MODULE 5 LECTURE NOTES – IMMIGRATION | PHI 306 - Applied Ethics

MODULE 5 LECTURE NOTES – IMMIGRATION

Immigration Phi 306 Applied Ethics

I. Introduction

Immigration is the process of the people’s migration to another country for better employment opportunities, political freedom or better standard of living. This has favored cultures as well as economies of the world to change, and both the country that is being left and the country that is being joined. Today, immigration has a number of ethical and political aspects, which has been aggravated by the process of globalization. Due to the fact that these migrations have roots and ramifications concerning race and colonialism, Spickard, Beltrán, and Hooton (2022) postulate that policy concerns are race-orientated and as a result, complex. Ethical issues are mainly ethnic while political issues relate to the balance between economic necessities and ethnic harmony. Immigrants mean adding new blood which brings new sets of ideas and talent to a particular society. Zimmader has a misconception of the city as not being on his side within this venture, and this is evident even in his perception of potential overlapping of interests as well as in concerns about resources and social inclusion. Public is divided and reflects all the controversies regarding nationalism and competition in the economy. This particular type of immigration is still a subject of heated discussions in present days, while its effects from the period under consideration remain apparent in today’s policies. This increases the pressure on governments to encourage economic growth and stability and the maintenance of peace and order with immigration as one of the issues of management. It also involves ethic and politics when handling it. Immigration generates numerous ethical matters along with political matters as well as social justice and human rights together with questions regarding national identity. Migration theories analyze migration patterns between individual choice and social environmental elements (Arango 2017). Migrant rights form the core subject of ethical discussions but political conversations concentrate on host states' duties toward immigrants. On one hand, ethical discussions revolve around the rights of migrants; on the other, they concern the duties of host countries. Governments work to combine economic advantages with social equilibrium during their immigration policy development process. Public opinion influences the formation of these policies at all times. According to Rheindorf and Wodak (2018) border control serves as a method for both crime prevention and national security maintenance and cultural protection. Both public attitudes and government actions are defined by them. The ethical and political aspects of immigration are tightly intertwined, affecting not only individual lives but also society in full. Policies have to respect human dignity while working through practical challenges to be designed by governments. Striking such a balance entails weighing the rights of migrants against the demands of host countries. The approach each nation takes is shaped by its values and priorities, which, in turn, shape migration patterns both domestically and internationally. The main moral question regarding immigration relates to the conflict of interests between nationalism and liberty of citizens to move. According to Miller (2016), using the instruments derived from the concept of the welfare state, the nation must be able to control its borders in the same way. He says that ridiculously high immigration negatively affects the homogenization of values and reduction of social cohesion. This perspective also brings out the need to preserve cultural orientation. While Kukathas (2005) advocates for open borders, people ought to be free to move as a matter of natural justice. This he sees as a sign that reducing immigration has the effect of denying people the chance to improve their lives’ circumstances. The friction between majority and minority is one of the most salient problems of contemporary world society. Mobility and migration, as De Genova and Mezzadra & Pickles (2015) highlighted, are arranged through power in terms of what is included and excluded. Where Kukathas emphasizes the idea of people’s freedom, Miller emphasizes people’s culture. It can be interpreted that both points of view are valid in that they brought up questions of what does community imply and what does identity and ethnicity imply. To this end, some basic concepts of immigration policies should be re-evaluated as they relate opportunities that are presented to migrants and motivate social relations in countries that receive immigrants. They offer divergent views which provides multiple areas of concern in the question to ethical approach to migration regulation in the contemporary globalized world.

