Running head: IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY Students Name University Affiliation

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY Rights of Immigrants and Immigration Policy Introduction

Each year the government receives numerous new immigrants from all over the world. Some of these immigrants enter the country legally while others try to get in illegally. On the other hand, there are those immigrants who attempt to get into the country illegally through devious means. At the borders, they are apprehended, and the government is made to forcibly send them back. Despite the challenges that the government faces with regard to the immigrant problem, to accept immigrants is obligated. 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 policies 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 while protecting that of the others who are in need of its protection. The notion that a states sole responsibility is towards its citizens alone is faulty and misconceived. Dummet supports his supposition. He claimed all citizens have a personal moral obligation. However, just as they have a moral obligation to themselves, so do them towards other individuals especially from foreign countries. The people in a particular state, with a moral obligation, is represented in the world by their state. Consequently, it follows that the state is also morally obliged to consider the welfare of other states and that of the individuals form the foreign states (Huemer, 2010).

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY This paper will explore the obligations that the nation has towards the acceptance of immigrants. Furthermore, the paper will discuss what comprises a morally justified immigration policy. The paper will take the position of 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 electors and 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

serves the interests of their country best. For instance, British politicians involved in the European Union deliberations always base their decisions to support or veto motions based on whether the motion is in the interest of Britain or not. This is contrary to the expectation that they would consider the interests of the European Union to make their decision whether to support the motion or denounce it. Politicians take this position taken by the due to one crucial reason; foreign citizens are of little or no value to their political ambitions. Since the foreign citizens hold no voting power in the country that they immigrate to, the politician deems them to be of no value to their campaigns (Dummett, 2001). Critique of Politicians Position and My Position The concept of sovereignty promotes this state of affairs. This concept promotes national independence and non-interference by other foreign nations, especially on matters of how the state deals with its citizens. Additionally, the other argument

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY forwarded in opposition to immigrant rights and policies is that each country has an

individual right to regulate the activities on its borders. Consequently, they can, at their own pleasure, exclude or admit foreigners who wish to pass through their borders. However, those in support of 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 be made into a basic human right that is enjoyed freely 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 choice. Pope John XXIII also supported free immigration policies that excluded no individual from entering any country. According to the Pope, all humans are a universal family and that all are members of the greater world society. This existence, according to the pope, is inherent and cannot be curtailed by any individual country. Additionally, the pope endorses the fact that immigrants deserve to have their rights recognized and respected. They deserve to enjoy economic rights and personal rights which ensure that they fit comfortably in the new society. Furthermore, it makes them able 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 an immigrant their right. To begin with, some people believe that restricting on would-be immigrants protects the countrys national heritage and culture, additionally, it is claimed that accepting immigrants will increase the economic hardships that face a country as this

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

would impose a constrain on the scarce resources of the country. It is therefore argued that these restrictions are in the interests of the countrys native citizens (Dummett, 2001). From my perspective, the rights of immigrants should be upheld and protected at all costs. There are several reasons as to why immigration restriction and regulation 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 citizens with intent. Additionally, it is not a must for a person to be immigrating in order to commit a terrorist offence. 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 into 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 jobs they would tend to accept meager salaries. Employees tend to prefer such as they 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 dictate the base salary within its territory. Furthermore, the jobs are meant to be acquired based on merit and the individuals qualification (Baden and Noonan, 1998).

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

A morally acceptable immigration policy is one that considers both the interests of the citizens of the country and those of the immigrants. The creation of such a policy is faced by various challenges. An analogy of a limited capacity lifeboat is given. Since a country cannot take in all the immigrants, the challenge of which immigrants are accepted arises.

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY References

Baden, J. A., & Noonan, J. A. B. D. S. (1998). Managing the Commons, Second Edition: Second Edition: Indiana University Press. Dummett, M. A. E. (2001). On Immigration and Refugees: Taylor & Francis Group. Huemer M (2010). Social Theory and Practice. Is there a Right To Immigrate?