Immigration Policy and Immigration of the Wealthy People - Term Paper Example

Immigration Policy: Immigration of the Wealthy Introduction Currently, people live in a world where globalization is continuously taking shape in the midst of such Westphalia systems, which embodies the principle of sovereignty. The world is divided into several nations each with its own governments and exclusive control of what occurs within their borders. Sovereignty simply means that a state has exclusive control over its affairs and can determine its own policies and directions on matters that affect it. The sovereignty of a state also makes it have the absolute authority to make political decisions and determine the rights and status of its citizens or any other person who may wish to be a member of the particular state.1 Based on the inherent rights of every state to exercise control over the affairs of the citizens within it, states have enacted legislation and principles that determine the citizenship of a person. However, currently, states have moved further from the Westphalian system and there is little difference between states in the international arena as there is no specific order that gives a firm idea on what extent sovereignty should be exercised by states.2 The determination of the citizenship of a person brings the question of immigration which in most instances has brought about questions on whether the state should exclusively have total control over the affairs of those who come from it or to it. This brings a problem especially when the supposed immigrant is a wealthy person and the question of sovereignty comes forth in the determination of the immigration policy to be applied. Background Following the protests against regimes in Tunisia and Libya amongst other Arab nations, Egypt followed suit in the year 2001 with pro-reform activists calling for the forceful ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak had been accused of being dictatorial in how he runs the nation and there were calls that he resigns or he is forcefully removed from power and his entire regime changed with a more democratic one. Gigi Ibrahim is student who due to her rich background had managed to obtain citizenship from the United States and has now come back to support the protests. She is involved in deep debate with her mother and sister who both supports the regime of Hosni Mubarak and tell her that the mere fact that she had renounced her citizenship, she lost the moral authority to comment on Egyptian affairs. In this work, the discussion will focus on Gigi Ibrahim who participated in the 2011 uprising that led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak as the President of Egypt. She is a wealthy Egyptian who has taken American citizenship and finds it difficult to impart the western values into the mindset of her mother and sister who still live in the conservative and Egyptian mindset that does not appreciate democracy. The question that the debate raises is whether nations such as Egypt have fully embraced the Westphalian system that stresses good governance as a means of peaceful coexistence of societies in and outside their sovereign nations. From the argument by Gigi, we can conclude that she stands for the fact that as much as sovereignty offers nations the chance to make their own decisions, it may come with multiple shortcomings. The debate also brings the issue of culture whereby the mother is in support for Egypt to preserve its system and culture as opposed to Gigi’s views, which she thinks, violates their sovereignty. It is these competing points of arguments that will be the focus of our debate on the issue of sovereignty and immigration. Having evaluated the debate between Gina Ibrahim and her mother and sister, we can determine whether wealth and immigration can undermine the sovereign territorial state or whether the sovereignty is more compromised by universalism. The basis for the discussion will be the immigration policies with a focus on the United States and whether they favor the wealthy as opposed to more deserving individuals such as the refugees. Further, a determination will be made whether a person cannot comment or be involved in the affairs of a sovereign nation due to the sovereignty principle especially when liberal tenets of living are threatened or there are gross violations of human rights. Analysis Due to globalization, there has been increased migration of people from one country to the other partly aided by growing disparities in demographics, changes in environment, political and economic dynamics amongst other reasons. Some scholars argue that international migration pose serious challenges to the sovereignty of states especially when it comes to the regulation of the immigration policies in such countries.3 Despite all this, states still have control over their immigration policies and have moved towards controlling other aspects of immigration such as access to jobs and welfare services, reunion with families from country of origin as well as acquisition of citizenship.4 The most important facet of sovereignty remains the exercise of political power over the citizens and is usually affected by issues of global politics also include such questions as the social and economic as well as geopolitical concerns. These by far remain the most challenged when it comes to matters of when a nation’s affairs can be dictated by another person not necessarily a citizen of such a nation. The Arab Spring in Egypt ushered in the quest to remove the dictatorial regime in Egypt thus resulting in the ultimate weakening of the notion of territorial sovereignty in the conflict-prone nation. Gigi who is from a wealthy family epitomizes how immigration policies are skewed in favor the rich who can afford the costs of immigrating to the United States. For instance, the United States would only give two year permanent resident visa or permanent review of green card after the review of the business. This requires that the applicant is in possession of more than US $ 500, 000 that he invests in business that must be qualified and create at least ten jobs. The implication of this is that the citizenship of Gigi who is from a wealthy background has been dictated by monetary means for het to become a citizen of the United States. The question that further arises is whether the mere fact that she has adopted the citizenship of the United States afforded through high amounts of dollars she can dictate the internal affairs of Egypt contrary to the Westphalian concept of territorial