Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I don't understand why the administration and others claim that it is so difficult to send illegal immigrants across the border from the U.S. to Mexico. They seem to be able to cross it from Mexico to the U.S. all the time.
|
I think it would be exceedingly difficult. Forcibly removing such a large number of people from a country would not be an easy undertaking. What if mistakes were made and US citizens were sent to Mexico? The effect of removing such a large labour force from the economy would also have a large impact. It's much more realistic to grant amnesty and secure the borders.
Immigration is a very important and exceedingly difficult to manage. Humanitarian (ethical) considerations must be balanced againts social and economic considerations. The mass emigrations that still took place last century do not seem to be possible anymore. The country receiving the immigrants seems to have less to gain and more to lose. If not managed correctly, a strain is placed on the social cohesion of the country, as evidenced by the riots in Paris and anectdotal accounts I have heard (from concerned as well as third parties). Nonetheless closely managed immigration can help a country by attracting needed skilled migrants.
In my mind the ethical case is much clearer when dealing with political refugees (as opposed to economic) as ethical concerns eclipse the other and the numbers involved are much lower.
Economic immigration is harder to deal with. For example, many north africans attempt to reach the EU every year. If an influx of such immigrants were to be aloud access unabated this would lead to an appreciable decrease in the standard of living of the people within the EU. Is this not what we are primarily concerned with? Even though the immigrants come and obtain a greater standard of living than in their home countries (albeit below the average standard of living of the country they now live in) their presence creates an economic, social and eventually political impact. In great enough numbers we may even imagine the country losing much of its former prosperity. In such a light immigration must, of course, be restricted. Ethically seen, however, what right do we have to deny to people to share in this prosperity?
I think this is a contradiction in the dealings of what we largely see western society (particularly the social democracies of western europe) to be, that is socially just. Of course I cannot offer a solution to this contradiction and continue to enjoy the benifits the current system gives me. (Indeed it is similar to what Peter Singer has written about obligations we have to the third world for which he did not offer any clear cut solution either).