Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Where members of a population from Country A are illegally entering Country B (due to poverty)
Where Country A has poor resources (or poorly managed moderate resources) and Country B has rich resources (or better managed moderate resources)
What is the most moral way for Country B to tackle immigrants from Country A? Why?
A few approaches immediately come to mind:
1) A free-market approach would say that Country B shouldn't try to "tackle" immigration or restrict it, Country B should freely allow for immigration until wages (prices of labor) stabilize in both countries.
2) A utilitarian approach would look not just for the wages to stabilize, but the marginal utility gained by making life better "overall" vs. the (likely greater) utility lost by citizens of country B whose wages were reduced, and try to set caps on immigration and floors on wages accordingly.
3) Some religious traditions would ignore the potential economic benefit to country B and look only at immigration as an opportunity to do something good for someone. Independent of whether members of country B did not cause country A's misfortune, these traditions would say we still owe portions of what we have to the less fortunate.
This being a moral question, I would say that it depends entirely on whether Country B is both directly and indirectly responsible for Country A's political and economical situation.
Also, a rather huge factor would be whether half of Country B used to be Country A until the former practically stole it from the latter.
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
I advocate creating a gentle poverty gradient, so that
This gradient would provide not a locked door, nor an open door, but a ladder.
I believe blocking migrants from entering B at all is, while not wrong, hard-hearted. A country befitting the character of country B would not be so parsimonious with its opportunities.
Likewise I believe that opening the borders could very well destroy country B's culture and economy, as with a huge influx of people from A the culture will change in ways that make B more like A and therefore diminish opportunities for all and drain resources from B to A that would be more wisely invested in B.
My gradient, or ladder, is different levels of residency and citizenship within B. These would be
Climbing this ladder would require a minimum of years spent at each stage, with short circuits for migrants with education or wealth, and testing of some kind, such as native language proficiency. There would also be quotas allowed for each stage, such that the system is a pyramid and not all progress from one level to the next.
First, I would like to present my understanding of some of the terms.
Countries are geo-political entities, that were defined by specific individuals. Not everyone gets to define their own country or other countries. Also, the definition of countries change over time.
Illegal entry refers to the entry into a country without in a manner contrary to an entry defined by the law of the country. In a representative democracy, the law, also, is usually defined by certain individuals, and not be everyone.
Poverty is a lack or deficiency of personal needs. The amount of money, which is used to fulfill these needs in capitalist societies, is often used as an indicator of poverty.
"Poor resources" and "poorly managed moderate resources" are contradictory in that the former refers to "poor resources" and the latter "moderate resources". Similarly, "rich resources" and "better managed moderate resources" are contradictory in that the former refers to "rich resources" and the latter "moderate resources". For argument's sake, let us first consider that the countries have "poorly managed moderate resources " and "better managed moderate resources". The management of resources, again, rests not equally on all individuals in a country.
It follows, therefore, that not everyone participates in the definition of "countries", "laws", and "management of resources".
At the end of the day, if an individual is in so much poverty (has very little money), then the definitions become irrelevant to the individual's happiness and the individual does not conform to them anymore. This could possibly be the background of individuals who enter a country illegally. I have not experienced it firsthand, so my statements are only conjectures.
The "members of a population from Country B" (let's call them, Population B), who may conform and live by the definition of "countries", "laws", in general and their country and their laws, in particular, would probably think that it is the illegal entry of the "members of a population from Country A" (let's call them Population A) is not just illegal, but also unjust.
Thus, the tricky part is to find a solution that would both address the poverty of Population B as well as the illegality and injustice against Population A.
Now, let us analyze the next statement regarding the resources and their management. In a globalized world, resources (materials, finished goods, and knowledge) are exported and imported among different countries. The price is determined by the buying country and the selling country, demand, and supply. Thus, even countries with less resources can be rich, depending on what type of resources they have. Once they have an economic advantage, it is easier to build upon the economic advantage more and more. The exports and imports are controlled by individuals who manage the resources. By exporting resources to other countries, these individuals gain economic benefits. However, it results in more and more poverty of Population B.
Thus, we can see that if all populations would like to conform to geo-political boundries identified as the countries, and avoid illegal immigration, then
1) either all resources (including human resources) must be produced and used within their own countries (this solution will address the poverty of Population A), or
2) eliminate all borders and dissolve the definition of countries (this solution will address the injustice against Population B).
Reference:
On the Morality and Legality of Borders: Border Policies and Asylum Seekers
Dealing in horrible way usually is unproductive, so for the sake of well-being of both Country A and Country B, Country B should make well controlled process of immigration for any citizen of Country A and massive penalties for not using the process and trying to enter 'illegaly'. Process itself could be designed to tailor needs of Country B - for example incredibly bureaucratic and long taking to control the flow or other aspects. This way whole thing becomes controlled and not 'illegal' and can be handled with more ease, that would benefit both countries better than shutting the border and not really solving anything.
Country B's primary moral obligation must be to it's own citizens.
An illegal immigrant is not a citizen and therefore Country B's moral obligation toward them must must be calculated based upon not being to the detriment of the moral obligation they have to it's own citizens.
