Privilege Of Immigration

The Privilege of Immigration Huemer’s classification of a federally imposed restriction on immigration as a “prima facie rights violation” and his view that immigration is a universal right are fundamentally flawed and fail to acknowledge the rights of both parties involved in the immigration process.

Huemer opens his piece by introducing the concept of prima facie rights. A prima facie rights violation is, “an action of a sort that normally- that is, barring any special circumstances- violates someone’s rights” (Huemer). To illustrate, Huemer tells the story of Marvin, a starving man who plans on going to the supermarket to purchase food. On his way, Marvin is detained by an unaffiliated third party who prevents Marvin from getting food. As a result, he his harmed and thus his prima facie rights are violated. Huemer concludes that the story of Marvin is analogous to a government imposing restrictions on immigration, by stating that they “constitute serious violations of the rights of potential immigrants” (Huemer). Specifically, Huemer agues that because coercion is used in enforcing immigration restrictions, a person’s prima facie right to be “free of harmful coercion” is violated (Huemer). He is partially correct in his assessment; a restriction imposed by the government

Immigration, overall, is a critical factor in the creation of nations and cultures. The United States, for example, was founded by immigrants seeking to escape the oppression imposed by the British Empire. Since then, the United States has been described as a “melting pot” of all cultures, as immigrants continue to shape the comprehensive American culture. Yet, despite all the positives of immigration, it is not a human right, but rather a privilege. This is not to advocate for a ban on immigration, but rather to support the sovereignty of