Immigration - At what point do you deny entry?

Samlw

Hello Everyone,

A couple of weeks ago, I started a discussion on abortion and the difference in views of pro-life and pro-choice. What I found was that, even though people were willing to offer different views, the majority sided with pro-choice. This led me to choose a topic that might have people on more definitive sides: immigration

I currently live in England, and those who also live here will agree that recently, immigration has been hijacked by certain politicians to fuel hatred towards specific demographics. Following our general election, there were violent riots in different parts of England, sparked by the tragic loss of three young children. Although the riots have subsided, the debate continues with passionate views from both sides.

I am aware that in America this is also a major topic of discussion as well, especially due to the upcoming election. So, I would like to hear your views on this and to see whether we differ from opinion due to difference in experience.

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry?

This is a very broad subject, and I will not be able to touch on all aspects with my initial post so instead I will share my view:

I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does. England thrives on legal immigration. For example, according to NHS Workforce statistics published by NHS Digital, 265,000 out of 1.5 million NHS staff are of non-British nationality, making it 1 in 5. Immigrants contribute significantly to our society, and to disagree is, in my eyes, is regressive.

The part of the debate that gets everyone going is illegal immigration. Now let’s start by splitting “illegal immigration” into categories. These categories are common classifications in immigration laws, policies and academic research:
• Entry without inspection – Individuals who cross borders without going through official entry points or undergoing inspection by immigration authorities.
• Visa Overstayers
• Fraudulent Entry
• Asylum Seekers – It is important to note that not all asylum seekers are classed as illegal, some may enter a country without proper documentation and then apply for asylum.
• Human Trafficking Victims
• Unaccompanied minors
Now looking at this, it’s easy to say, “We should let X people in and not let X people in,” but it’s not that simple. People are complicated, and any system of picking and choosing will have ways to be exploited.

In my opinion, these are all humans who deserve a fair shot at life. The term “immigrant” has become dehumanizing. When discussing this topic, people say “illegal immigrant” so often that it has lost its original meaning and is now more of a stamp on people. However, this does not mean I am advocating for open borders. Politically, I consider myself to have a centrist or left-leaning view on this topic.

Our first point of call should be to protect our citizens. However, where I think people get mixed up is the difference between protecting and preferring. If anyone who has entered illegally genuinely wants to live a good life, respects our society, and goes through a legal channel of seeking permission to stay, they should be treated equally to any other citizen. We should have stricter policies on deportation if they are found to break the law.

It’s important to remember that there is always a reason for something. These people may be coming from war-torn countries or fleeing persecution based on race, nationality, religion, etc. They risk their lives to come here. If I were in their position, having left everything behind and risked my life, I would only pray that the people on the other side would accept me.

I still have a lot to say on this topic, but I don’t want this to be too long. I would like to hear people’s thoughts, especially from those with more conservative views, to understand their perspectives.

tim wood

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw

I think American immigration issues and European differ enough to be separate discussions.

About American: First is to try to control the flow. I buy the idea that for most immigrants, immigration is a matter of desperation, and "necessity knows no law." To be very brief, I would like the US government to say to the governments of certain of its Southern neighbors that their internal policies are creating external problems, and those policies have to change and will, one way or another. This directed to and if necessary against the people in charge. Details, lots of details, to be worked out, everything on the table. The goal, of course, being the creation of societies that people don't want to leave and don't have to leave.

For people who are at the border but not in the US, they are in another country, Mexico. I would like the US government to work with Mexico to make those people relatively comfortable, safe, and secure. But at the same time not to forget that they're in Mexico and thereby a Mexican problem.

For people who are here, recognition that being here, they are a US problem. In my opinion, for those people legal recognition, authorization to work, and a path to full citizenship. Lots of details to be worked out. But no detention and no deportation, except as prescribed punishment for criminal activity.

That leaves people taken while crossing. These evaluated case-by-case, and either they stay or are returned to (presumably) Mexico. I would like the US government to track those returned and as appropriate consider expedited immigration status.

My underlying principle is the belief, our belief, that being American and being in America are respectively a special status and a special state, each with its own rights and privileges. The National Basketball Association, the NBA, has a rule that in a few words covers, paraphrased here: you have a right to be where you are. A good rule, and being given, it is just the details to be worked out.

tim wood

As to immigration to Europe, from my distant view, that is, should be, a European problem. As such, there (imho) should be a Europe-wide organization that controls it and all matters and issues about it to which all European countries subscribe That is, a stream of immigrants to Greece or Italy should not be just a Greek or Italian problem, but a European problem. Nor should immigrants be necessarily confined to the country they're in, but allotted to all European countries. Lots of details to be worked out. The underlying principles being that as people, they have certain rights and entitlements, and additional rights and entitlements on the basis of where they are.

