The argument for or against immigration in the United States has persisted for several decades. A significant amount of the debate on immigration revolves around environmental and social aspects. Consequently, various scholars have added their voices to the argument for or against open immigration in the country. Among these scholars are Chandran Kukathas and Mathias Risse. According to Kukathas, free migration is not an easy fete but it is achievable. Kukathas has authored a paper titled “The Case for Open Immigration”. In this paper, Kukathas articulates that the benefits of open migration as compared to other approaches to the question of immigration.
On the other hand, Risse addresses the issue of open immigration through an essay titled “On the Morality of Immigration”. In this essay, Risse makes the argument that “the natural resources of the planet are the common heritage of mankind” (Risse, 2008, p. 28). Therefore, it is unnatural to institute immigration measures that deny humanity access to natural resources. The immigration issue dates back to the early history of the United States and it has had a significant effect on the country’s population. The way the country deals with immigration issues is also relevant through the greater environmental developments. The moral obligation that applies to immigration issues is addressed by both authors. This paper compares and contrasts the arguments on open immigration by both Mathias Risse and Chandran Kukathas.
Kukathas’ essay begins by outlining various complexities that are associated with immigration issues in the country. Some of the problems that apply to modern immigration issues include associated security threats, economic factors, cultural proliferation, and morality issues. In the next section of his essay, Kukathas dwells on the misconceptions that apply to immigration in the current global context. For various individuals and entities, movement of people occurs in different forms. After outlining the challenges that apply to modern immigration goals, Kukathas offers his personal opinions on immigration. The author defends the concept of free immigration on two main principles; humanity and freedom. The author also favors free immigration owing to the fact that open borders preserve freedom as opposed to undermining it. Furthermore, open borders have been found to promote the equality of all people.
Kukathas’ essay also makes an argument that open immigration can be a source of economic prosperity. The author notes that the individuals who argue against open immigration use economic factors to argue against this policy. However, the author points out that the bottom line agenda when it comes to economic gains. The paper also points out how nationality is affected by immigration. First, Kukathas notes that immigration most likely erodes nationality. However, the author also notes that the trend also creates healthy multicultural societies. The author then highlights the issue of immigration in regards to security. According to the author, security issues are the most used reasons for the argument in favor of closed immigration. Nevertheless, the author observes that this is not an adequate reason for restricting immigration. Furthermore, the essay states that the human cost that is associated with closed borders is often higher than the need to maintain security. The author concludes his essay by declaring that even though free immigration is a noble idea, it remains largely unfeasible and politically untenable (Kukathas, 2005, p. 207).
Risse’s article also makes an argument in support of free migration. The author argues that the inequitable distribution of resources around the world does not warrant the migration restrictions. Consequently, closed immigration can be misused by territories that are rich in resources to protect their wealth whilst exploiting poorer regions. The author agrees that the argument in favor of free migration is relevant in terms of both morality and global justice. The author begins his argument by noting that all human beings should utilize resources equally. The paper notes that some of the countries that are firmly against immigration are incidentally sparsely populated. In addition, the article notes that immigration laws are often used to keep certain categories of individuals away from selected territories while allowing ‘desired’ parties to move freely. The article also argues against immigration restrictions because they serve to delay the delivery of justice.
According to the author, there are various moral questions surrounding the agenda of free migration. First, there is the issue of political feasibility often trounces morality issues. The issue of collective ownership of the world is reiterated throughout the essay. Collective ownership is a concept that is propagated by third world countries and largely disregarded by the developed nations. The essay then moves on to highlight the statistical aspects that are associated with migration. The author is of the view that “the relevant measure of proportionate use is decidedly not population density” (Risse, 2008, p. 30). The settlement systems that apply to the main cities across the world give people the illusion that the country is already overpopulated. The most prominent argument in Risse’s article is that when countries are taking a stand against free migration they also need to consider whether they are underutilizing their resources whilst turning away potential immigrants.
Both Kukathas and Risse argue that although free migration is tenable it is hard to achieve. The two authors are of the view that immigration is necessary in order to create an environment of equality across the world. Freedom is also a recurring theme in the arguments by the two authors. According to Kukathas, an efficient process of admitting immigrants into a country serves the purpose of furthering the freedom agenda. Risse also argues in favor of free migration but he uses this concept in regards to its association with liberalism. It is also important to note that Kukathas’ argument in favor of immigration is more two-sided than the one that is forwarded by Risse. For instance, according to Kukathas association between freedom and open migration is more of a theory as opposed to being a reality. On the other hand, Risse argues in favor of freedom in regards to its capacity to enable countries to utilize both their potential and resources wisely.
Risse is of the view that tackling the issue of immigration from a national perspective is not satisfactory. Furthermore, the author points out as a national issue, immigration is likely to be overshadowed by ‘sovereign’ interests. This argument points to the fact that immigration issues will most likely continue to be unresolved. On the other hand, Kukathas addresses the issue of immigration from a liberalist point of view and from a ‘border standpoint’. These disparities might explain why the outcomes of the two authors differ. Risse pushes the agenda of immigration as an issue that could be done but one that is yet to be tried. On the other hand, Kukathas addresses immigration as an issue that has been tried and possibly resulted in failure. The difference that is occasioned by the two authors looking into the matter from both national and international perspectives might hold the key to the future of open migration agendas. For example, Risse’s articulations provide insight into uncharted territory where there is a possibility of free migration. Kukathas’ argument is however limited by his focus in immigration from a border point of view.
The main difference between the two authors is the framework of their arguments. From the onset, Kukathas reckons that his views are meant to highlight the factors that make open migration unfeasible (Kukathas, 2005, p. 207). Nevertheless, it is evident that the author is in favor of open migration. Overall, the author’s arguments seek to capitalize on the empathy of majority of his readers. It is also evident that the author assumes that most of his readers are against open migration. Kukathas accomplishes his goal by highlighting areas of contention when it comes to free migration. The framework behind Risse’s argument is however, dependent on a central theme and all other subsequent articulations are dependent on this thesis. The author makes the argument of communal wealth and immigration without preying on the emotions of the readers like Kukathas does. The result of these two frameworks is that Kukathas confuses most of his readers, while Risse forwards an argument that can be easily challenged.
Both authors are trying to highlight the issues surrounding the call for free migration. However, the two scholars take different approaches towards the accomplishment of their goals. For instance, Kukathas’ argument is more centralized on immigration and its effects from a border perspective. On the other hand, Risse chooses to address immigration from a global perspective. Both authors are able to pass their message across albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness.
References
Kukathas, C. (2005). The case for open immigration. Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, 2(1), 207-220.
Risse, M. (2008). On the morality of immigration. Ethics & International Affairs, 22(1), 25-33.