Reference no: EM132517188

Do you agree with Stephen Macedo's argument that we have specific obligations to fellow-citizens of our country that may outweigh the general obligations that we to all citizens of the world? What parts of his argument do you find to be strongest and what parts do you find to be weakest?

Stephen Macedo's argument:

Stephen Macedo, "The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy Revisited: Open Borders vs. Social Justice?"

Macedo lays out the moral dilemma:

"How should we think about the apparent ethical conflict between, on the one hand, the cosmopolitan humanitarian impulse to admit less well-off persons from abroad who wish to immigrate to the U.S. and, on the other hand, the special obligations we have to less well-off Americans?" (qtd in Vaughn 768).

"Do national borders matter with respect to our fundamental moral obligations to one another?" (qtd in Vaughn 768).

Macedo argues for what he calls the "civic view:"

"The civic view holds that we have special obligations of mutual justification to our fellow citizens, and that the fullest obligations of distributive justice have special force among fellow citizens" (qtd in Vaughn 773).

His argument is that self-governance creates special moral obligations to fellow-citizens:

"A self-governing political society is a hugely significant joint venture. . . . We have strong common obligations as fellow citizens because we collectively govern one another: we collectively make hugely consequential decisions. This could not simultaneously be true of the international society, and it is not" (qtd in Vaughn 776).

Nevertheless, we do have obligations to non-citizens, with respect to justice and humanitarianism:

"With respect to people in the rest of the world, our duties and obligations are different, though still quite important: fair dealing-including curbs on the exploitative potential of our corporations, and doing our fair share to address common problems (such as environmental dangers like global warming); more specific projects of historical rectification and redress in response to particular past acts of injustice; and humanitarian assistance to help lift other societies (insofar as we can) out of poverty" (qtd in Vaughn 773).

He goes into the details of these obligations more on page 777, where he adds:

"Our general humanitarian duties include doing our fair share to provide safe harbor for refugees" and that "[i]f we have contributed to the creation of the conditions that generate refugees then we have special obligations to address their plight" (qtd in Vaughn 777).

Macedo considers a Canadian-style immigration policy (where immigrants are selected partly on the basis of education or needed job skills), but concludes that this would not adequately address the realities and history of our shared border with Mexico.

He finally supports the general outlines of a plan by Massey, Durand, and Malone to "accept and regularize the flow of migrant labor" that includes:

•Increasing annual quotas of legal immigrants from Mexico and Central America

•Issuing two-year work visas

•Using funds raised from fees and saved from lowering the cost of immigration enforcement to offset costs of services in areas with high levels of migrants (qtd in Vaughn 789)

He adds a few other considerations:

•There must be protections in place to avoid the exploitation of guest workers

•Measures would also have to be taken to help out less well-off Americans, whose wages might be impacted by competition from guest workers.

Overall, he seems to suggest that this plan would lead to the best balance of our particular duties to American citizens and our general humanitarian duties as citizens of the world.