ethics # one

I was reading The Complete Idiots Guide to Understanding Ethics last night, specifically the section on immigration. After some thought, I would describe my feelings towards immigration control with the following sentence: The United States federal government holds a higher responsibility to its citizens than to non-citizens, and thus must consider the security of its citizens above the pursuit of happiness of non-citizens, even if they share equally valuable claims.

Specifically, I am speaking to the security of the citizens of the United States of America versus the desired propserity on non-citizens.

Hidden assumptions in this view include: the fact that natural, inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and property exist independent of naturalization. That both U.S. citizens and non-citizens are seeking to exercise those rights in the controversy surrounding immigration. And, finally, that both of their claims to these natural rights are equally valid.

The United States government has a contract with its citizens, known as the Constitution. We elect leaders to serve on our behalf, to represent our best interests and to secure our safety and prosperity. Additionally, citizens fund the government (in all levels) through taxes, which can be considered the method of exchange in the contract for our safety. Non-citizens are not party to this contract, and therefore, bear a less significant relationship with the United States federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the federal government to ply the interests of those with whom they bear a contractial relationship above those with whom they do not.