Ethics of Migration - Essay Example

Ethics of Migration

Introduction

Immigration is embedded in human history with all human races having participated in some form of immigration at some time in history which makes it an integral aspect of human existence in pursuit for survival. It also is one of the sensitive subjects across the world that continues to raise concerns about the treatment of immigrants in the host countries. Understanding the causes of immigration as well as its effects on the immigrant and the host society is significant in this context. Also, there are many ethical factors associated with immigration. While many countries have reaped great benefits from embracing immigrants, others continue to be weighed down by the burden of catering for such immigrants. So serious has been the case that many countries have instituted ethnic (read immigration) studies in their education systems which have negatively been attributed to the promotion of segregation of migrants as well as their victimisation. Accordingly, this paper focuses on the ethical issues related to the right to exclude would be immigrants.

There is a great need to obtain some harmony on issues pertaining to immigration across the globe to have some balance between immigration issues such as socioeconomic effects and human rights. Though there are various effects associated with immigration, this is an expected phenomenon like in any other global issue that especially relates to human existence. There are many countries especially in the western world that are now on the brink of catastrophes because of opening their borders to immigrants. To some extent, there are grave concerns such as the increase in insecurity and terrorist related activities that can be linked to immigrants. However, this does not justify collective labelling of all immigrants as criminal or terrorists. As a result, there is a need to establish the reasons that lead to immigration as the genesis of all problems related to immigration.

Ethics in Immigration

When Obama, the American president declared that the undocumented youths who met certain criteria would not be deported because it was “the right thing to do,” he was largely criticised on the basis of his background which places him in the same league with those immigrants. However, the issue at hand is the "right thing" which brings about the ethical discourse on immigration. Many countries continue to grapple with many issues and are pushed like America to resort to the deportation of immigrants.

The ethical question remains on what justifies the opening or closing of borders and what socioeconomic or cultural benefits do these options hold? To effectively answer this question, it is imperative to focus on the actual reasons that lead to embracing or rejecting immigrants. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the factors that lead to immigration before deciding on the ethical metrics. These factors include escape from slavery, droughts, natural disasters and adventure among others. To justify on the need for exclusion of immigrants in this paper, the argument is founded on the sovereignty of the people in the hosting nations versus the ethical need to host the immigrants. To clearly illustrate the point, the case of Muslim immigration to the European and western countries is highlighted as a perfect example of the need for exclusion.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty in literal terms means not being ruled by others, and its concept is derived from the socioeconomic environment of early Europe. In this context, sovereignty is taken down to the society to bring the argument and includes socio-economic aspects as well as other aspects touching on a society. For example, when the right to worship by one person infringes on the freedoms of a native, the sovereign rights of the native in this context is threatened. Also, when the immigrant takes up jobs meant for the native, the economic sovereignty of the native is compromised too.

However, the concept as indicated is today heavily obscured by various factors with globalisation topping the list. With globalisation, countries are expected to open up their borders to fully participate in the proceeds of globalisation. This is one of the important reasons that many countries continually find their sovereignty at stake where outsiders exert excessive pressure on national governance as well as national security. Therefore, the factors below highlight how sovereignty is the reasoning and justification that should be used for exclusion of immigrants.

Anti-Immigration from the Sovereignty Debate

Many countries, especially in Europe, are now grappling with the influx of immigrants from the Middle East and African countries whose troubles are related to continued insecurity in their countries. While the European countries initially illustrated the willingness to accommodate the immigrants, the continued increase led to the growing discord among the immigrants and host societies. It is in this respect that an apparent denial of entry was seen as the only solution which majority of European leaders agree. The clarity of this was witnessed in 2011 when Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and David Cameron collectively announced that multiculturalism had failed in their countries. In retrospect, these leaders did not in any way indicate the place that immigrants have in their countries.

The above is an indication of the level of saturation that the globe is dealing with in matters related to immigration. Perhaps some attributes have played a significant role in the acceptance or rejection of immigrants.

Immigration Regulation

In the current campaign period in America, GOP caudate, Donald Trump was quoted saying that America should bar Muslims and Africans from the country which is a clear example of how sensitive immigration has become today. The same leader is also on record indicating that he will construct a wall in the Mexican and Canadian borders to bar their citizens from getting into America. With many such leaders not only in politics but the society, there is bound to be an influx of xenophobic related cases against immigrants in Western countries.

