Cole similarly argues, in this thread, that the liberal insistence that states can close their borders to would-be immigrants -- but cannot close their borders to keep in their own members -- is incoherent.
Against this backdrop, arguments against the right of the poor to cross borders seem not only unjust but unjustly ahistorical; we invoke these borders as if they were morally sacred, while ignoring the fact that they are the legacies left over from uncontroversially unjust patterns of exploitation and enslavement.
There is no ethical argument for allowing restaurants to aid and abet illegal immigration. Most of those issues are clearly and undeniably open to argument.
While wealthy countries have obligations to help the members of illegitimate regimes, and the inhabitants of poorer countries, these obligations do not rise to an obligation to admit these people to membership. So, thinking purely in terms of the duty to help people when you can do so, it might even be argued that restaurants have an obligation to hire illegals.
What if the restaurant industry — one of the largest employers of immigrants, a good number of whom, it is no secret, are undocumented — had to do it all above board?
We might defend these rights as ways of protecting against the persistent violation of other rights -- rights to be free from poverty or oppression, say. I am not sure that this is adequate. That would be bad for restaurant customers.
Wellman, for example, compares the right of exit to the right to be married; if I have the right to be married, it means only that I have the right to marry someone who also wants to marry me -- not that I have the right to marry whomever I happen to want Those jobs would just have to be filled by Americans.
For decades, one of the chief arguments against eliminating slavery was that it would cripple the economy of the South: Cole is right, I think, that liberalism ought to have a global reach, and that the would-be immigrant cannot count for less in a valid liberal framework.
We wrong the country by denying it self-determination, and our insistence on annexing it denies it self-determination by denying it the right to control who shall be a part of that country. Our democratic right to "exclude" the unwanted babies fails, immediately, because of the competing value of reproductive autonomy.
The first is that they display an admirable sense of how to disagree with grace and dignity; the book is a model for how to disagree, even about foundational moral issues, without resorting to invective or ridicule.
This argument entails that we have reason to condemn any distribution of membership that assigns greater life-chances to some people, giving them greater resources and protection -- and that then defends this distribution by giving states the unilateral right to control membership.
Wellman argues for a nearly absolute deontic right to close the borders, and Cole for the nearly absolute impermissibility of closed borders.
All I would insist upon at present, though, is that the right to exclude Wellman insists upon here seems unjustifiably strong. The restaurants have no more duty to give jobs to illegal immigrants than they have an obligation to import the Hungarian homeless to fill those jobs.
As I said above, I find myself attracted to the range between Wellman and Cole: Both Wellman and Cole favor fairly blunt moral solutions: I cannot give this the full attention it deserves here, though.
Cole seems, here, to be confusing two different ways of defending immigration rights. The second thread is the historical context within which these debates are formed. It seems as if denials of the right to exit presuppose a single agent coercively insisting upon the right to continue coercing.
The first is that membership is, itself, a good we distribute; we distribute membership in states to persons, assigning some to wealthy democratic states and others to unrepresentative and unresponsive regimes with few protections for basic human rights. The importance of self-determination entails the right of legitimate states to be free from unwanted members, even when those members would be benefitted enormously by membership in such a society.
If we recognized that the right of freedom of association was not as absolute as Wellman believes, then I think it is at least plausible that a state might lose the right to cite this value as a justification for returning a would-be immigrant to circumstances under which his most basic human rights were unprotected.
Cole argues as if the fact of a difference in life-prospects is generally to be regarded as presumptively unjust, until justified with reference to some principle we have reason to accept. Laws are in place because legislatures pass them. We often ignore, Cole asserts, that the borders that divide the wealthy and the poor were, in large part, created by the wealthy, who felt and feel entitled to roam the earth in pursuit of profit Reviewed by Michael Blake, University of Washington Philosophical discussion of immigration is still in its infancy.
Naturally; when you get used to an illegal or unethical short cut and they erect a wall to keep you out, you have to find another way, and until that becomes institutionalized, the change is inconvenient, disruptive, and probably expensive.
This right is, in other words, so strong that it can be overridden only by the sorts of hypotheticals that we might invoke to justify overriding the right to be free from torture. This is different from the restaurant that pays low wages to the busboys because the busboys agreed to the wage.
We ought to keep these real people in mind. Can they simply cite the fact that they do not want these prospective members "entering" the community as a reason to impose this policy? In one case, the original owners of the cars are forced to give them up, in the other case, the agreement is voluntary.
September 15, I just noticed that ethicist Jack Marshall has addressed the ethics of hiring illegal immigrants: But still, restaurant meals are generally not a necessity, and anyone who wants one arguably has an obligation to pay the full price of legally obtaining the factors that go into producing it.The $ billion restaurant industry is on the front lines of the immigration debate.
It started in when the Obama administration took a much tougher stance on employers who hire illegal. Philosophical discussion of immigration is still in its infancy. We have not yet developed a sophisticated understanding of what political philosophy has to say about the rights of would-be immigrants to cross borders, and the rights of states to close those borders.
• Rule of Ethics • Immigration Statutes Felony aiding illegal alien, 8 USC 2: Felony aiding/abetting another in commission of a crime, 8 USC 4: Felony misprision of a felony.
Confidentiality when using Interpreters • Cases involving undocumented workers often involve using interpreters for foreign speaking clients and may raise an.
The Ethics of Immigration June The Carnegie Council’s publication, Ethics & International Affairs, published in April, an essay by Mathias Risse, an associate professor of public policy and philosophy at the Harvard Kennedy School, entitled “On the Morality of Immigration.”.
I just noticed that ethicist Jack Marshall has addressed the ethics of hiring illegal immigrants. Are Restaurants That Hire Illegal Immigrants Ethical? No. Sigh. I agree with a lot of what Jack Marshall has to say about ethics.
Ethics. Immigration in the United States of America. Immigration. Is it ethical to hire illegal immigrants? Update Cancel. ad by Quora for Business. BUT, I would never ask the immigration status of someone prior to hiring them. .Download