Michael Huemer - Is There a Right to Immigrate?
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/Immigration.pdf
Huemer sets up a number of thought experiments and proves that the US actually has a moral duty to open its borders. He argues that, at most, the US may be ethically entitled to open its borders somewhat slowly - over 5 years, perhaps - so that the move may be canceled if it is found that open immigration has caused some unforeseen harm. He demonstrates that closing the border is a violent act. While he does not argue that it would be good or moral to do so (and strongly implies with other examples that it would not be), he says that even if it were true that immigrants caused undue strain on social services and paid less tax than necessary to cover the cost; since it is possible for the federal government to recoup such losses with less coercive means, the government may not ethically exclude immigrants from joining the society as legal residents.
Having established this, Huemer points out that current restrictions are akin to the racist and sexist policies of old: motivated by an unjust desire for relatively privileged people to avoid minor economic discomfort at the expense of other people's basic rights. Though I don't want to do the argument an injustice through inadequate paraphrasing, I will note that Huemer hypothesizes a hungry man, Marvin, who is walking toward a marketplace where there are at least some vendors who have food they are willing to exchange for something he owns, who share enough common linguistic background to conduct the transaction, and/or who have the right to extend an invitation to Marvin at their own pleasure. He then hypothesizes a third party who physically restrains Marvin from entering the marketplace, and asks just what kind of potential harm would justify limiting Marvin's otherwise-accepted right to move freely.
What say you, NSG? I have not included a poll, because the argument in the Huemer piece above is somewhat unique among American arguments in favor of open immigration policy, and I would prefer that people respond to that argument. The piece is just over 30 pages excluding bibliography, but for a philosophical proof, it is a very easy read; if you do not want to devote that much of your attention to his argument, feel free to pick one of the many thought experiments that take less than a page to resolve, and debate one of those.
Of course, there is no thread ownership in NSG, so I cannot stop you from expressing an opinion on the ethics of immigration restrictions in the USA or in applicable scenarios, even if it does not fit my expressed desires above.
Penny for your thoughts?
