Introduction
Each year, a great number of new immigrants arrive into the country from all over the world. Some of these immigrants enter the country legally while the others try to get in illegally. On the other hand, there are those who attempt to immigrate into the country illegally through various devious means. At the borders, they are apprehended and forcibly made to return to their country. Despite the challenges that the government faces with regard to the immigrant problem, there are cases when authorities are obligated to accept immigrants.
The rising number of immigrants each year has become a serious debate issue. Some groups support policies that protect the rights of immigrants while others are strongly opposed to the laws that encourage immigrant entrance into the country. According to Sir Michael Dummet, the state has several duties towards immigrants. To begin with, the state has to recognize that its primary role is the welfare of its own citizens as well as protection of the others who are in need.
Thus the notion that a state’s sole responsibility is only to ensure and care about its citizens’ wellbeing is faulty and misconceived. Dummet supports his supposition. He claims all the citizens have a personal a certain moral obligation to their country as well. The whole population is represented by their state in the world. Consequently, it follows that some country is also morally obliged to consider the welfare of other states and that of other individuals (Huemer, 2010).
This paper will explore the obligations that the nation has towards the acceptance of immigrants. Furthermore, the paper will discuss what a morally justified immigration policy includes. The paper will uphold the position to support for the right of immigration.
Statement of politicians’ position
The opposition directed towards immigrants and their rights stems from the sense of selfishness among the citizens and politicians of the host country. Both the electors and the politicians alike promote the idea that a nation is only responsible for its citizens without any regard for immigrants coming in from foreign countries.
Consequently, the politicians will normally base their arguments on what they think about serving the interests of their country best. For instance, British politicians involved in the European Union deliberations always ground their decisions to support or veto motions on whether it is in the interest of Britain or not. This is contrary to the expectation that they should consider the interests of the European Union to make their decision whether to support the motion or denounce it.
Politicians take this position with regard to one crucial reason, which is foreign citizens are of little or no value to their political ambitions. Since the foreign citizens hold no voting power in the country they immigrate into, the politicians deem them insignificant for their campaigns (Dummett, 2001).
Critique of politicians’ position and my position
The concept of ‘sovereignty’ promotes this state of affairs. This concept supports national independence and non-interference by other foreign nations, especially on matters of how it deals with its citizens. Additionally, another argument forwarded in opposition to immigrant rights and policies is that each country has an individual right to regulate the activities on its borders.
Consequently, the government can exclude or admit foreigners who wish to pass through the country’s borders. However, those who support free immigration, suppose that countries should not impose any restrictions on immigration. A comparison is drawn between free immigration and the free market concept. This proposition was strongly supported by Milton Fried Mans as well as Ernest Bevin, who envisioned the total abolition of passports.
They argued that free immigration should have been allowed to ensure that basic human right which is the right for freedom – particularly freedom of movement would be enjoyed by all humans. Therefore, in the spirit of promoting human rights, no country would have the right to deny any individual entry into a country of his/her choice.
Pope John XXIII also supported free immigration policies that excluded no individual from entering into any country. According to Pope John XXIII, all humans are members of a universal family and a greater world society. This existence, according to the Pope, is inherent and cannot be curtailed by any country.
Additionally, Pope John XXIII endorsed the fact that immigrants deserved to have their rights recognized and respected. They should enjoy economic rights and personal rights to ensure that they are able to comfortably adapt to a new society. Furthermore, it allows them to obtain a means of self sustenance.
There are several reasons as to why the sanctions and restrictions are imposed on immigrants. However, these do not suffice as an excuse in denying those people their right. To begin with, some believe that restricting the number of immigrants entering into the country would protect the national heritage and culture. Additionally, it is claimed that accepting immigrants will increase the economic hardships he state faces as this would impose constrain on the scarce resources of the country. It is, therefore, argued that these restrictions are in the interests of the country’s native citizens (Dummett, 2001).
From my perspective, the rights of immigrants should be upheld and protected. There are several reasons as to why immigration restriction is not a favorable option. To begin with, restricting immigrants from entering a country is a direct violation of their inherent rights. The most common reason for instituting these regulations is to protect and ensure the security of the native citizens.
In most cases, terrorism has been cited as the main security concern that necessitates immigrant regulation. However, terrorist activities are perpetrated even by the citizens of the country. Additionally, not all immigrates are willing to enter the country to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, this cannot be used as a basis for such limitations. The other reason that has been widely cited is the effect of immigration on employment.
Most native citizens feel that the higher the number of immigrants in a country the higher the competition on the existing jobs. This ultimately leads to a decrease in the quality of life of the native citizens. Since the immigrants are normally desperate for finding jobs they tend to accept low salaries. Employees prefer such workers as the business would incur less operational costs. However this comes at the expense of the native citizens losing their jobs.
However, this is not an acceptable reason since it is the duty of the government to regulate and state the base salary within its territory. Furthermore, the jobs are meant to be acquired based on merit and the individual’s qualification.
A morally acceptable immigration policy is the one that meets both the interests of the citizens of the country and those of the immigrants. Such a policy is difficult to be developed and implemented as there are various challenges. The situation regarding the issue may be compared to a limited capacity lifeboat (Hardin 2001) since a country cannot take in all the immigrants.
References
Dummett, M. A. E. (2001). On Immigration and Refugees. New York: Routledge.
Hardin, G. (2001). Living on a Lifeboat. The Social Contract. 36-47. Web.
Huemer M (2010). Is there a Right to Immigrate? Social Theory and Practice. 36(3), 429-461. Web.