Thread: Considering the ethics of illegal immigration

Considering the ethics of illegal immigration
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/081 ... s_20070812
bArchie Carroll y

Typically, in business ethics, if a practice is illegal, this is considered prima facie evidence that it also is unethical. In the abstract, I guess, there might be some actions that are illegal but ethical in business, but it would be a stretch to name one.

This raises an interesting question: What are the ethics of illegal immigration? This cannot be completely answered in one column, but here are some thoughts. On the surface, there seem to be three primary groups that support illegal immigration: the illegals themselves, businesses that want to exploit them as cheap labor and politicians who think the illegals will someday be on their side. This doesn't constitute an ethical analysis, but simply identifies the primary beneficiaries.

Businesses like illegal immigrants because the workers are willing to perform grueling jobs for low pay. When the workers are young, they work hard and are productive. When they get older, however, they can become a drain on the community and economy because of their need for social service programs. This hard-work/low-pay situation becomes business' primary rationalization for thinking illegal immigration is OK.

One could argue that consumers benefit from illegal immigration because cheap labor leads to lower prices, which consumers like. The public opinion polls, however, indicate the public views illegal immigration as a huge problem and does not support it.

The market solution for undesirable jobs always has been that if citizens don't fill the jobs, businesses raises wages, which attracts workers. Consumers pay more, and the economy goes on. With illegal immigration, however, there is a black market of labor, and it distorts the legal market.

One organization, Ethics Scoreboard, argues that what we are seeing with illegal immigration is the classic rationalization called the "policy shrug." The idea here is that if governments can't stop something, they might as well just declare it to be right. They say this idea has been applied to such other thorny issues as childbirth out of wedlock, recreational drugs, premarital sex and using foul language in public. In this view, any socially questionable activity that is hard to control will generate defenders who will say that since its going to happen anyway we might as well decide it's an acceptable thing and move on.

What do the "big three" ethical principles have to say about illegal immigration? The principles of rights, justice and utilitarianism are staples in business ethics books.

The principle of rights argues that there are certain legal or ethical entitlements that people are due. The illegal immigrants do not have the legal right to be in the United States, and the employers do not have the legal right to hire them, so let's consider moral rights. It is ridiculous to make the argument that they have an ethical or moral right to illegally violate U.S. borders, dodge the law and use social services (schools, hospitals) paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

The principle of justice considers whether a practice is fair. In this context, fairness primarily applies to U.S. citizens and those who are going through the accepted, legal process, to become citizens. In the eyes of the public, polls clearly show that the vast majority of Americans were against the President Bush's amnesty program, and virtually none of the people currently applying through the official system of citizenship regard it as fair.

Finally, there is utilitarianism as an ethical principle. Whether illegal immigration represents "the greatest good for the greatest number" is impossible to say. But, business and some politicians see the "usefulness" in taking advantage of illegals and bestowing citizenship upon them. This sounds more like the policy shrug than fairness, and it's an attitude held by many who are immobilized by inaction.

In the final analysis, illegal immigration is unfair to too many people. If the government decides we need more uneducated, low income workers, it can alter the current immigration policy and do things the right way. Undoubtedly, however, this approach will meet opposition as well.

• Archie Carroll is professor of management emeritus in the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. He may be reached at acarroll@uga.edu.

Good article.

Dixie