Morality of Border Controls - Essay Example

Morality of Border Controls Immigration restrictions usually curtail people’s freedom; they hinder people from going to their desired destinations, visiting friends or event sites, and work where they want. Some of the issues that hinder free immigration include immigration subsidization by the government, immediate transplantation of poor people to rich countries, and the abolition of international borders or national sovereignty. It is assumed commonly that states have a core right to broad flexible control over immigration and thus they may decide on any way and manner they want, who they want to allow to stay in their country and who to leave their territory. However, it is important to consider and employ moral rights, to ensure they are properly implemented, bearing that all states have such a right. The issues of morality usually try to explain individuals’ views concerning all moral convictions, such as liberty, equality, and citizenship. The main aim of writing this essay is to explain in depth the views of Joseph Carens and Stephen Macedo on morality of border controls. Open Border Controls Joseph Carens argues that people’s common commitment towards democratic principles should be revised to change people’s notions concerning the issue of immigration. In addition, Carens claims that the uncontroversial practice towards immigration starts from when the government grant citizenship to individuals immediately after birth. Joseph Carens further urges that social membership, as well as the citizenship of the people, strengthen as individuals continue to live in a state. According to Carens’ argument, it is immoral not to extend citizenship to all foreigners living in different states even if they have settled in the country without the permission of the government. In other words, Joseph Carens was a liberal egalitarian thinker, and he raised a challenge towards the conventional view. He believed that the consistent purpose of liberal principles does not insinuate that all liberal states have the authority to regulate immigration as they wish. Nevertheless, such states have a duty of prima facie, which aims at maintaining open borders. Carens supported his view by arguing that the three main theoretical approaches that supported open borders include liberal egalitarianism, libertarian, and utilitarianism (Carens, 2010). The theory of cosmopolitan egalitarianism interested Carens more than the rest of the theories. It refers to the open borders concept that combine moral insight that states that all human beings whether foreigners or compatriots deserve a moral consideration while at the same time considering that an individual’s country of birth usually has profound effect upon a person’s life prospects. Carens stated that Western liberal democracies citizenship is currently equivalent to the feudal privilege, which is an inherited personal status that greatly influences or enhances an individual’s life chances. Just like the birthright privileges of feudal, justification of restrictive citizenship is very complicated and hard to explain clearly. Egalitarians considered open borders morality as a necessary answer to the massive economic inequalities that exist between countries. The theory also stated that principles of justice should not only be applicable to just a single state but also globally. Carens also argues that the global original position clearly states that freedom of the global movement is a basic liberty possessed by all individuals (Carens, 2013). The second idea of Joseph Carens that supported open immigration or border is libertarianism. According to Carens, the immigration rights of an insider are at times limited when political community has dominion or full control over immigration. To add on to that, he stated that the government usually does not have the rights to restrict the immigration of individuals. He further justified his claims by stating that exclusive immigration policies are usually disrespectful to individual’s rights because they interfere with both the freedom of an insider to invite unilaterally outsiders onto her birth land, as well as the freedom of an outsider to travel freely to destination of their choice. Liberal commitment to individual freedom implies the core human right to practice free international movement (Carens, 2010). Carens argument lies in the analogy between free international mobility and free mobility within the country. Therefore, acknowledging the freedom of the international movement is an essential liberal right. All liberals believe that all individual have the right to pursue their personal projects as well as making individualized choices concerning the way they want to live without the state interference. In other words, Joseph Carens libertarian ideas suggests that dominion of a state over immigration is extremely inconsistent with individuals exercising unlimited immigration rights; however, it does not explain clearly why a state should assume that all individuals’ rights must prevail. Based on liberal believes, Carens argued that the capacity to move across almost all state borders is an essential freedom right because the reasons that an individual have when moving within the country can still be push then to move outside country. Some of the factors that usually promote internal and external migration include; a job vacancy, falling in love with a person from outside country or region, the urge to pursue a culture opportunity that is available only in another country, and lastly, religion matters can also lead to migration (Carens, 2013). Joseph Carens