Toshihiro Hiai
Aug 22 · Last update 17 days ago.

Should states deport all illegal immigrants?

The issue of illegal immigrants has intensified sharply since President Donald Trump took office in 2017. It is said that approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently reside in the U.S. In July 2019, the U.S. government announced intentions to expedite their deportation process by bypassing immigration judges. On the one hand, some believe that the growing number of illegal immigrants has undermined state sovereignty, and stolen job opportunities from locals. On the other hand, illegal migrant’s rights (otherwise may sound like the concern is the immigrant’s rather than for them) have gained concern due to the miserable condition they face at detention centres, and international human rights organizations have urged respective states to take humanitarian actions to protect them. Therefore, it is imperative to look into different viewpoints regarding the issue and discuss whether states should deport all illegal immigrants. washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-to-expand-its-power-to-deport-undocumented-immigrants/2019/07/22/76d09bc4-ac8e-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html?noredirect=on
Stats of Viewpoints
Yes and no – it depends who the state in question want to benefit
0 agrees
0 disagrees
No, criminalising immigration creates black markets
0 agrees
0 disagrees
No, the importance of assimilation and culture exchange
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Yes, illegal migrants don’t pay tax and don’t contribute to society
0 agrees
0 disagrees
States should deport all illegal immigrants because they will create a negative social/political environment in the future.
1 agrees
1 disagrees
States should deport all illegal immigrants because they undermine state sovereignty.
1 agrees
0 disagrees
States should not deport illegal immigrants if they are likely to face persecution in their home countries.
2 agrees
0 disagrees
States should not deport all illegal immigrants, rather should accept them as members of their societies.
2 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint

Yes and no – it depends who the state in question want to benefit

Immigration is often depicted as a simple issue that is portrayed in a simple positive or negative light, however the issue is much more complex and nuanced and depending on who you are looking at migration in general has both positive and negative impacts for different people. Migration has a negative impact on low skilled workers who tend to compete in the labour market with migrants that enter the country, with trends suggesting that for every 10% increase in the number of workers in a sector there is a drop in wages of about 3%. However migration often benefits a large number in a society also, as low skilled workers are competing against migrants in a larger labour pool, employers are able to offer lower wages and still fill their position, saving them a substance percentage in labour costs.

So rather than a clear positive or negative immigration in general could be described more accurate as redistributive, allowing the economy to benefit employers more than labour, and redistributing wealth accordingly. Rather than engaging in emotive and inaccurate political rhetoric to win votes, or back a rash policy such as deporting all illegal immigrants, states should be looking at how migration should be utilised in their economy. If inequality is too high migration might not be a positive force, but if the economy is suffering from a severe labour shortage any form of migration should be embraced, but the benefits to the economy that immigration brings should be used to help offset any damaged caused to low skilled workers. Employers or states should be calculating actual benefits of migration and using economic grow to retrain low skilled workers so that all benefit from all forms of migration.

politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 16
Created

No, criminalising immigration creates black markets

Illegal immigration is not an easy or effective way to migrate to another country and the vast majority of people that migrate in this way do so because they are vulnerable and desperate. These people are often without options when they do migrate and have to seek employment in the black market, not contributing tax and often working for illegal wages or in illegal conditions. Likewise the mere action of making migration illegal generates another black market in the form of people smuggling. We can see from recent high profile cases such as 39 bodies found in a traffickers truck in Essex, UK in 2019, is this black market in particular just makes these vulnerable people much more vulnerable.

nytimes.com/2019/10/24/world/europe/truck-bodies-uk-chinese.html economicshelp.org/blog/557/labour-markets/immigration-and-the-black-market

On the other hand, by the same logic societies could remove all laws for the sake of them being broken. Migrants might be vulnerable but so are the entire state’s population if illegal migration leads to unaccountable criminals entering the country, and just the act of illegally migrating somewhere means that the person is willing to break the law to benefit themselves. Furthermore most countries offer some form of asylum programme for migrants that truly are vulnerable and need to leave their country of origin, most illegal immigrants migrate because they are not actually vulnerable enough to meet with this asylum criteria.

