In the continuing debate over illegal immigration, I see many seminal concepts brought into the debate that are not clearly identified and debated. I hope to bring these to the fore here.

Questions for debate:

1) What, if anything, do existing citizens of a nation owe to those from other nations who wish to become citizens? (example--Austrialia basically prevents legal immigation by older persons who may draw upon their social safety net without having paid into its coffers for an extended term of years.)

2) Is there a higher duty to immigrants that supersedes the law of any nation or its Constitution? If so, from what does this duty arise and what is the nature of this duty? If not, why not?


3) What does the US Constitution say about the rights, if any, of immigrants coming here to live or to become citizens, or about the rights of illegal immigrants who actually make it to our shores?


4) Argue why citizens of any nation should indulge any type of immigration that is not to their benefit.

What, if anything, do existing citizens of a nation owe to those from other nations who wish to become citizens?
Depends.

This is naturally an ethical call. I would say we owe them them the same consideration owed to all other human beings.

In the specific case the opportunity to better themselves so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others unduly.

In other words we owe it to them to consider there lives equal to our own.

Is there a higher duty to immigrants that supersedes the law of any nation or its Constitution? If so, from what does this duty arise and what is the nature of this duty? If not, why not?
Ah, the source of ethics. This is going to be some discussion.

Ultimately its by choice, we can choose to act charitably, we can choose to act selfishly.

Edited to reply to Hobbes:

1) What, if anything, do existing citizens of a nation owe to those from other nations who wish to become citizens? (example--Austrialia basically prevents legal immigation by older persons who may draw upon their social safety net without having paid into its coffers for an extended term of years.)
Not a blessed thing. In the 56 Muslim nations of the world immigration by non-Muslims is not allowed period. Don't even both applying. Most of those allow only males to immigrate, except in the case of women that have married a citizen. Some such as Kuwait do not allow immigration period.

Japan requires that person be of 'Japanese ancestry'. Countries like Norway, and Spain require people to adopt local acceptable names.

The list is literal endless of the various requirements and prohibitions.

2) Is there a higher duty to immigrants that supersedes the law of any nation or its Constitution? If so, from what does this duty arise and what is the nature of this duty? If not, why not?
There is no such law. In fact the UN Charter specifically states the opposite.

Article 2, Paragraph 7 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

3) What does the US Constitution say about the rights, if any, of immigrants coming here to live or to become citizens, or about the rights of illegal immigrants who actually make it to our shores?
It doesn't pure and simple. As for illegal immigrants well they are illegal and have no rights beyond human rights.

4) Argue why citizens of any nation should indulge any type of immigration that is not to their benefit.
I can't. The only reason ever to accept an immigrant is that it may benefit the gaining nation. There is no other reason to ever accept them otherwise.

There, you see how easily the entire concept of political and economics refugees falls apart under the weight of legalism and nationalism?

How would it have benefited to US or Britain to accept the poor among Jews fleeing the Nazi's?

Of what benefit to Jordan are those fleeing Iraqis?

...and all those Cubans fleeing the fall of Batista, why again are they here?

Ethics is always at risk of being exorcised from the soul of American policy by "prudent" individuals who think that self-interest can ever be enlightened.

As a country we can decide to accept refugees and often do. This is a far cry from your concept that all aliens have a “right” to come here regardless of our laws or wishes – for a “meal”. Nothing in our Constitution allows for this and it is purely illogical on its face.

And I can make a case that your twisted logic is patently unfair to billions of people who would love to “come here” but do not have easy access.


Why keep these people out? Should we allow free transport for them to make all things equal with Mexico?

You miss my point. Just as with individuals all nations have choices to make.

We can do the right thing or the wrong thing. We can turn away their poor, their tired, their huddled masses....
but let's not lose our minds and pretend it's the right thing to do.


No more than I should comb the country for old ladies to help mow their lawns, but my next door neighbors wouldn't hurt.

I'm going to have to agree with essentially everything Loreng said with the exception of his answer to this question:The Constitution clearly states that the State cannot deny ANY PERSON equal protection of the law.So, illegal immigrants, per the 14th Amendment are not granted any of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, but they cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process and must be treated equally before the law. So illegals aren't protected from deportation but they need to be given due process and treated equally.

