Prima Facie Immigrates

The topic of my paper is on immigration, more specifically the right to immigrate. In his paper, Michael Huemer presents the following argument;
1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive.
2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture.
3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful …show more content…
First, Huemer uses the phrase “prima facie” quite often. In fact, it is a extremely important basis for his argument. Prima facie is a Latin phrase that means “at first glance” or “on its face.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this phrase as “sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved.” The Yourdictionary.com elaborates on that definition by stating, “Enough evidence to prove something by pointing to some basic facts, but that your proof can be refuted.” The second term that I will bring up while discussing this topic is consequentialism. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this term as, “the theory that the value and especially the moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences.” I feel that the rest of the terms or phrases that I will use in this paper are going to be simple enough that they do not need any