Regulation of immigration has always significantly contributed to the negative image attributed to immigrants as well as xenophobic attacks as mentioned. Therefore, the major underlying factor is immigration policies in countries favoured by immigrants who play a significant role in the determination of immigrants’ capacity to live or work in any country. With the influx of immigrants, many developed countries have in the recent past changed their immigration policies. As a result, the only desirable immigrants remain those possessing a wide range of skills that place them competitively where there is talent shortage.

Cultural preservation

Many societies around the world are considered to be closed societies or cultures. However, it is right also to mention that closed societies are doomed to fail because it is the interaction that brings development. Nevertheless, this is not the argument or perspective with which anti-immigrants view it. It is only in the recent past that some societies considered themselves to be pure and intermarriage or other cultural associations could taint or contaminate them. These perspectives have been taken up by entire countries which have been recently witnessed in banning Muslim migrants.

Cultural preservation, in this case, is justifiable when the immigrating culture wants to forcibly alienate the hosting society’s cultural values. This is the case currently being experienced in many European countries which view Islam as a violent religion that imposes itself on others. When this happens, the hosting society feels that the immigrants have no regard or respect for its traditions and values. To justify this, these countries can point to specific cases such as the increasing sporadic terrorist, imposition of Sharia law, rape and cases among others. As a result, the cultural clash is the main factor to justify the exclusion of immigrants.

Cultural sustainability or preservation is also determined by the level of integration or population levels of the people in question. For example, where the immigrant societies are negligible in terms of numbers as compared to the hosting society, they cannot have any significant influence. However, the European case seems o have gone out of hand with the Muslim societies obscuring the host societies which leads to automatic cultural influence. As indicated above, to secure the sovereignty of these nations which also includes culture and traditions, the solution lies in exclusion from entry to their countries.

Economic sustainability

The economic drain of hosting immigrants has in the recent past reached alarming rates with many of the countries spending sizeable parts of their budgets on immigrants and immigrant-related causes. Also to the spending on the immigrants, there are also the economic effects such as the ripple effect on the health care services, housing, and education systems. In this case, the host governments are forced to inject more resources to cater for the immigrants. While it is only ethical to cater for their welfare, the sustainability factor, in this case, overrides the ethical considerations. The argument is that these countries may get to a point where they are unable to meet the needs of their citizens while trying to prove to be hospitable hosts. As a result, they will be forced to retrace their steps, especially when considering the background and nature of the immigrant.

Economic sustainability also touches on the opportunities in the labour market where it is common to have immigrants take the lion’s share of the job openings in the western countries. The argument, in this case, is based on the premise that immigrants are in many cases ready to take up jobs at lower rates as compared to ordinary citizens. Considering the living costs involved in the mainstream societies, it becomes economically unsustainable to lead normal lives when faced with the reality of immigration.

Notwithstanding the disparities in education and skills standards, the majority of immigrants exhibit low participation levels in the labour industry which previously experienced dire shortages. In spite of this, there are also other differences which are seen as important to the host countries such as race or ethnic background, gender and religious background among others.

Security

National security and securing of a country’s borders remains one of the key functions and responsibilities of any government. Nevertheless, this has not been the case with the influx of immigrants who are seen to hop from one country to another almost at will. Consequently, maintaining national security becomes an expensive affair o the host country. In the case of Muslim immigrants, the radical nature that fuels terror attacks as well as the unnecessary rioting which continues to be a security threat to the European countries. The right or freedom of association is a fundamental human right, but it is also important to note that it ceases to be a fundamental right when it threatens the existence of others. It is from this foundation that any form of association should be highly restricted when it comes to immigrants especially as in the case of Muslims in European countries.

The recent wave of terrorist attacks in France, Germany and Netherlands only bring to reality the continued threat that immigration is to these countries. Considering that it is impractical to document all immigrants, and then it is should be crystal clear that denying entry remains the only pragmatic solution that can bring security stability. Though securing borders may seem like an expensive affair, dealing with existing security threat from within is more expensive. Even where there is the success in precluding immigrants, it is not reasonably practical to eliminate all criminal elements unless these countries restrict immigrant entry and closely watch the few allowed.

