The legal and moral issues concerning immigration have been debated for countless of times since their booming popularity during the 19th century. People who believe that it is morally wrong for a country to deny immigration status argue that immigration promotes democracy, egalitarianism and libertarianism. On the other hand, people who believe that countries have every right to deny people who seek immigration argue that immigration taints the cultural roots of a country, weakens national security and reduces the natural resources that would have been distributed to the original citizens of the country.
To properly understand the philosophy of immigration, it is imperative to define immigration. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the constitution gives the United States Congress the sole power to determine and pass a uniform rule of naturalization. With this express power by the Unites States Constitution, Congress has passed several stringent laws that govern immigration and naturalization. One of this statute that is still in effect today is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The law made a clear distinction between a resident alien and a naturalized citizen. Both, however, are considered by the law as immigration.
As such, even naturalized citizens of a country are considered to be immigrants. Herein then lies the heart of immigration philosophy – Do countries have the moral justification to close its borders to people seeking immigration?
Immigration, although permitted is typically restricted and selective. This is to say that host countries seek immigrants who will contribute a net economic gain to the host country. Prospective immigrants must show the potential to contribute positively to the host society.
A...
... middle of paper ...
...e welfare of its citizens. They argue that a country’s acceptance of immigrants is an unnecessary burden to the host country since it detracts the government of its duty to the natural-born citizens.
As such, the dividing line for and against immigration based on philosophical and moral justifications is still blurred. There is still no consensus as to whether immigration should maintain the status quo or not.
Works Cited
• Pevnick, R., 2009, “Social Trust and the Ethics of Immigration Policy,” The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17: 146–167.
• Swain, C., (ed.), 2007, Debating Immigration, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sarah Starkweather. "US immigration legislation online". University of Washington, Bothell Library. Retrieved April 7, 2012.
• Cole, P. and Wellman, C., 2011, Is There a Right to Exclude? New York: Oxford University Press.
Though immigration is not a new phenomenon in the world’s history, it has been notice that now days immigration has increased more than ever. This is mainly caused because of better ways of communication and transportation, which it makes it possible to people to move and enter other countries. However there are many types of immigrations such as economical, retirement immigrants or even ‘natural disasters’ immigrants. People sometimes seek a new life to save themselves from poverty and misery, thus they decide to enjoy the benefits of another country. Still there are other immigrants who are forced to leave their countries because of wars or even natural disasters, such as the tsunami in Japan 2011. Some philosophers consider closed borders to restrict people freedom of movement and that global justice is been violated. On the other hand Miller and other philosophers argued that immigration causes more disadvantages than advantages into the country they enter. Also they agree that states have a moral right to limit immigrations in order to prevent any changes in their culture, as immigration affects several things, even if this means that they will violate human rights. Another concern for the states is the welfare state where sometimes it may be limited and countries cannot afford any immigrants. However, is it right to oppose people rights of freedom, or is it correct for states to limit immigration?
Ewing, Walter. "The Many Facets Of Effective Immigration Reform." Society 47.2 (2010): 110-117. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, often referred to as INA, is “the basic body of immigration law” (“Immigration and Nationality Act,” n.d.). The INA “is divided into titles, chapters, and sections” and is “contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.)” (“Immigration and Nationality Act,” n.d.). Within this paper I will be explaining certain definitions and reasons in regards to the following questions:
It is often said that the United States of America is a country of immigrants, also referred to as a melting pot. In fact, majority of people today can say that they are children of immigrants. Every year, countless of people arrive from their native land to America, with the hopes of rebuilding a better life and future for themselves and their family. Are they to blame? It is even stated in the national anthem, which is always sung with great pride and passion, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave”. But how free is this country? Free enough to enter at will? For years, immigration laws have remained a problem in the United States, as the government tries to reform such policies in order to control the growth of the population, especially that of the “undocumented” populace. Although illegal immigrants provide many services needed in this country, they have also created a huge financial burden to American taxpayers in areas such as education, emergency medical care, and welfare costs (Tolle, 2012). In using moral knowledge to analyze and investigate the ethical questions surrounding the issues of immigration, we will look at two different sources: scripture and experience.
"The main controversy lies in the passing of a plethera of laws throughout the existence of the US regulating immigration and in the handling of illegal immigration. Modern immigration polocies have recieved less and less publicity as tolerance becomes more widespread, although each person is entitled to their own opinion about the issue" (Conover 342).
