There are important issues that surround the morality of immigration. Joseph Carens challenged the original view that admission of immigrants into the country is only a matter of generosity by the states and not an obligation. According to Michael Walzer admission of immigrants is only a matter of self-determination.
Compare and contrast Carens and Walzer’s approach to immigration.
It is, therefore, important for states to protect all the citizens in their territories regardless of whether immigrants or not. People have the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with each other and thereby immigrants should not be restricted from not interacting with others. Although individuals have the right to exchange with each other, they can decide to exclude others. In this case, communities might decide to build territories that restrict the right to enter.
Both theories are similar in the sense that if a state has open borders and immigrants are allowed into their territories, they live at the expense of its citizens. Some of the reasons that immigrants are allowed into a country are due to the social democracy that allows people to be where they want to be. The mixed economy in the states also allows states to have open borders to the immigrants. Among the reasons that states would have closed borders is because of a large degree of redistribution that depends on the underlying social solidarity of the people in that state. Social solidarity, in this case, is determined by a common identity that allows for integration.
In Caren’s approach to dealing with immigration. In a theory of justice Rawls that assumes a closed border system and immigration is nonexistent. Caren explains that some restrictions might be required in some cases but not more than essential to maintain public order. Priority in immigration should be given to people who are deprived of their fundamental human rights over economic immigrants.
As per Paper Writing Services before considering the immigrants, the states should consider their citizens. Caren sees the non-ideal theory only very limited in restricting immigration. The restrictions according to Caren are hardly ever in the interests of the worst offs. According to Caren, some arguments such as the immigrants would reduce the economic well-being of the citizens are refutable by the principles that would be chosen in the original position.
Caren gives several arguments that utilitarians would support an open border. The main objective of the utilitarian approach is to maximize utility with the commitment to moral equality. In coming to a conclusion, Caren does not consider the utilitarian approach where the funds used by refugees could be used in more important matters.
According to Walzer states are morally obliged to assist immigrants based on the feelings. According to Walzer, there are strong factors that limit the process of integrating immigrants. There are risks and costs of immigration and allowing open borders. Walzer compares countries with families and neighborhoods. Neighborhoods have no formal borders, but in the chance that they become larger neighborhoods, there are chances of becoming little states. Neighborhoods can only be open if the countries are closed. Countries are compared to clubs with admission policies. Countries with superfluous wealth should share it. Countries should have some obligations towards immigrant refugees as to their own citizens because in the ideological sense they are like their own citizens. Caren criticizes Walzer’s approach claiming that the distinctiveness of cultures depends on the possibility of formal closure.
More compelling approach.
Help in Homework fully agrees with Caren’s approach. I find his theories more compelling that Walzer’s approaches. This is because Caren recognizes the defensible positions that call for more restrictions. I, however, do not agree with Caren on the issue of open borders. There should be some limits to immigration.