Immigration Quotas versus Individual Rights: the Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration - Article Example

The value and benefits of immigration: On “Immigration quotas vs. individual rights: The moral and practical case for open immigration” University April 25, 2012 Introduction In the article “Immigration Quotas Vs. Individual Rights: The Moral And Practical Case For Open Immigration,” Binswanger explored the values and benefits of immigration to the United States. Binswanger argued that immigration quotas are against human rights and that it is immoral and impractical to curtail immigration into the U.S. He contended that anyone should be free to enter and live in the United States, except terrorists, criminals, and those carrying infectious diseases. He stressed that a foreigner has the same human rights as American citizens. Furthermore, he maintained that looking for jobs in another country is not a crime. It is also not a crime to buy or rent a home where one lives. American sellers and renters also have the rights to rent or sell their homes to others. Binswanger noted that the American government cannot stop immigrants from working and living in the United States. Only the owners of American properties have the right over their lands. He added that even the majority cannot also dictate over the rights of the minority. Finally, Binswanger argued that immigration is also good for Americans, because they can go to better and high-paying jobs. Immigration increases population density, but not always to be welfare dependents. He also lauds the commendable virtues of immigrants who are hardworking, daring, and ambitious. The Value and Benefits of Immigration Immigration has been recently demonized by its critics as one of the causes of unemployment and overcrowding in the U.S. For them, there should be immigration quotas, because immigrants take away jobs from Americans, since they are paid lower wages and they also increase overcrowding problems. Immigrants are also blamed for higher welfare costs. Binswanger presented convincing ideas and arguments that assert that these critics are wrong. I agree with him that immigration is a human right and that immigration will be good for the United States too, as long these immigrants do not find an incentive to become welfare recipients. I believe that immigration should be allowed in the U.S., since it will be good for its economic development too. Immigration is a human right. Binswanger stressed: “One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human.” If Americans can go and live in other countries, foreigners should also be free to enter and live in the U.S. The U.S. espouses equality and freedom and it will be superficial for it then to not admit immigrants, because the government says that immigration violates the rights of its citizens. The premise of equality is that it applies to all. What applies to Americans applies to foreigners too, and this includes the freedom to immigrate anywhere. Americans cannot assert that they are against immigration and, at the same time, argue that they should be free to go, work, and live in any country. That would mean that they see themselves superior to higher races and that would be immoral. People, again, are created equal, and the law guarantees this equality for all races. Immigration quotas violate the basic human right to live and work in the U.S. Individual rights are more important than the rights of the majority. Binswanger said: “In a free society, the rights of the individual are held sacrosanct, above any claim of even an overwhelming majority.” Indeed, even if the government says that “we” believe that immigration is bad for the American society in general, this does not mean that individual rights are less important than majority rights. Minority groups, like immigrants, have human rights too. They have the right to live and work where they live. If they are in the U.S., they have individual human rights and the majority cannot say that these rights no longer exist, just because they are a smaller group. The essence of the American Constitution lies on the protection of individual rights, which is why the Bill of Rights exists. The American government cannot the use the majority to squash individual rights to migrate to the U.S. It cannot tell the immigrants that their rights are limited, just because they are immigrants. Human rights are practical rights too. Practical rights, for me, result to a balance between rights and responsibilities. Ayn Rand stated: “Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival” (qtd. in Binswanger). People do not just exercise their rights without thinking rationally of their long-term welfare. Indeed, “Rights are moral principles that spell out the terms of social interaction required for a rational being to survive and flourish” (Binswanger). I agree with Binswanger. Immigrants will not live in place that is too overcrowded, because it means that there will no jobs left or houses to rent or buy. They are rational agents who will look for the best place that will need their skills, knowledge, and experience. They want the best place for their families to live and for their children to grow up in. As a result, their human rights reinforce practical rights for survival and development. Immigration results to wealth and job creation. Binswanger stated: “A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.” For me, this is connected to practical rights. Immigrants do not take away jobs per se from Americans. Instead, they are markets who also produce new jobs and businesses. Their incomes are invested directly into the community. They are not companies who funnel their profits to other places. Immigrants produce markets and also serve markets. They are additional human resources to industries that need them. Immigrants will not automatically depend on welfare, because many of them come to the U.S. to find jobs. In addition, if there is a law that makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years, this will prevent lazy immigrants from entering the country. Immigrants are often ambitious and have pride. They are not here to ask alms from the government or the American citizens. They came here to find the fulfillment of the American dream. They came here to work and live in a country, where they know that human rights are protected and enshrined by the Constitution and authorities. Overcrowding is not a burden that immigrants will produce, because it results to division of labor and market specialization. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a “doll hospital”–a store specializing in repairing children’s dolls. Without enough population density, this business will not thrive. Also, overcrowding only happens when states do not offer jobs to these immigrants. They, together with locals, will concentrate in areas, because of poor development in other states. It is the government’s job to ensure that development is diffused across states, so that the entire population is also healthily diffused across the nation. Lastly, immigrants have the attitudes and goals that reinforce the American dream and spirit. As Binswanger poignantly worded it: “These are the people America needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.” It must be stated that present-day Americans have predecessors who are also immigrants. The only true owners of America are the Native Americans. These predecessors looked for another land, where they can independently carve a better future for their families. They are immigrants too, who believed that they had the rights to immigrate and work in the U.S. It will be unfair and immoral to not extend the same opportunity to modern immigrants. Conclusion Immigration is a human right for all citizens of the world. It presents benefits of economic development and human resource development. American citizens cannot put immigration quotas, because it is inhuman to do so. They know they have rights to go and work anywhere. Nobody put quotas on their ancestors when they arrived in the Americas. No one also has the right in the present and the future to limit immigration. Like Binswanger, I say: “Let them come.” Reference Binswanger, H. (2006, April 2). Immigration quotas vs. individual rights: The moral and practical case for open immigration. Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved from http://capitalismmagazine.com/2006/04/immigration-quotas-vs-individual-rights-the-moral-and-practical-case-for-open-immigration/ Read More