MORAL GROUNDS OF AFFLUENT WESTERN DEMOCRACIES FOR EXCLUDING POOR IMMIGRANTS
The move by many people from the third world countries to affluent Western societies depicts efforts to escape the consequences of poverty and oppression. Most of the people are; however, prevented from reaching the Western democracies. There are concerns over the immoral nature of preventing the individuals from accessing opportunities in the Western societies.
The restriction of immigration can be viewed as moral in reference to the analogy of clubs; this focuses on restriction, selectivity, admission of new members based on the approval of the current members of the specific club (Walzer, 40). Just like it occurs in the clubs, the Congress serves as USA’s committee determining who is eligible for immigration. Granting citizenship to every interested party is risky and may facilitate the entry of criminals and other questionable characters into the nation. Thus, by restricting entry, USA is morally justified in considering the safety and wellbeing of its citizens.
According to Walzer (40), the Congress regulates the immigration process through specifications on general qualifications, categories for admission, exclusion, and numerical limits. Though restrictions in the past were unjustified due to a focus on racial discrimination, but today things are different. Though an affluent country can allow the entry of immigrants, it should use an appropriate criterion in determining who is eligible (Walzer, 32). The country has no obligation or responsibility to welcome every immigrant; the decisions should focus on the risks involved. The risks are used as a justification in limiting the number of immigrants crossing the borders (33). Allowing immigrants to cross borders is an act of charity; thus, refusal by Western countries to do so should not be considered a violation of justice (34). Western countries’ governments have a responsibility of