Is Immigration a Threat to the Pursuit of Social Justice - Essay Example

Is immigration a threat to the pursuit of social justice?

Introduction

If one takes a close look at the role that is played by the social environment, one cannot help noticing that it should be regarded as one of the irreplaceable prerequisites that contribute to the development of the inner potential of a human being. Indeed, if it had not been for the presence of other people, a considerable number of features that are perceived as characteristic would not have developed. However, one should keep in mind that this beneficial influence of the social environment also implies social justice. The latter is a concept that has been debated for a considerable period of time. Moreover, the debate has been intensified by the recent phenomenon, namely globalisation, the consequences that it brought up, particularly immigration. This paper will argue that immigration should be regarded as a threat to the pursuits of social justice because it is responsible for ethical, cultural as well as economic challenges that a host country has to face because of it. In order to prove this point, the paper will provide the definition of key terms, explore the idea of social justice from several perspectives and analyse each aspect of the threat.

Definition of key terms

To begin with, it may be important to develop a definition of several terms that will be used throughout the paper. The first and the most obvious one is immigration. The latter will be understood as a phenomenon which represented relocation of people from one country to another with the purpose of permanently staying in the latter country. One should point out that immigration perceives this phenomenon from the point of view of the host country. If the same action is analysed from the point of view of the country that a person leaves, then it will be considered to be emigration. There is a general term that is used for the phenomenon which is neutral in terms of point of view – migration. Social justice is the concept that will be explained in detail later, but the fundamental element of it is the distribution of goods and services among the population.

The perspectives on social justice

In spite of the fact that social justice may seem to be a term which is understood without any additional explanation, the reality may be the opposite: the debate about the meaning of it has been rather intense. First of all, one recalls the point of view developed by John Rawls who argued that social justice can be achieved is the social follows two principles: one that guarantees extensive liberty and the other that justifies inequality if it benefits the least disadvantaged part of the population. In other words, the scholar in question believed that justice is the state of affairs when every individual is provided with the exact same amount of rights as others. However, if some people are disadvantages, for example mentally disabled, then the society should pay more attention to them since this inequality of distribution of goods will benefit them.

On the other hand, Nozick believed that such approach is extremely limiting and should be abandoned since the application of it will not contribute to the emergence of social justice. That is why he came up with his own approach and called it The Entitlement Theory. According to it, social justice is achieved when every person is entitled to the initial acquisition of property; when the transfer of good is the fundamental element of the society and when injustice if rectified by the state through redistribution. In other words, if a person is able to produce more goods than another person, one is entitled to all this wealth since one worked hard to earn it. This does not contradict with the principle of rectification since there are reasonable limits to it. In other words, the wealthiest people of the country may share their money with the poor, but compulsory sharing equals robbing the wealthy people. In other words, redistribution of goods is performed without reasonable boundaries.

Finally, one should consider one of the most famous theorist of social justice: Marx and Engels. According to them, the society consists of two classes that are engaged is perpetual struggle. The latter is manifested in the injustice when the capitalists own the mode of production and the working class is able to sell the only thing it has - its labour. That is why social justice will be achieved when every member of the society is made equal. In other words, equality is the ultimate goal and only the destruction of the capitalistic class and expansion of the working class can be regarded as the suitable way to end this struggle. As one can clearly see, this perspective approves of redistribution of wealthy, but it puts emphasis on the necessity of the compulsory redistribution. Moreover, in order to achieve social justice once and for all this balance should be maintained in the future. In other words, there will never be capitalists again since no one will be allowed to own mode of production.

Immigration as a threat to social justice: ethical aspect

There are three aspects that need to be considered while explaining why immigration is a threat to social justice. The first of them focuses on Ethics. Macedo notes that this conflict occurs between two groups of people: those who favour cosmopolitism and those who favour civil obligations. The former believe that the government has a moral obligation to help the people that it accepts because there should be no difference made between citizens and immigrants. Since countries of the world do not exist in a vacuum but are closely connected to each other, social justice can hardly be achieved in one particular country if it targets only a single set of citizens. Therefore, when people relocate to a new state they are automatically made equal to the people who were born in this state. That is why immigration should be perceived as nothing but a natural process that increases the number of people.

On the other hand, there are people who believe that the government has a clear responsibility to take care of the natives than those who migrated. This can be exemplified by an old saying: “Charity starts at home”. This means that it is not logical for a country to welcome more people if it is not able to take care of the citizens. Moreover, if there must be a choice made between favouring the original citizens and the migrants, it should be in favour of the former because they can be understood as more connected to the states than others. All this leads to the understanding that social justice will be perceived as something that is achieved for the benefit of the nationals first and migrants second. Therefore, this concept mostly applies to a certain part of the population rather than the population in its entirety.

The collision between the two views which were mentioned above leads to the emergence of the ethical dilemma which involved many aspects. For example, the very nature of the term immigrant should be properly explained: is it a status that stays with a person throughout one's life or one ceases to be an immigrant as soon as one becomes a national? Moreover, does the status affect several generations or is it limited to a single generation only? Finally, if it is the fundamental responsibility of the government to take care of its people, why should it make the difference between individuals based on their origin? These and other consideration lead to an ethical dilemma that can hardly be resolved in a manner that would leave two sides satisfied entirely. Another point that should be mentioned that immigration is responsible for the generation of this dilemma and it indirectly creates an obstacle on the way of achieving social justice. Indeed, one can hardly reject the fact that social justice in any its form could have been achieved earlier if there had not been such an ethical dilemma present.