icrc.org/en/document/icrcs-response-needs-vulnerable-migrants gouvernement.fr/en/asylum-and-immigration

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 16
Created

No, the importance of assimilation and culture exchange

Immigration, whether legal or illegal, can have positive cultural consequences, as when migrants come to live in a new country they inevitably bring with them new ideas, customs and traditions that can be interesting and potentially profitable to the host state. Overtime this can add to the cultural and economic richness of the state, but may also help to connect the world and build bridges internationally. There is a lot of concern amongst opponents of immigration that assimilation will fail and it will lead to demographic change in the state and an ultimate negative change of culture, but the shear statistics make demographic change unlikely unless the migrants were going to make up a sizable percentage of the total population. Assimilation inevitably occurs both ways even with heavy immigration and this is not necessarily a bad thing at all, as cultures have acquired new cuisine and traditions in this way for millennia.

globalcitizen.org/en/content/how-immigrants-benefit-society-trump

On the other hand, migrants - legal or illegal tend to resist assimilation somewhat and often form ghettos, as people from a same culture will naturally want some home comforts and want to be around people that understand them. This can make assimilation more difficult as it directly runs in opposition to them fitting in to the new culture, possibly making that process more difficult. Illegal immigrants in particular will be on average less able to support themselves, making them in less of a position to integrate as they may not have the money or state support to access cultural or language education. In this case illegal migrants will not be in a position to exchange culture and may instead lend a dimension of criminality to the areas these communities tend to inhabit. Overtime this will have a negative effect on the area, and in large enough numbers will inevitably lead to change in values nationally, away from the inherent values and culture of the state.

observer-reporter.com/opinion/op-eds/today-s-immigrants-don-t-want-to-assimilate/article_e333663b-7197-51be-8bff-d4de7b183f65.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 16
Created

Yes, illegal migrants don’t pay tax and don’t contribute to society

When illegal migrants enter a country they have one of two paths to support themselves financially, they take low paid un-taxed jobs or they claim benefits from the country if there are any. This results not only in competition for legal citizens in the country but also causes a loss of tax revenue, that hurts government spending, a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that the total annual cost to the US from illegal immigration is $113 billion. Theses costs can mount up as many illegal migrants will be using a country’s education system, causing costs to rise as they do not contribute to the national schooling system, and the same applies to hospitals if the country provides healthcare. Legal migration is a costly endeavour, the easier illegal immigration becomes the more migrants will feel inclined to migrate illegally, illegal migration therefore has a lot of hidden costs to a society's economy.

foxnews.com/us/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-113-billion-a-year-study-finds everydayhealth.com/public-health/impact-illegal-immigration

This argument is misplaced, in reality illegal migrants (sometimes with language difficulties) could not take jobs or claim benefits without a social security or national insurance number, so they are instead exposed and limited to exploitative casual low-pay (and often illegal) employment. These are jobs that natives of the country won’t often take anyway, and the same could be said for welfare and social benefits, as countries have to keep records on who is taking what as the government inevitably has to pay these costs. It is a myth that illegal immigrants pose a strain on social welfare, and it is a myth they are taking jobs away, more likely they are keeping the economy afloat by carrying out menial jobs that natives citizens often will refuse for the low wages, hard work or long hours. Many countries have a labour shortage internationally and those countries should be protecting and using illegal migrants as the asset they are. Furthermore a lot of illegal immigration and a labour shortage is a sign of the need to change migration policy, and states should think of immigration in general as a sort of tax investment, the state could achieve higher tax revenue if they made it easier for illegal migrants compared the expense of enforcing strict anti-immigration laws. This would in fact have a double tax boosting effect, as due to circumstances illegal migrants facilitate tax dodging labour industries, if illegal migrants were treated more fairly governments could seek tax from all migrants and employers.

huffpost.com/entry/no-undocumented-immigrants-arent-stealing-your-benefits_b_5a144263e4b010527d6780b0

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 15
Created

States should deport all illegal immigrants because they will create a negative social/political environment in the future.

