Ethical Theories and Approaches to Immigration in the United States: A Focus on Undocumented Immigrants

Socioeconomic Perspective on Immigration

Passel and Cohn (2017) suggest that from 1965 to 2017, the majority of unauthorized immigrants in the United States were of Mexican origin due to social, economic, and political processes. According to Massey et al. (2015), migration between Mexico and the United States has historically been a circular affair, with migrants coming and going in response to economic fluctuations on both sides of the border (p. 1016). Some of them had “well-established socioeconomic networks” and “engaged in circular immigration” (Massey et al., 2015). Circular immigration is when migrants find work in the United States, remit families back home, establish financial stability, visit their original countries seasonally, and then return to the United States.

Proponents of immigration restrictions use many-sided arguments, including the propensity of the increase of labor in the United States. However, Caplan (2012) disputes this notion by arguing that American workers do not owe their standard of living to immigration restrictions. He affirms that low-skilled wages are indeed likely to fall but most Americans are not low-skilled (p. 7).

Others dwell on the use of taxpayers’ money for the enforcement of immigration policies. Meissner et al. (2013) explain that the US government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined. Schuck (2008) argues that, on average, immigration is beneficial to the United States as a whole, yet it makes some individual Americans—and immigrants—worse off, particularly at the lower socioeconomic levels (p. 870). Ahn et al. (2013) also allude to the fact that undocumented workers contribute positively to US society by undertaking dangerous or unpopular jobs. These jobs pay the minimum wage which most Americans would not want to take (p. 306).

The stance of Americans on immigration differs across the board, covering a wide spectrum. Schuck (1998) observed that most Americans are in support of legal immigrants like refugees and asylees but oppose illegal immigration. They favor immigrants’ access to education and health benefits but not to welfare or social security; cultures from other countries contribute positively to American life and that diversity continues to strengthen American society (pp. 8–9). O’Neill and William (2014) emphasized that the various views of Americans regarding immigration policy typically betray differing “moral squints”—rival liberal or communitarian rhetoric that shape our prevailing “common sense” on migration policies (p. 89). Schuck (2018) posits that virtually all Americans want stronger enforcement of existing restrictions and most favor reducing legal immigration below current levels (p. 4).

Other Americans vehemently oppose the influx of immigrants because they claim there is not enough land to accommodate foreigners. Risse (2008) did a comparative analysis of most developed countries. He used population density, that is, the number of people per square mile to prove that America has more land to shelter immigrants. He elaborated that Germany has a population density of about 600 per square mile, as does the United Kingdom; Japan has 830, the Netherlands 1,200, and Bangladesh 2,600. On average, the United States has a population density of 80 per square mile (p. 8). Admittedly, certain cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles may rank above the national average, yet there is enough land in the United States to welcome immigrants.

Political Perspective on Immigration

Although the United States as a nation has political regulations to deal with undocumented immigration, different states, cities, and municipalities can enact their laws and enforce these to their advantage. Walker (2010) explains that local responses to new immigrants have varied across the United States as hundreds of localities have considered or enacted local policies to address immigration issues in their communities (p. 27).

Biblical Perspective on Immigration

The tradition in historical Christianity to host migrants, based on biblical principles, whether legal or illegal is very strong. The “ethic of hospitality” as described by Arias (1982) was a distinctive mark of Christianity from the earliest days of the faith. The stories in Acts 2:42–47 & Acts 4:32–37 exemplify one of the highest forms of hospitality as distinctive marks of “family” and “fellowship” in the early church. For the common good of the greater part of the populace, the early church cooperated so well together that no one was known to be poor or lack anything. Everyone’s need was met. The fundamental goal of immigration is to make a better living, and the basic need of immigrants is possibly to get out of poverty and become a source of financial and economic help for families and relatives from their countries of origin.

