Aliens And Citizens: The Case For Open Borders

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.

In Joseph Carens’ article, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” he insists on open borders. He claims that this idea of free movement has moral roots in which every human being deserves freedom and equality. In his article, Carens applies his argument by refuting three political theories of Robert Nozick, John Rawls and utilitarians. Carens addresses Robert Nozick’s theory by recognizing a common objection towards immigration. Similar to John Locke, Robert Nozick believes that humans in the state of nature have natural rights including the right to property as individuals. However, most people view property rights as collective or national as seen by popular opinion that “It’s our country. We can let in or keep out whomever we want” (Carens 252). As a

Immigrating is to come to a country of which one is not a native, usually for permanent residence. It goes along with drive and determination to seek pleasure out of life, chase dreams, and purse happiness even in the most desperate of times. Migrating affects the communities that the migrants leave as well as the communities that receive them. There are many views as to why people migrate to different countries, the impact of immigration in countries, and how countries should go about regulating immigration. When discussing the ethics of immigration, it is important to view this topic from both sides and not just one side. In doing so, a person gets a sense of the bigger picture that the U.S. is currently dealing with due to immigration. With that being said, the United States should strive for an immigration policy that can benefit everyone involved as a whole.

The debate over illegal immigration has been a constant and ongoing struggle in the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants are living among us in the country, we have more entering daily. Recently, President Barack Obama touched on the topic with his immigration executive order. Unfortunately, with the republican takeover of the white house, many of his actions are not being supported. This is viable evidence that there are people who want to help fix the immigration system in a way that will benefit illegal immigrants and give them a fighting chance to prosper here in the United States. With that being said, there are also powers who do not want to see that happen because they believe that it is not in the best interest of the United States to open their borders to illegals. This puts to question what the next steps for the United States will decide and how that will affect Americans across the country. My goal of this essay is to enlighten the moral concerns in the debates pertaining to immigration.

When immigration policy is discussed, typically, it is discussed within the confines of egalitarian notions and sentiments, and inside the boundaries and parameters set by generally Marxist-influenced social democracy. Characteristically, it is not discussed pertaining to the concept of a social order built on the rights of property owners, sharers, and contributors to and of the common stock- which at their discretion- may exclude bad apples, lazy contributors, rotten characters, trespassers, and terrorists. Once egalitarian sentiments and notions are rejected full-scale- (only giving credence to those that have empirical weight or logical consistency) more proper, more substantive interdisciplinary analyses may reveal that the current investigative techniques employed by current mainstream political theorists are- in the context of reality, incorrect, superficial and quite shallow.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, immigration control and national homeland security have been issues of concern for both the national government and private citizens. In the wake of the attacks, a lot of articles were written about what the appropriate response should be to prevent another attack. In 2004, Mark Krikorian wrote an article for the Providence Journal entitled “Safety through Immigration Control” in which he contends that the only means to keep America safe from a follow-up attack is to strengthen and enforce immigration law to prevent terrorists from being able to enter the country. Edwidge Danticat, writing for The Nation in 2005, provides a juxtaposition to Krikorian’s stance in her essay “Not Your Homeland”, in which she describes her witnessing of the inhumane conditions many immigrants are forced to endure in the name of increased security to protect the country. She questions whether the added protections are worth the human cost we are paying by treating immigrants and refugees as guilty until proven innocent. At the crossroads of these two perspectives lies the question: what is the proper balance between national security and the humane treatment of immigrants?

I am very familiar with the ethics of border security, having grown up in El Paso, Texas. The city sits right next to Juarez, Mexico with a population of over 2 million. As stated in the Debate.org article, “Border Fence”, El Paso, San Diego, and McAllen are the epicenter for cartel violence, hub for drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. There is a border fence that stretches over 30 miles in and around the El Paso area, with a border patrol agent stationed every 300 yards over the same span. With a population of close to 800,000 with over 80% of that being Hispanic, it is a very controversial subject along the border region. (Debate.org Article)

The topic of Mexican immigration recently made headlines again when republican presidential candidate Donald Trump released a 3 page statement detailing his blunt beliefs on Mexican immigrants. Trump’s blunt statements against Mexican immigration have led many to join the discussion of Mexican immigration. The views on the issue vary, some believe that Mexicans are the route to all of America’s unemployment trouble while others believe Mexican’s simply take jobs American’s refuse to take. Either way, there are nearly twenty four million people of Mexican decent living in the United States that have started their own communities which contribute to American society. Many American’s however, refuse to accept this and are still prosecuting Mexican’s. This can be seen in the media, public schools, and in the work place.

