Consequentalist and Nonconsequentalist Theories in Relation to Immigration Problems - Research Paper Example

 Immigration is a process of exploring fortunes. In fact immigration started even from the evolution of human life on earth. The search for better living conditions started from the evolution itself and it is continuing even now. Nobody wants to live in poverty or poor environment. Everybody wants to live as lavishly as possible. One of the major characteristics of Immigration is the fact that in normal cases immigration takes place from poor countries to wealthy countries. Even though in many cases, immigration may bring better opportunities for the immigrant communities, the ethics behind immigration is often a controversial subject. This is because of the perception that immigration may bring fortune to the immigrants; but it may cause problems to the locals. In other words, through immigration, some people acquire more fortune at the expense of others. For example, immigration may reduce the employment opportunities of the people in the immigrated countries. At the same time many people believe that the rights of the people to work or stay anywhere in the world should not be controlled or prohibited in an advanced civilization like ours. In their opinion, the entire world should be considered as a single entity rather than dividing it into different regions or countries based on the culture or religion. This paper briefly analyses the rights and wrongs of immigration with respect to ethical theories like Consequentalist and nonconsequentalist Consequentalist theory and immigration “A consequentialist theory judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has” (Holsinker, 2009). In other words this theory is similar to utilitarianism and analyses things with respect to the consequences of actions. When we consider immigration through the lenses of consequentialist theory of ethics we should analyze the consequences of immigration in order to decide whether immigration is a problem or a blessing. Critiques strongly oppose the utility of both legal and illegal immigration. Both legal and illegal immigration are causing big problems to developed countries like America, England, Australia, Germany etc. It creates demographic imbalances in a country. For example, in Middle East, more than half of the population belongs to the immigrant community. Legal immigrants are entering a country either for professional or educational needs. But, illegal immigrants immigrate through illegal channels and hence they may not be able to work legally in that country and may engage in antisocial activities like robbery, theft, etc in order to survive in that country. “A study done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found the cost of illegal immigrants in California to amount to $10.5 billion annually” (Illegal Immigration in California, 2009). Immigrants may consume a substantial amount of jobs available in the market and hence the employment opportunities of the locals would be considerably reduced. Immigrants are normally ready to work for cheaper wages and hence most of the companies like to give employments to them. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes even though they utilize the public services same way like others. Moreover, the children of illegal immigrants take up or consume educational resources and make the education system worse than what it already is. For example, California State is spending approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money to provide health care to illegal aliens and their families (Longley, 2010) Another important drawback of immigration is the possibility of generating social problems. Atkinson, (2003) has pointed out that immigration resulted in a national identity crisis in Britain (Atkinson, 2003). Immigrant community will never be respected by the locals and they will visualize immigrant people as the robbers of their opportunities. The negative attitude towards the immigrant community may result in clashes between locals and immigrant people. In Australia, many problems of social unrest and clashes between locals and immigrant people were reported recently. So far we have discussed the negative consequences of immigration. But immigration can bring many benefits also to a country. Chart (2003) has argued that “if someone is sufficiently motivated to travel thousands of miles in search of a better life, they are sufficiently motivated to get out of the damp bedsit and look for work in search of one that is better yet” (Chart, 2003). People are immigrating to other countries on the lookout of better living conditions. In their home country, they may not have enough opportunities to utilize their expertise. For example, America is facing big manpower shortages in many fields at present and the immigrant community is contributing heavily to the sustainment of public services in America. In short, immigration can bring both good and evil at the same time according to the consequentialist theory of ethics. When we consider the consequences of immigration with respect to the needs of the immigrant community and the locals separately, we can see that the immigrant community gets more benefits than the locals. Nonconsequentalist theory and immigration “A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences” (Holsinker, 2009). In other words, non-consequentialist theory is related more closely to ethical theories like Kantianism, Rationalism, Contractarianism etc. The contractarian approach and Kantian theory are rooted in values which form the very foundation of nation. The contractarian illuminates the notion that consent to membership in a society presupposes some basic obligation to support trust, fairness, mutual respect, and individual responsibility. Kant, on the other hand, makes it clear that such obligations to society are a reflection of the value of individual human dignity (Non-consequentialist theory, n. d) Consequentialist theory analyses an action with respect to the consequences it produces whereas non-consequentialist theory analyses an action based on the moral value of that action. In other words, immigration can be justified if we consider the goods it brings to the people who are immigrating. Chart (2003) has argued that immigration can make economically more productive individuals (Chart, 2003). “Think farm work or service jobs such as lawn workers or restaurant dishwashers. Many of those jobs already go to illegals, who accept minimal wages because they're more than comparable pay back home” (Tough-But-Fair Rules For Tomorrow's Illegal Immigrants). It is impossible to believe that an American would go for farm services or dish washing jobs. Moreover, the employer doesn’t want to provide illegal immigrants any insurance coverage, accommodation facilities and any other incentives apart from the daily wages. If immigration helps a person to bring out the bests out of him, it should be considered as a right action. At the same time many people believe that immigration reduces the opportunities of the locals. If that is true immigration is right for the immigrants and wrong for the locals. Non-consequentialist ethical theory cannot be analysed with respect to the interests of one community. It should be true everywhere. In other words, the rights of one person cannot cause any damage to the other person. Immigrants in many countries were forced to live under the threats from the locals as mentioned earlier in this paper. In other words, even though, immigrants contributing heavily to the development of some countries, the local people do not have such perceptions. In America, Australia and Canada like countries attacks against the immigrant community are common nowadays. The rights of immigrant communities were questioned in these countries even though they are working hard for the development of that country. Conclusions It is difficult to justify immigration using either the Consequentialist or Non-consequentialist ethical theories. Immigration affects the immigrant community and the locals differently. Even though, both immigrants and the locals are getting good and evil at the same time through immigration; generally, immigration is perceived as a curse by the locals and a blessing by the immigrants. References 1. Atkinson J. (2003), British immigration policy, race relations, and national identity crisis, Retrieved from http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/british.html 2. Chart D. (2003), In praise of immigration, Retrieved from http://www.davidchart.com/Essays/inpraiseofimmigration.html 3. Holsinker, K. (2009). Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics Retrieved from http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/value-ethics/node3.html 4. Illegal Immigration in California. (2009). US IMMIGRATION SUPPORT. Retrieved from http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/california_immigration.html 5. Longley, R. (2010). Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually. Retrieved from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm 6. Non-consequentialist theory, (n. d), Retrieved from http://www.usma.edu/committees/honor/hrp/third/3-5b.htm 7. Tough-But-Fair Rules For Tomorrow's Illegal Immigrants. (2005). Business Week. July 18 2005. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_29/b3943123_mz029.htm Read More