A Case for Open Borders Essay -- Human Right Argumentative Persuasive

A Case for Open Borders In his address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson declared freedom of the seas in times of peace and war. Looking back, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could challenge the right of individuals to navigate the oceans freely. However, fast-forward to the twenty-first century and we can see an analogous debate over the issue of immigration rights, with territorial borders being the main topic of discussion. The system of immigration in the United States is complex and oftentimes restrictive, and while revisions to the system usually include increasing quotas or other solutions to let in certain groups of people who deserve special consideration (such as those whose skills are needed in a particular field), they are still very limited solutions. The obvious question that arises from letting in some people but not others is that of fairness. Is the accident of birth or luck of being in the right place at the right time enough to justi fy restrictive citizenship to a select few? I would argue not. I intend to argue that a commitment to human rights entails the position that borders ought to be open in order to guarantee other human rights, especially the right to migrate. In order to understand why a commitment to human rights includes a commitment to open borders, we must understand why the right to migrate is a human right. This can be proven with a simple logical syllogism. We must first assume that all individuals have equal natural rights in the state of natural law, or the very primitive sense of man before government was formed. Locke defines the state of natural law as â€Å"a state of equality†¦ all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one h... ...of his statement, however, Walzer is claiming that fulfilling this urgent need (or right) should only be done if it is convenient to the other party. This is a contradiction to human rights, as they should be inherent and not â€Å"granted† but demanded â€Å"without embarrassment or shame† . Indeed, restricting borders is the act of convenience and if it is done for reasons other than emergencies (such as possible spread of infectious diseases) is a violation of a human being’s right to migrate. Giving rights to citizens for the sole reason of being citizens and denying citizenship to some effectively denies rights to that group. Human rights belong to individuals, not citizens. Humanity has faced so many obstacles to human rights that it will surely transcend lines on maps, because we are committed to human rights and this entails a commitment to a position of open borders.