Advantages Of Unilateral Pay-Riding

Immigration is one of the contentious issues that continue to elicit mixed reactions from different parties. In most western economies, debates on immigration policies have been on the rise in the recent decades. Whereas the international human rights have confirmed that freedom of movement is one of the basic human rights and hence no one can be deprived, most governments have put restrictions on immigration. Furthermore, the enactment of open immigration policies in various countries continues to raise mixed reactions with proponents and critics of the policies contributing to the debate. Immigration policies usually vary from country to country and within states with both, either opting for open or closed immigration policies. The impacts of illegal immigration and open border policies have been central to the above debate. This paper explores the issue of open border policies and illegal immigration and its inherent dangers.

For Carens, immigration should be regulated when the threat of security and a massive influx of people disrupt public order. When examining the utilitarian approach, Carens relies on the basis of the theory to support his no borders policy. For utilitarians, they strive to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people or “maximize utility” (Carens 263). Thus, borders should be open to all people because Carens believes that more people can benefit from nonrestricted immigration. For instance, with open borders a free market in labor can flourish, increasing economic benefits for everyone. After reviewing Carens’ arguments, I agree with his push for open borders. In a global world where technology seems to increase connection and communication, people are still divided and unwilling to come together. For many people, there is a desire to express state nationalism and preserve the culture of a country. However, humans share the right to freedom and equality no matter the difference in skin color, custom, or distance. Immigration will change communities, but that change can be for the better. The free movement of people can ultimately increase tolerance and

There are multiple political forces that are playing a part in the border security/illegal immigration controversy. The current administration has publicly made reference that they will not revisit securing the border without a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The conservatives believe that in order to have a discussion regarding immigration reform, securing the border must come first. Depending upon which “side of the isle” that a person takes regarding the securing of the border, they fall in two categories – the conservatives mainly reside on the pros, and the liberal party tends to side on the cons of building a fence.

It has to be a mutual attitude between the countries that are in trade, both need to be equal and be willing, and history has shown time and again, relationships between countries swing from best friends to mortal enemies very quickly. He says that America would be the sole country exuding this “free trade”

In recent years, the concept of borders has become focused on the movement of people, with an increasing number of countries opting for a protectionist approach to immigration. Yet, the increasing number of casualties as a direct result of these borders calls into question the continuation of strict border control. States use borders as a defence mechanism in the hope of protecting citizens from criminals and terror. But, history has shown that borders have repeatedly caused significant human suffering. Borders are also used as an economic tool to defend a countries market. However, economists suggest borders may be preventing a doubling in world GDP. The border control of states is ineffective. It is morally and economically flawed.

The issue of illegal immigration is one of the hotly debated topics in almost every facet of society, especially among political leaders. This topic has also received huge media attention and reaction in the recent past including an article written by William Finnegan and published by The New Yorker. The article focuses on addressing the issue of borderlines and is based on the move by 17 Congress members, who wrote a letter on 28th April 2010 demanding an instant action from President Obama to enhance border security. While the increase in illegal immigration has declined in the recent past, there is still a great need to enhance border security, particularly in the as violence in the neighborhood of U.S. Mexico has continued to escalate at an alarming rate. Therefore, evaluating the need to improve border security to lessening illegal immigration is vital for enhancing the country's security and understanding its impacts on America's economy and labor force.

In 1998, Julio César Gallegos tried to cross again. This time he and several others would not be so lucky. The group was waiting to be picked up by a vehicle that never came. The extreme heat killed them in a matter of weeks, and were soon found. Groups like Gallegos’ risk their lives each day to enter the United States without authorization from Mexico. “This helps explain why the boundary simultaneously serves as both an obstacle and a gateway- functions that are both contradictory and complimentary” (78). The border is a gateway that allows individuals to travel between both countries with legal documentation. On the other hand, the boundary is an obstacle because it is a danger to the people who try to cross illegally. That is why U.S. law enforcement policies have been put in place.

