“According to this position, such states will typically admit immigrants whose talents, assets, characteristics, or skills are perceived to be in the national interest, but they are morally free to restrict immigration as they see fit, with few exceptions.”
Shelley Wilcox talks about the different views on immigration that are conventional and open border positions. The conventional view on immigration allows liberal states to have a broad right to control immigration as long it works along federal priorities. People under the conventional umbrella seek to regulate the type of immigrants as opposed to the number of immigrants that are entering the United States. The process is to remove any unwanted future citizens and potentially bring in ‘good’ ones. Liberals are committed to equal rights of individuals. They believe that people are free to make their own decisions, in this case live wherever they want, as long as it does not infringe on another person’s life. So restricting borders and allowing certain people of characteristics whether that be race or sex to enter into the US would be going against the morals that the liberal standby, hence their support for open borders. Joseph Carens, A liberal egalitarian also stands by the freedom of allowing individuals to choose where they migrate to. Every individual has their own reason for moving whether it’s to flee from religious persecution, economic hardship, war, and many others.
I chose to talk about this quote because restricting immigration should not be morally acceptable or acceptable at all. There are people like Donald Trump that want to build the wall to limit the amount of immigrants coming in from Mexico because he believes that they are sending the United States criminals: thieves, rapists, lazy workers, in simple terms bad people. The wall he so badly pushed for during his campaign was far from simple. It would be of heavy cost and potentially prevent exceptional immigrants from flourishing in the U.S.
Comments
Post a Comment