II. The ethics of immigration: An overview

The field of ethics presents various viewpoints about immigration matters. The deontological ethical framework promotes using essential moral principles to establish immigration policies which remain indifferent to actual results. From the utilitarian perspective the assessment centers on identifying all advantages or disadvantages immigration will create. Social contract theory makes efforts to establish harmony between national concerns and human rights. According to Miller (2016) nations maintain the right to regulate immigration for cultural protection reasons provided they respect human rights standards. The philosophical theory of social contract theory supports national well-being as its main focus. Scarcely any experts support cultural protection because they observe it leads countries to enact discriminatory immigration restrictions. From a utilitarian viewpoint, the economic and social benefits of immigration advocate for more open borders. According to Swain (2018), immigration strengthens labor markets and broadens cultural diversity. But utilitarianism also takes into account potential burdens on society, including strains on public services. Balch and Balabanova (2016) demonstrated how media portrayals of Eastern European migrants in the UK shaped public perceptions, which in turn impacted policy debates. These narratives demonstrate how ethicsFits are underpinned by political truths. Although deontology and utilitarianism hold good reasons for moral action, social contract theory concentrates on reciprocal duties among the citizenry and the state. Wolff (2019) argues that states have a dual obligation to their citizens to be a just society but to treat their citizens humanely. This framework shapes citizenship policies, adjudicating who belongs inside a nation’s social contract. However, restrictive borders can be at odds with principles of universal human rights. Despite each framework having value, their use has effective limitations relative to balancing national sovereignty and other moral responsibilities toward immigrants and refugees. A humanitarian perspective as well as an ethical theoretical perspective led to the view that there are moral responsibilities to immigrants and refugees. Deontological ethics calls for respecting individual dignity, irrespective of territorial bounds. As an example, Miller (2016) acknowledges states’ obligations to refugees, but maintains that states can limit regular immigration to protect social cohesion. This stance rests on social contract theory, which justifies states privileging its citizens’ well-being. Humanitarian ethics often emphasizes conflicting claims and argues against those restrictions, reminding us that human lives are more important than political ones. From a utilitarian perspective, immigration is evaluated through a lens of overall consequence, with government policies that maximize the greater good supported. Skilled immigrants (Swain, 2018) provide economic benefits, adding to the case for open borders. However, utilitarianism also takes into account possible drawbacks, like draining resources and creating cultural tensions. Public debates on Eastern European migration in the UK, for example, emphasized concerns about welfare competition, which further fostered restrictive policies (Balch and Balabanova, 2016). Such debates reflect the tension between humanitarian obligations and national interests. These are mutually intelligible and a social contract theory of immigration places immigration within the matrix of reciprocal rights and duties. According to Wolff (2019), restricting immigration to protect welfare is permissible, however states also have an obligation to universal human rights. This dual obligation leads to ethical dilemmas when national policies go against humanitarian principles. Part of immigration ethics is the balance between protecting citizens’ wants and respecting immigrants’ dignity. There are frameworks that each traverse these complex moral terrains, helping guide policy as well as public discourse. The ethical challenge in immigration policy is how to balance collective national rights and individual human rights. Social contract theory stresses the state's responsibility to protect its citizens but acknowledges moral obligations to those who are not citizens. As Miller (2016) argues, this does not mean that states cannot restrict immigration in order to maintain social cohesion, as long as they observe immigrants’ fundamental rights. His approach mirrors the pervading social contract ethos of preserving a stable, secure society, but critics argue that putting national interests first can often go hand in hand with exclusionary practices. That is where utilitarianism provides a different perspective as it evaluates immigration in terms of its overall good and harm. Swain (2018) argues for the economic contributions of immigrants, and that having a more inclusive immigration policy is beneficial to society. However, utilitarianism also takes into account potential drawbacks, such as competition for resources and cultural tensions. Media portrayals of Eastern European migrants were found to have shaped public perceptions in UK (Balch & Balabanova, 2016) which in turn, influenced the policy-making in restrictive ways in the country. These accounts underscore how national interests can clash with individual rights. Deontological ethics, by contrast, stresses that individuals’ dignity must be respected, independent of wider consequences. Immigration policies need to be in line with basic human rights, which gives countries the right to regulate immigration, but undermines borders based on national interest. Wolff (2019) says that this framework encourages more inclusive approaches, pointing to the intrinsic