Carens and Beltran cover many strong points as to why working towards open borders is the best course of action for the United States. Through supporting evidence and dismantling of opposing arguments, these authors justify my argument for increased immigration. However, Carens covers more information that proves his claim to be stronger than Beltran. Currently in the United States our immigration policies make it difficult to move from foreign countries. I believe that immigration should be reformed because I consider the right to free movement to be a vital human right.
In Carens’ writing, he considers many different approaches to immigration in relation to other theorists. First Carens tackles Nozick. Nozick claims that the only way that something can be unjust is …show more content…
Meaning that, immigrants can be excluded by a specific person because it is their own private property. But, the state cannot exclude immigrants because they would be taking away the rights to public property. From this he says that in order to move forward you must correct your past injustices. Next, Carens moves onto Rawls. He discusses the difference principle. This is that any additional money that you make is only justified if it helps the worst off class. He says that there are currently no countries that use this method. If a country were to utilize this, then immigrants would migrate there since they are considered the worst-off class and would benefit from this principle. Carens says that if you can choose when you want to go then you would want to go to a state with more opportunity. After that, Carens focuses on Utilitarian’s point of view. Utilitarians believe that each person does not count as one, but instead everyone makes up a whole. He says that this group of people would not support a strong immigration policy because everyone counts as equal and he believes that the utility of letting in the poor is grater that the loss of American
In Carens’ writing, he considers many different approaches to immigration in relation to other theorists. First Carens tackles Nozick. Nozick claims that the only way that something can be unjust is …show more content…
Meaning that, immigrants can be excluded by a specific person because it is their own private property. But, the state cannot exclude immigrants because they would be taking away the rights to public property. From this he says that in order to move forward you must correct your past injustices. Next, Carens moves onto Rawls. He discusses the difference principle. This is that any additional money that you make is only justified if it helps the worst off class. He says that there are currently no countries that use this method. If a country were to utilize this, then immigrants would migrate there since they are considered the worst-off class and would benefit from this principle. Carens says that if you can choose when you want to go then you would want to go to a state with more opportunity. After that, Carens focuses on Utilitarian’s point of view. Utilitarians believe that each person does not count as one, but instead everyone makes up a whole. He says that this group of people would not support a strong immigration policy because everyone counts as equal and he believes that the utility of letting in the poor is grater that the loss of American