Guarding the Golden Door by Roger Daniels provides an overall clarification of the immigration system in the United States throughout the past and in latest policies. Ever since 1882, America claimed that the settlement objective was to prevent it from occurring, although it permitted the complete opposite. Thus, the single factual policy that has been realistic to American immigration is that it is on a constant twist of shifting policies, which are changed according to the present nature of inexpensive employment for American manufacturing demands. Almost all of the American immigration policy has been shaped by people that did not comprehend the outcomes of the tactics they badly tried to generate, and who made open door policies simply to close them.

Now in days there is a lot of terrifying stuff seen every day. Starting from accidents, tourism attacks, and shootings. My focus is Hispanic immigration and borders. There's probably not one day that there's not something being said about immigration. It is a topic that is very controversial and many people disagree or agree on it. Immigration is when people go to live permanently in a foreign country. Lots of people don't really realize the reasons in which hispanics move to a foreign country. Hispanics leave to accomplish their American dream for themselves and their family.

There are not many people who know that there is war going on within America. A war, that is capable of impacting the future of America. Millions of “Dreamers” are fighting to be recognized as American citizens. In recent months and years, the debate on immigration reform has been heated and often uninformed. Every president mentions in his speech to take action on immigration reform. But unfortunately he ends up taking action against immigrants by deporting them. Is the country founded by immigrants has closed doors for the immigrants? People are fighting for the immigration reform. In order for the bright future of America we need to fix the present problems. A land of opportunity has taken many hits but the immigration reform made us think about our legal system. It is essential to understand that “immigration reform” is not a cup of tea. The question many are asking is that how can we accept millions of people into our labor force? We are already struggling from unemployment rate, which is peaking high. In this paper I will be primarily focusing on the role of immigrants on our economy, businesses and society, and how it impacts our society.

In the essay “Imagining the Immigrant: Why legality Must Give Way to Humanity” and the article “The Perpetual Border Battle”, both professor John J. Savant and former director of CIA Mark Krikorian, give us each their perspective on necessary alterations in our border systems and ethics owing to the current immigration issue in our country. Illegal immigration is frown upon since it violates our constitution. Opponents to these unethical actions deliberate that our border control is in need of extensive advancements. In contrast the more humanitarian side of society contemplate the possibility of an agreement that will constitute to the non-violation of the law yet consider the desperation of these immigrants trying to provide the essential necessities for their loved ones.

Throughout history, immigration has remained a complex and influential piece of presidential policy—from the Age of Mass Migration, which led to the Immigration Act of 1924, to present day policy, which may result in the construction of a border wall. The debate on immigration remains contentious, inspiring emotional and empirical arguments by politicians and the public alike. Many of these aspects are discussed and defined within Abramitzky, Boustan, and Eriksson’s paper “A Nation of Immigrants: Assimilation and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Migration” and Peri’s paper “Immigrants, Productivity, and Labor Markets,” which analyze American immigration, both past and present. From these papers, it is evident that adopting a nativist

Immigration has become both a controversial and widely debatable topic in contemporary governmental affairs. Within David Miller’s Immigration: The Case for Limits, we are faced with many trivial ideas on what constitutes the opportunity for people to legally immigrate to where they please, how matters are dealt with in the case of refugees, and to what level we hold everyone’s right to make a living. As I was investing myself in Miller’s book excerpt, I became aware of several debatable and agreeable content sections that stuck out to me. For instance, Miller states that “There is something fundamentally unfair about a world in which people are condemned to relative poverty through no fault of their own when others have much greater opportunities, whereas if people were free to live and work wherever they wished, then each person could choose whether to stay in the community that raised him or look for a better life elsewhere.”; I believe that Miller is correct in stating this fact due to the idea that everyone is entitled to make themselves the most well off that they can. However, a problem arises when Miller states that the basic rights consist of freedom, security, etc., and proclaims that freedom of movement is also a basic human right. I find fault in this because for most Miller’s conversation about immigrants (excluding refugees) it seems as if he is approaching the scope without putting his previous statements into perspective. He seems to contradict himself when

The United States of America has always been a refuge where poor and oppressed people from the far corners of the world can come to begin a new life. Much of the nation’s allure to prospective immigrants is in its promise of equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, or color. But the pressures of rising unemployment rates, congested cities, a crippled healthcare system, and national debt skyrocketing out of control have caused America to defend her borders against the influx of immigrants that threaten her already ailing economy. Still, despite all the heightened security measures incorporated in recent decades, a steady stream of immigrants continue to enter the country illegally. The Washington Times reports that there are