On Immigration

This discourse endeavors to illuminate the pressing issue of immigration reform in the United States. It critically examines the multifaceted problems that plague our current immigration system, from legal complexities and inefficiencies to inhumane policies and political polarization. Acknowledging the concerns of those who oppose reform, it presents a robust counter-argument grounded in the principles of utilitarianism, pragmatism, and compassion.

The discourse advocates for a reform approach that strives to maximize happiness, is practical in its application, and shows compassion for our fellow human beings. It concludes with the assertion that while the task of reform is monumental, it is not insurmountable, and that thoughtful and informed discourse can lead to solutions that promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

I. Introduction

In the spirit of utility and pragmatism, we find ourselves compelled to address a matter of great import and urgency in the United States - the state of immigration. As it stands, the current system of immigration in this great nation is fraught with complexities and inefficiencies that call for our immediate attention and reform (Kerwin & Warren, 2017).

The United States, a nation built upon the toil and dreams of immigrants, finds itself at a crossroads. On one hand, it is a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life. On the other, it grapples with the challenges posed by a system that is often seen as broken and in dire need of reform. The presence of a large undocumented population, the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrant families, the treatment of asylum seekers, and the lack of adequate workplace protections for immigrant workers are but a few of the issues that underscore the need for reform (Kerwin & Warren, 2017; American Journal of Community Psychology, 2018).

The purpose of this essay, therefore, is twofold. Firstly, it seeks to critically examine the current state of immigration in the United States, drawing upon the wisdom of scholars, experts, and the founding fathers of this nation. Secondly, it aims to advocate for solutions to the immigration issue that are not only utilitarian and pragmatic but also compassionate. In the spirit of the greatest happiness principle, we contend that immigration reform should seek to promote the greatest good for the greatest number, taking into account the interests of all stakeholders - the immigrants themselves, the communities they join, and the nation as a whole.

II. Understanding the Broken Immigration System

In the pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is incumbent upon us to comprehend the complexities and inefficiencies that plague the current immigration system in the United States. A system, I might add, that is in dire need of reform to better serve the interests of all stakeholders involved (Kerwin & Warren, 2017).

Firstly, the legal immigration system, a labyrinthine structure of laws and regulations, often fails to serve the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. The system is often seen as outdated and inefficient, leading to long wait times and a backlog of applications (Kerwin & Warren, 2017).

Secondly, the presence of a large undocumented population is a symptom of a broken system. These individuals, often living in the shadows of society, are a testament to the need for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses not only the legal status of these individuals but also the underlying causes of illegal immigration (Kerwin & Warren, 2017).

Thirdly, the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrant families are a stark reminder of the human cost of our current immigration policies. Policies that result in family separation, including the deportation of caregivers, are seen as harmful and inhumane (American Journal of Community Psychology, 2018).

Fourthly, the treatment of asylum seekers is a contentious issue. Policies that result in the detention of asylum seekers or limit their ability to claim asylum are seen as problematic and contrary to our humanitarian obligations (American Journal of Community Psychology, 2018).

Fifthly, the issue of political polarization is a barrier to effective reform. The polarization of immigration issues, with people clustering into ideologically homogeneous groups, hinders the development of pragmatic and compassionate solutions (Himelboim, McCreery, & Smith, 2013).

Lastly, the lack of adequate workplace protections for immigrant workers is a major issue. Policies that fail to protect these workers from exploitation and abuse are seen as part of a broken system (Kerwin & Warren, 2017).

In the spirit of information integrity, it is essential that we address these issues in our pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform.

III. Historical Perspective on Immigration

Before we get too deep in, I believe we must examine the historical role of immigration in the United States, for it is through understanding the past that we can shape a more beneficial future. The United States, a nation built upon the principles of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, owes much of its foundation and formation to immigrants. The founding fathers, themselves descendants of immigrants, envisioned a nation that would serve as a beacon of hope and opportunity for all, regardless of their place of birth.

