This past Friday, the Senate failed to pass a bipartisan agreement that would have given most illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens, created a temporary guest worker program to meet the needs of business and tightened border security. Immigration is a complicated affair and any successful argument for or against it must take into account its social and economic implications.
Let us make the following assumptions:
1. The migration of workers will mostly affect the lowest paying jobs.
2. Some domestic workers will continue working in these jobs but will lose purchasing power as their wages fall. Other domestic workers will move to occupations with higher wages and cause wages to depress slightly as the job market adjusts.
3. Most members of the domestic population will benefit from cheaper goods produced in the migrant-competing occupations. Their wages will not be depressed since their occupations require skills which neither the migrants nor the displaced domestic workers possess.
4. The migrants come voluntarily and are relatively well informed about the social and working conditions.
5. Workers in the migrants' home countries benefit as wages increase in response to a decrease in the labor force. In addition, remittances sent to the home country have a positive effect on national income.
6. There are positive social and economic gains from cultural exchange.
While I admit that some of these assumptions are controversial, I take them to be realistic.
There is a global utilitarian argument in favor of unrestricted immigration. According to utilitarian principles, there are no objective reasons to give preference to the interests of an individual, household or nation. If there is a positive balance when the aggregate utilities generated by immigration are weighed, then unrestricted immigration should be allowed.
The same conclusion is drawn using John Rawls' "veil of ignorance." If someone does not know his or her class position or social status, his or her natural talents, abilities, intelligence or strength, and what his or her plan for a good life is, he or she will probably come to the conclusion that unrestricted immigration should be allowed: Not knowing what his or her position in life is, he or she will want to pick the least bad alternative.
This least bad alternative would follow the following maximin principle: The type of society which will be picked is one in which the least fortunate individuals are in the least unfortunate social and economic situation.
But both of these arguments seem to disregard the role of the state by implying that the state should adopt principles that do not distinguish between the welfare of its citizens and the citizens of other states.
In addition, while it is clear that a state has a moral obligation to refrain from harming a foreign nation, it is not under any obligation to help a foreign state if doing so might harm its own interests. Furthermore, a state has an obligation to its members to consider their welfare when enacting policy. A state is free to admit or deny entry of its borders to foreign citizens. Thus, if immigration is beneficial, there is no reason to limit it.
It is clear that a completely unrestricted policy of immigration is neither feasible nor desirable. Immigration, however, while it does hurt some workers, has an overall positive social and economic impact. Thus, any government should seek to create an immigration policy which balances the gains and losses from immigration. This is why any government is justified in enacting restrictions on the magnitude, length of stay and the conditions of employment of immigrants as long as these restrictions do not discriminate on account of race, gender or sexual orientation. Immigration policy should be free from greed and racism.
Thus, it is important for states to create a well balanced and thought out immigration policy. Such a policy must also address the status of illegal immigrants. The problem is that, after the failure on Friday of the Senate to pass a bipartisan agreement, this is currently lacking in the United States.
It is a shame that no progress was made on the status of illegal immigrants. It would be morally wrong to deport immigrants who have been working and living in the United States for years. They pay taxes and are contributing both to the economic and social welfare of the United States. Most are here as a result of an immigration policy that does not reflect the needs of our economy and society; this is not their fault.
They were let in when we needed low skilled labor, and we have no right to kick them out now when there is less of a need. To do so would not be to treat them with the respect that every human being deserves.