God’s mandate to the Israelites was to treat strangers hospitably (Leviticus 19:35 & Numbers 35:9–15). It was an ethical injunction to treat aliens with love, respect, and mercy. The cities of refuge, according to Beck (2018), are revealed to be a situational application of those ethical injunctions (p. 133). Foreigners in that epoch are the same as immigrants in our time. Scott (2007) paints an incredible picture through a relatable analogy and a real comparison of the experiences of biblical characters like Abraham and Sarah to our present-day immigrants. He postulates that just as immigrants of today, Abraham and Sarah “could not obtain a visa or study the language and culture of the people they would meet because they did not know where they were going.” During Abraham’s time, there was a distinction between the lifestyle of farmers, who were considered privileged, and the shepherds, who were underprivileged. The former could be classified as the First World of our day, and the latter categorized under Third world status. Abraham and Sarah, whose traditional occupation was shepherds, “were relegated to the land on the margins, the land that could not be farmed because it was too dry or too rocky” (p. 37).

God mandated the Israelites to leave extra food during the time of harvest for the sake of the need of foreigners (Leviticus 23:22). The unnerving story of the Moabitess, Ruth, in the biblical historic book of Ruth, gives the two-faced coin parallel of struggle and hospitality. Scott (2007) remarked that the two women, Naomi and Ruth, struggled to survive in Bethlehem. Ruth, particularly, experienced a long and painful adjustment (p. 40). However, the gesture of hospitality is exemplified when Boaz (the wealthy icon) instructed his workers to be kind toward Ruth (the foreigner/migrant). He stressed, “Let her gather among the sheaves and don’t reprimand her. Even pull out the stalks for her from the bundles and leave them for her to pick up, and don’t rebuke her” (Ruth 2: 15–16).

God enforces his sovereignty in hospitality. The scripture referenced in Leviticus 23:22 ends with, “For I am the Lord your God!” He is over all and in charge. He watches over both the rich and poor and makes an avenue for the provision of everyone. Prophet Daniel inferred “that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people” (Daniel 4:17). In the New Testament era, Apostle Paul admonished Christians to do good to all people, especially those in the household of faith (Galatians 6:10). There is a special blessing that God showers on a group of people or nation that is hospitable.

Ethical Perspective on Immigration

The approach of Ehrkamp and Nagel (2014) from a religious point of view suggests that Christian ethics of welcome as practiced in the US South become enmeshed in a politics of hospitality that straddles sacred and secular spaces and blurs the line between divine and secular law (p. 321). Hagues and Patterson Roe (2018) challenge social workers of Christian faith to stand up for the principles of Christianity in the face of immigration policies. They acknowledge that social workers of Christian faith may have a variety of perspectives on immigration issues based on their work structure and policies. However, regardless of their opinions, they must live faithfully to their calling as Christians, ethically as professional social workers, and have evidence to support their opinions and actions (p. 3). Rajendra (2014) argues that “Christian ethics must respond to the reality of migration” (p. 290). It can, therefore, be inferred that Christians have both moral and religious obligations to support and help sojourners and foreigners (immigrants).

Hagues and Patterson Roe (2018) push the boundaries further to indicate that to support immigrants is not only a religious obligation but an ethical one too. They reiterate that the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics obligates social workers to promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Additionally, they are mandated to speak against injustice (p. 4). Schuck (2018) addresses how the principal public debates center on the questions of how much immigration should be permitted, the appropriate criteria and mix for whatever immigration is permitted, and the moral and policy justifications for these criteria (p. 4). In summary, God’s standard of hospitality for all human beings is the decisive theological basis for the hospitality towards the alien (Beck, 2018: 135).

Meyers (2000) argues from a more legalistic perspective, eliminating undocumented immigrants from the pool of migrants. He surmises that immigration control policy deals with the admission and selection of permanent immigrants, temporary migrant workers, and refugees, as well as attempts to restrict illegal immigration (p. 1246).

Hammar (1985) explains that immigration policy consists of two parts:

Religious Perspective on Immigration

Knoll (2009) writes extensively on how religion and politics affect immigration. He categorizes three sections under determinants of immigration attitudes: ethno-religiosity, re-structuralism, and religious marginalization. According to Green (2007), an ethnoreligious perspective is a lens through which the influence of religion on individual attitudes can be understood. Kellstedt and Green (1993) stress that there are intrinsic differences in belief, practice, and commitment, even for individuals with minimal religiosity (p. 55). It is believed that one’s religious affiliation, more so one’s denominational commitment, greatly influences political and immigration perspectives.

