Discuss Why Immigration is a Fundamental Human Right (Term Paper Sample)

Why Immigration is a Fundamental Human Right
Name
Institution
Why Immigration is a Fundamental Human Right
Introduction
Immigration is one of the most complex, powerful, and interesting issue facing the contemporary society. By definition, it is the action of permanently relocating to a foreign country for purpose of settling there. Of course, the decision itself is one that has far-reaching impact, both to the host country and to the immigrant. Every year, millions of people from foreign countries migrate to the U.S legally (Valdez, 2013). However, many more are barred at the border, particularly those seeking to enter without prior permission from the American government. What is more, the illegal immigrants are forcibly deported to their respective countries. Hundreds of thousands continue to flock in, occasionally dying in the endeavor. Consequently, this stems the question, is it ethically right to forcibly prevent the immigrants from living in the U.S. Is the government justified in barring them? For several reasonable arguments, I strongly hold the view that Immigration ought to be recognized as a human right.
I opine that the human right to immigration is as fundamental as the right to freedom of speech or right to equality-freedom from discrimination on the basis sex, race, gender, or religion. Recognizing the human right to immigration ultimately means acknowledging that humans have the freedom to cross country boarders in escape of danger, or in search of a livelihood (Benhabib, 2009). It is undoubted truth everyone has a basic interest; to pursue a life full of happiness and live a secured life. Therefore, incarcerating people to squalid conditions for no other reason than that they have illegally immigrated is inflicting unnecessary burden to them. In point of fact, this is a violation of human dignity (Benhabib, 2009). Moreover, such a life is a desecration in much the way that unwarranted imprisonments are violations. Very simply, the majority of the immigrants strive to pursue new opportunities for development (Gibney, 2010). Thus, the stoics of the human right to immigration are very wrong since they argue that respect entails only a reverential lifestyle. In overall, the right to immigration embodies the respect for human dignity. For this reason, barring foreigners from traversing the nation boarder is a violation of the inherent human dignity.
Secondly, there are several benefits that arise from easier immigration. The prime goal of human rights is to promote a healthy economy; better quality of life by having easy access to basic needs. Immigration is closely related with economic development (Barry &Robert, 2012). A study conducted by the United Nations established that the most preferred nations by immigrants are the U.S, Russia, the U.K, Spain, France, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Germany, Canada, and Australia. Of these ten countries, seven are ranked at 60% or greater economic freedom (Benhabib, 2009). Consequently, this shows that economic development and immigration are heavily correlated. Moreover, research by Valdez (2013) identified that immigration is critical facet of economic freedom. This is because in a free economy provides a conducive environment with better rule of the law (Valdez, 2013). Therefore, it can be asserted that immigration leads to more economic freedom and necessarily economic growth. Correspondingly, immigrants considerably boost their income and improve their quality of life (Gibney, 2010). Notably, remittances of this kind are known to significantly reduce human rights violations such as child labor.
Again, it is the right of every person to choose where he or she want to live (Benhabib, 2009). Supposedly, governments acquire authority and legitimacy through the consent of the governed (citizens). Thus, people should be allowed to move if they do not consent to the set policies. Notably, living in place Y does not mean one assents to Y's policies. Moreover, people cannot be expected to demonstrate allegiance to a place they never choose to stay or reside in. Consider also the fact if people are granted the basic freedom to self-direct and choose, then, there is no valid reason why the government should trump this basic right, particularly on the decision of where to live. The place of birth is something that no one has control over, yet these are the grounds that the force of law uses to determine whether an individual should be allowed or barred from immigrating to a foreign nation.
Pogge (2008)observes that it is the right of the state to know what transpires within their boarder but in particular, they have limited right to determine who should be allowed to enter (Pogge, 2008). Further, historic analysis of this contentious issue reveals that continued implementa...