CP

That reply is a little more thought out, though the title to the thread and the second question both remain unanswered.

He didn't ask about "law".

It's hard to confront ethical issues sometimes, but that is what the thread asks.

I think I'm going to have to change my mind and agree with Turnea on this. First, philosophically, as Lazarus' poem states regarding the Statue of Liberty:



We should not forget who we are, or how we came about. Immigrants made this country, and quite frequently it was indeed the poor that came over, seeking to make a new life for themselves. This is how this country was built. Which brings me to my second point ... it may indeed be economically wise to allow these people to immigrate. Perhaps not in the short term... but such decisions shouldn't be made for the short term. Capitalism is based on need and desire... such people have an excess of both. Allowing them into the country will probably benefit us greatly in the long term. Also, it should be kept in mind that these are probably the very people who we would be outsourcing jobs to anyway. Might as well have them earn that money here, as opposed to there.

Yes- I agree absolutely Hobbes- however- they also came here legally - mostly anyway-

and I agree- up the quota if need be, and, as is proven with most immigration, legal anyway- they make the economany BETTER- by frequently starting biz of thier own.

Careful though- most of them are liberals

1) What, if anything, do existing citizens of a nation owe to those from other nations who wish to become citizens? (example--Austrialia basically prevents legal immigation by older persons who may draw upon their social safety net without having paid into its coffers for an extended term of years.)

Owe? Apart from protecting the rights guaranteed to non-citizens in the Constitution and some compassion, I don't believe the citizens of a nation owe those seeking to become citizens much at all.

2) Is there a higher duty to immigrants that supersedes the law of any nation or its Constitution? If so, from what does this duty arise and what is the nature of this duty? If not, why not?

No. I believe that people should be compassionate, but I don't believe that this supercedes the law or the Constitution - making those laws or articles meangingless.


3) What does the US Constitution say about the rights, if any, of immigrants coming here to live or to become citizens, or about the rights of illegal immigrants who actually make it to our shores?

The 14th Amendment:



4) Argue why citizens of any nation should indulge any type of immigration that is not to their benefit.

First, there is a difference between refugees and immigrants. Most refugees return to their country of origin when they can... and accepting refugees tends to be on that basis. I think there should be a path to citizenship for those seeking it. But I also believe that there should be guidelines.

At some point, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." becomes impractical.



Yes. I'm inclined to believe that very few came over and stole or created false identities. This is what bothers me about the current plan. It basically rewards criminal activity.

And as far as Mexico is concerned, immigration to the United States is a big part of the economy for that country. They actually prosper based on the income that does not go back into our economy, but goes into theirs. I have a problem with that.

There you have people fleeing a country for better opportunity and they send their money back to the country they are fleeing from to the benefit of the country from which they are fleeing.

Exactly why is it "the right thing to do?" Much of the point of this debate is to identify assumptions--why do you assume accepting refugees and/or immigrants is "The right thing to do?" What is the basis for your conclusion? What are your philosophical underpinnings for your belief?

That's backwards.

It is our values that give meaning to law. If compassion is not inscribed into a law it losing meaning because it loses purpose.

Laws are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.


Then consider what would happen if Mexico lost that income.

Also consider that labor is making goods and services for American companies, the greater economic effect comes from taxing and otherwise benefiting from these corporations, not the pittances of poor immigrants.


Humanitarian concern allowing poor immigrants over the border hurts us so very little and helps them so very much.

It is more important to heal a broken life then salve our bruised egos.

Your answer still doesn't answer my question--why should your nebulous "humantarian concern" trump our law regarding illegality; prompt us to take refugees?; etc.? Why is this the right thing to do? What is the basis for your determination of right and wrong here? Is it our law?; our Const?; some philosophy? What?

I addressed my first post that all value judgments are subjective, unless one introduces the concept of religion. I'm a Christian so of course from my perspective this makes perfect objective sense. The same is true for a number of secular and religious belief systems.

However one does not have to be religious to believe that the purpose of law is, to quote Dr. King, to uplift the human spirit.

I think it would be worth defining different types of immigration before getting into this.

There are a number of ways; one might be length of stay. A short stay would cover tourists* and business travellers. Open-ended stays with a definite intention to return would cover refugees, diplomats, and some other types of business visitor (e.g. British actors working in the US film industry who, unlike Anthony Hopkins, don't want citizenship). And open-ended stays with an intention to stay would cover would-be citizens.