Democracy

In the western countries, democracy is closely enshrouded in the Sovereignty of the people and the nations. Consequently, democracy has a high place in the hearts of many European nations and the Europeans. However, the democracy which should be propagated by globalisation seems to be under threat in this case. Whereas democracy dictates on the rights of people to choose the leadership, the Islamic faith has a different focus where for example the ISIS is focused on "Islamisation" of European countries and come under the rule of a caliph. In a caliphate, the right to choose is highly nonexistent and going contrary to the caliph attracts automatic death. As a result, the influx of Muslims and increasing rate of radical Islam sweeping across many European countries only leads to purge of democracy.

In this case, the national culture becomes an important aspect in furtherance of democracy which is becoming increasingly jeopardised by the influx of alien cultures. Considering that Muslims will not at any one time adhere to tenets of democracy, it remains a reality that democracy in Europe will experience a slow death in the foreseeable future. From this foundation, it is right to say that restriction of immigrant entry is in line with protection of the democratic sovereignty of these countries while the opening of their borders will only bring the reality indicated by speed.

Political functionality

To govern a country, it is significant to have a politically functional nation or leaders. Regardless of the political differences, when people are led by similar national values and culture, they are bound to excel. However, political differences coupled with infiltration by traitor or spying elements on behalf of other entities can bring governance to a deathbed. Politics and democracy in Europe are inseparable, and it is only democratic governance that has continued to propel these countries to prosperity.

On the other hand, the advent of globalisation which has seen many immigrants from different areas of the globe coupled with the recent influx of Muslim immigrants has in many ways changed the script on the political functioning of many governments. For example considering the huge numbers of Muslims in countries such as the United Kingdom, they have the capacity to work with the tyranny of numbers to front their candidates in different political areas. As a result, when these political leaders with skewed ideologies get to power, they only cause conflicts with the aim of propagating, for example, the introduction of Sharia law which is against the national values of the Britons. As an example, this stands to illustrate the need to purge out rogue elements, but this can only happen if these nations restrict their borders.

Cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism requires that people from different backgrounds mingle and live together which is one of the fundamental foundations of globalisation. Though this theory is not based on one country being better than the other, it requires that countries open their borders. In realisation of this, many European countries had opened their borders which to a large extent have been beneficial until recently when the Middle East countries started experiencing the crisis. Even though there are many immigrants with genuine reasons to flee to Europe and other countries, there are bad elements in equal measure that have malicious intentions. On the other hand, cosmopolitanism requires that cosmopolitan regions or countries take up both of these characters.

The above illustrates the great danger that many countries that have opened their borders continue to face which include security, economic and cultural deteriorations among others. Consequently, it is advisable that these countries exercise indirect cosmopolitanism which is intent on protecting the right to exclusion. As a result of executing this right, a country will be assured of its sovereignty because no bad elements will get in their territories. Though integration in the international arena has been a platform for economic advancement in many countries, the economic benefits are in many ways being outweighed by the dwindling sovereignty of these nations.

State of Immigrants

From the above argument, the fate of immigrants may be at stake, and many who are pro-open borders will argue that human rights of the immigrants are infringed in the above scenarios. However, the sovereignty of a nation should be above any other factor or right because the protection of its people and property gives it that sovereignty. It should also be noted that priorities among different people have greatly changed with others having distorted ideologies. Also, it is not practical to scrutinise every immigrant that gets to every border point where for example a country has over a hundred border points. It is from this hypothesis that the above reasoning forms the justification for exclusion of immigrants which clearly goes beyond ethical considerations.

Conclusion

There is a great difference between recruiting immigrants, accepting guest workers, refugees as compared to the mass entry of immigrants. While the former cases can be closely monitored and controlled, the mass entry of immigrants poses a great challenge to the host countries which are ethically pushed to accept them. From the above argument, there are many fronts to sovereignty which can be compromised where a nation decides to place the interests of immigrants before those of its citizens. The current series of terrorist and criminal events, as well as other forms of social injustices against the European people, is a clear testament that there is a need for a different reasoning to immigrants and exclusion remains the most pragmatic among them.