Samlw

I would like the US government to work with Mexico to make those people relatively comfortable, safe, and secure. — tim wood

I like your approach to the solution however I just think it is a bit optimistic. For the US government to step in and try to help that would mean a fair enough amount of money to be given in aid to Mexico for quite a while. In where a country who is already quite giving, and their population getting more fed up daily by the amount of money America is dishing out to other countries. I just don’t see the US government being able to do that without major complaints from their people.

Also for the US to solve issues within Mexico it would require military presence which then may make cartels and other organisation within Mexico more violent, possibly displacing more people and creating more refugees. There would be a potential for parts of Mexico being destroyed through a certain level of destruction that this violence would bring along.

I do think there is a responsibility for America to find ways to help. To be a global superpower in this world I think there is weight on your shoulders to offer support where you can. So in my opinion you are correct that the US needs to find ways to help I just think it isn’t that simple at all and unless you were to wage a war on gangs, which I don’t think the US is willing to do right now, it will be really hard to change the business as usual.

Philosophim

You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. I don't think its any more complicated then that. If you want to let more immigrants in, change the law. If you don't, change the law. The one thing which is completely unacceptable is when immigrants are allowed in against the law.

Samlw

That is, a stream of immigrants to Greece or Italy should not be just a Greek or Italian problem, but a European problem. — tim wood

The reason this doesn’t work is that this is already sort of the case.

Speaking from the experience in England. A lot of our illegal immigrants are actually from close European countries such as France. You can travel a lot of European countries on land with somewhat ease, illegal immigrants will choose to travel through Europe, go to countries like France and sail over because they know that we are softer and we offer one of the better standards of life for refugees and immigrants.

European countries are all so unique and all have such different capabilities how do you decide which country does what in a way that’s fair, and who decides that? England has left the EU and may be followed by a couple countries, Germany as an example. In my opinion that shows that certain European countries do not enjoy being told what to do already, let alone when they are told to carry the biggest burden by some randomly elected governing body that they may of not even voted for.

Samlw

You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. I don't think its any more complicated then that. If you want to let more immigrants in, change the law. If you don't, change the law. The one thing which is completely unacceptable is when immigrants are allowed in against the law. — Philosophim

In my opinion that is a very cold, black and white way of looking at it. Would you turn away a human trafficking victim, would you turn away an unaccompanied minor on the border? What about an asylum seeker.

And if you were to say we should say no regardless then I would say that you need some compassion for your fellow human.

Tom Storm

What about an asylum seeker. — Samlw

Yes, in Australia asylum seekers/refugees were relabelled 'illegal immigrants' quite successfully to play to the bedrock of community prejudice against 'hoards of folk' coming in and 'stealing jobs and bringing crime'. The usual tropes. Immigration involves a range of complex issues, not just those at the point of entry - what happens to an established culture and values when different and perhaps antithetical values and beliefs enter in large numbers? What quotas do you set when there is an almost inexhaustible supply of refugees in the world? What is the future of the nation-state and national identity? I don't have enough expertise in the area to say.

jgill

Framing the conversation in terms of preserving the state or nation.

1. "A failed state is a state that has lost its ability to fulfill fundamental security and development functions, lacking effective control over its territory and borders." (Wikipedia)

2. Immigrants to the USA should "Surge the border"

3. Flying in inadmissible aliens.

And here we are three years later.

In the context of humanitarian issues, there are limits on resources that dictate that the nation establish rules and laws of immigration so that those who follow those rules be given an opportunity to present their cases. Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not.

Philosophim

In my opinion that is a very cold, black and white way of looking at it. Would you turn away a human trafficking victim, would you turn away an unaccompanied minor on the border? What about an asylum seeker. — Samlw

That's what the laws of a nation are for, especially a democratic one. We decide as a whole, not as an individual. If we're all so noble, we'll create laws that allow it to the capacity we think we can handle.

And if you were to say we should say no regardless then I would say that you need some compassion for your fellow human. — Samlw

And I say you are too self-righteous in your denial of the bonds and rules of your nation. Are you better than everyone else? You'll be the one to decide? Where does that stop? If laws are to be broken whenever we deem, what good are they?

Leontiskos

You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. — Philosophim

Think of it as a question about what the laws should be.

-

↪jgill

- :up:

Philosophim

Think of it as a question about what the laws should be. — Leontiskos

The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree?

Leontiskos

↪Philosophim

- Your answers are sidestepping the purpose of the OP. The OP wants to have a substantive discussion about immigration. Why not enter into that discussion? Why not be one of the democratic citizens who marshals arguments in favor of a real position?