*Lets not forget that people migrate temporarily for recreation all the time, and part of the problem in managing any system of controlled migration is keeping track of tourists who outstay their visa or, in the case of most EU (and other friendly nations to the USA e.g. Canada?) citizens, are not required to have one in the first place.

Purpose of visit might also be in the mix - someone making a weekend visit to Las Vegas to gamble and see shows would clearly be a tourist, whereas someone visiting the same casinos to sell gaming machines would be there on business, and perhaps different rules might apply to both of them. For example, one might allow the businessman to stay an extra couple of days on vacation on application to relevant domestic authorities without leaivng and coming back, whereas a tourist who came across a business opportunity might need to go away and then come back specifically on business.

1) What, if anything, do existing citizens of a nation owe to those from other nations who wish to become citizens? (example--Austrialia basically prevents legal immigation by older persons who may draw upon their social safety net without having paid into its coffers for an extended term of years.)

Taking your example of Australia - I would say that about the only thing existing citizens owe to prospective citizens is a fair opportunity for them to demonstrate that they satisfy the conditions to legally enter the country i.e. if there is some sort of point system for legal residency, or qualification to work, or acquiring of citizenship, or being classed as a refugee, that people are given the time, opportunity, and resources (e.g. English translators in some cases) to demonstrate tha they meet whatever requirements are asked of them.

2) Is there a higher duty to immigrants that supersedes the law of any nation or its Constitution? If so, from what does this duty arise and what is the nature of this duty? If not, why not?

Strictly speaking, no - even international agreements that might apply are only brought into force by domestic laws, even if the law in question says "this international treaty applies".

I'd say that there is a humanitarian duty to genuine refugees whose lives or basic freedoms (e.g. from rape, torture or the confiscation of property) are threatened in their country of origin, but that this duty lasts as long as the adverse conditions in their home country and no longer. If this is a long time - say, a generation, during which time that person has settled, integrated, and raised a family that behaves more like the adopted nation than the "natural" one, then a review of the application might grant naturalised citizenship.

But that would be in the gift of the refuge nation, and not somehting to be demanded from it by the refugee.

3) What does the US Constitution say about the rights, if any, of immigrants coming here to live or to become citizens, or about the rights of illegal immigrants who actually make it to our shores?

This seems to have been covered - due process must be applied at all times to everyone, no matter what their status, but that their status may determine the outcome of due process.

4) Argue why citizens of any nation should indulge any type of immigration that is not to their benefit.

Enlightened self interest - what may be asked of you today may tomorrow be something you ask of someone else. If you deny them today, expect to be denied tomorrow. Even a big economy and military power with masses of internal physical and human resources like the USA might find it needs help - imagine some as-yet-unknown convulsion of the earth's core which causes the whole of Yellowstone to turn into one big volcanic crater belching forth lava, ash, smoke and poisonous vapours on a scale to make Herculaneum look like a scented candle. At the same time, the same cataclysm collapses the Western side of Grand Canaria into the Atlantic, creating mile-high tsunamis that wipe out most of the Altantic coast of North and Central America and of the British Isles.

Might not tens of millions of Americans and Europeans try to flee rather than face certain death? Might not also the destination countries - given that this nightmare scenario would make most of the Northern Hemisphere above the tropics uninhabitable for decades or even centuries - be those parts of the world that are currently the source of most immigration to the "first world"? A dose of humility, anyone?

It is not the right thing to do if it breaks our law. We obviously cannot accept all the worlds poor – that is why we have an immigration LAW. And if we have a law it might make some sense to follow it – or change it – NOT ignore its violation.

Already answered. The law is made to serve people. When people needs are not met it is the law that is in error.

I guess I have no clue where you are coming from. Our LAW is designed to serve our people in out country – not Mexico, Panama, China, etc. They have laws that do the same things – in fact Mexico is much harder on immigration violations than we are.

So if you are saying that countries do not have the right to have laws (and enforce them) to restrict immigration because this may not be “good” may not serve” some poor person who cannot get a job in country X – then we have nothing to talk about since I consider that the most outlandish and un workably idea I have ever heard.

It's not exactly a new idea that are person's livelihood is ore important that many things including the law.


