There are several theories to look into when discussing the morality of borders. I specifically look into Stephen Macedo’s chapter “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy, open borders versus social justice?” in Debating Immigration and Joseph Carens article “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” Using political theory back up his argument, Carens uses Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian to support and explain his claims that there is little justification for keeping oppressed people from other countries seeking a better life out of the United States. Macedo also uses similar liberal philosophy referencing Rawlsianism to support the opposing idea of a more restrictionist society, posing the question of cosmopolitanism …show more content…
Ironically, I agree with Carens argument that “Open borders would threaten the distinctive character of different political community only because we assume that so many people would move if they could.” However, I question Carens as we do not know how many people would move, and therefore that is my main concern for free migration. The culture of American society would be totally altered if we had complete open …show more content…
Referred to by both Macedo and Carens in their articles, in my own reading I found an interesting article in the Boston Review by Martha Nussbaum “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism.” I found many flaws in cosmopolitanism and the idea for open borders and found the theories from this article great to connect both Macedo and Carens, as it explained the many sides of the morality of borders. Macedo condemns cosmopolitanism throughout his chapter; Macadeo emphasizes his main view against cosmopolitanism as an economic problem for Americans. Our loyalties lie with getting our poor residents a job and not brining in more people to fill these jobs who are equally poor, this does not solve a poverty problem in the long run. However closing off the border entirely and restricting immigration further is problematic. In Nussbaum’s article I have a problem with the unrealistic goal of universal cosmopolitanism, as it is impossible for an individual to think of themself fully a citizen of the world. A sense of home identification will always linger as no one feels welcome or is welcomed in every nation or community on earth. It is impossible to make a patriotic person non patriotic as no one person has had the exact same
I was able to relate to when Jessie said that borders are symbols of the divisions we make of each other. These borders are made up by people to keep each other apart from one another. Whether it is for social, economic, or cultural reasons, the division remains. As Brooke pointed out, these borders prevent freedoms and deny opportunities.
Thomas King’s “Borders” is a very interesting story to read on as it is written wonderfully well with interesting characters involved in the story having played interesting roles through-out one after the other making sure the reader will not get bored out and keep them hooked up by arousing curiosity in the reader’s mind about what fate is decided on the kid’s mom. Just like the title says “Borders”, it really does not only mean the physical border between U.S.A. and Canada but also the border between one’s identity and his/her nationality which is understood only once when it is read. King through the kid’s mom tries to show us that identity and roots is above all as she protests constantly with the guards patrolling at the border makes us really wonder what really happens to her next.
“Immigration could account for all the yearly increase in population. Should we not at least ask if that is what we want (Hardin, 1974)?” Well! The audacity of Garrett Hardin’s 1974 essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” to ingeniously imply concern for illegal entry, but in all actuality supports partiality to who is advantaged to populates the United States! Thus, Immigration policies in America continuous changes reflects discriminatory processes of past and biased judgement by elected officials.
There are millions of people who attempt to cross the border every day. These people cross the border from different countries to the United States to live a better life, to provide for their loved ones, and to live the American Dream. The American Dream is to be able to spend time with family while paying the house bills and the car bill all while having a job. People migrating to the United States could be an advantage and a disadvantage in the United States. In “The Crossing” by Ruben Martinez the social issue is immigration. Immigration is a problem in this story because we see a lot of immigrants trying to migrate to the United States. Ruben Martinez mentions in the short story “The Crossing” This desert is armed with Mexican and American
Literal and figurative borders can restrict and control many aspects within the lives of people all over the world. All people should be able to make the decision of where they wish to settle, start a family, and eventually die as a happy and fulfilled human being. The idea of travelling or living in a different country other than where you were conceived and brought up is a dream many people aspire to in era, but all wander-lusting souls should have the opportunity to make that dream a reality and find happiness and a new home in an unfamiliar city or country. The issues with this can vary widely; sometimes there can be issues with obtaining legal immigration papers while moving across countries or maybe financially they are not ready to
Though immigration is not a new phenomenon in the world’s history, it has been notice that now days immigration has increased more than ever. This is mainly caused because of better ways of communication and transportation, which it makes it possible to people to move and enter other countries. However there are many types of immigrations such as economical, retirement immigrants or even ‘natural disasters’ immigrants. People sometimes seek a new life to save themselves from poverty and misery, thus they decide to enjoy the benefits of another country. Still there are other immigrants who are forced to leave their countries because of wars or even natural disasters, such as the tsunami in Japan 2011. Some philosophers consider closed borders to restrict people freedom of movement and that global justice is been violated. On the other hand Miller and other philosophers argued that immigration causes more disadvantages than advantages into the country they enter. Also they agree that states have a moral right to limit immigrations in order to prevent any changes in their culture, as immigration affects several things, even if this means that they will violate human rights. Another concern for the states is the welfare state where sometimes it may be limited and countries cannot afford any immigrants. However, is it right to oppose people rights of freedom, or is it correct for states to limit immigration?
