The topic of immigration has, in the past decade, become an increasingly complex topic to discuss; particularly that of the American immigration system. In recent years, immigration has increased with civil wars and terrorist threats frightening some into fleeing and the promise of jobs and a better life enticing others. Politicians from both sides provide many reasons why we should or shouldn’t limit immigration but these reasons are hazy due to political motivations and biased opinions. Media attention has arguably stoked the embers of discussion into flames of argument, enraging some with exaggerated wordage and critical commenting. However, among all the chattering of beliefs, one truth rings out. This is an issue that needs to be settled sooner rather than later. Politicians will argue that we have no right to deny immigrants a home in our country, yet I would disagree. The debate over who possesses the right to control migration is one of the most central arguments in philosophical and ethical debate. I would like to address why should or shouldn’t the central government have the right to decide if and how many people are granted access to our country? Furthermore, I would like to consider the pros and cons associated with both open and closed door policy. A state or independent political body’s right to control boarders is enforced by its inherent rights of association, flawed few vs. many mentality, and the complete emotional appeal of anti-boarder parties.

States’ rights have been a topic of heated debate since the founding of the new American country in 1776. It speaks volumes that the arguments causing fissures in our society are the very same that ignited passions so long ago. This is primarily because, and as any experienced statesman will argue, the most challenging obstacle to overcome in politics is agreement between opponents. After careful research on this specific topic, it is my belief that the issue of states’ rights is critical to the debating of American Immigration policy. To put the argument simply:

A state or body according to the freedom of association, has the right to select with whom it associates itself.

Immigrants associate themselves with specific states.

Therefore, a state has the right to select with which immigrants it associates itself.

The right to associate is often a neglected right, taken for granted by many Americans. We liberated peoples enjoy the right to select when and whom we marry, the place we practice religion, and the people we surround ourselves with. This includes sports, clubs, friend groups, and even living situations. 

Allow me to draw an example. Many people disagreed with the Boy scouts of America refusing to allow homosexual members and employees into their organization and after much public scrutiny were forced to allow people of all sexualities in (Leopold). I would argue the fundamental right of the Boy Scouts to deny access to anyone that does not meet their standards whether based off gender, sexuality, religion, or what-have-you. As a privately funded institution the general populous has no right to decide by what standards they set for themselves, only if they wish to participate or not. The same can be said for immigration, that if membership into the United States is denied, a person or outside countries do not have the right to change the private institution, but rather to align themselves with another that will grant them membership. To require organizations accept everyone would be to deny the rights of the individual members, only benefitting the outsider. So, while Americans pushed the Boy Scouts to change their views on homosexuals, they inadvertently traded the rights of the many for the rights of the few. While the more vocal members of the LGBT community would have you believe it was an ‘all or nothing’ effort, many LGBT members respected the institution’s right to exclude certain individuals, just as many legally immigrated Americans back the ineptly labelled ‘exclusionists’ in their fight for proper immigration standards and an open (but well controlled) boarder. 

Beginning with the belief that tighter boarders are the most rational option, let me frame the major points. All too often, people mistake supporters of tight boarders to be anti-immigration, racist, isolationist, xenophobic, or any combination of the lot. However, the suggestion of stricter boarder control welcomes immigrants, so long as they arrive legally and in the process set forth by the American government. This is also a play to help regulate the number of immigrants from specific countries or larger regions from monopolizing ingress because of illegally ‘jumping the boarder’. This is equivalent to asking people not to cut in line; a fairly reasonable request in our order-driven society. 

One of the larger criticisms against this belief is that nobody has the right to draw closed boarders or to refuse someone access to a nation or state. Christopher Wellman, an esteemed professor with a large repertoire of politically inclined literature under his belt, is quoted saying “that freedom of association includes a right to reject a potential association and (often) a right to disassociate” (Wellman 2). If we assume for the time being that states have a right to associate as any singular person does, it is only rational to assume that boarder control is easily the right of any individual state and collective government to control. What makes any group of people that have organized themselves into a union (Sports clubs, religious groups, labor unions, or clubs based on racial or gender lines) is their right to exclude certain individuals. Take an all-girls catholic boarding school for example; it would be a social faux-pas to attempt to force the school to accept an atheist boy and in fact most people wouldn’t even try.