Philosophim

Your answers are sidestepping the purpose of the OP. — Leontiskos

You sidestepped my answer and question. If you disagree with them, point out why please. I plainly entered into the discussion as one of those democratic citizens. I firmly believe that each nation should be able to vote to decide how immigration works. If a nation wishes to have full and free immigration, then they can. If they want to be restrictive, then they can. It is up to the individuals of each nation to determine what they as a nation can allow in without risk to resources, population limits, housing, food, etc. There is no one size fits all, because every nation has different limits they have to consider.

Leontiskos

↪Philosophim

- The OP is not anti-democratic. If you're not interested in the topic of the thread I'm not sure why you are posting in it. Adios.

Samlw

I firmly believe that each nation should be able to vote to decide how immigration works. If a nation wishes to have full and free immigration, then they can. If they want to be restrictive, then they can. It is up to the individuals of each nation to determine what they as a nation can allow in without risk to resources, population limits, housing, food, etc. There is no one size fits all, because every nation has different limits they have to consider. — Philosophim

I am not disagreeing with you, I am simply asking about your independent view on what we can do about this situation, lets dive into the topic and what your personal beliefs are, maybe even come up with an idea.

And I say you are too self-righteous in your denial of the bonds and rules of your nation. Are you better than everyone else? You'll be the one to decide? Where does that stop? If laws are to be broken whenever we deem, what good are they? — Philosophim

I am not out here saying that I am the one to choose nor what we are doing currently is wrong. You have a completely wrong idea. It is like coming into a discussion about anything and saying, "Well it should be whatever the country democratically chooses, and if it doesn't choose the thing, then we shouldn't do it". Where is the discussion? Your just stating a widely known fact that no one disagrees with.

Samlw

The OP is not anti-democratic. If you're not interested in the topic of the thread I'm not sure why you are posting in it. Adios. — Leontiskos

You are making sense don't worry, @Philosophim thinks we are trying to take over and rule every democratic country with this conversation.

Samlw

Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not. — jgill

Can I ask why you think this and what you think should be done differently?

Samlw

what happens to an established culture and values when different and perhaps antithetical values and beliefs enter in large numbers? — Tom Storm

I think this is the biggest cause of conflict when it comes to immigration. Me personally, I do not think that this is a big deal however for someone who is patriotic. Changing their countries culture and beliefs is this worst thing you can do. I think some aspects is just conspiracy paranoia as well, for example, those who are very against immigration in England believe that due to the high Muslim immigrant population, Shariah law will take over our laws. Which I just think is a silly idea but people will use this as a reason to push hatred.

I think diversity in society is a good thing as long as everyone is willing to be open to others, unfortunately that is an ideal situation that rarely happens.

tim wood

The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree? — Philosophim

Can't let this pass. Care to qualify this in some way that will move it from nonsense to sense?

tim wood

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw

It's not clear to me that anyone here has understood the question. I read it as applying only to people who have presented themselves as candidates for entry. The gatekeeper consults his rulebook and on that basis admits or rejects the applicant.

It is silent on those who have not applied and it is silent on those already here. To the extent or degree those are a problem, they are a separate problem.

To my way of thinking, every person has basic rights, "unalienable" rights. When a government violates those rights such that its citizens are compelled to go elsewhere, that government is responsible and should be accountable and held to account.

As to rules for entry, they would depend on available resources, but not just local resources. Rather instead, for the US, national resources, and for Europe, European resources. And if immigration is a problem or a threat, it would be appropriate to deal with the problem/threat at its source, that which is causing the immigration in the first place.

As to what people like and do not like, indulgence of that is properly regarded a luxury sometimes afforded by the forces and imperatives of history, which themselves may grind fast or slow, but in any case grind.

Echarmion

I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does. England thrives on legal immigration. For example, according to NHS Workforce statistics published by NHS Digital, 265,000 out of 1.5 million NHS staff are of non-British nationality, making it 1 in 5. Immigrants contribute significantly to our society, and to disagree is, in my eyes, is regressive. — Samlw

In general, I would agree. However, I do think that it's going to be hard to address the topic of illegal immigration without some preliminaries on how and under which circumstances migration is morally good.

It's easy to agree that people should, in general, have the freedom to move, settle and work where they want to. Yet the social state, still the current iteration of our socio-political system, is arguably not build with this freedom in mind. It's supposed to be an inter-generational contract. The global economy is build on the free movement of goods and services but notably not of people.

Now of course we can argue that these are all arbitrary states of affairs that ought to be simply changed. But how? States are geographical entities, and people moving impacts both sides of the movement. If the smart and capable people leave, that leaves as state of origin worse off. Yet siphoning off the smart and capable is the explicit purpose of most immigration strategies.