The historical perspective on immigration in the United States is a testament to the nation's enduring commitment to the principles of liberty and equality. The founding fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton, himself an immigrant from the Caribbean, recognized the value of immigration. In Federalist No. 14, Hamilton wrote, "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition." (Hamilton, 1787) This sentiment, a testament to the inherent worth and potential of every individual, underscores the value of a diverse and dynamic populace.

Historical experts, too, have highlighted the role of immigration in shaping the United States. As historian Oscar Handlin noted in his seminal work, "The Uprooted," "Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history." (Handlin, 1951) This perspective underscores the integral role of immigrants in the narrative of the United States, from its inception to the present day.

The historical reasoning thus supports the need for immigration reform. The United States, a nation built by immigrants, has thrived due to the contributions of individuals from diverse backgrounds. As such, it is in the nation's best interest to continue to welcome and integrate immigrants into its social fabric. This perspective aligns with the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. By fostering a society that is inclusive and welcoming to immigrants, the United States can continue to benefit from the diverse skills, perspectives, and contributions that immigrants bring.

However, it is also crucial to acknowledge the challenges and complexities associated with immigration. As philosopher John Stuart Mill noted, "The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it." (Mill, 1861) Therefore, it is essential to ensure that immigration policies are designed in a way that respects the rights and dignity of individuals, while also addressing the economic, social, and security concerns of the nation.

Consequently, the historical perspective on immigration in the United States underscores the value and necessity of immigration. It is through understanding this history that we can shape immigration policies that uphold the principles of liberty and equality, while also addressing the complexities and challenges associated with immigration. In doing so, we can ensure that the United States continues to serve as a beacon of hope and opportunity for all.

IV. Legal and Philosophical Perspectives on Immigration

I believe must consider the legal and philosophical implications of the current immigration system in the United States. The legal implications are manifold and complex, as they touch upon constitutional law, administrative law, and international law. The legal system, as it stands, is fraught with inconsistencies and inefficiencies that often result in prolonged detention, family separation, and violations of due process rights. As noted by Motomura in his comprehensive analysis of immigration law, the system is marked by a "dualistic approach" that distinguishes between lawful and unlawful immigrants, often leading to unjust outcomes. (Motomura, 2006)

The philosophical implications of the current immigration system are equally profound. The system, in its current form, raises questions about the nature of justice, the value of human rights, and the moral obligations of nations. The philosopher Carens, in his seminal work on the ethics of immigration, argues that the current system is fundamentally at odds with the principles of liberal democratic societies, which value equality, liberty, and respect for all individuals. (Carens, 2013)

The legal scholar Bosniak, in her exploration of the rights of non-citizens, further elucidates the philosophical quandaries posed by the current immigration system. (Bosniak, 2006) She argues that the system creates a "second-class" of individuals who, despite their contributions to society, are denied the full rights and protections afforded to citizens. This, she contends, is a violation of the fundamental principle of equal moral worth.

The philosophical implications of the current immigration system are further explored by Schmidt in his discourse on the subjective nature of interests and the role of ideas in shaping political realities. (Schmidt, 2008) He posits that the current system is underpinned by a set of ideas and norms that are not necessarily reflective of the objective interests of individuals or society at large. This, he argues, calls for a reevaluation of the system from a philosophical standpoint, with a focus on the principles of utilitarianism, pragmatism, and compassion.

Therefore, current immigration system in the United States, from both a legal and philosophical perspective, is in dire need of reform. It is incumbent upon us, as a society, to strive for a system that is not only legally sound but also philosophically aligned with our values of justice, equality, and respect for human dignity.

V. Acknowledging the Opposition

In the spirit of intellectual rigor, it is incumbent upon us to first understand the arguments advanced by those who oppose utilitarian, pragmatic, and compassionate solutions to immigration reform. The opposition's arguments can be broadly categorized into three main areas: national security, economic impact, and cultural preservation.

