Summary Of Risse's 'On The Morality Of Immigration'

In, “On the Morality of Immigration”, Risse claims that the kind of immigration policy we currently have is immoral and that people who cross the border into the United States aren’t doing anything wrong. Risse does provide good arguments for having much more open borders for immigrants. The most important objection to Risse’s position is the objection that is raised by Pevnick and Cafaro. The objection they raise states that Risse fails to note the distinction between natural resources and social/political resources. Risse has certain points in his response to the objection that do make sense, but I believe his response overall is unsuccessful. Risse’s first argument is the good usage argument. The good usage argument is composed of 5 …show more content…
Risse contends 5 main points in the egalitarian ownership argument. The first point of the argument is that natural resources are the accomplishment of no one. Some examples of natural resources are oil, gas, minerals, etc. The second point of the argument is everyone has a symmetrical relationship to the natural resource. National boundaries are arbitrary with regard to natural resources. The third point of the argument is it is unjustified to exclude someone from part of the earth if natural resources on that part are being underused. The fourth point of the argument is that the Unites States is underusing its natural resources. Risse explains this point with the use of his results from the comparison of population and the results for the population per square mile. The fifth point in the argument is that it is unjustified to exclude would-be immigrants from the United …show more content…
Pevnick and Cafaro argue that Risse fails to note the distinction between natural resources and social/political resources. Pevnick and Cafaro believe that social and political resources are more important than natural resources. They describe social and political resources as law and order, markets, education, rights and freedoms, and an uncorrupt government. They argue that immigrants are drawn more towards social and political resources rather than natural resources. The argument explains that social and political stability is more important than natural resources. Pevnick and Cafaro say that social and political resources cannot be equally owned by all people because they are the accomplishments of certain individual people. Pevnick and Cafaro do agree that there’s a moral case for collective ownership of natural resources, but not of social and political