Immigration: The Case for Limits - Literature review Example

Immigration: the case for limits The article ‘Immigration: The Case for Limits’ by David Miller published in the book ‘Contemporary debate in applied ethics’ in 2005 talks about the problems of immigration and argues that immigration in the countries should be restricted. The immigration in the countries altered the cosmopolitanism in these countries. There was a distinction in the judgment system to the immigrants. However, in this paper with the evaluation of the work of eminent writers like Kok Chor Tan and Peter Singer, it has been argued that immigration is indeed for both the immigrants and the host countries. The immigration is helpful in the economic development of the host country. The justice system can be altered to make it accommodate the immigrants and this can leads to a global development. Immigration is helpful for the overall development of the global economy and society. Therefore, the paper argues against the views expressed by David Miller in his article and concludes that immigration is necessary for the overall development of the economy. Introduction Immigration has been one of the major problems in the recent years. There has been extensive immigration from the less developed nations to the developed countries of the world. Most of the immigration takes place in the countries of Europe and USA. This presents a big problem for these countries and also the immigrants in the integration of the immigration in the society and giving them economic independence. There are also various benefits of the immigration for these countries as it helps in the development of the economic condition of both the immigrants and the host country. A huge debate exists on the benefits and ill effects of immigration. The article by David Miller published in the book “Contemporary debate in applied ethics” in 2005 dwells on the fact of the immigration in various countries and the problems faced by the countries due to the immigration. The immigrants in the different countries face various problems like low wages and violation of human rights. In addition to this, the country where the immigration takes place suffers economically and the condition of the society suffers. There are religious differences, which result in ethnic clashes. The immigration brings in new ideologies in the society, which are different from that of the existing conditions in the country. There have been quite a few attempts made by the Governments of various countries to restrict the immigration in these countries. The author in this article has shared different methods of restricting the immigration in the countries. However, some of the observations articulated by the author in his article do not hold right in the modern world. The paper deals in the critical analysis of the article in this regard. Critical discussion on the article of David Miller Immigration is thus important in the development of the society in the modern world. However, there have been views about the ill effects of immigration on the country of the origin and the countries where they immigrate. The people in the world have the basic right to move from one nation to another. This may be due to various problems faced by the individuals in the country of their origin, which may range from economic to religious. These terms to the violation of the human rights and the countries in the modern world are expected to protect the rights of the individuals. People shift to other countries to develop their financial conditions or to pursue a career, which is not available in the country of their birth. However, every country gives the choice of engaging in different fields and though the particular choice may not be available, a substitute is always there. The religious conditions in the country of the origin drive the people to immigrate to different countries. However, it may be stated here that the modern societies are vibrant and there are various religions residing in them. Therefore, it is unacceptable that the people will not get the religious freedom in the countries of their origin. People in this world are free to move from the poor societies to the more affluent ones in search of economic development. However, the question is does this make the lives of the people better? The poor people will not have the means to move to a richer country or to settle in the country. Allowing immigration in the richer countries will allow the doctors and the engineers in the richer countries to move there in search of higher incomes. This will make the lives of the people in the poorer countries worse. (Miller). However, the views of Peter Singer are completely different from that of Miller. In his book “One World: the ethics of Globalization” Singer has debated the benefits of immigration I the modern world. He has considered that immigration has been a major problem in most of the countries in the world. Immigration takes place generally in the developed countries of the world where the people of the developing or the underdeveloped countries immigrate to be a part of the economic balance in the society. In this age of globalization, the world has come closer. People who were divided by the boundaries have come closer with the help of technologies in transportation and sustained economic development. The main function of the Government is to protect the citizens of the country from any destruction or attacks by the foreign countries. The world consists of a range of countries and the Governments in each of these countries look to do the same thing. The situation was the same earlier. The American Government had in the past refused to reduce the CO2 emission from the country for the increase in industrialization. In the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio De Janiero, George Bush has stated, “the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation.” (Singer, 2) In the past, different countries did not want to dwell on the matters affecting the other countries. They took action only when they were threatened. The