National Security: Some argue that lax immigration policies could potentially compromise national security. They contend that without proper vetting and control, individuals with malicious intent could enter the country. This perspective is often associated with conservative political groups and individuals concerned about terrorism and crime (Breitbart News Network, 2023).

Economic Impact: Another argument advanced by the opposition is the potential negative economic impact of immigration. They argue that immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, could flood the labor market, leading to job competition and wage suppression for native-born citizens. This argument is often put forth by those concerned about the economic wellbeing of native-born citizens and the potential strain on public resources (Breitbart News Network, 2023).

Cultural Preservation: The third argument centers on the preservation of national culture and identity. Those who advance this argument believe that large-scale immigration, particularly from culturally distinct countries, could lead to the erosion of the national culture and the creation of cultural enclaves. This perspective is often associated with racist, white supremacists, nationalist and nativist groups (The Guardian, 2023).

While these arguments may seem compelling on the surface, they often rely on assumptions and generalizations that do not hold up under scrutiny. In the following sections, I will present a robust critique of these arguments, drawing upon the wisdom of constitutional scholars, experts on immigration, and esteemed philosophers.

VI. Advocating for Utilitarian, Pragmatic, and Compassionate Solutions

We have arrived at, what I believe is, the most interesting substance of the immigration debate. I shall now address the above opposition and present my own counter-arguments, grounded in the principles of utilitarianism, pragmatism, and compassion.

I must first acknowledge the concerns of those who oppose proposed solutions. They argue that open immigration policies may pose threats to national security, have negative economic impacts, and disrupt the preservation of cultural heritage. These are not entirely unfounded concerns, and they merit serious consideration. However, we must also consider the broader implications of our current immigration policies, and weigh these concerns against the potential benefits of reform.

National Security

The opposition often cites national security as a primary concern. However, as noted by scholars such as David Bier, immigration policies that are overly restrictive may actually undermine national security efforts by diverting resources away from identifying genuine threats (Bier, 2019). Furthermore, the argument that immigrants pose a significant threat to national security is not supported by empirical evidence (Nowrasteh, 2016).

In the realm of predictive data mining, a technology at the heart of the U.S National Security Agency's surveillance scandal, it has been argued that the tactics that the Bush Administration adopted to fight terrorism represent an extension of a particular type of future-oriented power (Guzik, 2009). Predictive data mining discriminates by design, designating certain groups as threats relative to others. Thus, persons with Middle Eastern and North African backgrounds will disproportionately bear the burden of this surveillance technique and the innumerable mistakes it produces. The real hope for change lies in the crisis of legitimacy that one could expect to result from the wider application of such discriminatory technologies (Guzik, 2009).

Moreover, the fear of discovery among Latino immigrants when presenting to the emergency department has been documented (Maldonado et al., 2013). This fear can lead to avoidance of necessary medical care, which can have serious public health implications.

In the context of healthcare, the growth of the undocumented immigrant population in the United States has been explosive. The absence of a uniform policy regarding health care for this population has created a unique problem for healthcare providers. How should provision of care for undocumented immigrants be delivered and compensated? This problem is exacerbated by the multiple complex laws that govern delivery of and payment for care, as well as that state regulations vary widely and are not easily understood (Campbell et al., 2010).

In sum, the national security argument against immigration reform is not as straightforward as it may seem. It is important to consider the broader implications of restrictive immigration policies, including their impact on public health and their potential to divert resources away from genuine threats.

Economic Concerns

In the spirit of the greatest happiness principle, let us delve deeper into the economic concerns often raised against immigration reform. The opposition, in their pursuit of national interest, frequently argues that immigration, particularly of the low-skilled variety, negatively impacts the economy. They contend that immigrants take jobs away from native-born citizens and depress wages. However, this perspective, while seemingly intuitive, does not fully capture the complexity and dynamism of the labor market.

