Whenever people discuss immigration rights, one central question that always comes up is whether immigrants should have the same rights as the country they have been accepted into. Many immigrants struggle socially because they lack access to improved housing, clothing, food, education, and health care. Along with the battle to obtain these necessities, immigrants also struggle with laws that prevent them from accessing the courts, discriminate against them based on their country of origin, and impose indefinite and mandatory detention. Every time federal governments implement immigration laws, immigrants are also subjected to constitutional violations. Sexual attack, involuntary detention, and deportation without adequate counsel are just a few examples of the abuses. It is imperative to note that whenever a federal government denies legal rights to any vulnerable group, every person is at risk of suffering the same fate. Every human being, immigrant or not, is entitled to human dignity and freedom. No government, or institution, in an effort to limit and manage immigration, should impose laws that infringe on the basic human right of any vulnerable person. In essence, the harm and social injustice that immigration restrictions intend to prevent should be a little comparable to the harm and social justice that the same immigration restrictions impose. The objective of this paper is to analyze some of the immigration rights and the challenges immigrants face.
Supporters of strict immigration laws outline a few reasons for their stand. One of the major argument in support of restricting immigrants from entering various countries is protecting the citizen's job security. One way of protecting citizens from poverty is the creation of enough jobs and maintaining a vibrant labor force. Many critics of immigration argue that without immigration laws, the supply of labor is bound to increase drastically (Krepelka, 2010, p. 40). The result would be job loss for the deserving citizens, and ultimately the wages would drop drastically, subjecting real citizens to abject poverty. Therefore, by restricting immigrants from entering their countries, governments feel that they are protecting the interest of its citizens.
Another reason for implementing strict immigration laws is to protect a country's taxpayer from extra burden associated with open door immigration policies. In countries such as the US, where a lot of money is spent on welfare than other countries spend on work, allowing open door policies would permit immigration for people merely looking to take advantage (Hanson, 2009, p. 8). An influx in the number of immigrants arriving in the nation will, in turn, lead to an increase in taxation rates for the working population, thereby increasing their burden. For example, in the United States, states must provide illegal immigrants students with a free public education (Grandrath, 1996, p. 762). Such nations do feel that taxpayers do enough by supporting the idle population, such as the elderly, and those under welfare. Therefore, to impose an extra tax on them because of immigrants is unfair. Because of these concerns, immigrants' restriction is the only natural way of protecting their citizens from potential parasites.
Another vital reason why most countries prefer to impose strict immigration rules is the fear of liberty erosion. It is true that most immigrants migrate to other countries because their parent countries are less free than the adopted countries. Most of the immigrants are from countries that practice dictatorship and do not uphold human rights and democracy (Laque, 2011, p. 4). Many countries, therefore, fear that with the free border policy, there could be an influx in the number of immigrants, which in turn can erode their democracy and liberty. Therefore, to protect their freedom and liberty, such nations must impose strict immigration laws.
As much as the critics of the free border have the right to protect their citizens and countries from these negative effects of immigration, it is important to realize that every human being qualifies for universal human rights. The rights demand that every person should be treated with dignity, and given the opportunity to develop and thrive, without prejudice or victimization. Many civil rights movements fear that with time, there is a possibility of overcriminalization of immigration laws that will ultimately discriminate against immigrants (Chacon, 2012, p. 616). Currently, immigrants face some challenges, such as accessing services, securing jobs, securing housing, abuse, and the risk of deportation.
The major challenge faced by immigrants in any country is securing work. Many reasons contribute to the inability of immigrants to secure jobs, such as language barrier, and lack of technical skills. But the major reason for the lack of jobs is the laws passed by the adopted countries and states. The majority of the countries restrict immigrants from accessing job opportunities (Huemer, 2010, p. 430). A lot of governments give priority to their citizens whenever there is an opening in the job market. Organizations and individuals also prefer to work with the countries' citizens as compared to immigrants. Such provisions and laws subject immigrants, both legal and illegal, to lower standards of living, with basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing being hard to acquire.
Immigrants also find it difficult to access basic services. The most vulnerable are the undocumented immigrants, who fear to access these services, because of the fear of being returned to their mother countries. As such, immigrants avoid seeing doctors, seeking legal guidance, or any other service that requires proper documentation (Waters, & Jiménez, 2005, p. 112). Those who succeed in accessing services report negative experiences, mainly due to discrimination from the service providers.
Immigrant women are the most vulnerable. Most immigrant women suffer from exploitation in the workplace, with most of them denied their pay, blackmailed by their employers, or threatened with deportation. Women who work on farms or as domestic workers, are subject to repeated sexual violence and defilement but do not report the abuses because of fear of deportation (Hospers, 1998, p. 155). There are also reported sexual abuse of these women by law enforcement officers in detention facilities. Apart from sexual abuse, women in detention centers do not get access to medical care, are put in solitary confinement, or strip searched.
Although there is a need for countries to protect their borders from immigrants, because of the economic welfare of their citizens, and other legitimate reasons, immigrants who already live in these countries should be treated with dignity. A refugee or not, every human being is entitled to equal opportunities to develop and thrive, without discrimination, prejudice, or victimization. Every immigrant should be allowed to access basic services like medical care, and legal guidance, without discrimination, because like others, these services are fundamental to their well-being. For the immigrants to be able to live a quality life, institutions should make it easy for them to access jobs, secure safe housing, and other services. They should also avoid over criminalizing immigration laws.
References
Chacon, M. (2012). Overcriminalizing immigration. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
102 (3), 613-652.
Grandrath, L. (1996). Illegal immigrants and public education: is there a right to 3 R's.
Valparaiso University Law Review, 30 (2), 749-809.
Hanson, G. H. (2010). The economics and policy of illegal immigration in the United States.
Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Hospers, J. (1998). A libertarian argument against open borders. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 13, 153-166.
Huemer, M. (2010). Is there a right to immigrate? Social Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429-461.
Krepelka, J. (2010). A Pure libertarian theory of immigration. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 22,
35-52.
Laque, C. (2011). Immigration law and policy: before and after September 11, 2001. Social
Sciences Journal, 10 (1), 1-11.
Waters, M. C., & Jiménez, T. R. (2005). Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical and
theoretical challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 105-125.
