deportation record. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602272/removals-returns-and-deportations-a-very-shorthistory-of-immigration.
Shear, M. & Jordan, M. (2022, September 27). Biden Is Hoping Small Changes Go a Long Way on Immigration. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/us/politics/bidenimmigration-asylum.html.
Siskin, A. (2015, February 3). Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends. Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf.
Solomon R. C., Higgins K. M., & Martin C. W. (2021). Introducing Philosophy: A Text With Integrated Readings (Twelfth Edition). Oxford University Press.
Spagat, E. (2022, November 15). Judge orders Biden administration to halt Trump-era asylum restrictions at border. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-orders-biden-administration-to-halttrump-era-asylum-restrictions-at-border.
Sundstrom, R. R. & Kim D. H. (2014). Xenophobia and Racism. Critical Philosophy of Race, 2(1), 2045.https://doi.org/10.5325/critphilrace.2.1.0020.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Table 39. Aliens Removed or Returned: Fiscal Years 1892 to 2018. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2018/table39.
Wall Street Journal. (2022, December 6). A Rare Opening for Immigration Compromise; A bipartisan deal would trade border enforcement for Dreamer legal status. https://www.wsj.com/articles/achance-for-immigration-compromise-congress-daca-dreamers-kyrsten-sinema-thom-tillis11670368746.
Social Experiment with Video Emily Grossman
This semester (Fall 2022), in my Ethics class for my final I decided to film a social experiment to understand the ethical reasoning individuals have when it comes to the environment. We talked about how most people view the world in an anthropocentric lens (viewing humans above all), but a recent class discussion showed many individuals of my generation see themselves as biocentric (where every living being is on a moral status).
I wanted to test this theory, so I used a dying plant of mine and put up a sign asking people to water the plant. I was hoping to see busy individuals stop by for one second to water the plant. This is what I found.
