Quote:
Originally posted by shamrock_uk:
I agree with Azred on the whole here.
The LP seem to be confusing (deliberately?) the issue of refugees and economic migrants - they cannot and should not be treated the same.
A two-pronged approach is needed:
Refugees fleeing persecution is quite one thing - they should never be denied (a legal) entry if their case is genuine and they pose no security threat.
If they enter the country illegally and are discovered, their case should be reviewed and they should be deported unless the risk of persecution/torture etc is dire. People entering the United States must understand that the rule of law prevails.
But simply moving to America in search of better economic prospects is not a right. If they're not fleeing persecution, there is no moral duty upon America to take them in. Illegal migrants should be deported upon capture, those that care to abide by the rule of law are free to apply officially to become migrants. Their case will be assessed and they will be let in if they can contribute something to the American economy and society. It seems perfectly fair to me.
If you allow people into the country illegally, for whatever reason, they are 'outside the system' and in grave danger of exploitation, getting involved in crime and living a life of miserable poverty. For their own protection, as well as the interests of American society, the legal way should be the only way.
|
Getting rid of (most) immigration restrictions and your not allowing people into the country illegally anymore so the point becomes moot. My views of individual self determination and right to labor don't just stop at my nations borders.
The LP veiws right to labor and freedom of movement as basic human rights. Denying either for most reasons is equally and perceptually immoral. I more or less agree, So I believe allowing them in is a "moral" duty for at least these two reasons. This is why the the issues of refugees and economic migrants are lumped together.