 You're listening to a program from BBC Radio 4. Thank you. Thank you. Hello and welcome to the University of Dallas. My name is Michael Sandel. In earlier episodes of The Public Philosopher, I've explored with audiences in London the big philosophical ideas lying behind some controversial questions of the day. And now, in the run-up to the US presidential election, the BBC has asked me to try something similar in America. What competing strands of philosophy can we glimpse if we listen closely to the arguments swirling about this presidential campaign? Few, if any, issues are more fraught than the question of immigration. 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. That's the background to much of this debate. They can't legally work, though some complain they take jobs from US workers. They live under risk of deportation. Their children don't qualify for many government services, including health care and, in some states, access to higher education. And so there's a debate about what should be done about this large number of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Let's take a vote to see what you think. Let me offer you two alternatives. Tell me which comes closest to the view you hold. Position one, the illegal immigrants in the United States should be arrested and deported. Raise your hands. Position two, they should be given a path to citizenship. There's disagreement in the hall. The majority favor a path to citizenship, but a minority are opposed. Let's begin our debate with those in the minority, those who say we should arrest and deport those who are here illegally. Who will start our debate and tell us why? Yes. I think that people who have entered the country illegally should either have to obey the law or we have to do away with the law. If we are going to legislate immigration, then we must abide by the law. And what's your name? I'm Lynn. I would make it a state's issue and not a federal issue. But you think the states should arrest and deport illegal immigrants? Yes, I do. If they're there illegally, then yes, I do. All right, thank you. Let's hear from someone who agrees and would like to add to that. Yes. Hi, my name is Virginia and I am an immigrant. So I know immigration from both sides. I believe that this country is a country of laws and I believe we should reward people for coming to this country respecting the law. When we reward people that violated our laws, we invite even more illegal immigrants in this country. Virginia argues they've broken the law. This is a country of law. And therefore, they should not be rewarded with citizenship. All right, let me ask you this, Virginia. You said that you yourself are an immigrant. Yes, I am. From where? From Romania. I was a political refugee. I came in the United States in 1988. Do you see illegal immigration as a form of trespassing? It's more than a form of trespass. You violate the law of United States of America. And when you violate, you have to support the consequences. We all do if we violate one term of the laws. We speed or do anything else. We support the consequences. Okay, good. And so ideally, state by state, the United States should arrest and deport all 11.5 million illegal immigrants. There are other possibilities, too, but you have. We create, we teach a generation of parents and children that it's okay to come to United States of America because if you come here, you will stay here and we are not going to punish for violation. Thank you. Now, many people here disagree with that. So let's hear from those of you who disagree and who believe that undocumented immigrants should instead be given a path to citizenship. Yes? My name is Brandon. And I think that we should provide this path to citizenship for immigrants because we are a country of immigrants. And unless if anyone here is Native American, well, then somewhere along the lines, their family has come to America. And my question is, why is it right at one period of history for people to come and wrong at another? And so maybe it's something that with the laws, maybe society is not made for laws, but laws for society. So maybe the law should be changed. And, Brandon, how would you change the law? How do you think it should be changed? Well, that's a good question for our legislatures, isn't it? All right, but Brandon, if you were a member of the legislature, what immigration policy would you propose? I can start by saying what I wouldn't propose. And there would be things like what's going on in Alabama or stopping anyone who looks like they might be an immigrant. That's definitely a wrong approach. All right, well, let me ask you this, Brandon. What's the possible reform you might favor given what you just said? President Obama favors a law called the DREAM Act, which would allow children of illegal immigrants who themselves did not knowingly violate the law, even though their parents did, to become citizens. Would you give to children of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship? I would absolutely give them a pathway to citizenship because when you start talking about children, if you didn't have a choice, then you start talking about a moral question versus just a question of conventional laws. Because I've heard this story on the radio, actually on the BBC, where you have kids from, say, Mexican heritage whose parents were illegal immigrants, but they themselves speak nothing but English because they've grown up in the country their whole life, then they are deported back to Mexico and they can't even communicate because they don't speak Spanish. Is that really a right thing to do to somebody to remove them from their home completely if they come over here when they're a baby, say? And I think that's a problem because really when you talk about deporting illegal immigrants, these are some of the most hardest-working people in this country. And when you try to say, hey, we don't want you, we want to get rid of you, well, you're really just throwing away an entire resource. All right, well, stay there, Brandon. Let's hear whether there is someone who disagrees with Brandon's proposal who opposes giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Who