The Immigration Policies of the United States of America
Dean Sayers

There are many people who wish to immigrate to the United States for various reasons, such as money, freedom and political stability. I believe that the largest issue by far is that of money, and that most immigrants desire a better job so that they may live more comfortably. The United State’s immigration policy serves to allow both the U.S. and a potential immigrant’s home country to consume their freedoms. The issue of immigration policy is one of freedom, and the United State’s government has failed to further human rights in the world with its immigration policy, despite the common perception of this government that it is and has been conductive in insuring freedom around the world.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in article 13, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” And in article 15, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” This raises an important issue, because the declaration, probably in purpose, does not state that a person has the right to go to any nation he wishes to. It implies this right, however; the nationality of a given land is an arbitrary distinction, and does not in itself justify an endorsement or a denial of a given right while one is there. The issue of immigration is one of liberty, and there is no ethical, humanistic or libertarian justification for denying a person their right to move from one nation to another.

With the advent of N.A.F.T.A., immigration policy has been freer to be strict while not hurting the ability of affluent Americans to take advantage of cheap Mexican labor. I won’t pretend to know why immigration policy is so strict in the U.S.; maybe it is one of racist or selfish concerns. The I.N.S. deports many immigrants, and the federal government spends a fair amount of energy, time, money and workforce to suppress their rights.

That the policies split families and waste money is circumstantial; the real issue is one of freedom. All ethical laws based in principles are meant to insure freedom; in fact, the reference to immigration laws as policy makes them appear to be something not necessarily based in ethics, and therefore that it does not need to answer to the will of those it governs. One needs only to gain a respect for all people as deserving of all rights to realize that a person should not be disallowed to enter or leave any nation. Regardless of potential overpopulation, welfare leeching, multiculturalism or any other issue one might argue in defense of limitation of immigration, one cannot change that it is a person’s right to be treated as equal to any and all other people, regardless of arbitrary distinctions.

To say that something a government does is fair and repressive of rights at the same time is fallacious once one can see that the purpose of any government is the defense of all people’s rights. Because a nationality does not justify any deviation of rights from that of another nationality, immigration policy should not be lenient, but non – existent. In a nation truly rational and striving for freedom for all people, it is not fair to enforce any deviation in freedoms between people due to any arbitrary distinction. That all people are deserving of all rights not limiting others’ shows that the limitation of a persons’ right to immigrate is completely unfair.

Originally 3/23/2005