Closing Borders Research Paper
Kasey Thompson
Chamorro
PHIL 3260-001
16 December 2013
Word Count: 2,416
National Security’s Inability to Justify Closing Borders National security is incredibly important, however, it does not sufficiently justify closing borders. When placed up against different arguments in support of open borders, national security seems to come up short. The arguments I will discuss that are successful in discrediting national security’s ability to justify closing the borders are Kukathas’ principle of freedom and principle of humanity arguments, as well as Chamorro’s proportionality argument. These arguments debate the national security argument in two ways. First, by arguing for open borders rather than closed borders, and second, by arguing the meaning of national security’s entire justification overall as far as to what extent it is …show more content…
Kukathas explains that most people in the world live in poverty and the best chance they have to escape this poverty is to move to a new place. (Kukathas 211). By closing the borders, we are taking away the right to pursue a better life. Not only that though, but we are almost discouraging immigrants to pursue a better life considering they are punished for trying to do so, in cases of illegal immigrants. If we are supposed to hold human rights to the highest of standards, than that should be on a global level, not just for citizens of particular states. Kukathas mentions in his article that, “A principle of humanity suggests that very good reason must be offered to justify turning the disadvantaged away. It would be bad enough to meet such people with indifference and to deny them positive assistance. It would be even worse to deny them the opportunity to help themselves.” (Kukathas 211). This idea is especially important when challenging national security as justification for closing
Chamorro
PHIL 3260-001
16 December 2013
Word Count: 2,416
National Security’s Inability to Justify Closing Borders National security is incredibly important, however, it does not sufficiently justify closing borders. When placed up against different arguments in support of open borders, national security seems to come up short. The arguments I will discuss that are successful in discrediting national security’s ability to justify closing the borders are Kukathas’ principle of freedom and principle of humanity arguments, as well as Chamorro’s proportionality argument. These arguments debate the national security argument in two ways. First, by arguing for open borders rather than closed borders, and second, by arguing the meaning of national security’s entire justification overall as far as to what extent it is …show more content…
Kukathas explains that most people in the world live in poverty and the best chance they have to escape this poverty is to move to a new place. (Kukathas 211). By closing the borders, we are taking away the right to pursue a better life. Not only that though, but we are almost discouraging immigrants to pursue a better life considering they are punished for trying to do so, in cases of illegal immigrants. If we are supposed to hold human rights to the highest of standards, than that should be on a global level, not just for citizens of particular states. Kukathas mentions in his article that, “A principle of humanity suggests that very good reason must be offered to justify turning the disadvantaged away. It would be bad enough to meet such people with indifference and to deny them positive assistance. It would be even worse to deny them the opportunity to help themselves.” (Kukathas 211). This idea is especially important when challenging national security as justification for closing