Which begs the question, should our goal actually be that people stay put?

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw

I think our primary issue currently is a procedural one. The western immigration systems are badly broken, and they're not being fixed because the topic has become entirely politically toxic.

Deciding who to let in would be a problem one could approach by degrees, adjusting the criteria based on what the capabilities and needs of the people and societies involved is.

The problem is, whatever rules we come up with we'd need a system to enforce them. And that's where the issue currently lies. And I don't mean physical barriers here. We've created a system of controls that is insufficient to actually control immigration, but does provide a lot of motivation to subvert the rules and a lot of opportunity for organised smuggling to make money. We've got complex an bureacratic asylum and immigration proceedings that tend to punish those who actually attempt to follow the rules while providing ample opportunity to stall or otherwise sidetrack the process.

Nor is there really any simple solution. All solutions seem unpalatable in some respect or others. Holding camps are essentially indefinite detention for at most an administrative crime. Out-of-country immigration procedures have obvious issues with due process. Deportation to unstable or destitute targets seems cruel. Yet it seems to me that if you want some kind of immigration regulation, you need to have somewhat consistent outcomes. A lack of residency permit must lead to some predictable and clear consequences.

And I think this is true even if the goals of your immigration criteria are purely humanitarian. Arguably, if that's the case, you have the most motivation to make sure only the most deserving benefit from your resources, which will always be limited.

So, to reiterate, I think the big challenge right now is to find a set of procedural rules that is sufficiently humane but also sufficiently predictable and efficient to actually make immigration cirteria meaningful.

Philosophim

The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree?
— Philosophim
Can't let this pass. Care to qualify this in some way that will move it from nonsense to sense? — tim wood

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry?
— Samlw
It's not clear to me that anyone here has understood the question. — tim wood

Looking at the replies I'm receiving, I apparently don't understand the question either.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am simply asking about your independent view on what we can do about this situation, lets dive into the topic and what your personal beliefs are, maybe even come up with an idea. — Samlw

This is my independent view and personal beliefs. Illegal immigration is never justified. There is no, 'right' answer as to how many immigrants can be allowed in to a society, as immigrants often time take societal resources such as enough infrastructure, employment opportunities, and tolerance for cultural dissimilarity and the rate of the melting pot for the society.

The only fair way to judge is to let the society as a whole decide. If you are fairly letting people decide through democratic and representative processes, then that is what works for that society. Any individual going against the wishes of that society is deciding they know better than society, and is morally circumspect.

tim wood

The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree? — Philosophim

The only fair way to judge is to let the society as a whole decide. If you are fairly letting people decide through democratic and representative processes, then that is what works for that society. — Philosophim

Then you are content with whatever any country decides to do within its borders - without qualification? I doubt you mean that, but it's what you seem to be saying.

Philosophim

Then you are content with whatever any country decides to do within its borders - without qualification? I doubt you mean that, but it's what you seem to be saying. — tim wood

If it is the will of the people of that state, I do. Why would you disagree with this?

BC

↪Samlw

Sovereign states have the right -- and the responsibility -- to control their borders on behalf of its citizens. There are rules and regulations for anyone making the decision to leave their country, journey to another, and seek legal entry.

Sovereign nations further have the right and responsibility to set up standards for admission and the volume of admits. It can elect to let none, some, or everyone in. If would-be immigrants do not like the standards or volume to be admitted, they are not entitled to find ways to get in, anyway. If they do get in, a sovereign nation may decide to expel them.

That said, I'm generally in favor of controlled immigration.

Sovereign nations should (but they may not) have a long range plan for population and demographics. If their birth rate is too low to maintain the population of the country, then either incentives can be made available for 'breeding pairs' to reproduce, OR immigrants can be admitted to make up the shortfall. Too few people in an economy is perhaps worse than too many, As far as I know, "cash for babies" doesn't really work all that well.

Sovereign nations can decide how they want their demographics to change in the future. Maybe they would like to increase the population of Buddhists and decrease the population of Moslems; maybe they want fewer Catholics and more Lutherans and Jews. Maybe they want more educated workers; maybe they just want strong backs. Whatever they decide, the policy should b upfront and clear. If you don't fit, well... too bad.

Countries can be somewhat choosy if there are abundant and diverse immigrants wishing to get in. In future climate change, water shortages, famine, wars, despots, wholesale displacement of population, etc. will set ever larger numbers of people on the move. These huddled masses, yearning for a chance to survive, will be showing up on everyone's doorstep in the relative near future, if they aren't already ringing the doorbell.