moral worth of immigrants. Every one of the theories can be effective; however the challenge is in trying to determine whether the states have the right to control immigrants while at the same time they should uphold the rights of every human being. The moral conflict defines both policymaking and the agenda for public discourse and is linked with broader concerns of justice and inclusion. Border enforcement Includes challenge for what balance of national security respect for human rights. Deontological ethics, for example, emphasizes the respect for the dignity of individuals no matter their status under the law. Beyond humanitarianism, Miller (2016) suggests that for states to effectively enforce borders, which both fortify society and serve as a tool for political violence, they must treat immigrants humanely. But words must start to give way to an enforcement that can prove rights violations, which goes against deontological principles. Utilitarianism evaluates border policies based on their net effects. According to Swain (2018), Social welfare can be protected by prevention from illegal immigration through efficient border control. But also, utilitarianism accounts for the harm that comes from such strong enforcement mechanisms. In a study by Balch and Balabanova (2016), the authors detail how particular characteristics of migrants, as espoused by media narratives, were found to have significant effects on the level of public support for restrictive policies in the UK. The theory of social contract can frame the enforcement of a border as a matter of maintaining a social order. According to Wolff (2019), states have an obligation to ensure citizens’ welfare, which involves immigration regulation. Yet, this responsibility needs to be reconciled with respect for immigrants’ rights. Overly restrictive border control regimes risk degrading human dignity and threaten the moral foundations of social contracts. The ethical dilemma arises in addressing how to implement these mechanisms in a manner that preserves national sovereignty and protects individual freedoms. We must balance those concerns with policies that keep us safe while meeting immigrants where they are with respect and compassion. Kimberly Smith pointed as immigration debates rage on, ethical frameworks provide tools for assessing the moral underpinnings of border enforcement and crafting to ensure fairer, more humane policies. Issues about inclusion, belonging and justice are brought up in the way people access citizenship. From a deontological ethical perspective, one should treat people’s right to join a society with dignity. Miller (2016) argues, however, that states can define citizenship norms to protect social cohesiveness, as long as they practice non-discrimination. This reflects the emphasis of the social contract on reciprocal rights and duties. But strict criteria can also exclude long-term residents, a poorly received approach that some fear would be unfair. The utilitarian approach evaluates citizenship policies according to their effects on society. Swain (2018) notes that as a principle, inclusive citizenship enhances social cohesion, building a sense of belonging. Nonetheless, utilitarianism also weighs hypothetical drawbacks, including strain on resources and cultural tensions. Public concerns about welfare competition affected restrictive citizenship policies used in the UK (Balch and Balabanova 2016). Such debates reveal the conflict between social welfare and individual rights. Consider citizenship as a social contract theory. States have the responsibility to reconcile interests of citizens with others’ contributions as argued by Wolff (2019). Such restrictive policies can also be divisive in terms of splitting individuals into citizens and non-citizens, undermining social cohesion; But permissive criteria may ultimately erode the social contract, diminishing citizens’ sense of collective identity. The ethical dilemma is to create citizenship policies that will preserve national unity while recognizing individual dignity. Policymakers can use ethical systems to create more ideas of inclusion and recognizing the contribution of immigrants while continuing social stability.

III. David Miller: Immigration and National Self-Determination

David Miller claims that the right of states to control immigration is justified on the basis of national self-determination. This is the foundation on which citizens build to actively participate in the destiny of their society. Immigration control allows such nations to retain their cultural identity, maintain social cohesion and protect public resources (Miller, 2016). Preservation of culture is necessary because it creates a sense of citizenship which held together by values, traditions and languages. We should be particularly careful not to invite people in who would exacerbate fragmentation along ethno-cultural lines, because fragmentation is the chief enemy of cohesive national unity. Social cohesion enhances trust and cooperation, which make democratic governance more effective. This way, authoritarian migration policies in any part of the world could allow for social tension to arise through the clash of otherwise diverse cultural norms with pre-existing societal practices (Kukathas, 2017). In the absence of such limits, rapid demographic changes can shatter social cohesion, producing scores of alienated and resentful native citizens and newcomers alike. Nations must balance the need for humane immigration policies with the essential moral imperative to prioritize the well-being of their citizens (Miller, 2023). States can preserve their cultural identity and assume their moral obligations with that equilibrium. In the end, Miller’s argument casts immigration control as a legitimate expression of democratic self-rule