The United States of America is considered by many to be the greatest country on the face of the Earth. Is this perception due to economic liberty? Freedom of speech? Or because the country is a melting pot of immigrants from all across the globe? The answer to this question, is a combination of all these things and more. As a result of all America has to offer, our great country attracts a massive number of immigrants, approximately 1,000,000 per year. Some people argue that immigration is a right, and imposing restrictions on immigration is immoral to those born into less advantaged circumstances. However, in this essay I argue that open border policies are morally unjust to Americans and immigrants alike as they would lead to the decimation of the very economy Americans worked so hard to create and that immigrants wish to take part in.
The vast majority of Americans are either of immigrant descent, or immigrants themselves. It is both the moral and legal duty of the United States government to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all its citizens. One of the many ways the government carries out its duty is through immigration policy. Immigration restrictions imposed by the government help to better the country as a whole for without them, chaos would surely ensue. In his article, “Is there a Right to Immigration?”, Michael Huemer argues in favor of an open border policy and rails against restrictions on immigration. Huemer uses the following scenario:
Marvin is in danger of starvation… he will walk to the local marketplace, where he will buy bread. Assume that in the absence of outside interference, this plan would succeed… Sam, is aware of all this and is watching Marvin… Sam decides to detain Marvin on his way to the marketplace, forcibly preventing him from reaching it. As a result, Marvin returns home empty-handed, where he dies of starvation. (1)
In Huemer’s example, Marvin, Sam and the marketplace represent undocumented immigrants, the U.S. government and the U.S.A respectively. While in this example the U.S government was unjustified in restricting access to the country, the scenario does not accurately reflect reality. In an accurate scenario, the marketplace would require a membership, such as in the case of a wholesale store. Marvin would not be a member but still expect to gain access to better deals on food. In this case, rather than Sam seemingly restricting Marvin's access for no justifiable reason, he is justified in enforcing the rules of the marketplace. Everyone who shops there must be a member, just as everyone who lives in the United States must be authorized to do so. There is no special exception for Marvin because if there were, there would be an exception for everyone. Now, if the marketplace did in fact begin making exceptions for everyone, it would be unable to fiscally survive as its main source of revenue was the membership fee. With an influx of people buying items without paying the fee, the marketplace would surely go bankrupt leaving members in the very same situation as marvin. This new scenario brings to light the reason why an open border policy would never work in America. If instead of the membership fee and the marketplace we consider taxes and the welfare system this connection is made clear. By lifting all restrictions on immigration, every impoverished and disadvantaged person would rush to the land of opportunity. Due to their circumstances, these immigrants would fall into the lowest tax bracket and inherently take more from the welfare system than they themselves put in. The burden would then be felt by working class Americans, who are than obligated to support this inflated lower class. With such an imbalance, the welfare system would collapse leaving Americans without the social benefits they paid for through their own tax dollars. This action of implementing open border policies would be unjust to the American working class who are first coerced into paying for the immigrants’ social benefits and then eventually losing the benefits themselves.
My criticism of inclusive cosmopolitanism does not merely stem from a hypothetical speculation of its consequences. Undocumented immigration has already proven to put a strain on the national economy. According to a comprehensive report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” The report goes on to explain that the costs for federal and state/local governments are roughly $45 billion and $89 billion respectively in education, medical, justice system, and welfare costs as well as in general expenditures. The report does concede that illegal immigrants have contributed an estimated $19 billion in taxes, which leaves a net cost of about $116 billion for taxpayers. Logically speaking, if several million illegal immigrants have the ability to inflict this much damage on the economy, then allowing millions more to cross the border would only amplify that effect. In order to prevent the harm that uncontrolled immigration causes, the Government places restrictions on immigration and deports illegal immigrants who slip through the cracks. Inclusive cosmopolitans argue that such measures infringe on the rights of foreigners who should have equal access to the country even though they weren’t born here. However, In his book, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" (1). Mill’s argument, also known as the Harm Principle, supports my claim that the government can and should deny undocumented immigrants the right to enter this country and to deport them against their will. Since an open border policy would harm Americans by draining the economy, government intervention against the will of foreigners is not only right, but is necessary. The federal government should therefore retain its right to limit access to American prosperity, by protecting immigrants and citizens from economic harm.
Open border policies also hurt the immigrants it so claims to help. Immigrants come to America for a plethora of reasons, one of the most common being for better economic opportunities. Due to our capitalist society, there tends to be greater economic opportunity and mobility in America than in other nations. The current immigration system allows for a select number of immigrants to come to this country to pursue the “American Dream”. If the U.S. were to adopt an open border policy, our country would be flooded with unskilled labor. America is no longer a country with a large manufacturing or farming industry that requires unskilled laborers. With an excess of unskilled labor and only a certain number of available jobs, the majority of immigrants would ultimately be left unemployed and impoverished. Therefore, under an open border policy, these immigrants would arguably be back exactly where they started. The policy would effectively strip immigrants of their right to a better life by causing the demise of the land of opportunity. While it is undoubtedly moral to continue allowing a steady flow of immigrants into the country to spread our wealth with those born into worse circumstances, an open border policy would obliterate that wealth for everyone.
Modern America was built on the backs of immigrants. The success of the American economy largely had to do with the presence of immigrant workers, scientists, and innovators. At the same time, this success was attributed to controlled immigration. It would be both immoral and ignorant to abandon American values and close off our borders, just as it would be immoral and ignorant to promote unrestricted immigration by implementing an open border policy. Open borders would end the American economy that was built by immigrants through the destruction of the welfare system, creation of a huge tax burden, and eradication of job opportunities. In order to prevent Americans from economic harm and preserve the economy for future immigrants to enjoy, the government has the moral obligation to secure its borders and regulate immigration.