Most of the United States (U.S) is comprised of immigrants—including those who have migrated to the States from another country and those whose ancestors freely travelled to the States in search of a fresh start. Every year, the U.S. grants a limited number of people around the world the opportunity to immigrate to the States each year. As a result of the restriction, citizens from neighboring countries cross the border illegally. According to an article by Jens Manuel Krogstad, 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants reside in the U.S. in 2014. This whopping number has stirred controversy both politically and economically for America’s government officials. As a result, many people argue whether illegal immigrants should or should not be aided
In his address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson declared freedom of the seas in times of peace and war. Looking back, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could challenge the right of individuals to navigate the oceans freely. However, fast-forward to the twenty-first century and we can see an analogous debate over the issue of immigration rights, with territorial borders being the main topic of discussion. The system of immigration in the United States is complex and oftentimes restrictive, and while revisions to the system usually include increasing quotas or other solutions to let in certain groups of people who deserve special consideration (such as those whose skills are needed in a particular field), they are still very limited solutions. The obvious question that arises from letting in some people but not others is that of fairness. Is the accident of birth or luck of being in the right place at the right time enough to justify restrictive citizenship to a select few? I would argue not. I intend to argue that a commitment to human rights entails the position that borders ought to be open in order to guarantee other human rights, especially the right to migrate.
A topic crucial to the world today is illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is when people live in a country without permission from the government, nor have any legal documentation. As more and more illegal immigrants enter the United States, it either upsets some people, or others feel like they should just grant them ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness because that is what the Constitution says. Some people feel that illegal immigrants should be protected by the same rights and laws as American citizens. On the other hand, many people believe that this is a horrible mistake. They feel that the rights of citizenship should be earned and not extended to people who haven broken the law just by being in the United States.
Wellman, Christopher, and Phillip Cole. Debating the Ethics of Immigration is There a Right ti Exclude?. New York : Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Migration has been a major part of human living and also animals, people migrate for various reasons such as seeking better lives, family, job opportunity, availability of social amenities etc. immigration policies were put in place to monitor and decide who immigrate to a country and these policies have been present since 1906, and these polices have had different reasons for their enactment and these reasons change as time and era changes (Baglay, 2014). The early policies were racially based restriction, economic growth, multiculturalism, restriction on refugee and economic immigration (Baglay, 2014). The Communitarian approach used by Michael Walzer to explain immigration policy is similar to Canadian immigration policy. This paper seeks to discuss and analyze the articles by Joseph Carens and Michael Walzer, explaining the different perspectives of explaining immigration policies. The paper would summarize and contrast the author’s main arguments. It would take a stand on which argument is more persuasive in explaining immigration policy and give reason for this position. It would also use other articles to support or refute each argument made by Joseph Carens and Michael Walzer. Lastly this paper would explain and come to a conclusion of if any of these arguments apply to Canadian immigration policy and give examples of these similarities. Carens and Walzer had very different view on immigration and open border, Carens used the Liberal perspective of explaining open border.
In recent discussions, the topic of immigration and the fundamental question of what is to be done with immigration? has been circulating in many american homes today, especially the closer we get to election day. As David Cole puts it in his essay Five Myths about Immigration “But just as in the 1850’s, passion, misinformation, and shortsighted fear often substitute for reason, fairness, and human dignity in today’s immigration debates”(185). Despite misconceptions of immigrants, Cole believes that immigrants positively affect society in several ways. In addition, Cole challenges and questions the beliefs of others in his essay. Whereas, Victor Davis Hanson’s essay Our Brave New World of Immigration focuses
Throughout the past centuries, immigration has had many positive and negative impacts on our country and society. Law and order have been the founding cornerstone of our democracy, and the mandate of the U.S. Constitution is for Congress to do the work of the people and that of the nation. Immigration has continuously been a passionate debate within our society. This particular topic will always be a sensitive subject due to Americans personal beliefs and morals.
In this paper, I will argue that closed borders are morally justifiable. Limits to immigration are often implemented in order to protect a nation's interests, such as protecting the safety of the citizens or preserving welfare funds. In some cases, however, limits to immigration are vital to preserving the culture and preventing overpopulation of a country. Advocates for open borders claim that border restrictions infringe upon one or more basic human rights, such as the freedoms of movement and association (Kukathas 212). I contend, however, that these freedoms do not extend as a right to free immigration. Border restrictions, therefore, do not violate these human rights and are thus morally permissible.
Immigration has been an incredibly contentious issue in this election cycle, largely because of the potential for tribal conflicts that it allows. Both proponents and opponents of immigration could take a utilitarian view, and potentially be right: for immigration to be endorsed by a utilitarian, the benefits to the immigrants would have to outweigh the consequences to current citizens. The benefits to the immigrants are not argued much; most agree that immigrants have a lot to gain from the increased opportunities in the United States, due to less corruption, better infrastructure, a larger economy, and perhaps better social mobility. The negative effect on current citizens, however, is widely disagreed on. Supporters argue that not much is lost by allowing these people into the country, while opponents argue that
Immigration is a controversial topic that features conflicting opinions on a global scale. This is because skeptics believe that immigrants are taking away the original culture and traditions of individual societies, whereas, those supporting immigration believe that immigrants in fact enrich the culture of the host countries and provide great benefits to the country overall. This ongoing debate regarding immigration has led to the increased difficulty in gaining national citizenship in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Other countries, however, welcome immigrants as they believe foreigners are valuable to society. Immigration around the world should be encouraged as immigrants increase diversity, add to the amount of skills and labor opportunities available to the countries they move to, and improve the economy.