that upholds both the integrity of national identity and social order. According to Miller (2020), immigration is a complex issue affecting national identity, social integration, and public trust. Shared cultural values that create a sense of belonging in a nation are important to our collective identity. As Miller (2020) explains, as counties undergo high rates of immigration, this identity can be tested through new beliefs and customs that may not cohere with traditional social networks. In fact, this cultural diversity makes social integration more difficult, preventing immigrants from being full participants in society. Successful integration is a process that involves both sides adapting to one another, but too great diversity is detrimental to the formation of common societal ties. If citizens feel that immigration poses a threat to social cohesion, public trust may well also erode (Ip, 2023). Rapid demographic change can sow uncertainty and lead to resentments fester and social tensions rise. Furthermore, Immigrants constantly challenge the economy, lowering wage rates for low-skilled native workers and thus the native citizens gain less (Miller, 2023). Such pressures can raise competition in labor markets, especially in low-wage industries, producing economic insecurities. While immigration can promote economic growth and cultural exchange, excessive immigration can lead to social tensions and strain public resources. The same goes for Miller’s wider point that national self-determination presupposes social cohesion and economic well- being. Miller argues that human beings should be treated humanely by their fellow humans, drawing a clear line between a state’s moral obligation to help migrants and refugees and a state’s general responsibility to provide for its own citizens. Hearings of the Refugee Attraction act to eradicate locking refugees up and thus denies them help, as it violates basic human rights. Miller (2023) states that it is the ethical duty of states to offer temporary protection until refugees are able to return safely home. This is perhaps best understood as a corollary to the principle of human dignity since human beings are obliged to alleviate suffering where we can. Yet, according to Miller, states are not morally bound to provide permanent resettlement, since this would undermine national self-determination. Economic migrants in search of better opportunities fall into a different ethical category (Kukathas, 2017). Their migration is an act of choice, unlike refugees fleeing immediate danger. State governments might restrict economic immigration in order to best serve their citizens and preserve society. However, Miller argues that rich countries have a moral responsibility to provide support for economic development in poorer countries (Somin, 2020). If states address the factors driving migration, people will no longer have to look for opportunities abroad. It combines humanitarian empathy and the need for practical social stability and positions immigration policy within the framework of ethics and national interest. Border control protects state sovereignty, and thus is arguably the first promise of national self-determination. A state’s sovereign authority over its borders is a manifestation of its right to control who has permission to enter and live in that state’s territory. Miller (2016) states that this control enables countries to safeguard their cultural identity, social cohesion, and economic stability States could lose their demographic composition as crucial laws to enforce immigration are inadequate, which could jeopardize their collective identity. Border enforcement helps to ensure that immigration occurs through legally established pathways, increasing equity and transparency. Proper border management also avoids the overburdening of public resources and ensures social services are ring fenced for citizens (Ip, 2023) Illegal immigration erases the legal pathways and promotes social and economic chaos that leads to a lack of faith in government. Deportation and detention "are legitimate, and even necessary, tools enforcement mechanisms when they are used in a fair and humane way," Miller writes (Miller, 2020). This is to keep unauthorized entry out and help uphold the rule that legal regulations are enforced for the effective maintenance of social order. While these measures seem tough, they are intended to ensure the wider purpose of maintaining the national self govern herself. Hence, border control is as much a practical necessity as a moral right that enables states to account for humanitarian considerations while discharging their responsibility to safeguard their citizens’ well-being. Miller’s approach to immigration control has ethical and practical critiques. Immigration limits in the service of national identity, however, raise issues of moral equality. According to Kollar (2017), strict limits on immigration unjustifiably favor the interests of citizens over outsiders, failing to comply with the principle of equal moral worth. Critics argue that cultural preservation is no justification for denying people the opportunity to improve their lives by moving. Furthermore, restricting immigration can entrench divisions by reinforcing myths and stereotypes, undermining instead of preserving social cohesion. There is also practicality against strict immigration policies (Ip, 2023). Most of them are just passed under pressure, which may violate the human rights of the people involved (unless humane conditions of detention have been retained). Immigration constraints impede economic development by reducing the workforce, especially in industries that rely on migrant labor (Miller, 2023). The critics argue that a policy of inclusion, integrating diverse communities, is more effective than restricting