Immigration Utilitarianism

Immigration has been an incredibly contentious issue in this election cycle, largely because of the potential for tribal conflicts that it allows. Both proponents and opponents of immigration could take a utilitarian view, and potentially be right: for immigration to be endorsed by a utilitarian, the benefits to the immigrants would have to outweigh the consequences to current citizens. The benefits to the immigrants are not argued much; most agree that immigrants have a lot to gain from the increased opportunities in the United States, due to less corruption, better infrastructure, a larger economy, and perhaps better social mobility. The negative effect on current citizens, however, is widely disagreed on. Supporters argue that not much is lost by allowing these people into the country, while opponents argue that

already consists of a vast array of different tribes, which have coexisted since the founding of the country. This coexistence has not been entirely peaceful, but it would be hard to identify a tribe that has not benefited from the incredible innovation that has arisen. Supporters would argue that it may be true that tribes in close proximity have the potential for conflict, but the benefits of the tribes working together outweigh any losses from that potential conflict. Again, this is essentially the idea of reciprocity. By cooperating with the incoming immigrants, some would say, there is enormous potential for innovation and and improved quality of living, much greater of a boon for society than the potential downsides in the form of lost jobs and loss of cultural identity. The immigrants provide a larger, more diverse labor force, as well as an additional tax base, which helps with funding for critical public spending functions, such as infrastructure. In return, current citizens lose a few jobs and have to put up with “new people” becoming their