Immigration Reform in the U.S.: A View Through the
Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility
Immigration Reform in the U.S.: A View Through the
Introduction
The United States of America, a country so poetically nicknamed to be “a melting pot” of cultures, has always been a more than desirable destination for the immigrants from all over the world. However, as the “times of economic uncertainty and social transformation have complicated American ideas about national and racial identity and have raised moral dilemmas concerning America’s obligations to immigrants from neighboring countries” (Duncan, 2007), the current U.S. immigration policy has started to age and cause concerns. Old practices become outdated, sometimes even irrelevant, and it is not surprising that society is now more fascinated with finding a solution for this issue than it has ever been before.
Unfortunately, during this seeking process people tend to take rather extreme positions while ignoring all the middle grounds. Such disregard of compromises causes a lot of troubles in society, because middle grounds are the main holders of ethical grounds and they should be observed. Otherwise, conflicts between immigrants and local residents might worsen in the future – and, what is even more serious – these conflict will go beyond purely cross-cultural controversies.
Thus, this essay will mostly view this situation through the prism of utilitarianism, deontology, and ethical egoism. In taking this approach, an effort will be made to present complications that might arise if this issue is not handled immediately.
The common tendency originating from the historical past is that immigrants come to the United States in the search for better life conditions. It does not always mean that life in their native country is tremendously difficult, but it does mean that the anticipation of the American Dream seems to be much more pleasant for these people. Putting all the reasoning aside, this step is always done out of self-interest, either this interest is forced or created voluntarily. No matter what driving factors motivate potential immigrants to aim for the United States, the end of their attempts is always improvement of their lives. Nonetheless, a lot of people are highly concerned with the number of immigrants coming to the country, and with all possible dangers that might bring along. Their concerns are not unreasoned, for massive immigration flows across the globe as a product of globalization has already caused much turmoil in the developed countries which are usually common destinations for immigrants from the developing countries and beyond.
Depending on the group of people or the location, there are two general utilitarian approaches to the problem with immigration. However, it would be odd to evaluate anything through the utilitarian point of view before introducing what the word “utilitarianism” stands for.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good”, and “the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced” (Driver, 2014). Thus, from this perspective, any utilitarian opinion towards the immigration issue emerges from person’s perception of morality, ethics, and, of course, the goals this person aims to achieve.
Generally speaking, utilitarianism by itself evaluates actions through the means of their usefulness for the common good. When it comes to immigration, people tend to either concentrate on the benefits for their own nation or on the benefits for the incoming nations. The third group of people, the most objective one, tries to find solutions that would satisfy both parties and simultaneously bring good to the common table. Finding the golden mean
For instance, the supporters of Donald Trump’s “huge wall”, strongly believe that the increasing number of illegal immigrants will bring terror, unemployment, cultural disrupt, and will take away a hefty majority of the liberties an average American is so proud about. All these consequents are at the very least scary, but what is more terrifying is that many people accept them as the only possible outcome, and this is where all of the fuss begins.
After all, illegal workers are the ones that come to make money, they take the most tedious vacancies, do the most humiliating jobs – the ones that “proud Americans would never take”. It is difficult to deny that very few employers would refuse to hire the workers whose wages requirements for the same type and amount of work are much lower than those of the ‘native’ residents accustomed to improved living and payment standards. By letting immigrants make money, and yet do their job for lower wages, employers in the United States benefit greatly: all of this together is a nice utilitarian symbiosis (everyone is useful to each other). Yet, such symbiosis should not threaten competitiveness of American ‘native’ residents in the local labor market.
However, illegal immigrants still do break the law, and yet another definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy comes in handy here: “deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do, in contrast to that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of person are and should be” (Larry, Moore, 2015). In other words, deontology as a domain in ethics focuses on the moral value of an action in relation to the rules: the more compliant is the action, the more ethically acceptable it is for deontologists. Deontological concerns in relation to the laws of host countries and particularly the U.S. are raised for a very simple and obvious reason: some separate immigrants tend to break laws, resort to terror and criminal activity in the U.S. environment. Needless to say, such extreme cases of anti-deontological behavior as terroristic attacks, shootings, robberies and many others have often been committed by the marginalized group of immigrants. Even more, the U.S. immigration policy
Because laws are made for a good reason, it is presumed that any person has to obey the laws of the land they stand at. The problem with egoistic illegal immigrants arises when they do the job, take much less money than a legal employee would, and, to top it all, pay no taxes to government. As a result, their choices produce poor consequences for the people who already live in the U.S. On the other hand, the majority of legal immigrants living in the U.S. pay taxes and align their actions with deontological principles (though without going too deep into theory), but they also make up the lion’s share of the U.S. residents receiving one or more types of social welfare. According to the Centre for Immigration Studies, the share of immigrants, though legal, receiving various social welfare benefits is higher than that of ‘native’ residents. Even more, while only 30 percent of ‘native’ American households receive any type of welfare from the country, there are more than three quarters of all immigrant households receiving social welfare services in the U.S. (Camarota, 2015, p.1). From the deontological stance, it is especially good in moral sense that the government aligns its actions with the regulations it has entrenched itself in its immigration policy. However, one might assume that such strategy slightly damages utilitarian principles of the common good, for ‘native’ citizens seem to be overlooked by the welfare providers (probably because they are not informed about availability of such services, while immigrants are).