The side valuing open and looser boarders does so for a number of reasons. The first and primary is simply the self-proclaimed ethics of it all. This means the support of free and unlimited immigration is to benefit anyone who wishes to join this nation for any reason, and to not deny them their ‘right’ to do so. Noble cause as it may be, it doesn’t always make the most sense in the long run. There are other reasons, however, like the attempt to avoid past mistakes of totalitarian or dictatorship governments. Phillip Cole, arguing in a collaborative piece against Christopher Wellman, observes “[…] that leaving unilateral right to control migration in the hands of individual states has in the past and present led to […] states dominating and exploiting the rest of the world.” (Wellman, Cole 224). I would concede his point to a fault, if the given circumstances (circumstances he beckons Wellman to take into account) were not so monumentally different. Cole is referencing, of course, dictator and totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany in Hitler’s power hungry frenzy, the infamous Berlin wall, and the communist ‘Iron Curtain’. These boarders have one very specific difference to the ones proposed today. “Boarder walls” in America are intended to keep outsiders out, not citizens in. Throughout history, it is true that walls have been used to fence in and control people, but they’ve also been used to protect. Take Hadrian’s wall, built by the Romans in England. Or the world-renown Great Wall of China, constructed to keep out invading Mongolian hordes. Donald Trump is not the first, and will not be the last person to recommend building fences to protect a society. 

In the current political climate, it seems people have lost their sense of analytical reasoning in lieu of emotional appeal, claiming immigration to be a human right. Assuming this is true, logically if people have the right to immigrate, that also means that others have the right to prevent immigration. This has been one of the focal points of this debate for centuries. There are traditionally two fundamental outlooks for human rights and immigration. Firstly, that human rights are undeniable, regardless of the individual’s accordance with immigration policies. The second held belief is that the state has unilateral control of whether or not an individual may enter, under specific conditions, and if they should do so, what consequences for breaking policy exist. (Paz 6). This first stance makes expelling any illegal immigrants unfathomably difficult, as they are often lost in a sea of ‘human rights’ arguments about how inhuman it is to deny someone the freedom of mobility. The second argument makes the process of immigration longer and because of distain, or even sheer impatience, people decide to forgo the immigration line and instead slip through the unmonitored cracks in our boarders with Canada and Mexico, or on the shores of our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. 

Many would argue “Immigration restrictions curtail freedom” and that they “prevent people from going where they want to go, seeing whom they wish to see and taking jobs they wish to take” (Oberman 2). Let us assume, for arguments sake, that immigration is a human right; undeniable by any power of man. You possess the freedom to pack up your belongings, pick up your roots, and establish yourself among any peoples this planet Earth has to offer. Be they bustling city dwellers, humble ice fishermen, or Swedish cobblers, you may reside with them and work alongside them in a happy and symbiotic relationship. I concede that it is selfish and immature to condemn a person to an unjust and tyrannical government solely because they were born in the wrong location at an inopportune time. That being said, it is commonly known that rights have a certain duality to them that often goes unappreciated. Just as a person has the right to remove him or herself from their current residence and establish a home elsewhere, should that ‘elsewhere’ be previously claimed land, they are not afforded the right to domicile under that nation’s legal statutes. To this, one might argue something along the lines of ‘not all land is occupied’. But, all territory within a country’s boarders belongs to the state and is therefore subject to the very law of association I argued for in my first body paragraph. Oberman would also conject that citizenship is not necessary for a person to reside in a territory so long as they are self-sufficient and do not participate in government whatsoever. I argue that this ridiculous opinion completely disregards the country’s ownership of territory altogether which again exchanges the right of the few for the right of the many. 