Either legal or illegal, it is clear that an influx of outsiders will create a demographic change in the host nation. As immigrants tend to remain in the receiving country, a growing number of immigrants will cause social change and may escalate racial, ethnic, and religious tension in the long term. For example, Australia, which has been a popular destination for Chinese citizens, now fear an ever-growing political threat of the Government of China. Illegal immigrants are not going to completely be a part of the new state, rather they are likely to keep close communication and affiliation with people or the government of their homeland. Therefore, states should deport all illegal immigrants to avoid future disintegration and division of society.

On the other hand, there is an argument that states should not fear the negative social/political influence brought by illegal immigrants because multiculturalism is inherently a positive element of society. In a highly globalized world, it is essential for citizens to appreciate people from different backgrounds, understand cultural differences, and accept social diversity because that will harness the strength of a liberal society. Accepting illegal immigrants can be a “bridge between the divide of tolerance and acceptance”.

scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2100798/should-australia-fear-influx-chinese thestar.com/opinion/2007/01/01/the_value_of_multiculturalism.html#targetText=Multiculturalism%20is%20important%20because%20it,that%20have%20radically%20different%20perspectives.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 10
DH edited this paragraph
On the other hand, some have argued that states should not fear the negative social/political influence brought by illegal immigrants because multiculturalism is inherently a positive element of society. In a highly globalized world, it is essential for citizens to appreciate people from different backgrounds, understand cultural differences, and accept social diversity because that will harness the strength of a liberal society. Accepting illegal immigrants can be a “bridge between the divide of tolerance and acceptance”. Furthermore arguing against illegal immigration on the basis of the migrant's possible mixed loyalties falls apart under scrutiny as it equally could be said of legal migrants also, and can more convincingly be argued for foreign diplomats. If a country banned migrants on this basis diplomacy would grind to a halt and the state would become increasingly isolated.

States should deport all illegal immigrants because they undermine state sovereignty.

It is the primary responsibility of states to protect national sovereignty by bringing immigration under strict control. It is said that not all illegal immigrants are economic migrants, and there have been cases of illegal immigrants found to have strong ties with a terrorist group. In the current international system, with the ever-increasing trend of globalization, states should not tolerate anything that might damage state sovereignty.

cis.org/Oped/Undermining-US-sovereignty-over-immigration thoughtco.com/terrorists-the-other-illegal-immigrants-3321334

On the other hand, there is an argument that It is misleading to say that illegal immigrants undermine state sovereignty. The core principle of state sovereignty is the right to jurisdiction. Letting immigrants cross the border does not mean that the state loses control over the right to jurisdiction. If morally required due to humanitarian reasons, states should allow illegally entering immigrants to stay, and that will not harm state sovereignty. Also, it can be argued that illegal immigrants often come from states whose sovereignty has been violated by powerful states and non-state actors such as the U.S. This is most obvious if one looks at the huge number of immigrants from the Middle East arriving in Europe, who had to flee due to terrorism and civil war, and the root cause of the instability in the region can be traced back to the U.S.' intervention during the Cold War. Therefore, it is irresponsible and hypocritical for those states to reject immigrants on the basis of sovereignty because they, at least partially, have created situations where local citizens have to leave to seek a better life. theconversation.com/why-illegal-migrants-arent-violating-state-sovereignty-43446

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 10
DH edited this paragraph
On the other hand, there is an argument that it is misleading to say that illegal immigrants undermine state sovereignty. The core principle of state sovereignty is the right to jurisdiction. Letting immigrants cross the border does not mean that the state loses control over the right to jurisdiction. If morally required due to humanitarian reasons, states should allow illegally entering immigrants to stay, and that will not harm state sovereignty. Also, it can be argued that illegal immigrants often come from states whose sovereignty has been violated by powerful states and non-state actors, countries such as the U.S., Britain, France, Iran, Russia, China, Israel and non-state groups such as Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIS are often at fault of this. This is most obvious if one looks at the huge number of immigrants from the Middle East arriving in Europe, who had to flee due to terrorism and civil war, and the root cause of the instability in the region can be traced back to the U.S.' numerous interventions since the Cold War. Therefore, it is irresponsible and hypocritical for those states to reject immigrants on the basis of sovereignty because they, at least partially, have created situations where local citizens have to leave to seek a better life.

