The Effect of Conceptions of Justice on Attitudes Towards Immigration Policy
My paper focuses on how conceptions of justice impact individuals’ attitudes towards immigration laws and policies, with special focus on those groups that question the legitimacy of the laws. The challenging of existing laws occurs on both sides of the immigration debate. On the pro-immigration side, groups argue that current laws are an unjust violation of human rights and need to be changed - or openly disregarded. On the other side of the debate, anti-immigration groups make claims to a natural right to property, with the belief that immigrants are taking their property through tax-funded services. They believe that the government is either not doing enough to protect these rights or is in direct violation of natural law by passing amnesty laws. In both cases, there is a questioning of the law and a call to break the law if need be. In this viewpoint, if a law violates an “inalienable right” it must be unjust, even invalid. This is not merely an academic argument. The idea that an unjust law is invalid and should not be followed can lead to civil disobedience and unrest. Consequently, the way that these groups think about immigration laws and justice have real-world results. I look at the public arguments used by both pro and anti immigration groups and conduct interviews with leaders of these groups in order to examine both the public rhetoric as well as private articulations of justice. I explore how these different groups formulate justice in order to understand the growing hostility around immigration policy, to identify some of the underlying beliefs surrounding immigration laws that are not yet addressed by politicians and policy makers, and to identify a common language that will appeal to all sides. Theories of justice are at the heart of the dispute, yet they remain unexamined