Kukathass and Risses Arguments in Favor of Immigration - Coursework Example

Immigration Free immigration means the right to move and reside within and outside their borders as well a right to liveany country. According to Risses, free immigration should be permitted as a way of honoring the human right of equal ownership. Immigration is an important mechanism to eradicate poverty since it permits movement from region where there are few labor opportunities to regions where there are many opportunities to improve living standards. However, if a person cannot cause harm the security, property and health of citizens in their immigration country, they should be given access to these countries to exploit surplus resources, which may not be available in their country of origin. However, although one has a right to freedom of movement, they ought to adhere to State’s procedures of immigration. The aim of this paper is to summarize and analyze Kukathas’s and Risse’s arguments in favor of immigration and to evaluate differences in their defenses. Risse argument on egalitarianism is based on the fact that everyone across the globe is entitled to an equal share of exploiting natural resources in the world. He argues that existence of natural resources was not achieved through efforts of an individual thus no one has authority to prevent others from exploiting them (Risse 28). This argument holds that, human beings have right to sharing natural resources equally regardless of their origin. Staggering level of inequality among different countries would therefore not be a reason to bar someone from getting to a foreign land. Human beings are born into the world independently and equally and therefore no one made choice on where to be born. Therefore, a citizen from a third world country cannot be held responsible by the fact they were born in a poor country since they never choose where to be born. Based on this fact, it follows that they are morally permitted to enter into a foreign country provided they are going to acquire anything that is rightly theirs. In his argument, Risse purports that since countries such as United States and Germany are rich in natural resources compared to other countries. They are obliged to permit entry of residence from poor countries in order to enhance equal distribution of natural resources since they are perceived as universally owned (Risse 25). Additionally, he suggests that people should consider immigration as global rather than a national issue in order to understand morality of allowing open borders. However, the concept of communal wealth has been greatly advanced especially among third world countries. As such, they have codified natural resources in international treaties such as seas to allow sharing the resource regardless of area of origin. Therefore, despite the fact that United State is well-endowed in terms of resources, they should not deny citizens from less well-endowed countries opportunities to exploit resources that are not exhaustedly utilized by local citizens. Libertarianism is a moral concept that argues in favor of allowing people to engage freely in various activities without coercion. It stipulates that people should be left free to do whatever they feel is right provided there is sufficient evidence they cannot cause harm to others (Kukathas 210). Libertarianism enhances the right of individuals to exchange their belongings, freedom for movement and requires the government to protect these individual rights from violation. Insiders’ rights to hire foreigners are limited when the government has absolute power concerning immigration policies. For example, suppose an engineer from China desires to hire an expert from Brazil, the government should not have right to prohibit him from this engagement. This is because barring the Brazilian from coming to China would be violation of the engineer’s rights as well as those of the Brazilian right to freedom of movement. Therefore, State’s absolute power over immigration policy may violate individual citizens’ rights by the fact that it interferes with insiders’ property rights to invite freely outsiders’ in their country, while outsiders are denied freedom of movement. Furthermore, libertarian suggests that States dominion over immigration policies is incompatible with the notion that individual rights should always be unlimited. However, State’s rights would be violated in case individual rights are perfect and absolute; for example, a person freedom of movement does not mean that they have right to enter a foreign country without due authorization. They must be authorized by the relevant authority in order to be allowed entry to a country since rights of majority are always perfect and absolute over individual rights. Conversely, an insider would have right to invite outsiders into their country provided their rights are perfect and absolute (Kukathas 211). However, if it is a criminal offense to invite foreigners in a country, property owner cannot be allowed to do so since rights of the State as whole dominate individual rights. According to utilitarianism concept, restricting freedom of movement leads to obvious inefficiencies in a country and should not be encouraged in any State. One of the major problems of restricting freedom of movement is that it leads to economic degradation especially for less well-endowed nations particularly when their citizens are denied right to move to foreign countries. For instance, restricting a Jamaican the right to utilize their talent in China would have negative implication on their income. Similarly, when a country justifies that females can only work as nurses while male should work as doctors, would deprive many excellent female doctors, and male nurses opportunity to exploit their expertise. Similarly, when a country excludes outsiders, they fail to capitalize on their talent and skills of outsiders by locking them out from benefitting from the robust opportunities available. Given this, it is evident that people would be far much better if they were given an opportunity to utilize their talents in foreign countries since there are many opportunities as opposed to their country (Kukathas 221). Often, developing countries lack economic opportunities, which make them economic impaired as opposed to their developed wealthy countries. This situation forces residents to migrate to wealthy countries in search for opportunities to make ends meet. However, if wealthy countries impose immigration restrictions, it becomes difficult or even impossible for foreigners especially from third world countries to immigrate to these wealthy nations. Considering most third world countries face extreme poverty, the best way to improve their citizens’ living standards is by allowing residents to move to other countries with surplus job opportunities. Therefore, denying such people the right to migrate is similar to condemning these third-world citizens to poverty and poor living standards. However, even if the general condition of the society they are living in is good, people prefer to visit foreign countries to seek further education, tourism and in search for greener pastures. According to Kukathas, international movement facilitates overall economic growth by allowing movement of specialized labor, skills from areas with underutilized labor probably to lack of opportunities to areas with greater opportunities (Kukathas 219). Thus, the global effect of immigration is constructive considering that it facilitates movement of labor from less productive region to high productive region, which consequently improves living standards. However, in cases of uncontrolled immigration there occurs rare but adverse effect of unemployment among the indigenous residents of a country. Therefore, despite the unemployment fear it is justifiable for wealthy countries to do away immigration barriers as a means of stimulating economic growth in developing nations. In his justification, Risse argues that natural resources in the planet are subject to human exploitation; thus, immigration policies that deny people access to resources are immoral and should not be encouraged in a free society. In addition, his argument stipulates that all human beings have equal ownership of natural resources regardless of their country of residence. He argues that all humans have a natural right on collective ownership of the earth resources, and that people should use the planet resources equally to satisfy their needs. However, although human beings have right to own more than they need, everything must be used for the common benefit of everyone. For example, if someone decides to fence off a land that is more than necessary to feed their family, they are at liberty to it and are permitted to secure it. Therefore, despite the fact that humans use land to meet their common needs, there are property convections that give the right to secure and use natural resources like land. Therefore, this would suggests that all countries should allow free immigration in order to allow and give people from less well-endowed countries in terms of natural resources a chance to exploit surplus natural resources in blessed countries. In addition, it should be noted that there is right to own and use various natural resources like land; thus, no one is allowed to trespass those properties possessed and being used by others to satisfy their needs. In conclusion, the argument on common ownership of natural resources permits immigration across the globe considering that no one has rightful claim on ownership of natural resources. Wealthy countries like United States ought to do away with immigration restrictive regulations in order to allow free movement of labor and people from less productive countries in order to harmonize income inequality, which results to overall poverty eradication. On the other hand, libertarian concepts promote free movement of people across countries provided that there is sufficient evidence they will not injure or harm others. Furthermore, the utilitarian principle perceives the act of restricting free immigration as a factor that leads to inefficiency in some countries, especially those with fewer resources. Furthermore, according to Kukathas, wealthy countries should allow residents of less developed countries into their territories in order to improve overall global living standards. Finally, Risse advocates for natural resources to be used equally to the benefit all humans regardless of their countries and regions of residence. Works Cited Kukathas, Chandran. The case for open immigration, in A. Cohen and C. Heath Wellman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, (2005), pp. 207-220. Print. Risse, Mathias. On the morality of immigration, Ethics and International Affairs, 22 .1 (2008), pp. 25-33. Print. Read More