Social Justice Immigration Essay

Introduction

Migrations, either by land or by sea, have always characterized human existence. To understand the extent of this phenomenon we have to be aware of the fact that nobody could say that they have never had direct experience with migratory phenomena or, in any case, with their effects[footnoteRef:1]. Therefore, what is the best prospect for analyzing migrations? Should immigrants be considered legitimate citizens or foreign invaders? Furthermore, should it be considered legitimate for a state to control its borders against external citizens? [1: Mark J. Miller, The Age of Migration, (New York: Guilford Press, 2003), p. 5.]

Each State has its borders that they protect according to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination these “borders have guards who are armed”[footnoteRef:2]; However, even if borders have guards and these are armed what justifies the use of force against those who wants to cross the frontiers? A justification would be to prevent criminals, terrorists, and invaders. But, very often immigrants are neither criminals nor terrorists, they are simply unfortunate workers who have abandoned everything to ensure themselves and their families a better future. Therefore, should immigration be considered permissible if it leads to collective or individual well-being? First, we will consider the implications regarding equality and social justice that result from immigration controls, subsequently, the opposite theory will be illustrated, in other words, whether closing borders is against equality and social justice. To conclude, the ethical and philosophic dilemmas of immigration are about distributive justice. [2: Joseph H. Carens, Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), p. 251]

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Equality and Social Justice

Society is composed of different layering levels, which creates inequalities that influence the initial opportunities that arise in each life; consequently, these changes cannot be justified by a hypothetical reference to the notions of merit and value[footnoteRef:3], therefore it is a luck to be born in a rich country or wealthy family. If the differences of birth cannot be justified, since they are randomly assigned by nature, it would be fair to find a way to level the effects that those differences have on the welfare of the less fortunate individuals. For this reason, “... it is a virtue for social institutions”[footnoteRef:4] to open borders for the individuals who enter a foreign territory, in other to improve their conditions, because they didn’t choose to be born in that particular place or family, they were natural gifts. So as far as we are not willing to actively help these individuals, it would be even more unfair to deny them the possibility of helping themselves, through the closure of borders. [3: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press Cambridge, 1999, p. 29] [4: Ibidem, p. 25]

Taking up the principle of justice enunciated by Rawls, in which a society is Just when: “Everyone has an equal right to the broader pattern of equal freedoms and fundamental compatibly with a similar scheme of freedom for others”[footnoteRef:5], if we want our State to be fair, we cannot deny immigrants the freedom to enter in our borders. Consequently, by applying Rawls’ theory to the migratory phenomenon, immigration should be accepted and promoted by all, precisely because it is the only way in which fate can be reversed. [5: Ibidem, p. 76 ]

Even though this type of solution could prove to be a good one, this method would be not practical, either internationally or domestically. Indeed, individuals are aware of their social position, their level of education, their ability, and their place of belonging; the rich man knows he is rich and will never worsen his position to help the poor, for this reason, Rawls's theory needs to be more realistic. However, is it right to legitimize the defense of borders from immigrants? On which moral basis can these people be kept out? What guarantees the right to point weapons against them? For many the answer is clear, state authority is given by state sovereignty, in other words, a political power that gives the authority to the state to exclude or not from the territorial space foreigners and immigrants. The state has the task of pursuing its national interest even if that means denying entry to peaceful foreigners and the needy. Indeed, sovereign states can be generous in bringing in foreigners within national borders, but they are not obliged to do so. The refusal to allow foreigners to enter a country’s territory stems from the birth of the nations. But the question that needs to be asked is: despite having state sovereignty - this is my country and for this reason, I can decide whether or not to let foreigners enter - don’t they have the moral duty to open borders for those running from war or violations of human rights? The closure of the borders would consolidate the inequalities present in the world, with the rich maintaining their position through the restrictions on citizens born in poor states, by limiting their freedom of movement. Their freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights expressed in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, in other words, “everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including one’s own, and to return. Therefore denying the freedom to emigrate would not only go against the Declaration of Human Rights and the principle of Equality but would also not stop immigration, rather increase illegal immigration which causes further human rights violations.