Immigration as a threat to social justice: cultural aspect

Now, it may be important to turn to the examination of the second aspect, namely the one that deals with culture. According to Scheffler, immigration can have a negative impact on the formation of national identity. This is particularly important since lack of national identity may become the major obstacle on the way of achieving social justice as the latter primarily serves the needs of a particular society. In other words, if there is no society that is formed by a particular nation, then there can be no social justice. One should not confuse two terms: nation and ethnicity. The former is a social construct that has developed due to a discourse promoted by the government while the latter is a biological characteristic of a person (consider the difference between sex and gender). All this leads to the understanding that if there is an influx of immigrants, the nation that a particular society is trying to build becomes diluted and postpones the state of social justice.

There is another interesting aspect that needs to consider which relies on culture. Thus, social justice implies that every citizen of a particular society is entitled to certain right and obligation; what if the culture that a person represents contains different provisions? Consider the example of the integration of Muslim women into a European country. In Saudi Arabia women have significantly fewer rights than men, for example, they are not allowed to drive a car. However, in Britain, every woman has a right to drive a car. It is obvious that there is a collision between two cultures. So, if a Saudi woman applies for a licence, she will follow the culture of her host country, but will go against the culture of her culture of origin. Consider another example: the achievement of social justice entitles every woman to a bank account; however, her culture may prohibit a woman from managing her financial affairs independently. So, there is a clear collision between two cultures.

Some might argue that this dilemma might be easily resolved with the help of introducing the concept of fair and unfair laws. To put it simply, if a law if fair, then women ought to follow it while they are free to reject an unfair law. However, the very concept of fairness is extremely controversial. Consider the example of women suffrage: for the majority of the history the European women were not able to vote and they obtained this right only in the previous century. Nowadays, women suffrage is perceived as something natural and no one has doubts about it. Nevertheless, there are countries of the world that have never given suffrage right to their women. Therefore, the concept of fairness in general and social justice, in particular, is heavily influenced by the cultural norms. Keeping in mind that immigrants cannot help bringing their culture with them, it is quite understandable that their influx is likely to have a negative influence on their life.

Immigration as a threat to social justice: economic aspect

Finally, one should consider the last aspects of the influence of immigration on social justice. This one focuses on the economic nature of the impact. Oberman insists that sometimes there are objective factors that contribute to the emergence of immigration. A good example is a situation involving absolute poverty. Thus, there is a particular level which marks the basic necessities of a person and if one is not able to reach it, then one is living below the acceptable level in absolute poverty. Therefore, this might be perceived as an excuse to relocate and try to find a better place to live. All this leads to the understanding that immigration sometimes can be justified by some external factors that affect the life of a person and urge one to leave the country. Therefore, one should point out that among many reasons that contribute to the emergence of the phenomenon in question, there is a limited number of those the importance of which can hardly be questioned.

However, absolute poverty should not be perceived as the convenient justification for accepting immigrants. Indeed, just like there is a right to move, there is a right to stay. In other words, the concept of absolute poverty does not imply that should a person experience it, one must move to a different country in order to live a better life. Logically speaking, if a person moves anywhere, but stay in that place, one will live a better life since absolute poverty is not that common in the world. However, it is also absolutely up to a person to stay in a certain country. In other words, while absolute poverty justifies a relocation to a certain extent, it should not perceive a right that a person is automatically entitled to. It is quite possible that many immigrants, including those who are currently flooding Europe, come from countries that do not have absolute poverty per se. Therefore, this term should be used with caution.

All this brings the discussion to the economic aspect of the question, namely that immigrants become the financial burden for the country. Thus, if a person spends less than $1.25 per day in the country of origin and moves to a different country and is able to spend more does not mean that this money appears out of nowhere. In many cases, the financial resources are redistributed among the citizens and if one receives more, then others will receive less. It is obvious that if a single migrant appears in the country, then one will not cause any disruptions. However, the influx of immigrants often consist of thousands of people and they also come with their women who give birth to their children. As a result, the idea that immigrants come alone is false. So, if the population of a country increases, then the government has more people to distribute money among. Since emission of money is likely to lead to devastating consequences, the amount which is distributed is reduced. Therefore, social justice will never be achieved is immigrants keep coming.

Conclusion

Having examined all the points which were mentioned in the paragraphs above one is able to come to the following conclusion: immigration should be considered to be a threat to achieving social justice. There are several reasons to it. First of all, immigration contributes to the emergence of the ethical dilemma which focuses on the collision between cosmopolitism and civil obligations of the government. Secondly, there is also a cultural aspect involved: the applicable laws of the country might have a negative impact on a person if they go against the laws of culture that one represents. However, it is impossible to solve this problem, introducing the concepts of fair and unfair laws. Finally, there is an economic aspect to be considered: people can be made to move because of absolute poverty, but when they come, they become a burden for the country, postponing the achievement of social justice.