States should not deport illegal immigrants if they are likely to face persecution in their home countries.

Not all illegal immigrants cross borders merely in search of better job opportunities. Some leave their home countries due to political or religious persecution, but they may be unable to obtain asylum/refugee status. For example, it is said that North Korean defectors flee to China due to the lack of basic human rights there, but they are regarded as illegal immigrants by the Government of China. Therefore, they constantly face the risk of deportation, which could lead to torture or even the death penalty. For that reason, states should not deport illegal immigrants if humanitarian concerns arise.

reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-china-un/u-n-official-urges-china-not-to-deport-north-korean-escapees-who-could-face-torture-idUSKCN1TM0ML refworld.org/docid/51b0459039.html

On the other hand, some argue that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay regardless of reason or circumstance, as long as they are undocumented. For example, the Chinese government does not recognize North Korean defectors as refugees, therefore send them back to North Korea with the help of the North Korean authorities. That is because keeping the defectors inside China may cause social/ethnic unrest and also accelerate tension between Beijing and Pyongyang. For a government, it is the primary obligation to safeguard the state from external threats and pursue national interests, thus humanitarian concern comes as a secondary matter. persecution.org/2019/08/10/china-plans-deport-60-north-korean-defectors

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 10
DH edited this paragraph
Not all illegal immigrants cross borders merely in search of better job opportunities. Some leave their home countries due to political or religious persecution, but they may be unable to obtain asylum/refugee status. For example, it is said that North Korean defectors flee to China due to the lack of basic human rights there, but the Government of China regards them as illegal immigrants. Therefore, they constantly face the risk of deportation, which could lead to torture or even the death penalty in their home country. For that reason, states should not deport illegal immigrants if humanitarian concerns arise, they should instead maintain International Asylum Law outlined in the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

States should not deport all illegal immigrants, rather should accept them as members of their societies.

Some reports suggest that increasing the number of illegal immigrants in low-skilled labour markets reduces labour costs for employers, and eventually, the employment rate for unskilled locals will rise as a result. Moreover, including illegal immigrants in the workforce leads to higher productivity and better job income per native. escholarship.org/uc/item/38v6c3b3

On the other hand, others claim that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay because they create problems such as reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools, increased crime, and a depleted social safety net. Moreover, an influx of illegal immigrants can change the national identity of the receiving states, which also destabilizes the social and cultural order. As one can see in the example of the Turkish community in Germany, it is evident that ethnic/racial and religious tension, brought by the influx of immigrants, remain decades later, and it could get worse as the community expands. It is the first and foremost responsibility of a government to keep the social order and safety of the state. pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-plays-on-immigration-myths france24.com/en/20180928-focus-germany-turkish-community-immigration-far-right-racism-tensions

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 10
DH edited this paragraph
On the other hand, others claim that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay because they create problems such as reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools, increased crime, and a depleted social safety net. Moreover, an influx of illegal immigrants can change the national identity of the receiving states, which also destabilizes the social and cultural order. As one can see in the example of the Turkish community in Germany, it is evident that ethnic/racial and religious tensions, brought by the influx of immigrants, remain decades later, and it could get worse as the community expands. It is the first and foremost responsibility of a government to keep the social order and safety of the state. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-plays-on-immigration-myths https://www.france24.com/en/20180928-focus-germany-turkish-community-immigration-far-right-racism-tensions
Translate