continued to support his stand by addressing the standards that exist between private and public spheres. He stated that there exist an extreme pressure between the right to receive equal treatment and the right to participate freely in associations. According to Carens, the perfect way of addressing this tension is by clearly stating that freedom of association must prevail in all private sphere, and equal treatment or equality should be practiced in all public spheres. This explanation was stated plainly that a person could implement criteria of their own when selecting friends, but when selecting professionals all candidates should be treated equally. When the government employs this idea, even private clubs will be forced to come up with clear criteria of selecting their employees. Moreover, Carens believes that a nationality is a moral arbitrary because individuals do not choice place of birth, sex, race, or even parentage. He further supports his position by stating that the status of citizenship should not be used when distributing social positions or even rights (Carens, 2010). Closed Border Controls According to Stephen Macedo, immigration should be restrained because it makes social justice not to be easily attained. He considered three main pathways, which should be considered when restricting immigration. They include cultural, political, and economic impact. The first approach that Stephen Macedo considered was the relationship between labor market and immigration. He stated that an increase in the number of workers who are outsiders might lead to downward effect on the overall wages. He further urged that outsiders would hurt the economy; this version clearly indicates that he assumed domestic economy could only support a specific number of workers. According to him, the economy will be affected because basically cultural differences exists between the outsiders and the insiders, thus the outsider may lack the required such as the country’s work ethics. However, this argument creates contradictions because to some extent the economy usually benefits from immigrations. For instance, companies are able to employ cheaper labor- this leads to selling the good at a cheaper price to the consumers. Likewise, the drastic increase of demand for different services and goods has led to an increased demand of staffs- this leads to more employment of the outsiders. Additionally, despite that insider, workers do not have the right to be harmed by outsiders as they try to secure employment; to some extent, for economies of varied states to improve effectively, some foreigners must invest in the country (Swain, 2007). The second issue that Macedo discussed was median voter and immigration. Immigration can result to undermining political support in terms of redistributive programs and social welfare. In addition, immigration has contributed greatly in decreasing median voters; the impact is increased support on redistribution. This claim of Macedo to some extent it is not varied because illegal and legal immigrants are eligible to enjoy some social services such as education and health care (Hollenbach, 2010). The last argument that Macedo when supporting closed border was; ethnic and racial diversity and civic solidarity decline. He stated that the feeling of mutual identification that usually support shared commitment of social justice and freedom can be undermined drastically or gradually by the increased ethnic and racial heterogeneity caused by immigration. Furthermore, his stand proves that reduced social solidarity can further undermine government effort in providing public goods as well as set programs meant to help the poor. These claims are somehow controversial because how increased ethnicity, racial diversities, and immigration inhibits social spending is not clearly elaborated (Swain, 2007). Conclusion According to the above arguments, I strongly support the ideas of Joseph Carens on the open border, and I do not agree with Stephen Macedo ideas of closed borders. The government limits immigration in a legitimate manner especially when they want to control and maintain public order, when ensuring national security, as well as when protecting liberal organizations from erosion caused by immigrants who have illiberal political values. In addition, for the government to assure its citizens security they must restrict the flow of visitors; however, exercising closed border morality does not really assure the elimination of all illegal immigrants. Additionally, it is not justified to implement closed border reforms because the lives of all people across the globe have the same value and thus it is not right to impose geopolitical arrangements that are aimed at forcing some individuals to stay in their birth country. After all, life is generally a matter of being luck after one is born; thus neither the Africans nor the Europeans can possibly be said that he or she deserves either good or bad prospects of life. Moreover, social justice is not necessary depicted by restricting some individuals from having the freedom to search for greener pastures. It is morally right to all poor people to go to abroad in search of a better life. Works Cited Carens, Joseph H. The Ethics of Immigration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Carens, Joseph H. immigrants And the Right to Stay. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. Print. Hollenbach, David. Driven from Home: Protecting the Rights of Forced Migrants. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2010. Print. Swain, Carol M. Debating Immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print Read More