Religious re-structuralism focuses more on individual religious commitment and behavior rather than the religious tradition. Welch and Leege (1998) buttress the point that devotional styles of praise, worship, and consistent church attendance is a significant predictor of attitudes on politics and immigration policies. Religious marginalization is a terminology used to describe religious minority groups. Allport (1979) and Betz (1994) hypothesize that religious minority groups have empathy for other minority groups and are thus more supportive of minority policies. Fetzer (1998) argues that members of minority religions are more likely to support pro-immigrant governmental policies.

With the involvement of religious elites in the public debate, immigration may very well be classified as another socio-justice morality issue, subject to individual religious influences (Knoll, 2009: 315). He asserts that among denominations, the Catholic Church has taken perhaps the strongest stance on immigration reform measures. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an official statement at their November 2000 general meeting. They stated, in part, that “We bishops commit ourselves and all the members of our church communities to continue the work of advocacy for laws that respect the human rights of immigrants and preserve the unity of the immigrant family. We join others of goodwill in a call for legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities” (Schnurr, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2000, Unity in diversity, p. 4).

Land (2006) posits that Evangelical Protestants have a divine mandate to act redemptively and compassionately toward those who are in need. A majority of the leaders of the major religious traditions in the United States, according to Knoll (2009), have publicly supported liberal immigration reform in one form or another. They often cite biblical admonitions to care for those in need and to welcome the “stranger among us” (p. 315).

Knoll (2009) further stresses the role of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in the immigration reform battle. He stresses that AJC “has routinely and consistently taken public stands in support of liberal immigration reform measures” (p. 317). A quote on their website gives a reflective recollection of their own experience of hardship and unfair treatment in the sojourn of Egypt as “strangers,” and in this context, “undocumented immigrants.” “Strangers are to be welcomed and valued, as were once strangers in the land of Egypt” (ajc.org/whoweare).

Morality

Ethics and morality seem to always go hand in hand. Morality is the concern to do the right thing, to be ethically scrupulous, to avoid doing wrong, or to act justly (Schuck, 2008: 867). Holmes (2009) defines ethics as being about the good and the right (p. 12). Risse (2008) proposes that immigration should be thought of as a moral problem that must be considered in the context of global justice (p. 1). Ethics can be viewed as judgments about whether human behavior is right or wrong (Johnson, 2015).

Practical Approach

Some authors (Kurthen, 1995; Leitner, 1995; Meyers, 2000; Zolberg, 1981) note that ethnically homogenous countries are less likely to accept ethnically dissimilar permanent immigration than heterogeneous ones. For instance, the United States is known as the hub of immigrants from its constitutional inception and is, therefore, more likely to accept immigrants. This mode of acceptance is demonstrated by programs to assimilate immigrants. These include amnesties (for example, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed into law by US President Reagan on November 6, 1986), Diversity Visa (DV) lottery (The Immigration Act of 1990 signed into law by President Bush which provided 55,000 immigrant visas annually), and the adoption of the principle of jus soli, which is citizenship by place of birth. In contrast, however, countries like Germany, Japan, and Switzerland adopt the principle of jus sanguinis, that is citizenship by parentage, which tends to preserve ethnic homogeneity and influences migration decision “to favor temporary migrant workers over permanent immigrants of dissimilar ethnic origin” (Kurthen, 1995: 929).

In Ethics, Morality, and Disruption of U.S. Immigration Laws, Hing (2015) traces the unfair treatment of undocumented immigrants, and even to an extent, resident aliens. He has compiled heart-wrenching stories of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials raiding stores, restaurants, and auto shops (pp. 955, 992). Holslin (2014) confirms that hardworking immigrants were victimized by Bush-era ICE raids. During the Obama administration’s silent raids, thousands more lost their jobs. Hing (2015) categorizes “nightmarish ICE enforcement tools” into six areas: operational gatekeeper, Bush ICE raids, secure communities, silent raids, targeted enforcement operations, and removal of lawful permanent residents (without a fair hearing).