You feel the obligation stops at the border, I disagree and say that our law should also be compassionate to the rest of the world. Just as we may act with charity towards political refugees we can do the same for economic refugees.

So much that it harms our own country? Not necessarily.

...but the fact is I consider it more important that a man feed his family by illegally immigrating rather than a politician going to bed happy he "enforced the law".

It is an ethical judgment, you may wish to ignore this dimension if you want but it won't go away. Every decision we make concerning this issue affects millions of hungry people.

So you would argue a govt's duty to those citizens that elected it; pay its bills; and to whom it has taken an oath; are somehow supersedes by some general notion of "uplifting the human spirit"? How are we, as Americans, supposed to know what uplifts the "Afghan spirit"?

I would argue a govt has no duty but to those who elected it, who pay its costs, and to whom it makes an oath, and indeed govts cannot even understand what duty they may have to those who live by and under different laws, religions and philosophies. You may feel that you, personally, have a Christian obligation to others around the world, but I think it ignores lines of authority to interpose that upon every government. Indeed, I would suggest it immoral for a govt to do anything that is not beneficial to its own citizens.

So that counts out refugees then?

Boats of Jews fleeing the Nazis should be turned back immediately right?

The government has a duty to do what we tell it to do even if that involves altruism.

Ya sure turnea and it seems you could care less about the millions of Americans who cannot find work – some for most of their lives – while we feed illegal Mexican immigrants who send most of what they make back home.

Thoroughly illogical. It is a zero sum game. The number of jobs does not expand to accommodate the criminals you seem to love over Americans looking for work. Esp. American poor.

And please don’t tell me you your justification is the out of work Americans can get welfare and that makes it ok.

97% of Illegal Aliens Take Jobs That Americans Want and Need

Tony Dolz
April 7, 2006
3% of Illegal Aliens Do Low-Paid Stoop Agricultural Labor;

the Remaining 97% Take Jobs That Americans Want and Need The most recent Pew Hispanic Center?s study indicates that 97% of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens are working in construction, hospitality, manufacturing, restaurant, administrative and service jobs. Are these jobs that Americans will not do?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...?articleID=7801

Just a quick note, its most definitely not a mercantile-esque, zero sum game. There can be a net-positive gain even if immigrants send most of their funds back home, which they probably don't:

True capitalism not only does not shrink from market competition, it strongly encourages it. The very premise of a free market is that goods and services will be offered by those most capable of doing so at the highest quality and lowest expense, and that their reward is a greater volume of business. So the idea that illegal immigrants are successfully competing against unemployed Americans for jobs suggests that some problem exists either with the unemployed Americans or the jobs.

As it happens, we already know where part of the problem lies. It's the jobs. Illegal immigrants successfully compete against unemployed Americans primarily because they do not require their employers to obey labor laws, such as those pertaining to safety regulations or minimum wages. Employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are already breaking labor laws, so the cost of breaking further laws to exploit their workers' inability to demand legal protections is far outweighed by the benefits.

In my opinion, absent jobs like these, illegal immigrants would unsuccessfully compete with unemployed Americans who are legally able to work in the United States and speak functional English. If that is so, enforcing labor laws will leave illegal immigrants unable to find work, thereby removing the motive for them to come to or live in this country.

I do not think any nation owes refugees anything--again, the govt takes an oath to its citizens first. If the citizens demand refugees be admitted, so be it.

Refugees should at most be give temporary asylum, as I see it. Unless these refugees offer some real benefits to the host nation, they should be repatriated as soon as possible after the war/strife ends. If this never happens, the war and strife do not end, then you have a thorny problem, but I would sure insist that refugees learn English, study and learn US history, and otherwise "buy into" the system before they are given any kind of permanent status.

That is a far cry from:

Refugees are rarely beneficial, is sheltering them an immoral act by the government?

What I was referring to are the jobs that are taken by illegal immigrants. The number of jobs is, for the most part, independent of where the workers come from. So when a job, say in construction, is taken by an illegal alien it is not available to a legal alien or citizen. And that now unproductive (unemployed) legal potential worker is a burden on the country.

Compounding this is the 50 billion a year sent “home” – out of the US. This is clearly not zero-sum because money spent here is subject to the “multiplier effect” of money spent in the country.