In the words of Ronald Regan “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Many feel that illegal immigration is a growing concern for our nation, and securing our borders is most so that we can protect our homeland and preserving our freedom. They say these Illegals take jobs and deny opportunities for American citizens who have made worked hard to gain citizenship in a legal way.
"We cannot sit huddled within our own borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond. Such a policy would defeat even its own end; for as the nations grow to have ever wider and wider interests, and are brought into closer and closer contact, if we are to hold our own in the struggle for naval and commercial supremacy, we must build up our Dower without our own borders." 1899, Theodore roosevelt his book, The Strenuous Life.
It is often said that the United States of America is a country of immigrants, also referred to as a melting pot. In fact, majority of people today can say that they are children of immigrants. Every year, countless of people arrive from their native land to America, with the hopes of rebuilding a better life and future for themselves and their family. Are they to blame? It is even stated in the national anthem, which is always sung with great pride and passion, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave”. But how free is this country? Free enough to enter at will? For years, immigration laws have remained a problem in the United States, as the government tries to reform such policies in order to control the growth of the population, especially that of the “undocumented” populace. Although illegal immigrants provide many services needed in this country, they have also created a huge financial burden to American taxpayers in areas such as education, emergency medical care, and welfare costs (Tolle, 2012). In using moral knowledge to analyze and investigate the ethical questions surrounding the issues of immigration, we will look at two different sources: scripture and experience.
As harmful as ethnic nationalism can be, nationalism can be a force for good. Civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic nationalism, successfully unites people not by race or ethnicity, but by similar values and ideals. For example, the United States of America was upon the common ideals of freedom and equality. According to one expert, “The United States accepted men of all kinds of descent as their alma mater, transforming them into a ‘new race of men’” (Kohn). The non-exclusivity of American nationalism is exactly what sets apart civic nationalism from ethnic nationalism.
Immigration has been part of America since before the 17th century. America has evolved into what it is today due to immigration; however immigration as negative effects as well. Immigration is the building blocks for America. Every one that lives in America today are here because their ancestors immigrated here long ago. Over the years immigration as evolved into a more sophisticated matter. There are many laws they have been put in place to monitor and stop immigration. Immigration I a big factor in America but must be done correctly to insure Americas safety.
As defined, cosmopolitanism as a whole is the idea that all cultures and ethnic groups within our world belong to a single community based on a shared morality. Considering this, Anthony Appiah claims that “cosmopolitanism is universality plus difference.” He says this because cosmopolitanism is based upon people accepting the variety of people, but understanding that all the different people of the world belong to one group due to a shared moral standard. But how can this be, when there are wars and conflicts going on throughout the world? Appiah discusses this throughout his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, as well as the commitments that cosmopolitans make, such as the commitment to the respect of differences in humans
In his address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson declared freedom of the seas in times of peace and war. Looking back, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could challenge the right of individuals to navigate the oceans freely. However, fast-forward to the twenty-first century and we can see an analogous debate over the issue of immigration rights, with territorial borders being the main topic of discussion. The system of immigration in the United States is complex and oftentimes restrictive, and while revisions to the system usually include increasing quotas or other solutions to let in certain groups of people who deserve special consideration (such as those whose skills are needed in a particular field), they are still very limited solutions. The obvious question that arises from letting in some people but not others is that of fairness. Is the accident of birth or luck of being in the right place at the right time enough to justify restrictive citizenship to a select few? I would argue not. I intend to argue that a commitment to human rights entails the position that borders ought to be open in order to guarantee other human rights, especially the right to migrate.
Roy Beck's The Case Against Immigration One of the more remarkable aspects of the continuing debate over American immigration policy is that the nation's liberal elites seem, ever so gradually, to be finally catching up with the people. For years opinion polls have shown that a large majority of the American people, of all political persuasions and all ethnic backgrounds, want less immigration. Yet year after year immigrants continue to flood across our borders as "opinion molders," elected officials, business executives, and professional eggheads insist that mass immigration is really beneficial and its dangers are much exaggerated by "nativists" and "racists. " Only in the last couple of years have a few books been published that dissent from that view, and the appearance of these books, published by major New York houses, suggests that the elites are finally beginning to grasp what uncontrolled immigration means for the people and the country they rule. What began as a popular protest against elite policies and preferences has now started influencing the elites themselves, even if the elites still like to imagine that they thought of it first.
Through the novel of Little Bee, I realized that we should know more about ourselves, and the sence of pride of our own culture; standing on the point of a global perspective. Remove prejudice, narrow-minded and limitations, and learn to observe the different nation, different social, different cultural customs, traditional idea. Make us more rational, and have a more comprehensive, more understanding of the human society. We need standing on a higher level to regard ourselves and others. On the whole, all the people are the member of human and the society after all. If both the oppressed and the oppressor can try the best, the oppressor can help the oppressed as unconditional, and the oppressed can identify with their cultural background and self-awareness. Then, I think that cosmopolitanism is not an especially difficult to accomplish.