Aerielle Maxwell

Contemporary Political Theory

Professor Martin Marien

Immigration Restrictions

The most highly discussed and debated issue in modern American

society, is whether immigration should be warranted in our nation or if it should be

completely banned. In this paper I will be discuss if immigration restrictions are morally

legitimate, which I will argue, immigration restrictions are not morally legitimate and I will

use a utilitarian point of view to further discuss why my argument on this topic is

authentic, how illegal immigrants affect our economic and social growth, how borderism

is replacing the stigma of racism, the definition of the birth lottery in this case, the

opposition that Kant and Rawls would present, and lastly two incidents where strict

immigration laws have backfired in two separate states.

Immigration restriction is an important dispute in our nation as well as worldwide

for several reasons, specifically in the United States it is dwelled on based off due to the

fact that some people feel as though all illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the

American government and the welfare system that we have implemented in our country.

Asking whether or not immigration restrictions is morally correct or incorrect is vital in

our nation. The house you live in, the food you consume, the infrastructure of America

1
was all a result of the influx of illegal immigrants,they are willing to do the things in our

country that we as Americans couldn't do whether we wanted to or not, they do the dirty

work and we ultimately benefit from it. One would say it is not morally acceptable to

place immigration restrictions on the people that are coming to our nation to better (their

lives and those of their loved ones but from a utilitarian view point that is not accurate

because every human deserves the right to better themselves and it is not the

governments right to take that away from someone. This issue is heavily rooted in a

bias state also. I study Southern Politics and the similarities between transplant African

Americans and illegal immigrants are quite familiar; it is almost as if history is repeating

itself. African Americans just wanted the rights to a better life and to be able to have

more resources available to them in America, the land of the free, than they were given.

In the historical case Loving vs. Virginia an interracial couple wanted the right to be

married, as a result the following statement is what ensued, The decision was a

response to Virginia state judge Leon Bazile, who declared that God placed the different

races on separate continents so that they would not mix (Bergenstrom 1). As it was

then quite a racist remark, today it would be a borederism remark. Borderism

according to Bergenstrom is todays civil rights movement it is what prevents immigrants

to their constitutional right to be treated fairly in our nation This guild system of

nationalities is not racism. Nor is it nationalism nor nativism. In fact, no word exists to

describe it. This is problematic, as our language often defines how we perceive the

world[..]My humble suggestion: borderism (Bergrstom 2). Forcing someone to feel

ashamed or unwanted because of their nationality is neither morally nor politically

correct. Illegal immigrants also want that right to enjoy our free nation, wanting to better

2
their lives and the circumstances that they were born into is not a crime and morally

they should not be tormented because they lost the birth lottery.

The birth lottery in regards to what Jeremy Bentham stated is that the highest

principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain

(Sandel 35). Bentham goes on to show that utility in this case is not about the politics or

economic gain of our nation but whatever brings pleasure or happiness to illegal

immigrants and prevents pain or suffering. With that being said how do we as humans,

have the right to tell another ethnicity, race, or gender of people that they aren't allowed

to cross the border into our nation because of their circumstances, and ultimately their

losing the birth lottery.

The topic of the birth lottery brings me to the next point I will discuss; that

immigration restrictions are immoral. America is known to be the melting pot of the

world. My ancestors, for example, are Irish, Polish, Native American, and African

American, and all of them excluding the Native Americans were transplant immigrants.

The argument that illegal immigrants should not be allowed in the country is complete

borderism simply because we would not be anywhere without our ancestry and the

immigrants that founded America. This was not the way immigrants from the 16th

century entered our country, Native Americans cultivated this land and then European,

Indian, African American immigrants transplanted creating a melting pot. The

immigration process was more organized, with the arrival of immigrants on Ellis Island,

but it still doesn't take away the fact that they were indeed illegals for a period of time

and came to America for the promise of opportunity and wealth to better their lives and

the lives of their families.

3
 For Kant and Rawls, theories of justice that rest on a certain conception of the

good life, whether religious or secular, are at odds with freedom. By imposing on some

the vales of others, such theories fail to respect persons as free and independent

selves, capable of choosing their own purposes and ends..some might object that no

theory of justice and rights can be morally neutral (Sandel 216). Rawls and Kants

opinion on justice or morale is not saying that a person deciding to cross the borders

illegally and start making money is morally incorrect but that a person should be free to

choose their ends for themselves, and however you go about doing so, it respects other

peoples rights to do the same. The morality of this issue is the topic of discussion, Kant

Rawls both agree that morally a person should have the same rights as others and that

however they make money shouldn't affect others around them. Specifically, in the

immigration restriction realm, illegal immigrants aren't coming to America to take from

America they are coming to help make the country prosperous, without illegal

immigrants the crop share farmers would lose millions of dollars and that would effect

millions of Americans that need those strawberries, tomatoes, and other essential

vegetables to survive.. Some people may reject this notion and demonize and destroy

the character of all illegal immigrants and say that they are corrupting our nation and

bringing harmful influences to our border or mooch off of our government implemented

programs such as welfare, unemployed benefits, or even healthcare but that is all

heresy and not the topic that we are here to discuss. The effect of immigration on

welfare is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be

sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the

problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must

4
be treated accordingly (Gregory). Morally, if an illegal immigrant wants to come to

America for an opportunity to benefit themselves and the nation without harming others

they should be allowed to do so; its an ethical matter not a political issue.

