John Rawls Argument For Open Borders

In 1924 US congress passed the Johnson-Reed act. This act reduced the amount of immigrants coming to the US from any other country to a mere 2%. Many thought this act was unjust and consequently, “un-american”. One man, Robert H. Clancy, a Republican congressman from Detroit, stood up for those being oppressed by this act. Mr. Clancy states his points in the 1924 speech “An “Un-American Bill” through the use of diction, a myriad of anecdotes, and a motley of pathos.

While analyzing the nature of American stimulus, Scott Russell Sanders proclaimed, “But who would pretend that a history of migration has immunized the United States against bigotry?” (Sanders 40). Sanders was a firm believer that America had transformed into a state of take-and-abandon. He made several observations and analogies that highlighted the privation of conservatism. Sanders saw that when people fished a stream, they did not fish it with concern for population of the fish, they fished it until not a fish was left, before moving on to the next stream; when a farmer utilized a field, rather than caring for the field, when the soil quality dropped, the farmer would find somewhere new to settle.

The United States is already a “melting pot” for many different races and cultures already. Building a wall may seem like justice in the eyes of some, the question that is raised is if it will be beneficial for the citizens as a whole. Assessing the issue at hand can lead to the conclusion that building a wall may appear to seem beneficial. If becoming a citizen legally is so rough than how can some immigrants do so and not all? McIntosh’s Invisible Knapsack theory can argue that building a wall to separate Mexico from the United States only adds to our benefits as being citizens.

Unjust Borders: Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration by Javier Hidalgo Introduction "Unjust Borders: Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration" is a groundbreaking work that delves into the ethical complexities surrounding immigration. In this extensive book report, I aim to explore the key themes, arguments, and insights presented by the author. Hidalgo, a prominent philosopher and political theorist, challenges conventional notions of borders and immigration, offering a thought-provoking analysis that encourages readers to critically examine their beliefs and moral principles. The book makes the case that unauthorized migrants can permissibly evade, deceive, and use defensive force against immigration agents, that smugglers can aid migrants

The picture of Lady Liberty with open arms outstretched to the poor and down-trodden throughout the world is an inspiring symbol for conservative and liberal citizens of the United States of America. They are united in the desire to continue living out the Founders’ vision in the modern age. However, they are divided in their interpretation of exactly who is included within that embrace. The terminology of ‘open immigration’ sounds appealing to many residents of the USA. After all, why shouldn’t everyone be able to enter our wonderful homeland?

Colonists and immigrants stood at the origins of the country, that could be today called a land of immigration, and that is why the immigration issue is rooted in the history of the United States of America. Multiculturalists and nativists are arguing about whether immigration and assimilation is good or bad. The paper evaluates arguments of both parties, considers pros and cons of the immigration and supports multiculturalists' arguments because legal immigration without limits truly reflects American original ideals. Strict immigration control, prohibition of immigration, deterioration of living conditions of immigrants, limitations on immigration, and other measures, which were popular among both citizens and authorities of the USA in the

In the essay on realclearpolitics.com titled Our Brave New World of Immigration, The author Victor Davis Hanson addresses the issue of illegal immigration. Hanson argues that immigration is without a set pattern and that today compared to migration in the 19th century is different because people can enter the country illegally. Illegal immigration is transgression of Federal Immigration law and costly to the American government also it is leading to an exponential growth in an already densely populated United States. Hanson points out that there is no forethought of whether people enter legally nor if they learn to speak English. The author also mentions that there is an endless number of illegal immigrants that have not assimilated.

Mark points out 3 reasons why he believes that American should not open its borders to immigration. Marks states the first reason to be patriotic solidarity, which is good that people in their own communities stand together and share a loyalty. His second reason that immigrants are human beings, too. Immigrants are not just another pair of hands to all to the labor input, immigrants comes with all the virtues and vices with them. Mark’s third reason is that because immigrants are people, the high levels of immigration would increase political support and a bigger

With the current election raging, illegal immigration has been the hot topic amongst both liberals and conservatives. Many conservatives believe that illegals steal jobs, abuse tax benefits, and, most importantly, threaten their way of life. Liberals, on the other hand, support immigration reform based purely on sympathy. They understand that many Latin Americans go through extreme measures to escape hopeless situations back home. While there’s nothing wrong with sympathy for our fellow humans, it may serve to be beneficial to look at immigration reform through the lens of reason.

Should people be allowed to immigrate? This multifaceted question exemplifies the contemporary news cycle. Hence, it raises the question regarding the rise of such highly debated and opposing views on such a matter. The theories of Karl Marx and subsequently, Frantz Fanon can be applied to such a perplexing phenomena to gain a more comprehensive understanding. It is empirically provable that people have migrated for thousands of years, however the matter has become immensely contested in the contemporary political and social sphere.

A Critique of Tommie Shelby.” These include an inaccurate distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory, a conflation of racial and class injustice, and the non-endorsement of Rawls himself regarding the application of his principles to non-ideal theory. Further, along the way I would like to address

In a series of rhetorical questions, he asks if an immigrant can call a country that met him with nothing but “the frowns of the rich [and] the severity of the laws” (11) his homeland. The way these questions were included vividly illustrate his point that there is reason for an immigrant continuing to

On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.

Rawls accepts the fact that everyone does not want to better themselves but that should not hinder those who want to achieve more. Rawls also believes that luck-based features should not put a particular group, or groups, above others. It is unfair to give the upper hand to certain people because of factors beyond our control, such as race, age, talent, and more. With Rawls, I believe that there is an obligation to help others because you never know when you may need their help. Therefore, it is important to not stack the odds against anyone who lacks a particular feature, or features.

The gamblers would not in their lucid mind take the risk, and would also probably not accept the current dispensation as it is today. Rawls suggests that every sane player in the game from behind the veil, will want to see well-kept and well-performing schools, affordable and quality healthcare, fair judicial conduct and decent housing for all. Rawls’ theory is thus of the utmost importance to policy makers when deciding how best to allocate resources, as policy makers have to according to Rawls take a step back into this veil of ignorance in order to devise the best or most just solution.