immigration. Cohesive societies based on mutual understanding and respect can foster cultural diversity. Cumulative work on these critiques illuminate the shifting calculus of national self- determination balanced against ethical duties we owe both to immigrants and to citizens, and how this might inform what would constitute just and practical immigration policy. Strict immigration limits raise a number of ethical and practical issues that cast doubt on their justification. This creates ethical dilemmas about global justice and the intersection of interest and national identity, both of which are critical to live and let live, Mukesh is still way better than (Somin, 2020). Restricting immigration denies individuals the opportunity to escape poverty and improve their standard of living, perpetuating global inequality.) This is morally wrong, because all people, regardless of where we are born, should have equal access. Additionally, limiting immigration can lead to social divides, as such policies may contribute to xenophobia and discrimination. Another reality check comes when attempting to balance the actual enforcement of tight immigration controls (Miller, 2020). Deportations and detentions can constitute violations of human rights, particularly when enforcement measures are severe or arbitrary. According to Kukathas (2017), immigration caps can also raise labor costs and lower productivity due to a tighter supply of labor, harming both businesses and consumers. Imposing strict enforceable limits, they argue, is less sustainable than promoting social integration through inclusive social policy. This helps to preserve social cohesion, but also allows for the positive effects of cultural diversity. However, these challenges come during a time that highlights the need for such immigration policies to balance the national interests of a country with its global ethical responsibilities. Poverty relief and moral equality undercut Miller’s case for tight immigration limits. But the right to national self-determination, the idea that states can prioritize the well-being of their own citizens, is complicated by the ethical implications of excluding people seeking better opportunities. Such restrictions on immigration deprive individuals of their opportunity to rise out of poverty, perpetuating ongoing global poverty (Kollar, 2017). This fall into conflict with principle of moral equality which states that all men should have equal opportunity, regardless of where in the world they are born. Critics argue that rich countries have a responsibility to alleviate poverty around the world, through foreign aid as well as through a more accommodating immigration policy. Restrictive immigration policies can also depress economic growth, thus reducing the ability of a nation to support both citizens and immigrants (Somin, 2020). Countries which open their doors to skilled and unskilled workers, therefore allow an increase in productivity, innovation and social welfare. Unlimited immigration lowers standard of living and undermines social cohesion, argues Miller (2016), and that making people culturally different from the majority would make it difficult to maintain a stable and prosperous society. Kollar (2017) assert that the challenge is to balance national self-determination and rights with ethical global responsibility, through policies that foster social stability and economic opportunity. In this light, immigration restrictions ought to be calibrated to protect national interests without impeding efforts to alleviate global poverty and honor the norm of moral equality.

IV. Chandran Kukathas: The Case for Open Immigration

Chandran Kukathas argues that people have a basic moral claim to cross borders freely. This right is grounded in personal autonomy since the freedom to pursue better opportunities and improve one’s life. Limiting immigration violates this sovereignty, curtailing a person’s freedom to determine where to live and work. Freedom of movement is critical for personal development, as it allows people to flee poverty, persecution and social constraints (Van der Vossen, 2015). Restrictions on immigration thus violate a fundamental human right, the right of people to pursue their well-being. In addition, open borders promote the cross-fertilization of cultures that benefits both the economy and society (Miller, 2016). Open migration creates diverse communities that spark creativity and mutual understanding; tearing down walls not only helps ideas to cross borders but people as well, changing the lens in which we view the world. In contrast, restrictive immigration policies represent roadblocks that shut down nations and slow social progress (Menge, 2024). Freedom of movement is in harmony with the principles of global justice, which feature the ethical responsibility to solve inequalities between countries. So this is what Kukathas’ argument still highlights that there is the need to respect individual independence and the social and economic benefits of open immigration. Kukathas exposes the generally morally illegitimate nature of border control and its frequent resulting human rights violations. Immigration enforcement includes deportation, detention and surveillance practices that can cause psychological and physical suffering. These measures often apply to marginalized groups, feeding harsh living conditions and stigmatization. Sundman (2019) notes that most immigration detention facilities do not comply with minimum humanitarian standards and experience overcrowding, malnutrition and inadequate healthcare, excessive use of restraining and prolonged confinement. These conditions are in violation of universal human rights and dehumanize those who are being held without charges. The lives of other individuals are upended even further when