To further make my point about the morality of immigration restrictions being

completely unjust, is the story that broke in 2013 about Alabama successful passing the

HB 56 law which to date is the harshest immigration policy law ever passed. This law

prevented landlords, employers, and even schools to require all people show proof of

citizenship. The lead sponsor of the bill boasted to state representatives that the law

attacks every aspect of an illegal aliens life. Among its key provisions: landlords were

banned from renting homes to undocumented immigrants, schools had to check

students legal status, and police were required to arrest suspected immigration

violators. Even giving unauthorized immigrants a ride became a crime (Sarlin). This

brute law affected illegal immigrants life to an extent where morally and constitutionally

they were demonized and forced to abandon their homes and lives that they worked

hard for. Their children were not allowed to be enrolled in school; landlords were

banned from leasing homes to illegal immigrants, and it was even illegal to give an

illegal immigrant a ride. This law ultimately failed and was backtracked because of the

negative attention and the failure for the bill to be implemented successfully and

ethically. A specific case is in the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. It started as a routine

traffic stop and the driver did not have proper tags on his rental car and only had his

German ID. Because of the HB 56 law that passed, the man was arrested and later it

was disclosed that he was a Mercedes Benz executive; the town needed that lucrative

5
business that created thousands of jobs for people in that town but because of this new

law it turned people off from wanting to bring business there.

Another case where illegal immigrants struggled to maintain their own stability

and help agriculture took place in Alabama in 2012. A strict immigration act was put into

place to send thousands of immigrants fleeing for other states and in most situations

they are being deported. As a result, this left the farmers in Alabama in a bind because

they would lose millions in crops that they simply couldn't afford. When undocumented

workers fled, farmers lost around 40% of their workers and $140 million worth of

blueberries, melons, onions, and other crops due to labor shortages (Strupp). The

farmers were looking for replacement workers to fill the slots of the 40% of workers who

fled due to these strict regulations but it is trying to find native workers that can

complete the task and be willing to do the hard labor that is required to get the job done,

for it is a low paying job and physically tough to complete the farming work. Right now

U.S. immigration policy is in shambles. Meanwhile, millions of dollars worth of crops rot

every year because we dont have the workers to pick them. This waste often translates

into higher food prices. The process to legally certify migrant workers is cumbersome

and can hurt farmers who are stuck waiting for papers to come through when crops are

ripe and need to be picked immediately (Strupp), the U.S system on illegal immigration

and getting the citizenship for these workers to be able to help our economy is

regressive. Instead of fighting against allowing immigrants to cross the borders, one

should focus on how to change the system so that the process of getting citizenship is a

quicker and smoother process to those who are qualified. As stated in the article written

6
by Strupp, our agricultural industry is fueled by illegal immigrants and it needs to be

reformed to benefit not only immigrants but farmers as well.

In conclusion, it is a clear cut answer that illegal immigration restrictions is

morally wrong, people can argue that illegal immigrants bring crime and illicit drugs to

our borders but again that is not the issue. We are strictly talking about if we as humans

should prohibit immigrants from crossing our borders for safety issues, benefiting their

lifestyles, or even just more opportunity. Strict immigration laws are not moral because

all lives matter and as a nation of liberty we should not take the opportunity away from

others if they are coming to America with good intentions of making our economy more

prosperous. Speaking from a utilitarian point of view our government is not here to place

strict border control laws, they are here to ensure the safety of the people within this

nation whether it be illegals or natives to this nation. People may argue that illegal

immigrants bring havoc and chaos to America but those statements simply aren't true,

as I discussed earlier illegal immigrants do all the dirty work for this nation that

Americans wouldn't want want to do nor would have the capabilities to do as my

sources stated. In this paper I have discussed if immigration restrictions are morally

legitimate, which I will argue, immigration restrictions are not morally legitimate and I will

use a utilitarian point of view to further discuss why my argument on this topic is

authentic, how illegal immigrants affect our economic and social growth, how borderism

is replacing the stigma of racism, the definition of the birth lottery in this case, the

opposition that Kant and Rawls would present, and lastly two incidents where strict

immigration laws have backfired in two separate states. The answer to the question at

7
hand, are immigration restrictions moral or immoral, they are absolutely immoral and the

evidence I provided in this paper back up all the several reason as to why they arent.

8
 Work Cited

Bergstrm, Markus. "Losing the Birth Lottery." Washington Post. The Washington

Post. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

Gregory, Anthony. "In Defense of Open Immigration." - The Future of Freedom

Foundation. 1 Oct. 2004. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar,

Straus and Giroux, 2009. 35,216. Print.

Sarlin, Benjy. "How America's Harshest Immigration Law Failed." Msnbc.com. NBC

News Digital, 9 May 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

Strupp, Julie. "Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business."

Mic. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.