Governments looked to protect the people from their country only. In the case of Kosovo, the US Government took special care that the American soldiers were unhurt. Though a large number of the Kosovar and the Serbs died, there was no dead American soldier. However, the practice of putting one’s own country in the front is unethical in the modern world. The world has become globalized and it is the moral duty for every Government to protect the world and not only his country. After the incident of 9/11, the views of the Governments of various countries changed and now the Governments consider it a basic duty to protect the world and curb the terrorist activities. The citizens in the modern world look to enjoy equality in every societies of the world. With the development of the economic activities, the economic conditions of the world have developed. It draws in millions of people from foreign countries to immigrate in some other country. It would be therefore, beneficial in setting up a global society run by a global Government. The communication between the different societies in this world is necessary for the ease of movement among the manpower and capital. The development of the economy depends on these two factors and it is important that the world become more globalized. The rise in the cosmopolitism in the countries has been affected due to the growth in the economy in the cities. Most of the immigrants come to the countries and reside in the cities as there are more economic opportunities here. Therefore, the rise in the cosmopolitism in the countries can be attributed to the immigration. Hence, there is a necessity for the immigration of the people to different countries. This will help in the development of the economy of the world. It is argued that with the development in the economy, the influence of the politics in the modern world will decrease and the society would be more peaceful. (Singer, 1-13) Miller states that immigration is problematic for the countries in preserving the culture. The immigrants will come with a different culture of their own and be a part of the society. It will be difficult for the natives to accept the new culture and the immigrants will feel alienated in the country. The public culture of the country will undergo a change. For example, in a country like Israel where, religion forms an important part the immigrants will not be accepted in the society. Public culture changes over time but immigration will speed up the process, which can destroy the essence of the country. Another case is the population problem. There are various countries in the world like India and China where the population has blown up in the last century. These countries will export their population to the other countries if there is no control over the immigration. This would mean that the Governments in these countries will not have the responsibility of taking care of the people and the onus can be passed to other countries. This is unethical for these countries. Moreover, the countries where the population is exported will be pressurized in giving the people with necessary resources, which can pressurize the general conditions in the economy and the society. There may be instances where the countries allow the immigration from different countries on the ground of wars and calamities. The refugees should be housed near their native country for their benefits. After the problem in the country subsides, they should be sent back to the country. Countries should limit the number of people, which they can take or some criterion on which the immigration will occur. This will help in the development of the economy of the country of immigration. The immigrants should be granted citizenship status in these countries so that they can be a part of the society and influence its economic development. (Miller). The instances of the conditions of the Muslim immigrants in different countries of Europe can be stated in the regard of the cultural and the religious integration in these immigrating countries. The women in the religion of Muslim have the trend of wearing veils, which guard their faces. The application of the veils is alien to the culture of these European countries and they were viewed with suspicion. Some of the women were not permitted to enter the country of France, as they did not remove their veil for the identification of their faces. The culture of the Muslims is not acceptable to the people of these countries and they are often viewed as a radical culture of the religion. It remains the duty of the immigrants and the society to integrate the cultures of both the countries. However, the level of integration depends on the history of the culture in these countries. A country such as USA and Canada can accept the practices of different religions, as they are open to people from the other countries. Their culture is historically layered and the society consists of various religions. However, in the European countries like Germany and France, the people protect the culture with more force and they are unlikely to allow the practices of the alien cultures. Countries may offer the immigrants to access the country but can deny the citizenship. There have been instances where the teachers and students of the Muslim community have been restricted in carrying the veil in the schools in Germany and France. The court orders suggested that they would not be permitted to wear the veil in the institutions. Therefore, the general practice in the religion of Muslim has been restricted in these countries. There is a clash between the cultures of the different countries, which make the position of the society more insecure. The justice and the basic rights for the immigrants in the society are not maintained and both the groups are troubled as a result of this. “The European convention of the Human Rights” states that the religious freedom should be given to all the people in the society irrespective of sex and nationality. However, the countries in Europe maintain that to maintain the religious harmony in the