Sure it is. With the way our goverment is doing things, why would immigrants not want to come here?
They enter illegally. Buy a stolen Social Security number. Collect RETROACTIVE payments on these stolen numbers. Get free healthcare, schooling, and social services. Not to mention better living conditions and more rights than they have in their native countries.
So yes, with the 11-30 million illegal immigrants here, I would definitely say that you're assessment is correct.
2006-08-13 20:32:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by drizzt_234 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
Ethics of migration
Although freedom of movement is often recognised as a civil right, the freedom applies to movement within national borders: it may be guaranteed by the constitution, or by human rights legislation. Additionally, this freedom is often limited to citizens and excludes others. No state currently allows full freedom of movement across its borders, and international human rights treaties do not confer a general right to enter another state. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizens may not be forbidden to leave their country. There is no similar provision regarding entry of non-citizens. Those who reject this distinction on ethical grounds, argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right, and that the restrictive immigration policies, typical of nation-states, violate this human right of freedom of movement. Note that a right to freedom of entry would not, in itself, guarantee immigrants a job, housing, health care, or citizenship.
Where immigration is permitted, it is typically selective. Ethnic selection, such as the White Australia policy, has generally disappeared, but priority is usually given to the educated, skilled, and wealthy. Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, can not avail of these immigration opportunities. This inequality has also been criticised as conflicting with the principle of equal opportunities, which apply (at least in theory) within democratic nation-states. The fact that the door is closed for the the unskilled, while at the same many developed countries have a huge demand for unskilled labour, is a major factor in illegal immigration. The contradictory nature of this policy - which specifically disadvantages the unskilled immigrants while exploiting their labour - has also been criticised on ethical grounds.
Immigration polices, which selectively grant freedom of movement, to targeted individuals, are intended to produce a net economic gain for the host country. They can also mean net loss for a poor donor country through the loss of the educated minority -the brain drain. This can exacerbate the global inequality in standards of living, that provided the motivation for the individual to migrate in the first place. An example of the ‘competition for skilled labour’ is active recruitment of health workers by First World countries, from the Third World.
2006-08-14 03:55:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by mylenekeane 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Before immigrants, there was no United States of America, so I am not sure what debate you are looking to start?
2006-08-14 03:31:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nikki Tesla 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
America was built on the backs of Immigrants
2006-08-14 03:28:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by cvegas229 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
No. America was FOUNDED as an immigrant country.
2006-08-14 03:27:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It always has been an immigrant country...Europeans immigrated here first and started the trend way back when...
2006-08-14 03:30:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by alexajbully 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
lol. America was a immigrant country from the beginning.
2006-08-14 03:29:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Simmy 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
America, since the arrival of the English colonists, always been composed of immigrants and the descendants thereof.
2006-08-14 03:30:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Walter 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
its been a immigrant country for over 250 yrs ...so whats new?
2006-08-14 03:34:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
This question is 230 years too late.
2006-08-14 03:31:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