Economists such as Giovanni Peri have conducted extensive research into the economic effects of immigration. Peri's work suggests that immigration, particularly high-skilled immigration, can have positive effects on the economy, including increased productivity and innovation (Peri, 2010). This is consistent with the findings of other scholars, such as Hainmueller and Hiscox, who argue that the correlation between education and support for immigration stems not from self-interested concerns about wages, but from differences in cultural values and beliefs about immigration's sociotropic impacts (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2010).

Moreover, the argument that immigrants take jobs away from native-born citizens is overly simplistic and does not take into account the dynamic nature of the labor market. A study by Kerr and Lincoln found that high-skilled immigrants, particularly those in STEM fields, significantly boost innovation and technological change, which in turn can lead to job creation (Kerr & Lincoln, 2010).

Furthermore, a comprehensive review of studies on immigration attitudes by Hainmueller and Hopkins found that immigration attitudes show little evidence of being strongly correlated with personal economic circumstances. Instead, immigration attitudes are shaped by sociotropic concerns about national-level impacts, whether those impacts are cultural or economic (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014).

In light of these findings, it becomes clear that the economic arguments against immigration reform are not as straightforward as they might initially seem. The labor market is not a zero-sum game, and the arrival of immigrants does not necessarily mean fewer jobs for native-born citizens. Instead, immigration can stimulate economic growth, increase productivity, and lead to job creation. Thus, the pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number would seem to support a more open and inclusive immigration policy.

Cultural Heritage

Let's delve deeper into the complex issue of cultural heritage preservation in the context of immigration. It is indeed a concern that is subjective and multifaceted, but it is also one that is often manipulated and distorted by the forces of racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy.

The United States, as a nation, is a vibrant tapestry woven from the diverse threads of those who have come to our shores. This is not a matter of opinion, but a historical fact. The cultural heritage of the United States is not a monolithic entity, but a dynamic and evolving amalgamation of influences from around the world. As philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues, a cosmopolitan perspective that embraces diversity can enrich our society (Nussbaum, 1994).

However, the opposition to immigration often stems from a fear of the 'other', a fear that is rooted in racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy. This fear is often disguised as a concern for the preservation of cultural heritage. Yet, this perspective is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that culture is a static entity that must be preserved in its original form, rather than a dynamic entity that evolves and adapts over time.

Research has shown that the opposition to immigration is often driven by racism and xenophobia, rather than genuine concerns about economic or cultural issues. For instance, a study by Virdee and McGeever (2018) on Brexit and its aftermath found that the vote to leave the European Union was significantly influenced by a rise in everyday racism and xenophobia in Britain. Similarly, a study by Kolstø (2012) on Russian nationalism found that xenophobic and chauvinistic sentiments were being mobilized by the authorities for political purposes, leading to an increase in racially-motivated violence.

These studies highlight the insidious ways in which racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy can infiltrate the discourse on immigration and cultural heritage preservation. They show that these forces are not just fringe elements, but are deeply embedded in our societies and political systems.

Therefore, in countering the opposition argument, it is crucial to expose the underlying racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy that often drive these concerns. It is also important to highlight the dynamic nature of culture and the positive impacts of diversity on our societies.

Therefore, the preservation of cultural heritage is not incompatible with immigration. On the contrary, immigration enriches our cultural heritage by introducing new ideas, perspectives, and traditions. The real threat to our cultural heritage is not immigration, but racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy, which seek to divide us and stifle the dynamism and diversity that are the lifeblood of our culture.

In advocating for utilitarian, pragmatic, and compassionate solutions, we draw upon the works of scholars and advocates for immigration reform. For instance, philosopher Joseph Carens argues for a more open approach to immigration, grounded in principles of social justice. (Carens, 2013) Similarly, legal scholar Hiroshi Motomura advocates for an immigration policy that is both pragmatic and compassionate, recognizing the contributions of immigrants and the complexities of their situations. (Motomura, 2014)

While we acknowledge the concerns of the opposition, we argue that a utilitarian, pragmatic, and compassionate approach to immigration reform can address these concerns while also promoting the greater good. We must strive for a policy that maximizes happiness, is practical in its application, and shows compassion for our fellow human beings. In doing so, we can move towards a more just and equitable immigration system.