deportation separates them from families and forces them to leave their communities behind (Spring, 2018). Additionally, border control disproportionately targets marginalized populations, reinforcing structures of social inequality and perpetuating systemic oppression. The colonial basis of immigration controls, which historically were used to preserve social and economic hierarchies, is highlighted by Menge (2024). Modern border regimes continue doing so by restricting movement which inevitably privileges certain populations and excludes others. Such practices, argues Kukathas, are contrary to concepts of justice and fairness because individuals are unable to leave situations of poverty and violence. So opposing border enforcement serves the larger goal of advancing human rights and social equity. Open immigration should be embraced as it will drive labor markets, bolster economies, and better facilitate diversity in our society. The aforementioned sectors allow immigrants to take part in the workforce by bridging labor shortages, be it in skilled or unskilled positions. Aside from being the largest source of employment in the country, they are also considered the influential party. Immigration is the fuel of the consumer demand and sustenance of local businesses, driving the creation of jobs and expanding the field of the economy. Van der Vossen (2015) says diverse workforces enhance creativity and problem-solving by uniting people with different perspectives and experiences. In addition to economic benefits, open immigration leads to cultural enrichment, where immigrants bring diversity in languages, traditions and art forms that add to the social fabric. Also, multicultural societies are also more adaptable to global challenges, as they have access to a more extensive array of skills and knowledge (Lepoutre, 2016). On the other hand, some claim immigration might lead to social tensions, but studies have shown that diverse societies tend to be more resilient and innovative. So not only does open immigration lead to greater economic output, it also makes societies richer, in every sense of the word, by promoting cross cultural exchanges and social integration. Kukathas appeals to the moral duty of rich countries to help people from poor and conflict-ravaged countries. For global justice, one must tackle the structural inequalities that drive people to migrate to secure safety and opportunity. These inequalities are compounded by restrictive immigration and asylum policies in states that serve as the destination for many people fleeing poverty. Immigrants typically send remittances, and this is a tool that relieves global poverty. Wealthy countries could ease poverty and raise global living standards simply by letting people move around. Moreover, free immigration serves as a haven for those escaping persecution, violence, and ecological catastrophes (Spring, 2018). This is a blatant one of International principles of humanitarianism, which aims at the relief of suffering cutting across national boundaries. Reiterating previous work (Menge, 2024), they say limiting immigration upholds past injustices based in colonialism and exploitation that create and deepen inequity at a global scale. Therefore, to promote justice and human flourishing, people should be able to move freely. Human beings have a moral duty as wealthy countries to open up our borders, but it is also likely to provide economic and social evidence to both migrants and to those who find themselves in host societies. Advocates of open immigration argue that it challenges social integration, cultural differences and the demand on public services. It can be difficult to integrate large numbers of immigrants into a society, especially when language and cultural differences isolate immigrant communities and prevent communication and social cohesion. If rapid demographic changes lead to perceptions of immigrant and native-born citizen clashes in culture (Sundman 2019), tensions will occur if differences in culture and values are seen as a threat to national identity. Immigrants and refugees may suffer from discrimination and social exclusion which impairs their abilities to integrate into and participate fully in society. There are also economic concerns that immigration can place a strain on public services, such as healthcare, education, and housing. The burden may create stress on government budgets, and lead to a shortage of services for domestic citizens (Van der Vossen, 2015) Additionally, there are concerns that open immigration might compromise national security by enabling malicious enemies to gain entry into a country. Kukathas also acknowledges the potential challenges of multiculturalism (Kukathas, 2010), but asserts that they can be addressed through the implementation of inclusive policies that encourage social cohesion (Miller, 2016). This can allow them to benefit from the rich tapestry of cultural diversity, as well as economic growth, while avoiding the potential tensions that may arise from the presence of immigrants. Social order and public safety is another concern with open immigration. Movements across borders will be more difficult to monitor, and crime rates could soar, critics argue. Miller (2018) asserts that uncontrolled immigration can allow criminal organizations to exploit gaps in legislation, thus aiding in human trafficking and drug smuggling. Moreover, fast population growth puts a pressure on infrastructure that causes overcrowded cities and increasing competition for homes and employment. These pressures may lead to social tensions, especially if native-born citizens view immigrants as economic competitors (Spring, 2018). In addition, due to cultural variances, clashes over social practices and principles may arise, creating challenges for the upkeep of