The freedom of association argument has many adversaries who attempt to poke holes in the belief that a state has the right to associate based on the premise that it contradicts itself somehow. I would primarily like to single out Bas Van Der Vossen who claims “The problem with the freedom of association argument is that it equivocates between the collective and individualist understandings of self-determination” (Vossen 276). More clearly to say that Vossen believes if you look at association from a collective perspective, it excludes groups from individuals and visa versa. This is flawed, however, as association works with both individuals and collectives and is not mutually exclusive between the crossing of the two, leaving nothing to equivocate. An individual may align himself with a collective as that collective may align itself with another collective. An individual may be an American while Americans and Canadians may be allies. Vossen draw a line between joining a state and associating with the state. Once again I claim this rationale to be falsely conceived as my previous statement on the lack of mutual exclusivity clearly debunks it. When one joins a club, both the proposed member and established members must all want to associate together. When one associates oneself with a club, both the individual and the club (separate entities) must agree to coexist in a relationship of some sort. A shop owner associates himself with the man he purchases his finished goods from to then sell to the market. A college student joins a university in which he both wishes to attend and has been accepted. So is the way of life, history, and humanity itself.

One of the most recent issues with immigration control is the influx of refugees in recent years into European and American states. Naturally, refugees differ immensely from immigrants, mainly that one is optional and the other, an unfortunate byproduct of tough or unsure times. Antonio Guterres, in a TED talk filmed in 2015, refer that immigrants have a “right to be protected”(Guterres) and suggest that to correctly handle this issue countries should implement open boarder policy and carefully divide immigrants out evenly so as to avoid dense pockets of immigrants far outnumbering the native citizens. While I would agree with his policy of welcoming refugees with open arms, the trouble arrives when the refugees seek permanent settlement for themselves and their families; when refugees become immigrants. I argue that while it is both charitable and morally obligatory to allow refugees to take refuge, it becomes troublesome when the hundreds of thousands of people wish to establish residency. Guterres also endorses no limit to the number of refugees or immigrants a country takes in. Not only is this blatantly irresponsible for the host nation, it provides a global disservice. Primarily, it endorses the policy of allowing faulty governments to thrive and drive out citizens. Secondly, it forces functioning first-world countries to absorb the excess population. Those familiar with the phrase ‘no good deed goes unpunished’ will automatically understand. All of this is not to say refugees should not be welcomed with open arms, but rather to have standards and guidelines in place. 

History provides our greatest resource from causing agreeable outcomes in the future and avoiding disagreeable ones. It has long been warned to heed the past, in fear of repeating its mistakes. Numerous wars have been started and atrocities committed because a lack of respect for mutually agreed upon association. Hitler forced the boarders of Germany on central Europe, Russia demanded obedience from the second world remnants of a former Soviet Union, and even the democratic United States forced its western boarder to the seashores of neighboring territory. So the most efficient way to recognize our past mistakes would be to respect the political boarders we have set in place on the global map. So long as immigrants follow policy set up by the legal institutions of a nation, no issues should arise. Just as it is human nature to build walls to keep people out, so is it also that same nature that lusts to climb those walls and gain access to the greener grasses. 

Illegal immigration is reaching a point where even countries at peace with the influx of refugees and migrants from distraught and less fortunate countries are now considering following President Trump and many others in a fortifying stance against the mass migration of peoples. Burdening healthy countries with countless more entering as exiting is quite a selfish request as the responsibility does not justly fall squarely on the shoulders of those most successful nations, only because those lacking in proper governments cannot retain their populations. States have the right to control their own boarders and the inhabitants of them. I have shown in this document that not only do states as a collective have a right to freedom of association, but that the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few and that the opposing argument is based off of nothing more than emotional appeal for humanity without any logical reasoning to back it.
