Free Immigration

In order to determine what the US government ought to do, we must set a standard through which we can evaluate the round. The reason that we ought to do this is that a standard provides a cohesive filter for us to evaluate our arguments and the debate. This means that the use of the standard promotes education, which is the goal of the debate, and also makes the debate more meaningful and powerful for the participants. The standard I offer is Justice, defined as giving each her due. Justice is the best standard because the actor in the resolution is the US government, a representative of the people. The function of the government is to ensure that all members of society receive what they deserve on the basis of a social contract. This is why the government establishes a justice system to punish criminals, a fire fighting force to protect the homes of citizens, and schools to provide all citizens with the opportunity to become autonomous beings who are capable of pursuing their own ends. I would like to offer one argument before I present my case. Since justice promotes the primacy of the individual, benefits to society at the cost of the individual are deemed unjust because an action can never be justified on the grounds of its consequences if the means through which the consequences are obtained do not provide each party what he is due. As Harvard philosopher John Rawls explains, “ A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many” [1] This will be a key attack on my opponent’s case. There are three reasons that the state must keep its borders open in accordance with the principles of justice.. 1. Borders and accidental citizenship are morally arbitrary. At the most basic level, individuals ought to be accorded benefits in proportion to their merit, and not in accordance with morally arbitrary characteristics such as race as sex. Birth into a specific nation is not a result of merit; rather, it is a result of winning a “lottery of births”-it is entirely accidental. I choose neither my parents nor the piece of land on which I was born. Insofar as this is true, there is no morally significant difference between an individual born in the United States and an individual born in India.Because there is no morally significant difference between individuals who are born in different nations, they ought to be able to travel as they please so long as they do not promote an active danger (such a as a terrorist threat) to the lives of others through explicit acts of violence. Immigration restrictions would distribute rights and citizenship benefits on the basis of morally arbitrary characteristics and are therefore unjust. 2. Immigration restrictions are a violation of autonomy. Autonomy is the capacity to rationally pursue choices for oneself and to set one’s own ends. The right to autonomy is a negative right, meaning that it can never be violated by another unless the individual whose autonomy one is violating has presented an active, direct threat to one’s own autonomy. Immigration restrictions restrict autonomy by restricting the life choices that individuals would have the freedom to pursue in the absence of immigration restrictions. Carens outlines a few of the ends that require open borders when he explains, “one might want a job; one might fall in love with someone from another country; one might belong to a religion that has few adherents in one’s native state and many in another; one may wish to pursue cultural opportunities that are only available in another land . . .” [2] Since justice is centered on giving each her due, and each individual is due the ability to pursue her own ends, restrictions on this ability cannot be pursued by the state via immigration restrictions. The state has a prima facie duty to keep borders open. 3. Immigration restrictions violate property rights. Philosopher Robert Nozick contends that in the state of nature, which predates society, individuals have the negative rights of life, liberty, a property. It is important to note that these are not collective rights; they belong to individuals and not to groups of individuals unless the groups consist of individuals who unanimously choose to exercise their rights in such a manner through consent. A state is formed on the basis of protecting these rights, which all people possess, from foreign states. The right to property includes the right to make voluntary transactions with any individual, regardless of morally arbitrary characteristics such as country of origin. The state cannot interfere with these rights, even if they have a negative utilitarian impact, as long as they do not violate the rights of others. So, for example, if a landowner in New Mexico has a diamond mine that employs everybody in the hypothetical town of Ashford, if the owner decides to sell the mine to a Chinese national who plans to hire all Chinese workers and fire everybody in Ashford, the state cannot interfere in the transaction since the mine belongs to the owner and the sale, while it has negative utility, does not violate rights. If people wish to purchase land and homes in the United States through voluntary transaction and immigrate, the state has no justification for preventing people from doing so. Opponent’s CaseMy opponent claims that open immigration causes a brain drain in the country that individuals emigrate from. I will concede that this is true but note that this is unimportant for a few reasons. 1. Extend the Rawls card from the bottom of the framework. Rawls explains that justice centers on preserving individual autonomy, meaning that utilitarian impacts are not grounds for violating autonomy. If people would like to leave the other nation for a better life, that is their choice. They are not beholden to the people in that country; they have no obligation to remain and suffer simply so that the economy does not suffer. This means that his case is entirely irrelevant. 2. Turn this arguments because he admits that open immigration would cause an influx of talented individuals from other nations into the United States through voluntary transactions. This would be enormously beneficial for the United States economy because it would allow for intelligent people to contribute to the innovation that the US promotes. 3. This is actually beneficial for the Mexican economy in the long run. The US and Mexico engage in free trade through NAFTA, so any innovations that result from the influx of innovative minds would ultimately improve the lives of Mexican citizens because it would grant them access to new materials that previously did not exist. Even if the Mexican citizens who remain are unable to secure these resources at first, over time, increased innovation will allow the resources to trickle down to them and improve their lot in life. Second, open immigration would give nations like Mexico an incentive to correct their destructive economic practices and invest in innovation. The reason that people would leave Mexico is that it does not promote an environment that is friendly to innovation and success. If Mexico wants these people to remain, it will now have an incentive to invest money in innovation and cease poor economic practices. This will aid the Mexican economy in the long run far more than trapping talent in a nation that will not use it. Sources1. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls2. Migration and Morality by Joseph Carens3. http://www.mrrena.com...