VII. Conclusion

Now I conclude this discourse on the pressing matter of immigration reform in the United States. Throughout our discussion, we have endeavored to shed light on the multifaceted issues that plague our current immigration system. We have examined the legal and philosophical implications of these issues, and have acknowledged the concerns of those who oppose our proposed solutions. However, I have also presented a robust counter-argument, grounded in the principles of utilitarianism, pragmatism, and compassion.

In summary, I argue that our current immigration system is in dire need of reform. The legal immigration system is overly complex and inefficient, the undocumented population is a testament to the system's failures, and policies regarding family separation, deportation, and asylum are inhumane and unjust. Furthermore, the lack of workplace protections for immigrants and the political polarization surrounding immigration are exacerbating these issues.

We propose a utilitarian, pragmatic, and compassionate approach to immigration reform. Such an approach would strive to maximize happiness, be practical in its application, and show compassion for our fellow human beings. We argue that this approach can address the concerns of the opposition while also promoting the greater good.

In conclusion, the task of reforming our immigration system is a monumental one, but it is not insurmountable. It requires us to engage in thoughtful and informed discourse, to consider diverse perspectives, and to strive for solutions that promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is our hope that this essay has contributed to that discourse and will inspire further discussion and action on this critical issue.

References:

• American Journal of Community Psychology. (2018). The Effects of Parental Undocumented Status on Families and Children. Link (Note: The link is currently not accessible)
• Bier, D. (2019). Immigration and National Security. Cato Institute.
• Bier, D. (2019). "How Immigration Restrictions Backfire." Cato Institute.
• Bosniak, L. (2006). The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership. Princeton University Press.
• Breitbart News Network. (2023). GOP Rep. Hunt: Democrats' Migration Pushes Americans into Poverty. Retrieved from https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2023/05/23/gop-rep-democrats-migration-pushes-americans-poverty/
• Campbell, G. A., Sanoff, S., & Rosner, M. H. (2010). Care of the Undocumented Immigrant in the United States With ESRD. American Journal of Kidney Diseases.
• Carens, J. H. (2013). The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford University Press.
• Guzik, K. (2009). Discrimination by Design: predictive data mining as security practice in the United States’ ‘war on terrorism’. Surveillance & Society.
• Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61-84.
• Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public Attitudes Toward Immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225-249.
• Hamilton, A. (1787). Federalist No. 14.
• Handlin, O. (1951). The Uprooted.
• Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 154–174.
• Kaufmann, E. (2018). Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities. Penguin UK.
• Kerr, W. R., & Lincoln, W. F. (2010). The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and U.S. Ethnic Invention. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(3), 473-508.
• Kerwin, D., & Warren, R. (2017). The US Legal Immigration System: Family and Employment-Based Immigration. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(2), 225–239.
• Maldonado, C. V., Rodriguez, R. M., Torres, J. P., Flores, Y. G., & Lovato, L. M. (2013). Fear of Discovery Among Latino Immigrants Presenting to the Emergency Department. Academic Emergency Medicine.
• March, L. (2012). Nationalism for Export? The Domestic and Foreign-Policy Implications of the New ‘Russian Idea’. Europe-Asia Studies, 64(3), 401-425
• Mill, J.S. (1861). Considerations on Representative Government.
• Motomura, H. (2006). Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States. Oxford University Press.
• Motomura, H. (2014). "Immigration Outside the Law." Oxford University Press.
• Nowrasteh, A. (2016). Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis. Cato Institute.
• Nussbaum, M. (1994). Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism. Boston Review.
• Peri, G. (2010). The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion. Migration Policy Institute.
• Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.
• Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326.
• The Guardian. (2023). First it was no to Polish plumbers, then Afghan refugees. Now the right doesn’t want any migrants at all | Aditya Chakrabortty. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/polish-plumbers-afghan-refugees-migrants-legal-migration