Since the 1980s, the US government has undertaken initiatives to make its borders more non-porous to illegal immigration from its neighboring countries. The menace of illegal immigrants seeking better opportunities in the USA started reflecting in the 1970s. The migrating people are motivated by the better non-skilled or semi-skilled employment opportunities in the USA and the relatively higher remuneration for services rendered in the USA than in the neighbor countries especially Mexico (Hanson and Spilimbergo 17). Countries where these people flocked such as the California, Texas and Arizona began experiencing illegal immigrants’ populations’ menace. The main efforts have been along the Mexican and Canadian borders where walking immigrants freely used to walk through. The need to secure the borders has been rising steadily. The successive governments have realized the need for secure borders and it had responded by dedicating more resources to these areas. The need to secure the USA borders has not been groundless, illegal border immigration remains to be the most potent entry point for illegal drugs, smugglers of contraband goods and criminals especially terrorists. In light of these dangerous threats that can be made possible by pours border; it is of utmost need that the U.S. government tighten our borders to neighboring countries.

In the present day United States, we face many disputes. One of the big issues is immigration. Although many oppose so it, the historical experience of legalization under the 1986 immigration reform and control act, has indicated that a comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue, therefore in actuality really beneficial to the to the U.S.(Hinojosa-Ojeda). The fact is that nearly all unauthorized migrants still eventually succeed in entering the U.S despite tens billions of dollars spent to reinforce borders, which has caused commotion(Hinojosa-Ojeda). Decisions taken by the government upon this issue have not been handled well. The economic analysis in

The hardened border paradox is the process of the US making it tougher for criminals to smuggle drugs, weapons and people into the country along with difficult procedures to get into the country legally. The result is violence among and along the border for and by immigrants and border patrol officers. Criminals are also using extreme measures to be successful, they are not far from using pay-offs, verbal and physical threats, torture and murder to remove obstacles that may hinder their illegal activity. As the laws tighten on preventing illegal entry more ways are being thought of to get contraband through. Bean quoted Stephen Flynn author of America the Vulnerable as writing “stepped-up enforcement along the Mexican border suggests that

Free riding is when other countries benefit from the actions the U.S. takes in the counterterrorism fight without ever having to actually conduct any of the actions themselves. Pay riding requires cooperation from the other members but also benefits terrorism. One example Fratianni and Kang noted in their paper was when after Spain was attached on March 11, 2004 they pulled their troops out of Iraq. Consequently, with the similar outcomes of free and pay riding the U.S. bears the brunt of the cost associated with fighting terrorism and enforcing boarder security. Eventually the hope is that unilateral solution will be able to become a multilateral solution by the more wide spread boarder security and stopping the pay riding.

As defined by Fratianni and Kang, Pay riding is defined by stating that “club members” undertake some cooperation with the United States but, at the same time, give something of value to terrorists. A classic example of pay riding is Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States but the home of radical Wahabism (Fratianni & Kang, 2004, p. 9). Free riding is other countries willingness to piggy back on U.S. operations in order to reap the political and or industrial benefits of being involved with an operation without having to foot a large portion of the cost. Over time, the unilateralist solution is likely to turn into a multilateral one. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the United States will exert pressure on members of the club to tighten up their border security, stop pay riding and absorb a larger share of the “war on terror”. The second reason it would likely turn into a multilateral solution is that the hardening of U.S. Borders would also push terrorists to choose softer targets and less secure countries (Fratianni & Kang, 2004, p. 10).

Although written in 2003, Andreas’ article “Redrawing the Line” provides an interesting perspective into national sovereignty and contemporary anxiety regarding American border security, specifically as applied to Mexico. Poignantly, the author states that no state will ever ensure complete control of its territorial integrity by sealing its borders (109). However, Andreas contends that this reality does not, in fact, imply that “states have ‘lost control’ over their borders” (110). Furthermore, he offers an interesting perspective into the different types of borders, which he categorizes as military, economic, and police (85). Each type of border, and its associated security, maintain their own costs and benefits. For example, although strict

It is commonly believed that free trade between nations is a mutually beneficial arrangement for all parties involved; indeed, this is held to be an absolute truth. Though free trade is undoubtedly the most effective form of commerce between countries from a purely economic standpoint, increasingly we find that our so-called "free trade agreements" are horribly unbalanced. Indicative of these fiascoes is the North American

Implementing stringent security controls along the borders is likely to reduce the influx of illegal immigration into the United States. With the increased border security, the American government could have helped alleviate the occurrence of the 9/11 bombing. Though this strategy is essential in alleviating the influx of illegal immigrants to certain geographic areas, increased border controls in these locations have made other, less controlled areas of the border more vulnerable. Rising crime rates, discarded debris, increased apprehension rates, and growing public scrutiny in these less secure areas provide clear evidence that border security is at once a social, an economic, and a national security issue.