would like to address Brandon's proposal? Who disagrees with Brandon? Just in front. My name is Theresa. I just feel like what you're saying is that we can use illegal immigrants in the way that we are now as workers in our homes and landscaping our lawns. And I don't think that's fair to them. And so what's your policy? I agree with the fact that we should deport people who have broken a federal law. And that, I think, is a very important principle. I think that if our legislators find it appropriate... No, but you're the legislator. You're the legislator. What do you say? These people have broken the law. We can't look at one group of people of a certain age or a certain ethnicity and say they are exempt from immigration laws. I just want to bring up an example. I'm a child of a lot of Eastern European cultures, and my great grandparents came over legally. And they could have easily been denied this path to citizenship. The U.S. could have easily said, we don't want any more people from the Ukraine. So it's not fair to say people from a certain ethnicity or a certain age want to pass our borders freely and become citizens when in the past we have had strict laws. We must abide by our laws and our constitution. My name is Therese. And I would like to stay with the issue of the dreamers, as they're often called. Just to explain, the DREAM Act is a law that's been debated but not yet enacted in the U.S. Congress. The term dreamers is sometimes used to describe those children of illegal immigrants, brought here when they were young, and who some say should be given a chance for citizenship. Those dreamers are not outsiders. They certainly have, in the case of, say, Mexico, they have a Mexican domestic culture. But in terms of the deepest identity, it's also very American. So cultural identity should matter. I think cultural identity in this situation, yes, very much so, your ability to function as a human, a full human being, is very much formed by your culture. Who disagrees with Therese? Yes. Hi, my name's Phil Bosnik. What we seem to not be recognizing here is that as in established countries, the United States, we do have our own national interest. And as much as we would like to take blanket approaches and lots of sentiment about culture, the fact remains many illegal immigrants who come to this country come here because where they're citizens, they would fall into a welfare bracket. And in this kind of economic climate, it's not prudent for us as a nation to continue to expand our welfare bracket. It's not prudent for us to leave our borders open through wage drugs and terror. Several of the other ills of our society have an easy access. And I think we need to view this issue more as an economic case by case. And is it prudent and is it plausible to deport 11.5 undocumented workers? No. But do we need to limit our immigration quotas? Yes. Do we need to protect our own economic interest? Yes. As much as we would like to help everyone, we cannot be the charity provider of the world. Therese, what do you say to... What do you say to Phil? Therese, address Phil directly. What do you say? What I would say is that I would recall the fundamental moral law, do no harm. And these are young people who have done no harm. Harm will be done to them by our action. If we cast them out of our country, they have no country. They have no safe place. And that I cannot go... I cannot go there. I cannot go there. Phil? There are no perfect solutions here, but as the brother of a Dallas police officer, I can tell you firsthand that illegal immigration brings waves of crime into our cities. He works the Oak Cliff gang area on Forest Lane. He puts himself at risk every night. My mother is an obstetrician, and with the influx of illegal immigration, people who are not contributing to our tax system, I don't support blanket deportation. They need to be brought into the fold so they can help pay taxes if they are actually going to provide a benefit to the United States. And the simple fact of the matter is, as long as we have all these takers who are, because of their lack of citizenship, don't contribute to our society, we have an ever-expanded, undocumented welfare bracket that we continue to fund. Yes. Tell us your name, and what would you say to Phil? Hi, Phil. My name is Blanca. I am from the Oak Cliff area. That is not Forest Lane. I can tell you... I can tell you that even right now, I am paying taxes. I am undocumented. I am a dreamer. I was brought here when I was six years old. And even now that I do not have citizenship, I am contributing. And I've worked hard for everything I have earned in life. I graduated from TWU with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. And right now I can't use that degree. I am working at a fast food place and to be there and to be degraded day by day by other people is just horrible. So I'm already contributing. And I don't feel like I'm a charity case. Because where I am and what I've accomplished until now, I've worked hard for since I was six years old. And I am working hard every single day to also bring that to my community and not only to other children that are undocumented, but just to the whole community to tell these kids and everybody that's not even in the same situation just that come from the Oak Cliff area, that come from a place where people think there's nothing but crime to tell them that the place that you come from does not define you. And I completely agree with your degree and your background and your positive contributions. You definitely should have a path of citizenship. I want you in the United States. I feel like you could be a great benefit. However, you are one example. And by and large, there are definite negative externalities towards illegal immigration. And while I think that you, in your case, definitely should have a path of citizenship, I don't think that your case is a standard by which we can judge the entire illegal immigrant population. I can see what you're saying about my case. It's not a standard, but everybody else that doesn't necessarily have a degree like me, they're not criminals. I don't believe that my mom is the criminal, even