It's still the case, however, that a sovereign nation's first responsibility is to its citizens, and not to the displaced people of the world.

So, we have a choice: help people manage to live better where they are, or resort to barbed wire, land mines. guard towers, guns, drones, and so on to keep them all out.

jgill

Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not. — jgill

Can I ask why you think this and what you think should be done differently? — Samlw

If the government insists on flying in "inadmissible" immigrants, then they should be carefully chosen to
benefit the nation in some manner. Doctors and nurses, scientists, engineers, might well be encouraged to apply. That does not appear to be the case.

I like sushi

My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw

It is not a question of WHO is it more or less a question of HOW MANY or WHERE. The tabloids distort the rhetoric more often than not.

If we focus on the WHO rather than the HOW MANY or WHERE, then we find ourselves entrenched in a cultural dilemma.

[url=http://]https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigration-to-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/[/url]

Population has increased since 1991 by about 17% and net Migration ha spiked over the past 4-5 years after a significant slump. Looking at numbers though tends to do little more than fan the flames one way or another.

I post this just to show I understand the numbers and that omission of some figures in favour of others can favour one perspective over another. I am not concerned primarily with the numbers, but rather the general needs and requirements of UK citizens so as not to place them below the needs of disruptive/illegal immigrants.

Note: I would personally benefit from looser Immigration Laws in the UK so do not jump to conclusions about where my biases lie when reading the following :)

The problem is the human factor and the question of integration. It is absolutely the case that people with vastly different ideals and views are unable to fully integrate and due to people often shouting 'racist' even the police fear intervening.

It is a very difficult problem to tackle. Diversity is certainly beneficial, yet there are traditions and cultural ideologies that are engrained in some people who go to live in other countries that are hard to balance out.

In the UK there are people who are literally squatting in public places and are protected by the law. I do not think people who do not hold a UK passport should be allowed to get away with this. The sad truth is SOME are just unfortunate, but nevertheless, they have to survive and often fall prey to less than legal means of sustenance. Deport. If this was done then I suspect we would see less complaints from the public.

As for the US ... that is a separate issue. I know the UK well enough and have seen the problems firsthand. If the government is struggling to deal with homelessness then they should put laws in place that allow them to remove (deport) foreigners (without passports) if they are living rough on the streets. Obviously, this comes with a whole lot of baggage involving 'human rights' and relations with neighboring nations. I see no real problem in simply shipping them back to their country of origin with threat of jail time if they return illegally.

Leontiskos

If the government insists on flying in "inadmissible" immigrants, then they should be carefully chosen to
benefit the nation in some manner. Doctors and nurses, scientists, engineers, might well be encouraged to apply. That does not appear to be the case. — jgill

It seems like a compassion mindset where no one who wants to come can be denied entry. How does one go about opposing a compassion-motivated decision?

I honestly don't know that we will even begin to address this problem until the costly consequences of excessive compassion are felt. I think the voters in the next generation or two will make it worse.

tim wood

If it is the will of the people of that state, I do. Why would you disagree with this? — Philosophim

How do you feel about slavery? Do you think the Taliban are doing a good and admirable job of governing Afghanistan? How abut Iran? How about if the will of the American public is to deliver all of its "illegal" immigrants to England. Why should the English object? Or if the US state of Texas (et al) criminalizes abortion, well done them, yes?

We know that an individual can do wrong. Your proposition amounts to saying that in a group constituted in any of a particular set of ways, those people so constituted can do no wrong, or at least nothing you could object to. Which I think is ridiculous and absurd. Are you that? Or have you just misspoke?

Philosophim

How do you feel about slavery? Do you think the Taliban are doing a good and admirable job of governing Afghanistan? How abut Iran? Or if the US state of Texas (et al) criminalizes abortion, well done them, yes? — tim wood

None of this has anything to do with the topic of immigration.

How about if the will of the American public is to deliver all of its "illegal" immigrants to England. Why should the English object? — tim wood

Because each nation can determine their own immigration policy. If England doesn't want America's immigrants, it has the right to say no.

We know that an individual can do wrong. Your proposition amounts to saying that in a group constituted in any of a particular set of ways, those people so constituted can do no wrong, or at least nothing you could object to. Which I think is ridiculous and absurd. Are you that? Or have you just misspoke? — tim wood

There's a large emotional undercurrent for you here that isn't come out as points or policy yet. So I'll ask to focus the conversation. What's wrong with a democratic nation deciding how much immigration it wants to let in? If you believe that a democratic nation can make a wrong choice in its immigration policy, what is it, why? If there is a problem, what would fix it?

Immigration - At what point do you deny entry?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions