Eu Citizenship And The Free Movement Of Workers

There are millions of individuals who migrate from their own country to another legally for many different reasons, whether that be fleeing the country as refugees or leaving to get more opportunities for themselves and their loved ones. However, each year more and more individuals are turned away from countries as they are trying to enter illegally. A significant number of people feel that allowing unrestricted immigration would impact our cultural integrity, result in economic hardship for existing citizens and create great political unrest. It would be hard to argue that certain categories of migrants should immediately be discounted, such as international terrorists or fugitives from the law. However, if we take the question of unrestricted immigration in terms of everyone else, Heumer’s work in favour of it provides a sound argument for its benefits socially, politically and economically. Thinking of immigration as a whole rather than a fractured topic demands both historical and philosophical considerations.

Migrant workers are known to be the backbone of many countries, in the sense that some of them tend to they take up the unwanted and lowly skilled jobs reliant in helping keep the economy stable. In 2014, “migrants accounted for 47% of the increased workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past 10 years”. Through this collective standpoint, they are seen to contribute

We will now examine the policy of restricted borders, and how it is arbitrary in character. Primarily, the policy of closed borders is arbitrary when the right of emigration is compared to immigration. When comparing the right to emigrate with

Immigration, a controversial topic of the modern world, is often associated with illegalities of the Government. The topic continues to loom over the 21st century as more and more poverty stricken countries are under financial strain. It is the national movement of people into a country in which they are not natives or where they do not possess residency and citizenship as their own country has fallen due to possibly natural disasters, war and regime. The debate still remains as to whether immigrants; illegal or not are to be either sent back to their countries or given less opportunities than citizens of their chosen country.

Citizenship for immigrants and people of color is like the cheese in the mousetrap. The cheese represents opportunity, hope, and “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” according to Thomas Jefferson. But often times, these populations do not notice the trap. The trap is broken promises, conditions to citizenship and happiness, working hard and still not achieving. The people soon realize that they have to work for those opportunities and that even working hard does not guarantee them. The point of citizenship is for the government to be able to have control on who gets the opportunities and control the ones by using it as a threat or an incentive.

The United States of America is known as the “land of the free”. But as most know “free” always comes with a price. Luckily, the price is worth a lifetime of opportunities and freedoms that other countries will never get to experience. America has immigrants naturalized every year. People from these countries come to America to pursue the “land of the free”. In fact, in 2014, “654,949 people were naturalized.”1

Phillip Cole’s speech The Ethics of Open Borders also presents a sound egalitarian argument as to why states should adopt an immigration regime that allows for open borders. Phillip Cole, like Carens’, argues that individuals face a moral dilemma—when the principle of “moral equality of persons” —is being violated. He writes that the violation of this principle cannot be justified especially when a state is unjustly restricting an individual’s right to freely move around the world. He mentions how unethical immigration control has become and how immigration control has now become a tool for western capitalist states that seeks to create “conditions of oppression, exploitation and inequality, and borders” that primarily serves the purpose of keeping the global rich wealthy and the global poor impoverished. Cole argues that the global immigration regime has its foundations not in a communitarian or libertarian belief but rather in a system that is promoting capitalism over values

Over the past 300 years, many people immigrate to developed countries for better welfare, their families or other reasons but some countries restrict immigration for avoiding excessive migrants, such as the United States and Britain. One of the main reasons why people support the policy is that they think immigration brings a lot of disadvantages to their country. It goes without saying that some people will be dissatisfied on restriction immigration policy because they firmly believe their interests are damaged. Moreover, people should attempt to understand the perspective of others is that the benefits which are brought by immigration, such as the positive financial impacts, have little or no effect on crime rates and cultural diversity,

At any given time over the past century, almost 3% of the world’s people were living outside of their country of birth, suggesting that birthright citizenship is the most acquired citizenship method in the world and almost 97% of the world’s population are citizens of the country of their birth (Macklin & Crepeau, 2010). Many say that the rules of birthright citizenship could be under-inclusive (for example, a noncitizen who lived in Canada since he/she was an infant and spent their entire life there is still not a citizen) and some say it is over- inclusive (such as a person born in Chicago to a Canadian mother from Toronto, who never set foot in Canada is still a citizen). This opens up a debate about the ideal set of citizenship rules but it also puts an emphasis that there really can’t be any perfect set of rules (Macklin & Crepeau, 2010). According to Migration Policy Institute Data Hub the foreign- born

This is because the population of the A8 countries were allowed to move freely within the EU member states. This fear caused some of the older member states to place non-permanent demarcation on the rights of work of the citizens of these states to their countries. Despite this, the UK, Ireland and Sweden did not impose any restriction leading to immediate unrestricted access.

Abstract In this paper I will extend previous studies and arguments of the costs and benefits of immigration in different economic systems the social, and market based economy to come to a comprehensive and efficient mechanism in integrating immigrants into the labor market. I will address the major difference in economic polices toward immigrants in the advanced welfare state, and in capitalist competitive economy environment. The desired economic utility of immigration is further discussed once a country deiced not only to keep its door open to new immigrants, but also to open it is market-using specific economic polices toward successful integration in the economy.

In his book The Rights of Men Paine suggested that “Every generation is equal in rights to the generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born in equal rights with his contemporary” (Paine, 1998 [1791], p. 117, cited in Morris and Shipman, 2015, p.20). This passage evokes a sense of liberty for individuals and a sense of unity for groups of individuals that make up what are known as states or nation states. The free movement principle is the foundation upon which the European Union has used to create parity and a sense of unity between nations and the citizens that make up the Union. Has this law managed to deal with the issue of immigration in a just and fair manner or has it, in fact, created, inequalities and, social justice issues? The Schengen Agreement, (1986) is a supranational level of policy, allowing for the free movement of European people anywhere within the Union (Garner and Watson, 2015, p.215). This legal entry system allows those categorised as economic

Being born a citizen of a rich country in North America or Europe is a lot like being born into the nobility in the Middle Ages” (Carens NYTimes). Carens points out the inherent chance or luck that comes with being born into privilege. This supports Carens argument to recognize the system is flawed and if an adoption of different system of methods such as egalitarianism is necessary, then society must take action and practice what it preaches. By comparing the problem to the middle ages speaks to Carens opinion that this system is outdated and requires change. Carens later dictates borders themselves are unethical because “It greatly enhances one’s life prospects… these advantages and disadvantages are intimately linked to the restrictions on mobility that are characteristic of the modern state system, although the deepest problem is the vast inequality between states that makes so many people want to move. This is not the natural order of things. It is a set of social arrangements that human beings have constructed and that they maintain” (Carens NYTimes). The fundamental ethical problem with restriction of movement is that it impedes on life

The Immigration’s Political Policies have gone through great political changes since the turn of the 20th century for many countries. The legal and moral issues within these countries like Syria, Mexico, Germany, Ireland and other countries concerning immigration have been debated and continue to be debated through the political views within the government each and every day. Individuals within the political realm who believe that it is morally wrong for a country to deny immigration status argue that immigration promotes democracy, egalitarianism and libertarianism but on the other hand, people who believe that countries have every right to deny individuals 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 that country.

Europe is facing an extraordinary abundance of illegal immigration from the Middle East and Africa. A crisis of historic proportions that raises the question, “should Europe shut down their borders and stop allowing immigrants in, or should Europe allow immigrants who are fleeing civil war and the terrible conditions of the Islamic State into its countries? Both sides of the debate have good arguments to back up their responses. By keeping the borders open for refugees, Europe can benefit greatly from the contributions that immigrants could make. But, on the other hand, allowing a large number of immigrants into Europe could have a negative impact on the economy. Even though allowing an abundance of refugees into Europe could have a negative impact on the economy, the contributions these immigrants could make would make it worth the risk.