Table 1 presents a breakdown of the details of operations carried out by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations over a period of about two decades. It includes the enforcement plan, target group, strategies employed, number of deaths, arrests made, and audits conducted on employers (companies and organizations). Analyses of the data prove that various administrations adopted different strategies to curtail the influx of immigrants. In a bid to accomplish this goal, however, these measures resulted in the death and wrongful characterization of immigrants in significant numbers (Hing, 2015).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Different Strategies Adopted by Various Administrations to Crack Down on Undocumented Immigrants.

Nightmarish ICE Enforcement Tool	Year of Operation Commencement	Enforcement Plan	Target Groups	Administration	Strategy	No. of Deaths (D), Arrests (AT) or Audits (AD)
Operation Gateway	1994	Constructing fences and militarizing parts of the Southern border	Border Crossers	Clinton	Prevention through deterrence	1994: <30 1998: >147 2001: >387 2007: >409 2008–2009: >1980
Bush ICE Raids	2006	Raids with assault weapons	Undocumented workers	Bush	Surprise visits to workplaces	13,000 (AT)
Secure Communities	2008–2010	Fingerprinting	Criminals	Bush	FBI database	>5,500 (AT)
Silent Raids	1998/2009	Employee files	Employers hiring undocumented immigrants	Clinton / Obama	Immigration and Reform Control Act 1986 (IRCA)	12-month period (2,900 companies). $3 million in civil fines (AD)
Targeted Enforcement Operations	2013–2014	Raids on apartment complexes, grocery stores, Laundromats, Parks, Bible study groups	Latino Immigrant Community	Obama	Stop-and-frisk	100s to 1000s
Removal of Lawful Permanent Residents	2014	Felons not families	Undocumented parents of U.S. citizens	Obama	Deportation	1000s

Jurisdictionism

Jurisdictionism potentially seems like a new terminology in the field of immigration research. The literature on the topic “jurisdictionism” is limited. Lamey’s The Jurisdiction Argument for Immigration Control: A Critique seems to be one of the few, if not the only article that had a comprehensive and detailed approach to the topic. Strangely, no other literature researched to this point uses jurisdictionism. The author will, therefore, draw on Lamey’s literature and relate this to other authors who come close to the subject matter.

Jurisdictionism, according to Lamey (2016) is the brainchild of Blake (2013). In his article Immigration, Jurisdiction, and Exclusion, Blake (2013) proposed three features that a state should possess:

Jurisdictionism, which is the jurisdiction argument for immigration control, maintains that states are justified in restricting the number of immigrants (Lamey, 2016: 582). The jurisdictionism perspective, which falls between open borders and restrictive borders, only permits the entry of immigrants on justifiable grounds. Lamey (2016) explains that jurisdictionism’s original twist is to harness its liberal features to a significant and extensive form of border control. This strategy may be less restrictive than current state practice, but that, nonetheless, falls well short of the open borders advanced by global liberals (pp. 582–583).

Every country is governed by laws and regulations to keep order, sanity, and security within its borders. Every country has the right to secure its borders and protect its citizens. Others are of the “open border” viewpoint. Gibney (2004) observes that the link between liberalism and open borders is so strong that the latter view is sometimes termed “global liberalism.” This view contrasts with the proponents of border control. Blake’s (2013) Immigration, Jurisdiction, and Exclusion, and Kates and Pevnick’s (2014) Immigration, Jurisdiction, and History systematically converge on some thoughts but invariably diverge on others. For example, Kates and Pevnick (2014) find Blake’s (2013) argument for the right of liberal states to forcibly exclude potential immigrants “attractive.” Their stance is based on Blake’s balanced perspective on most immigration issues (2013).

Jurisdictionism is predominantly an insidious theory. It postulates that the current entry policies of democratic states or nations like the United States, United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Germany, to name a few, commit an injustice against would-be immigrants from poor countries. Lamey (2016) purports that a widespread feature of contemporary immigration policy is to prioritize the entry of well-off, economically skilled immigrants over their unskilled, impoverished counterparts (p. 582).