On the other hand, there is a breach in America’s tough immigration policy due to the strict requirements faced by immigrants in the course of their transition to the status of residents. A lot of arguments protecting immigrants comes from the historical heritage of the United States: “All Americans, with the possible exception of the Native Americans, are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants” (Schuck, 2008), and many see hypocrisy in the criteria deciding for who will become a legal resident and who will not. It is clear that already rich and well-educated people have way more chances to become a U.S. citizen than those who are only on their way of development, and this is not a proper approach.
This system is rather discriminatory and violates the Equal Liberty Principle: “Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all” (Maco, p.4). By this, any person has a right to be treated as a person, to be given a chance for improvement and development.
Interestingly, the U.S. immigration policy permits acquisition of the resident status through investment in local enterprises which means that the country welcomes potential immigrants with decent amounts of money on their bank accounts. In this way, an immigrant is expected to make a significant contribution to general utility in the U.S. domestic context. However, this policy is not quite fair both due to its discriminatory nature and to the unilateral practice of utilitarianism on the side of the immigrant. After all, if someone is already stable and successful in their native country, chances are rather slim they would decide to come to the U.S.: the very essence of immigration as for the modern days lies in the search of better living standards and condition, whether they are attained through safety for refugees, education degrees of the U.S. level for further career development or through higher wages. Moreover, as the idea behind establishment of the United States of America was to provide freedom and possibilities for those who seek them, it seems more fair to upgrade the current immigration system in order to provide satisfaction to as many people as it is possible. For the U.S. government, applying the principle of utilitarianism would mean balancing between the needs of local population and the arriving immigrants in order to minimize discriminative attitudes towards the latter (for instance, in terms of development and professional self-actualization) and to protect the former from inconveniences and insecurity.
Considering the backlashes of inappropriate application of the ethical theories described above, one could assume that the most favorable pathway to truly moral attitude in the issues of immigration consists of different theories’ elements. Upgrading the U.S. immigration policies in favor of ethically acceptable approach could mean the following: 1) simplifying immigration criteria in order to observe the equality principle and prevent immigrants from breaking the law or entering the country illegally; 2) ensuring development prospects so that they could contribute to general utility via qualified work and taxes rather than exercise their ethical egoism; 3) control tax inflow from the non-resident workers in order to inform and provide equal social welfare for ‘native’ residents.
Conclusion
If there was a way to make the visa acquiring process easier, the United States would benefit more. After all, there is always a way to start taxing workers without citizenship to provide actual citizens with improved health care and educational system, because money is always good, and a wider variety of employment competition in the labor market would create ambitions and a desire in people to improve themselves and do something incredible.
This way, everyone benefits from the utility of the whole process, immigrants’ ethical egoism is controlled and no laws are broken, which altogether is an ultimate ethical middle ground – that same one capable of satisfying as many people as it is possible through the achievement of a healthy compromise.
References
Camarota, S. A. (2015). Welfare Use by Legal and Illegal Immigrant Households: An Analysis of Medicaid, cash, food, and housing programs. Center for Immigration Studies, 1-17. Retrieved from: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-illegals_1.pdf
Driver, J. (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Duncan, A.W. (2007). Scholars Discuss Ethics of U.S. Immigration Reform. University of Virginia: School of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2007_spr/immigration_reform.htm
Larry, A., Moore, M. (2015). Deontological Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/ethics-deontological/
Maco, D. J., Smith, I. E., Watson, J. R. Ethics in Current U.S. Immigration Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.ethicapublishing.com/confronting/5CH18.pdf
Schuck, Peter H., "The Morality of Immigration Policy" (2008). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1678. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1678
