What philosopher had ideas that could apply to illegal immigration?

Question

I am writing a research paper for a philosophy/ethics class and my topic is illegal immigration. I support helping them become citizens rather then deportation.

So far I like Kant's theory because it states that humans are an end, never a means for something else so you could say that tearing appart families and deporting people denies humanity.

Can anyone else think of a philosopher whose theory supports amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Answer 1

Rousseau decried political and social institutions because he believed they were generally tyrannical--you could probably tie it to him, too.  He lived in the era before nationalism of course, but there are nuggets of gold in his writings.

Answer 2

Machiavelli.

"Those who design a city to create a great empire must strive with great diligence to fill it full of inhabitants, because without this abundance of men it will never succeed in becoming a great city. .... It is done through love by keeping the pathways open and safe for foreigners who wish to come there to live, so that everyone may live there willingly..."

Answer 3

Kant is excellent choice, other humanist philosophers come to mind Bertrand Russell and Sartre, You may also consider the british philosopher Michael Dummett who wrote a book (On Immigration and Refugees) about immigration issues

Answer 4

Dont know of any particular philosopher.

i for what its worth,would say that the simple idea of any/all countries implementing a sensible and reasonable law,limiting family size(for all,of course),would and should,literally AT A STROKE(or within just a few years)stop and drastically limit all immigration-for who would want to come to such a country(?!)

And im continually surprised that no popular politician and political party has not realise the potential of such a simlpe idea!

Of course,people will complain that their so-called human/free Rights are being violated;which is a little joke really,given the number of poor people everywhere and the number of people subject to lawlessness everywhere-someone looking from afar might put "2 and 2 together" and realise that the political government and leader-authorities cannot cope and control the amount of people here-and-now;thus making the idea and notion of lawful population control much more beneficial in the light of these present Facts!!



And i would give all those "amnesty",as long as they sighned that they agree not to violate any such (reasonable)family size law,that was made/agreed upon.

i suggest that a maximum of 4 children per family should be made law;this would i think provide good and very reasonable reactions,for all,within not-too-many years too.(this could be reviewed every 10 years or so).

Answer 5

Well stay away from Darwin, Hume, Hobbs, Nietzsche, Malthus, Rand or anyone else with more than half a brain.

Try Marx was big on need being more important than merit. Also Locke,  Gandhi or any number of religious figures touting universal brotherhood like Jesus or Buddha.

Also be aware that this is NOT Scientific research because

you are looking for the data that supports your conclusion and NOT the conclusion the data supports.