Essay Sample on Immigration Limits: Unjustified Racism or Necessary Policy?

Introduction

The discussion on immigration is a global concern which is much propagated by racism in major countries such as the United States. Therefore in the worldwide arena, limits should not be set to immigrants to help control the flow of people in a given state. It is worth noting the fact that immigration in significant countries is pegged on racism as its essential causes. Therefore this paper intends to explore why limits should not be set to immigrants basing on the arguments of Michael Hummer's article and the counter-arguments as presented in chapter 17and 18.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Main Arguments

To begin with, Michael Huemer in the article "Is There a Right to Immigrate?" posits the analogy that, by imposing laws that restricts immigration is a great violation of human rights (Russ, 428). Notably, as depicted in the article, it is morally unjust to limit immigrants, and it is considered a prima facie violation of rights. Most governments that restrict immigration are often faced by several challenges, particularly along the borders. Huemer argues that governments restricting immigration to preserve jobs and interest of its citizens would be threatened in their own limits. In the United States, several laws have been legally constituted to prevent the influx of immigrants, but some illegal immigrants experiences injurious challenges while smuggling themselves. This fact justifies the fact that restriction posed tremendous ethical challenges, which in the long run affects the hoist countries such as the United States. It is believed that by restricting immigrants, national cultures preserver and economic hardship reduced.

On the contrary, the potential immigrants can help unlock the economic potential as witnessed in the United States. Significantly, several jurisdictions, especially in the United stated, have failed to provide a credible rationale of whether restricting immigration is ultimately a violation of human rights (Russ, 438).

Tentatively, through restrictions on immigration, many are maimed and killed hence a violation of human rights. Thus such laws should not be considered in robust economies such as the United States. Similarly, by restricting advocacy by overturning laws against the immigrants is unjustified and a significant violation of human dignity and rights. Based on the in-depth analysis of this article, Michael Huemer demonstrates that a right to immigrate is a universal right to cross the borders of any state and stay there as long as one wishes. Besides, the individual has the prima facie right to immigrate and therefore should not be prevented from migrating. Significantly, the immigrants have a prime right to be free from coercion the restriction should not be imposed on them in a harmful and dangerous manner whatsoever. The article also reveals that, even though immigration influences the labor markets, impose the fiscal burden on provision of social services as well as the national culture, the immigration restriction is wrong and a full violation of human rights.

Counter Arguments

Considering the article "the case for limits" by David Muller qualifies the fact that various states have the sole mandate to adopt multiple policies restricting immigration (Russ, 448). The article contradicts Michael Huemer in a section whose main arguments are pegged on the fact that limiting immigration is a significant violation of human rights. Significantly, in Muller's report, the right to freedom of movement accorded people could not ascertain automatic migration. But instead, policies should be put in place to curb the influx of immigrants who influence the social, economic and social services. Unlike Huemer, Muller's article argues that immigration restrictions should be consistent to help limit the number of immigrants moving into a country within a particular time. The freedom of movement cannot be subjected to manipulation by allowing free movement of people.

On the other hand, since justice requires securing maximum opportunities for those born within the given country, they should cater to the minimum level of vulnerable people abroad. According to Muller, various states have the right to restrict immigration as a way of preserving their culture and social attributes. However, the restrictions accorded to immigrants should not discriminate against them based on race, ethnicity or religion. Muller also argues that even though the people are granted the right to exit, finding the right place to immigrate requires restricting laws to monitor the movement of people. Similarly, Muller acknowledges the fact that a wealthy nation's wealthy nations distribute justice equally into the poorer countries but cannot be alluded to equal distribution of resources. Therefore, it is prudent for robust economies such as the U.S. to put restricting policies on immigration (Russ, 428).

Supplementary Argument on Racism

Following the in-depth analysis of chapter 18, it is clearly demonstrated that racial discrimination influences several policies restricting immigration in the United States (Russ, 440). Tentatively, the comprehensive analysis of these reading supplements Michael Huemer article which view restrictions imposed on immigration as a significant violation of human rights. History has it that, slaves were forcefully abducted in the substantial part in Africa and relocated to American, which is considered a significant violation of human right. Apparently, this resulted in the discrimination against race, the religion that is witnessed in the United States today. On the same account, segregation experienced, especially in schools was declared unconstitutional as the services should be shared equally among the whites and blacks. Therefore, by avoiding restricting policies on immigration, both Africans and Americans can enjoy the available services without discrimination. More importantly, the racial attitude and perception infringe on the human right of various individuals is immoral, and therefore, policies restricting immigration should not be affirmed. According to this argument, since society is morally required to provide its citizens with equal opportunities and valuable resource, thus limiting policies on immigrants is a violation of human rights. Similarly, the affirmative action's policies on racism are based on unfairness hence a breach of the principle of merit (Russ, 448)

Conclusion

In response to the article "the case for limits" by David Muller, I intend to conquer to the fact that, restricting policies on immigration should be affected to reduce the influx of the immigrants, particularly in the United States. It is imperative to note that, since immigration, particularly in the United States, tremendously influences the cultural, economic and social services, the restricting policies should be affirmed. More importantly, the regulations on immigration should not be discriminate against anyone regardless of their race, religion and ethnical background. Significantly, since the wealthy nations guarantee equal justice to the poorer nations, the policies should be affected to offers social support in their native countries. On my reflection, I view the concept of racism as the significant challenges facing immigrants, especially in the United States. Therefore the policies constituted to offer restriction on immigration should restore human dignity without violation of human rights.

Work Cited

Russ Shafer landau: press living ethics, an introduction the animal ethics reader.