Ethics Finder

Immigration / Refugees

Ethical debates around the issue of immigration centre on two issues: the rights of would-be recipient countries to limit entry, and the right of would-be immigrants to gain entry. In considering these it is important to draw a number of distinctions: 1) between legal and illegal immigrants; and 2) between a) welfare migrants, b) asylum seekers and refugees, and c) special claimants. The fact that someone has been granted entry and settlement rights means that their presence in a country in not unlawful, but it may still be judged to be wrong if, for example, so many people are being admitted that schooling, housing and social services are collapsing or employment and the economy are suffering badly. On the other hand, immigration may bring benefits in terms of needed skills and cultural enrichment. Welfare migrants seek a better life for themselves and their families. Refugees and asylum seekers are people whose own state either fails to protect, or actively oppresses them. Special claimants fall into 3 categories: 1) those owed reparation by the country due to previous exploitation or harm, 2) those who made a contribution that deserves to be rewarded, 3) those who have some form of non-legal-entitlement connection. Depending on the category to which a would-be entrant belongs the responsibility of the destination country may be one of justice, charity, benevolence, of prudence. Claims of justice are more stringent than those of benevolence and of charity: to fail to do the just thing on any occasion on which it may be at issue is to act unjustly; but to fail to be benevolent or charitable on any occasion on which these would be appropriate need not be wrong since these virtues include ‘perogatives’ to decide when and how to exercise them. In considering this the government of a recipient country also has to take account of its prior justice-related responsibilities to its existing citizens.

Related Topics