Can We Have Open Borders? Essay Example

Summary of “Immigration: Can We Have Open Borders?”

The texts examine the status of immigration within the United States.  Taking three different perspectives, the reader is engaged in the argument that is open or closed to the issue of the borders in the United States.  Seen from Christian and political perspectives, these writers seek to provide clarity to the elaborate issue at hand.

The Moral Debate between Humanitarianism and National Interest about U.S. Refugee Policy: A Theological Perspective – Dana Wilbanks

Wilbanks seeks to undermine the public’s negative view of refugees and immigrants.  Seeing them as objects that incur financial and political strains, Wilbanks argues against these dangerous misconceptions and generalizations.  Her approach is that of Christian thought, drawing upon a number of Christian dynamics in rejecting the opposition to refugees entering the United States.

The first solution to this from Wilbanks is in the way these persons are viewed.  They cannot be objectified under these political views.  Rather, they should be seen as individuals in God.  As Christians we are called to respond to these individuals, and not disregard them due to the challenges that are faced.

In responding to this problem, Wilbanks advocates Christianity’s call to others.  She warns against taking the easy way by neglecting the immigrants, as this would be the simple way out.  Calling on hospitality and the Christian duty, Wilbanks believes that citizens should take strides towards easing the burdens of refugees.  Also using the role of the Christian church, Wilbanks calls on Christians to follow through within the vision of the church.  Moral concerns take on a Christian perspective, where those in the Christian church are called to reach out to those in need, such as immigrants.

Mi Casa No Es Su Casa – Aurora Camacho de Schmidt

Aurora Camacho de Schmidt attacks the state of borders.  While they are without distinction for terms of international economic agreements, that disregard borders for purposes of trade, they remain curiously opposed to open borders for the benefit of refugees.  This fear has led to the result of the plight of those who are seeking new places to live and work.

The people are thus faced against one another, according to Aurora Camacho de Schmidt.  Immigrants become the enemy of the population.  From the irrational common sense rooted in the opposition of open borders, people of faith are called on for support.  Those of faith are called to join these oppressive structures for the justice of all people, citizens, refugees, and those looking for places to live included.

The Coming Immigration Debate: An Englishman Takes An Alarmed Look at a Quintessentially American Issue – Jack Miles

Miles follows the lead of Brimelow regarding the rejection of open borders.  Citing Brimelow’s analysis of the policies of other countries, Miles does not want the United States to incur the consequences of the open borders of the U.S., to which Miles believes are currently open.  These consequences from the projections are unacceptable, according to the viewpoint of Miles.

As a result, Miles believe that immigration law needs to be changed quickly and radically.  Looking upon the cultural makeup of certain cities, he fears cultural uprisings if immigration continues within the United States.  Miles even goes as far to predict a kind of civil war in the wake of increased immigration, from the lack of rapid change in regards to immigration law.

Evaluation

The viewpoints of the three proceeding authors fail to consider alternatives.  For the two individuals who would like to see open borders, there are no means given or ways in which the situation can be guided.  It is clear that Miles objects to open borders, and the means that he follows from Brimelow are quite excessive.

In both cases, the authors fail to give ways to alleviate the situation.  Respective of their positions, alternatives should be given that could alleviate the situation, regardless of the support or rejection of open borders.  Ways that could serve the situation for the better would be accepted as a starting ground; instead, the extremes are supported, which begs questions of practicality.

Conclusion

The two authors supporting open immigration call on the Christian and moral perspectives of the situation.  Arguing for the increasing moral consciousness, in terms of Christianity, society, racial relations, and more, open borders would appeal to the correct decision.  Both authors also believe that it would not incur vast repercussions.

Miles however does not believe this to be true.  Fearing uprisings and outbursts, he argues that open borders would incur great consequences.  He immediately calls for swift and alarming changes to immigration law in the United States.

The articles serve to demonstrate two opposites in the issue of American immigration.  Appealing to moral concerns we see the basis in this light for open borders, where difficulties can be overcome.  However, Miles represents some of the population in the fears of the economic, political, and further consequences that may be seen if the borders are not closed to immigrants.