Borders closures

Why an individual born in a particular territory and part of a certain state does not have the right to protect what it is legitimately it’s from external intrusions? Taking up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we stated that everyone has the right to move, reside and leave any country, but despite the interpretation adopted to justify the opening of the frontiers, it is equally true that the Declaration refers also to the limitation of this freedom. The fact that there is a right to emigrate from a state does not imply that there is a corresponding right to immigrate everywhere, public order and national security must also be taken into consideration.

States have no obligation to welcome anyone who wants to enter in its territory, therefore if the State doesn’t give consent, or it is not by the will of the state, a state could talk about invasion. In fact, according to Walzer “admission and exclusion [...] express the deeper meaning of self-determination. Without them there could be no community with its character, ongoing and historically stable associations of men and women with a certain commitment towards each other and with a particular sense of collective life”[footnoteRef:6]. Therefore, is it legitimized for a State to close its borders, even for those who are running away from wars, persecution, and degrading living conditions, because of the state's right of self-determination and exclusion? The same opinion is of Wellman, according to whom it is legitimated by the state that closes borders at the entrance of migrants, even those who run away from wars, persecutions, and degrading living conditions, an extreme idea compared to Walzer. However, the legitimization of state borders cannot take place based on the logic alone of communitarian defense and self-determination of the community. Because neither cultures, nor communities, nor associations can be equated with nation-states endowed with full sovereignty; Communities and associations need to be delimited, perhaps even have some form of political autonomy that could legitimize - under well-defined conditions - the right of self-determination, but the boundaries that limit membership cannot be assimilated to territorial boundaries. Communities and associations can guarantee collective assets that ensure the reproduction and renewal of their identity for their respective members without the need for any territorial delimitation. It is therefore improper to assimilate the borders that establish a group membership to the borders that specify the political-geographical characteristics of a territorial jurisdiction, consequently, there is no relationship between group boundaries and territorial boundaries. At least from the modern age onwards, territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified based on community or associational claims alone, because a border does not protect a community or an association, but the perimeter of a state and the individuals in the formal dimension of citizens. The impermeable wall that keeps foreigners “outside” cannot guarantee any substantial homogeneity of a national, ethnic, or cultural type within the centralized, static, and closed space of the state. Boundaries cannot prevent the presence of foreigners or members of other nations on either side of the walls, or of members of the national community, therefore it is possible to protect the community without touching the borders of the state. The hypothesis that the “particularity of cultures and groups” requires “something like a sovereign state” that controls borders and establishes access policies may perhaps justify some forms of self-determination, but not an exclusive territorial jurisdiction or political borders. Not all communitarians consider the state as a political community, and in any case, if States are not, as often happens, culturally homogeneous or democratic communities, their ethical legitimacy to exclude is highly questionable. [6: Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York: Basic Book, 1983, p. 49.]

Even Walzer suggests the possibility of admitting to the community foreigners “similar” in history and culture and also the foreigners in “need of help” imposed by “morality” in cases where foreigners flee dangerous situations, therefore opening borders. Because states are not necessarily ethnic entities or culturally homogeneous.

Distributive justice

The problems related to distributive justice are because it is not egalitarian. An unequal distribution of assets consequently leads to the presence of conflicts of interest in society. Therefore, according to which criterion of distributive justice, resources should be shared and which people should enjoy it? The answer is, that these resources are generally scarce and they are not sufficient to satisfy everyone’s needs and this characteristic of scarcity raises “conflicts of interest” between individuals. They are individuals who have more, others who have less, and others who do not have nothing, this is the case of the differences between rich and poor countries and this is also one of the reasons why some individuals decide to emigrate and others do not. Whoever decides to emigrate does so with the awareness that they will find the resources to satisfy their economic desires. For this reason, it is necessary to create a system where the less fortunate can make a greater profit from these inequalities. Applying this type of analysis to immigration, it would be unfair to prevent immigrants the opportunity to access the opportunities and resources that, those who are lucky dispose of undeservedly.

