Sign in
Joseph H. Carens examines the moral dilemma of immigration in the context of North American and European democracy. He goes on to explain how perceptions of citizenship and democracy are impacted by immigration. Carens argues that states shouldn’t discriminate against people based on their racial, religious, or gender identities from a democratic perspective. They should also adhere to moral standards that promote reciprocity and justice. This author questions the widely held belief that countries and governments have a basic right to control immigration-related issues. In terms of issues like “access to citizenship, inclusion, residents, temporary employees, irregular migrants, non-discrimination in admissions, family reunion, refugees, and…open borders,” his perspective is in stark contrast to the purported imperative of upholding democratic norms (538).
Regardless of the requirement to respect state sovereignty or democratic self-determination, Carens contends that nations should implement immigration laws because they follow their moral obligations. The Chinese Exclusion Act in the United States and denaturalization in Europe are two examples of prior legislation that is criticized from this angle. Regarding ethical difficulties of immigration, states should generally limit their decisions to human rights and follow their democratic values.
Carens makes a strong case for the morality of immigration in the democratic nations of North America and Europe. Despite being a political matter, he contends that immigration has significant ethical ramifications. Democracies have established rules that can be contested from a policy perspective. Based on societal norms and beliefs, the author backs up most of his claims to demonstrate the need for the government to uphold human rights. A democratic government, for example, should not discriminate against people based on ethnicity, religion, or gender. He refers to the legal foundation for decisions made in these nations regarding immigration-related matters…