sovereignty. From the onset, it is important to note that territorial sovereignty requires that she does not interfere with the policies and directives that Egypt decides to take, as she is no longer a full citizen of the nation. This should be looked at in comparison to the views held by Gigi’s mother and sister who feel that she has no locus standi to comment on the affairs of Egypt by applying the normative principles applicable in the United States. In the current century, there is the spread of ideas that border on liberalism as well as the development of liberal international institutions and countries that may enforce certain ideals despite the existence of the territorial sovereignty principle. These nations or institutions while serving the purposes that are universally accepted or desired may get in the way of the Westphalian system of respect between nations. This is what Gigi tries to bring across to handle Egypt’s spiraling affairs due to the protests for the ouster of President Mubarak who exhibits dictatorial tendencies. She therefore tries to and supports the agitation of a democratic form of government and the upholding of human rights, which she has learnt from the American society and citizenry. In as much as the proponents of territorial sovereignty such as Gigi’s mother and sister oppose the American idea of liberalism, it usually holds sway as its values stress democracy and an orderly society. The liberal concepts that call for a free and democratic society that have been adopted by Gigi’s adopted country the United States therefore goes against the Westphalian system of territorial sovereignty.5 However, it is desirable as it finally helps in the liberation of Egypt from the dictatorial regime of Hosni Mubarak and Egyptians finally get a free and fair society where they can easily express themselves. It is imperative also that security and conflict matters raise serious challenges when it comes to the Westphalian concept of sovereignty as conflicts have evolved in their nature and old standards of sovereignty may not be applicable.6 Like the case of Egypt, the conflict is an internal affair and proponents of state sovereignty may argue that it should only e solved internally as opposed to the intervention of others within sovereign borders. However, Gigi may be right by supporting the revolution and the Western concepts learnt in the United States as each person within the international system of nations is allowed to make a contribution to ensure a free, democratic and fair world. Therefore, when there is disorder in a certain nation to the extent that there is gross violation of human rights and liberties, it may be prudent that the concept of territorial sovereignty be suppressed and the matter solved in the best interest of the citizens within the nation.7 From the foregoing argument and analysis, it can be noted that even though the concept of territorial sovereignty is desirable by all states in the running of its affairs, sometimes it might be done away with for the interests of the nation. Even though Gigi had renounced her citizenship for that of the United States as she could afford it, she still has a role to play in the affairs of Egypt and the mere fact that she has added her voice to the affairs that occur in the nation does not mean that they are invalid. The concept of territorial sovereignty therefore only applies when it benefits the citizens who must be governed in a free, fair and democratic manner that appreciates the inherent human rights of every individual. Gigi is therefore free to express her views and feelings about what should be happening in Egypt despite being a citizen of the United States as the territorial sovereignty doctrine cannot be invoked in instances when there is gross violation of human rights. Conclusion According to the Westphalian system, each state in the international system of nations enjoys unrivalled sovereignty over the affairs of its territories. This includes how the state runs its affairs and the direction or policies that it enacts for its citizens or those within its boundaries. However, due to immigration or the movement of people from one nation to the other, there are times that a person may change citizenship and at the same time wish to comment on the affairs of his mother nation. This usually presents serious problems on the part of the person concerned as there arises a debate whether such a person retains a locus standing to dictate how the affairs of such a nation are to be run. In the present scenario, Gigi Ibrahim had changed her nationality to that of the United States as she could afford it but is now faced with a dilemma on whether she can comment on the affairs of her motherland Egypt. The question that arises is whether the concept of territorial sovereignty can deter her from commenting and even attempting to direct the affairs of Egypt. From the affair, it is quite evident that the post-Westphalian world presents numerous challenges that would require that the doctrine of territorial sovereignty is done away with. Such matters include when the security of citizens is affected or when they face gross violation of human rights in the running of affairs of the country concerned. In the circumstances, Gigi was therefore right to comment and even participate in the affairs of Egypt contrary to the principle of territorial sovereignty despite being a citizen of the United States. She has therefore won the argument against her mother and sister and through her efforts and input; Egyptians were able to push for a change in regime which culminated in the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. Bibliography Amstutz, Mark R. International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2013. Castles, Stephen, Hein de Haas, and Mark J. Miller. The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2014. Krishna-Hensel, Sai Felicia. Order and disorder in the international system. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 2010. Noxolo, Patricia, and Jef Huysmans. Community, citizenship and the war on terror: security and insecurity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. Platt, Alan. Arms control and confidence building in the Middle East. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press. 1992. Stahn, Carsten. The law and practice of international territorial administration: Versailles to Iraq and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Stilz, A. "Why do states have territorial rights?" International Theory. 1 (2): 2009. 185-213. Read More