Being born in a certain territory is like being born with a particular natural talent, both are morally arbitrary. Indeed, the fact that the distribution of territories is morally arbitrary, has a connection with the idea of justice. It is neither fair nor unfair that some individuals occupy richer territories and others the poorest; injustice lies in the fact that international institutions are not organized in such a way as to benefit the more disadvantaged people. The goal should be to maximize the total utility, to do this open borders policy would be better for human beings' welfare. In other words, maximization of social utility would allow and facilitate the possibility of appropriating the resources of others if it will give rise to a greater utility than in the previous situation. Applying this idea to the migration phenomenon would be to welcome immigrants and ensure that they have access to the resources of the new territory and benefit from it.

Indeed, we are all descendants of immigrants, thieves who have usurped lands that previously belonged to someone else. But despite the awareness of this condition, no one would be willing to return the land to those who owned it originally.

Conclusion

The arguments in favor of opening borders were contrasted with those that, on the contrary, believed the closure of borders are optimal solution; and then the rights based on the achievement of individual well-being versus solutions who tend to sacrifice their rights in part to find an advantage for the whole community. In light of the above and concerning the analysis of the various positions, there is a strong difficulty in indicating a solution as much as possible balanced to the drama of immigration. A solution would be to respect the Fundamental Human Rights of the immigrants, such as dignity, freedom, justice, and solidarity, but at the same time to protect the citizenship and membership rights of each individual linked to a certain territory. We must consider the inexorable increase in flows of migrants, supported by a world in full globalization, the presence of wars, along natural disasters caused by climate change, they certainly do not constitute a favorable ground for solving the problem. The only solution that could currently be the only alternative consists of an intermediate way that foresees permeable boundaries without the right limitations. It is well known, that the intermediate routes do not always satisfy the needs of both sides. The only certainty is to ensure that the “moral law” does not interfere with the law of each state, and it is therefore necessary to reach a definitive and universally shared solution. It is easy to say “We have to respect the rights of immigrants”, but it is not easy to explain what these rights are, how they combine with the rights of other citizens, and, above all, how they are claimed as rights. Answers to these questions cannot be simply rhetoric (reaching out to convince) but they must be theoretical (aimed at explaining and justifying). Without a theoretical effort at the level of ethical thinking, the discussion on the rights of migrants risks being not only unrealistic but even offensive. The difficulties involved in articulating this ethical theory should not be underestimated since the link between human rights and natural law faces various serious problems which we can only briefly mention.

In the case of an ideal situation, there would be no limiting reasons. In the case of the non-ideal situation, in which we live, the use of topics such as safety, security diversity of democratic culture of immigrants, and public order, is not deemed compelling because they are also applicable to the issues of movement inside of the nation, which is not restricted, or dispelled by history in the case of previous migrations, or limited to situations details from which we cannot generalize. From the perspective of general well-being, then, the best migration policy is the one that maximizes economic gain, without looking at whether it is citizens or immigrants, therefore free movement of workers which would lead to an increase in general wealth.

Bibliography

1. Carens Joseph H., Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 225-255
2. Cole Philip, Beyond reason: the philosophy and politics of immigration, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, No. 5, (2014), pp. 503 - 520
3. Holtug Nils, Equality and the treatment-enhancement distinction, Volume 25, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 137-144
4. Rawls John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press Cambridge, 1999, pp. 10-14, 34-29, 73-76, 242-250
5. Walzer Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York: Basic Book, 1983, p. 49
6. Wellman Christopher H. and Cole Philip Debating the Ethics of Immigration, Is There a Right to Exclude?, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 13-55, 117-124, 173-225