With the recent globalization several factors are forcing people to move from one country to the other, including the search for jobs and search for economic and political freedom. However, this presents a challenge in many developed countries especially with immigration control policies that are aimed at limiting the number of people moving from one country to the other. The opponents of immigration have cited a number of reasons why developed countries should not allow free movement of people from one region to the other. More specifically, they argue that host countries are left with a burden to providing job opportunities to migrants thus getting affected not only in terms of economic development but also in the change of social structures because of the cultural and social practices. For instance, Coppel, Dumont & Visco (35) have argued that immigration implies that the people are intermingling and therefore there is need for institutional and social changes. This presents the dilemma in terms of utilitarian approach since the immigrants are supposed to fit in the institutional and cultural structures of the host countries. This is not always the case as some countries fear that migrant are likely to swamp the locals and cause severe social disruptions. The argument in this paper is that immigration controls are no longer necessary in the contemporary world as packed by evidences of migrants making substantial contributions to the development of their host countries.
Statistics indicate that immigration controls are tools used only by racists with they claim that they are defending their national identity. Given the recent archeological evidences, humanity migrated from one region in East Africa making almost everyone in the rest of the world to qualify as a migrant. Thus the issue of maintaining national identity and autonomy in terms of cultural and social structures should not be a reason to limit the freedom of movement to people who want to move to other countries for various reasons. In fact, history has proved that migrants contribute more to the social and cultural development of the countries where they settle than they use the resources within that country. A good example is the massive agricultural sector in the United States which is dependent on the migrants, without whom the sector would not be as vibrant.
Immigration controls are a creation of nation-states, some of whom were not in existence at the dawn of 19th century. With the recent globalization and the need to disband national boundaries, immigration controls are likely to lose their meaning as international institutions such as United Nations, International Monetary Funds, and World Bank take up the responsibility of neutralizing immigration controls. However, according to Card (48), the best solution to the problem of immigration, if at all immigration is a problem, is to address the conditions that are causing people to move from one part to the other. He argues that trying to form policies that scuttle the rights of immigrants or even building better policies to cater for the rights of the immigrants as it is done in many countries will not solve the problem. His suggestion is contrary to the really situation in the ground as most people who are migrating are sometime financially stable trying to look for better job opportunities.
Borjas (670) argued that that immigration also has the positive side of it in that it helps in integrating humanity across the world and therefore building one unified people. If this is the case, then positive immigration should be encouraged to allow people from different cultures to mingle and exchange their cultures. The main assumptions to the problem of immigration is that immigrants only come to enjoy the resources of the host country and they have nothing important to offer to these countries. However, the reality is that migrants have been instrumental in the development of some of these host countries. For instance, modern day American nation was largely built by immigrants, arguing that Native Americans could not built the present day America alone.
Evidences from some of the preferred immigration destination such as England and the United States indicate that migrants contribute to the economic development of other nations. This was attested to by the former Prime Minister of England who argued that the reason he had raised upwards the estimates for economic growth was because net immigration was higher than predicted. The same is suggested by economists who have argued against immigration controls saying that their abolition will see some economies doubling their incomes. The philosophical aspect of utilitarianism should be upheld when it comes to addressing the issue of immigration rather than brushing off and wishing the topic away. In this case, policies that are put in place to address ethical dilemma of immigration should cater for the interests of both the immigrants and the natives. In conclusion, the solution to immigration means that the world will be a free place to leave at and people will be moving to new areas, not because they are running away from away form of persecution but rather as a way of cultural integration (Coppel, Dumont & Visco, 37).
Immigration controls have been proved to support escalation of repressive acts, human suffering and racism. Much of the immigration controls are directed against people who have genuine needs to move to other countries either for the reason of escaping political subjugation of for economic reasons. However, the existing immigration controls used by developed countries have raised the bar for really asylum seekers to the point that it is impossible for them to meet the requirements. Those who manage to circumvent the controls are the ones who have benefited from the stimuli and incentive from the Western countries thus living a bunch of poor and oppressed people in countries where they cannot survive as free persons. Moreover, where attempts have been made to abolish immigration controls, there seems to be no goodwill from the concerned parties as different countries of destination fail to agree on the abolition of immigration controls. This leaves a burden to a few countries with lessened immigration controls to shoulder the burden of hosting immigrants thereby giving other rich countries another reason why they should not relax their immigration control measures. In other cases, abolition of immigration controls is informed by other reasons than creating a free world. For instance, the business interests of providing cheap labor by the immigrants and creation of free trade zones in the name of regional cooperation take the center stage in the discussions about abolition of immigration controls. In some cases, freedom of movement is interpreted in terms of movement of labor and goods rather than allowing people to move and settle in the countries of their choice (Card, 52).
In light of the above analysis, it is evident that immigration controls continue to impinge the freedom of people to move and settle in their country of their choice. One way of abolishing immigration controls is to grant people complete freedom to move and the right to settle and work in countries of their choice. The other is to remove all the apparatus used to determine the legality of one’s status as whether they qualify as immigrants or not. With the overwhelming evidences across the world, it is agreeable that immigration controls are no longer necessary in the contemporary world as packed by evidences of migrants making substantial contributions to the development of their host countries.