social harmony. Nevertheless, Kukathas argues that social order in fact does not have a natural enemy in open immigration (Menge, 2024). And societies with inclusive policies and strong social institutions can integrate diverse populations without compromising public safety. Implementing policies that mitigate the socio-economic roots of animosity will help in promoting a sense of belonging not just to immigrants but also to native citizens. The associated difficulties of open migration can be mitigated by proper governance and the provision of social support systems. Though the case for open immigration is strong, this model will only succeed if both ethical and practical hurdles are effectively addressed. Integration into the wider society has also emerged as a key area of concern with social obligations often taking a back seat to economic participation, with different ethnic groups settling in different locations and cultural differences often preventing full engagement with the community. Fostering mutual understanding and respect is a critical component of promoting social cohesion in diverse societies (Van der Vossen 2015). Funding for public services must be adequate, accessible to immigrants, and native citizens, should not result to competition for scarce resources (Sundman, 2019). Governments also have to consider national security and take measures to protect us from criminal activity. Nevertheless, these measures must not violate the people’s rights or create unequal mobility (Lepoutre, 2016). Kukathas argues that the benefits of open immigration, such as economic growth, cultural enrichment, and less global inequality, eclipse such challenges. Through the development of inclusive policies and investing in social infrastructure, nations can foster a society which is prosperous for citizens both foreign and local. Therefore, open immigration is both morally and economically defensible and embodies the values of personal freedom, social equality, and global equity. V. Comparative Analysis: National Limits vs. Open Borders Miller and Kukathas approach the perspectives on national self-determination and individual liberty from opposite angles. National communities have the right to restrict immigration so that they can maintain social cohesion (Miller, 2023). He argues that states must put their citizens’ interests first, but also respect immigrants’ basic rights. This view is stage with social contract theory, which stresses mutual obligations between the state and its constituents. By contrast, Kukathas (2024) contends that the freedom of movement is core to individual liberty. He poses the legitimacy of border measures limiting personal freedom. Kukathas stance emphasises the moral personhood of the individual above all else, a position that Andrew (2024) has noted. These ideas of shared identity and preserving culture are thoroughly emphasized by Miller but Kukathas counters this argument by telling us to leave these ideas of culture and identity, to make a global framework where we can respect human mobility. This is regarded as an ethical dilemma between sovereignty and individual rights within the country. These values are on the opposite sides of the spectrum and have now come to define the contemporary immigration discourses. They also relate to discussions on justice, freedom and belonging a more so in the contemporary society where boundaries of countries are diminishing. The diverging reactions on border enforcement are rooted in opposing ethical frameworks. States are obliged to enforce borders to ensure social stability, but they must do so in a way that respects the dignity of immigrants (Miller, 2023). He argues that border control is one of the building blocks of protecting citizens’ welfare and social stability. Kukathas (2024), however, argues that border enforcement frequently undermines foundational freedoms by limiting the ability of individuals to pursue better opportunities. According to their work Donnan and Wilson (2021), rigid borderlines can ultimately bifurcate society, compromising the values of human rights and cross-cultual ties. Kukathas finds these restrictions morally concerning, in that they violate individual freedom with inadequate grounds. So on the one hand Miller thinks immigration can be morally permissible if it does not lead to social disruption. Addressing the full range of these moral considerations, Diener and Hagen (2024) emphasize the 20 dynamic tension that emerges when national security needs are placed in conflict with humanitarian responsibilities in the context of ongoing border enforcement (Moreau 2020). Miller favours limited immigration, to protect social cohesion; Kukathas prefers less bureaucracy, for the sake of human freedom, which he considers a moral imperative. The debates over limited and open immigration systems are driven by their potential economic and social impact. According to Miller (2023), regulated immigration allows for economic boost without placing strain on public services. He argues that open immigration can lead to wage competition, perpetuating inequality and social friction. As per Kukathas (2024), he stresses the economic advantages of immigration, such as labor force expansion and diversity. Open borders to address labor shortages and promote innovation contribute to long term economic prosperity (Bauder, 2012). In this context, Newman (2016) determined that fears of resource competition among the public drive restrictive immigration policy decisions. Socially, he contends, uncontrolled immigration can rip through the fabric of cultural cohesion, diluting national identity. Kukathas makes the case that such diversity can better withstand competition and stimulate creativity and dynamism. The open immigration promotes social integration throu

[TRUNCATED]