Foley and Hoge (2007) traced a trend in the admission of immigrants into the United States over different epochs. They surmised that during the Great Depression and World War II, immigrants from Europe were admitted into the United States under the quota system of the Immigration Act of 1924. The story was different for Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, and the Middle Easterners who “were shut out by the severe limits on the quotas for those regions” (p. 57). In the 1960s, the hospital industry focused attention on hiring immigrants from the Philippines and India, where nurses with specialties were trained. Then in the 1980s, due to the emerging information technology industry, skilled engineers from Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, and Korea were recruited (p. 58). One of the salient categories of the DV lottery introduced by President Bush was that one should be a skilled worker. The foregoing arguments buttress the point that when it comes to admitting immigrants, the United States prefers skilled workers to unskilled workers.

However, another aspect of jurisdictionism argues for the admission of people who may be unskilled and poor. Lamey (2016) states that jurisdictionism is refreshing in reversing this priority and viewing poverty as a reason for admission (p. 582). The ethical dilemmas of taxation of undocumented immigrants, military service as a means to expedited citizenship, repatriation of immigrants to high-risk environments, and immigration profiling for purposes of risk management (Strait, 2011: 218), possibly constitute taking undue advantage of undocumented immigrants. In other words, admit them when it is convenient and works to the advantage of the nation, and reject them when they have nothing to offer the host country. Applying the Marxist approach of migration, which assesses the short-term correlation between the economic cycle and immigration policies, Bovenkerk et al. (1991) suggest that migrants constitute an industrial reserve of an army of labor.

Undocumented Immigrants

According to Warren and Kerwin (2018), there are two categories of undocumented immigrants. Some entered the United States with valid temporary visas and subsequently established residency without authorization. Others entered the country without proper immigration documents across the southern border (p. 125). Medina (2017) observes that President Trump’s executive order on immigration gives wider latitude to enforcement officials, expanding those targeted for deportation to include anyone whom immigration officers judge to pose a risk to public safety or national security. The continuous targeting of undocumented migrants as criminals or bad people is rather tragic. Heyer (2018) surmised that the Trump administration’s ongoing betrayal of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers reflects false assumptions and facile analyses of complex challenges (p. 150).

To oppress the alien, Ahn et al. (2013) observed, is nothing less than apostasy. In Exodus 23:9, Israel was mandated by God to ever cherish “the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Cultivating the virtue of hospitality to the stranger, or alien, Pohl (1999) indicated, is thus no mere supererogatory act of “charity” as hospitality is often seen today. For the Christian, it is a God-given responsibility, a mandate from the Creator. As Cruz (2016) noted, more than 200 million people live outside their country of origin and millions more are on the move as refugees and internationally displaced persons (IDPs) (p. 245). He further argued that the gifts, challenges, and humanitarian crisis embedded in contemporary human dignity put the spotlight on the Christian churches’ missionary activities. Christians are therefore mandated to care for foreigners and strangers (immigrants) to the best of their abilities.

Violation of Human Rights

The attempt of the United States to cut back on the influx of immigrants through its borders, on one hand, and the impact on human rights, on the other hand, has resulted in some inhumane activities. Simply put, the human rights of immigrants, especially those crossing the Mexico–US border have been violated. Androff and Tavassoli (2012) explained that despite the efforts to prevent immigration into the United States, the dangerous journey north, for immigrants, has dire consequences resulting in human rights violations. These violations result in “deaths, tremendous health risks, separation from family members, and the risk of inhumane treatment if apprehended or detained” (p. 165). The violations of immigrant human rights can be grouped into three:

Androff and Tavassoli (2012) report that since 1994 an estimated 5000 immigrants have died in the Sonoran desert. The United Nations (UN) plays a major role in protecting human rights. In 1948, the United Nations promulgated Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights law, which stipulated that every human has the right to freedom of movement (UN, 1949). Over 50 years later, the UN reinforced its stance more clearly by adopting the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This law states in part that migrants are not only workers but also human beings with families, drawing attention to the dehumanization and human rights violations of migrant workers and their families (p. 166).

Ignatieff (2017) broadened the scope of human rights research by visiting areas that had had human rights issues. He and his team visited Los Angeles, Brazil, South Africa, former-Yugoslavia, and others. In his research, he asserts that the appreciation of human rights is not about changing the geography of states “but changing the moral dispensation in which we think of human life” (p. 4). Surprisingly, he openly admitted that in the 1940s white people “like me” believed in the right to rule non-white people based on the disreputable justification that was foundational to the understanding between races then (p. 4).