state it is necessary to convey a ban on the veil of the Muslim community. It has been a long going debate on the political arena of various countries in the subject of veil. However, different countries still restricts the wearing of the veil as it sees this as a threat to the culture in the country. This restricts the freedom of religious freedom for the people of the immigrating nations and this can be a problem for them. On the other hand it can be argued that the countries in question are protecting their culture from the threats of the alien cultures. They are doing what is necessary to maintain the cultural reliability intact. They fear that if the restrictions are not made the culture will be in the verge of extinction. (Stopler) The above paragraph states that the immigration can be a problem for the countries due to difference in culture and the system of justice. However, in his book, Kok-Chor Tan differs from the view. According to him, one of the main points in the global context of immigration is the shared nationality. It has been argued that the shared nationality restricts the patriotism of an individual. The cultures and the beliefs of the countries are different and the individuals are engulfed in the dilemma of which country to support. The people in a particular country feel a sense of belongingness in the country due to its history, views and culture. This may lead to increased level of patriotism in the people of these countries. The patriotism is not based on the nations in which the people belong but to a set of abstract ideas. This new field in nationalism is the “constitutional patriotism” or the new patriotism. This type of patriotism depends very loosely on the country and is based on the abstract ideas of equality and justice. The American nationalism is an example in this regard which states the patriotism from the principles constructed by the predecessors in the country. The new order of patriotism gives a sense of respect to the people of the worlds and does not depend on the race and religion of the individuals. The justice of the individuals is on a much wider scale and the system is impartial. The distributive justice will improve and all the people in the society will be viewed with equality under the law. This will not give rise to the situations like in Europe. People will be free to follow the religious customs and the social systems. The world should be governed by these principles as this system reduces the partiality according to the nations and the people should be governed by these principles. The patriotism in the global context will help in dealing with the problems faced by different countries like war and revolts. Moreover, the new system will ensure impartial justice to the people of the world and different cultures will be peacefully integrated in the society. (Tan, 180-197). Thus, it may be stated that the immigration should not be restricted within the countries for the fear of belongingness and the economic dependability. The world is the home for the individuals and every county is their home. The new system will ensure that the people work hard in the progress of the world economy and not the economy of any particular country. The above paragraphs point out that immigration is not a major problem as made out. Immigration helps in the development of the economy of the immigrating countries and the conditions of the country develop. The condition of the immigrants also develops and the balance of the economy in the world is better. The immigration helps the people of the poorer countries to gain access to the economic development. Closing the borders for restricting the immigration from different countries is not a viable option, as that would mean that people would take other routes to enter the country. Corruption will rise in the political arena. The argument placed by David Miller on the grounds that immigration destroys the culture of the country and pressurize the population of the country is not acceptable. The views of Miller are not acceptable because in the above paragraphs it has been made clear that the world is globalised and the responsibility lies with every country to protect the rights of the people. In other words, the world is going towards a more global governmental approach. This is evident from the set up of international bodies like the WTO. Therefore, it can be stated that the immigration is not a problem for the countries of the world and this should be encouraged in the development of the world economy. The immigrants will be included in the society and justice will be rendered to them. Conclusions The article by David Miller states that immigration is a problem for the modern society. However, through the analysis of different books we can find that immigration should be encouraged because of the fact that it helps in the development of the economy and distribution of the income. The general rights of the people state that the people can have the benefit of enjoying the fruits of the economic development irrespective of religion and sex. The people from the poorer country will move to the richer countries and this is a general phenomenon. This is done to develop the financial condition of the people. People can move from the other countries to practice different forms of religions. The responsibility lies with the people from the country to integrate the people from the other countries in the society. Works Cited 1. Miller, David. Immigration: the case for limits. In Contemporary debates in applied ethics, Andrew Cohen and Christopher Health Wellman, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. 2. Singer, Peter. One world: the ethics of globalization. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. 2nd Edition. 2004 3. Stopler, Gila. Rights in immigration: The veil as a test case. Academic Center of Law and Business, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1488892 (accessed on April 6, 2010) 4. Tan, Kok-Chor. Justice without borders: cosmopitanism, nationalism and patriotism. University of Cambridge. 2004 Read More