Many issues today have multiple sides to them that can be argued very well for both sides. This topic on border control, I believe, can be well argued for both sides because there is plenty of evidence and information that would help further that side’s argument. Now, in the context of which side furthers democracy the most, can be a different story. According to an article by Arash Abizadeh (2008), the regime of boundary control must be democratically justified to foreigners as well as to citizens, in political institutions in which both foreigners and citizens can participate. The statement is in argument to the claim that a democratic state has the right to unilaterally control and close off its borders to outsiders. In order to further …show more content…
The border’s existence and control of the border must not be confused into the same thing. The existence of a border dividing states or regions apart does not necessarily say anything about the rules of controlling it, which would be the entry policy (how open or closed the border is, who can get in and get out and who can’t) and who controls that entry policy. An example would be the border between Ontario and Manitoba. It exists, but the entry policy is pretty open and jointly run through federal …show more content…
This argument is made by the democratic principle of self-determination, and it is claimed that this intrinsically requires unilateral border control. In another article found, Whelan says, according to democratic theory , “the operation of democratic institutions should amount to ‘self-determination,’ or control by the people over all matters that affect their common interests,” and if the “admission of new members into the democratic group counts as such a matter affecting the quality of their public life and the character of the community,” then it seems from this statement that the democratic principle of self-determination has the right and also requires the right to unilaterally control borders. This paper is challenging that the democratic theory of self-determination has a right to unilaterally control one’s own borders. The first question that comes to mind is whether there are any considerations within the democratic theory that create a decision either in favor of unilateral domestic border control or in favor of joint control by citizens and outsiders. The answer depends on who is owed democratic justification, because we cannot know whether a closed border entry policy under the unilateral control of citizens is democratically legitimate unless we know that. But, the democratic justification for a regime of border control is ultimately owed to both members and nonmembers
I was able to relate to when Jessie said that borders are symbols of the divisions we make of each other. These borders are made up by people to keep each other apart from one another. Whether it is for social, economic, or cultural reasons, the division remains. As Brooke pointed out, these borders prevent freedoms and deny opportunities.
The border wall debate has become one of the most significant talking points in the United States and countries around the world. Many people believe that the wall is unnecessary and many think that it is necessary. Building a border wall may cost billions of dollars, but it might be able to save the country money as well. Some positive impacts of a border wall are for example a decline in apprehension rates, creating a safer America and putting a damper on the flow of illegal drugs. As well as the positive impacts, we will look at the negative implications as well. Some of these are that the symbolism, cost, effect of diversity, environmental impact and the higher death impact.
A nation without borders is not a nation. Today, every country is making effort to secure its borders not only from terrorists, drugs and smuggling but also from illegal immigration. All these recurring activities have sparked the United States to secure its borders against illegal immigrants and terrorism by creating a special department named the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headed by the Secretary of Homeland Security. After the terrorist attack of 9/11, terrorism and illegal immigration were two striking issues for the DHS. To solve these issues, the Department of Homeland Security further created two immigration enforcement agencies: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Customs and
There are several theories to look into when discussing the morality of borders. I specifically look into Stephen Macedo’s chapter “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy, open borders versus social justice?” in Debating Immigration and Joseph Carens article “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” Using political theory back up his argument, Carens uses Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian to support and explain his claims that there is little justification for keeping oppressed people from other countries seeking a better life out of the United States. Macedo also uses similar liberal philosophy referencing Rawlsianism to support the opposing idea of a more restrictionist society, posing the question of cosmopolitanism
When thinking about a family member being removed from a country because that was not there place of origin, is a sickening thought. This thought crosses the minds of immigrant’s every day. Being an immigrant in the United States was supposed to be welcoming and an abundant of opportunity; now they receiver scrutiny and embarrassment from thousands of Americans, jobs are scarce, and when they do find jobs they receive low compensation. This country was fabricated from immigrants and people fleeing genocide; however, that time has changed and our borders are now closed. Taking a look in to the opposing side, there are many reasons why border control is imperative. Take into account that there
Many people have come to America for a better life and to get away from all the troubles of their homeland. These immigrants, like those throughout U.S. history, are generally hard workers and make important contributions to the economy through their productive labor and purchasing power. America is considered a melting pot of many diffrent ethinic group. Immigrants should be able to enter America with little if any resistance from any border patrol. Immigrants in america take the low paying, hard labor jobs that , unfortunately, some americans don't want.
In the words of Ronald Regan “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Many feel that illegal immigration is a growing concern for our nation, and securing our borders is most so that we can protect our homeland and preserving our freedom. They say these Illegals take jobs and deny opportunities for American citizens who have made worked hard to gain citizenship in a legal way.
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.
Over the years it seems as though our country has become more populated and unsafe from the illegal immigrants and smuggled goods, such as drugs and weapons, which make it into the United States. Although there are many illegal immigrants and contraband that are able to make it into the U.S undetected, there are a significant amount of people and contraband that are caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The CBP is a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and was formed in 2003. “It is one of the world’s largest law enforcement organizations and is charged with keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S” (CBP). One of the departments of the CBP is border security, which is a team of individuals that work together to protect our country from “illegal immigrants, narcotics smuggling, and illegal importation” (CBP). Border patrol was established in 1924 and has changed dramatically over the decades. The one aspect that has not changed is “the overall mission to detect and prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the U.S” (CBP). The border patrol is responsible for patrolling the 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian land borders and 2,000 miles of coastal waters. According to CBP, “In 2013 420,789 nationwide illegal aliens were apprehended and 2.9 million pounds of drugs were seized.” As one could tell, there is a significant amount of illegal immigrants and smuggled goods coming into the U.S. However, the number of illegal immigrants that have been seized is lower than it has been in the past, but I still believe that having a strong border security is necessary in continuing to keep immigrants from trying to come into the U.S illegally and transporting illegal goods. “The primary goal of bo...
Although there are many opinions on gun control related laws, the American Government should make more laws like the Georgia Gun Rights Bill. At first, this law sounds ridiculous, but with deeper thought, it could really work. This law would allow citizens of Georgia to carry firearms with them virtually anywhere (Simon). That’s right. Anywhere. Our reasoning behind why this act could be successful is simple; it equals the playing field. Criminals and those with mental disorders looking to harm others with use of firearms will be able to obtain possession of a gun one way or another, regardless of if it’s legal or not. So, when the time comes when there is an impending threat from a person with a firearm, other citizens will be able to defend themselves. This would enable responsible citizens to carry weapons to defend themselves against people who also have weapons and are potential threats. Furthermore, if the government made laws outlawing guns, it would not stop gun violence. A similar scenario are the laws against illegal drugs. According to CNN, a frightening 22 million Americans use drugs anyway. And the government thinks laws outlawing guns will prevent people from obtaining guns illegally? Not a chance. Obviously, the solution is to not take guns away from responsible citizens.
One of the major issues surrounding border security is illegal immigration, “For the past two decades the United States, a country with a strong tradition of limited government, has been pursuing a widely popular initiative that requires one of the most ambitious expansions of government power in modern history: securing the nation’s borders against illegal immigration” (Alden, 2012). Many people are trying to enter the United States without the proper documentation and everyday they risk their lives and others just to make it across these borders. To avoid this law enforcement and other border security has threatened these illegal immigrants with detainment and arrest and different forms of punishment. In the efforts to deter the problem, it has been far beyond feasible because they still manage to get across and it does not change their intention...
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...