Arguments For Immigration Restrictions Analysis

Words: 1198
Pages: 5

Thesis: While advocating for open borders, it's critical to recognize that certain limitations are necessary to solve issues with employment and the advancement of culture. Although there are many advantages to having open borders, we also have to acknowledge that developing a just immigration policy requires taking into account the opinions and concerns expressed by individuals like Hrishikesh Joshi. In recent years, immigration has gained attention as a contentious issue. While some contend that open borders are necessary to safeguard our nation, others think regulations are necessary. A few presidents have carried out their terms in office with varying opinions about what the nation ought to accomplish. In this paper, I will argue for open boards with some …show more content…
P. Huemer's “ Starvin Marvin” analogy's main focus is to defend the open border while Hrishikesh Joshi's argument focuses more on selective immigration policies. In Huemer’s argument for open borders “the right to move vs. the right to exclude” he emphasizes the importance of allowing individuals to move freely across borders. Huemer challenges traditional justifications for immigration restrictions, arguing that lack of jobs and historical preservation is not enough to argue against immigration. Instead, he argues that allowing immigrants into the US could be a positive asset because it could lead to economic success and cultural improvement. Huemer uses a story called, “Starvin Marvin”. This analogy shows why it is important to allow free movement, he believes that stopping any individual from entering violates their rights because it stops them from seeking a better quality of life. Huemer argues that the benefits of allowing individuals to pursue a better life outweigh the supposed harm that immigration can