though, yeah, she took through a different way of getting here. But to her, it was either for me or for her not to have a way of surviving or for her to take that risk, that step, that leap of faith that would allow for her to even raise me. Okay. I want to shift the discussion because much of our discussion so far has focused on the existing law and many people who oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants or their children do not want to reward people who have broken the law. That seems to be at the heart of many of the objections to the DREAM Act, to a path to citizenship, even for the children of illegal immigrants. I would like to step back from this debate and ask a prior question. If you were designing the immigration law in the first place, should there be a restriction at all on the right to immigrate to this country? Or should we have open borders? Let me sample the opinion in the room on this question. How many would be in favor of open borders and how many would be against? Those in favor of open borders, raise your hand. And those against. For our listeners on BBC Radio 4, the majority here at the University of Dallas is against open borders, but a small minority favors it. Let's begin with those of you in the majority. Why are you against having open borders? What would be wrong with open borders? Why shouldn't anybody who wants to be able to immigrate to this country? My name is Victoria. I think if you have open borders and it's very difficult obviously to control who comes into this country, and like Phil said, we can't let anyone in and unfortunately my family were political refugees from Lebanon. I mean they know what it feels like to be forced out of their country and they came here legally. And unfortunately there are a lot of people, I mean still unfortunately in the Middle East and Lebanon who want to do this country harm. And if you don't have a way of controlling that then you're essentially inviting those kinds of acts. Alright Victoria, let me ask you this. Suppose we modify the policy of open immigration. With a background check to screen out terrorists and those with criminal records. Would you then favor open borders? No that's not really an open border is it? But would you favor, let me put it another way then. So long as the policy screened out, terrorists and those with a criminal record, would you favor allowing everyone else who wants to come to emigrate? Unfortunately no I would not. Alright then you must have a reason that goes beyond worry about terrorists and criminals. What's your reason for opposing the right to emigrate even with protection against terrorists and criminals? Unfortunately I'm not sure we have the resources to deal with it. Let's assume that everyone who wants to come in has a degree and isn't in a welfare bracket. Unfortunately I mean I'm not sure we have really the resources or the space. Unless people want to build new cities out in the middle of Nebraska. I'm just not sure if we have the resources to deal with that right now. You mean we don't have enough room for everyone who might want to come? Unfortunately I'm not sure we do. Now Victoria let me ask you this. If you feel we don't have enough room for additional citizens would you favor restrictions on procreation on existing American citizens giving, having large families? I'm a Catholic so I'm going to go ahead and say no. But here's the obvious follow-up question Victoria. I'm sure you must have thought about it. If you think there isn't enough room in the United States for more people for substantially increased population why do you believe that existing American citizens should be able to have as many babies as they want to? Because I believe that the rate that Americans can procreate is exponentially less than the number of people that would come here if we had open borders. Who has a reply to Victoria? In the back. My name is Scott. It's a lot easier to have kids than to immigrate to America. And provided we had, I guess, a qualified open border that kept out terrorists and criminals I would say include all who want to come. It's so difficult to come it means it'll immediately sift out those who don't have the American sense of adventure. Give me the people who are going to come because getting here and living here is hard. I prefer them to actually many who are born here. Right. Victoria, what do you say to Scott? I say if we live in an ideal world that'd be great but we don't live in an ideal world. Scott, you're in favor of open borders provided we screened for terrorists and criminals. Yes. And the majority here disagree. I noticed. So what I would like to do now is to hear from those of you who disagree with Scott. My name's John. I think there are a couple problems with this approach. One of which which is ultimately I think not the most important but there is the whole question of provision of public goods such as public education and if you have a potentially wildly fluctuating population moving in and moving out of a sort that would even surpass what we have today it might make it very hard to provide public services to those who are here. That's more of a technical problem. I think a broader problem is with the question of what kind of sense of citizenship you would end up with if the country was populated primarily by people who make the decision of where to live based almost entirely on what's in it for them and maybe their family. And so I think you'd have a very attenuated sense of belonging and sense of responsibility for the public good that might make it very hard to have good politics if people don't have more investment. So John to take the worry you just articulated if the country is largely populated by people who want to come here for reasons of economic opportunity why is that bad? It's not bad in and of itself but if it's the only connection they have then if things start going bad instead of wanting to work to make it better they might just try to move someplace else where things are already better it might make the country worse off if people aren't willing to work harder to fix it when things aren't working for them. Scott? Well I'm not at all convinced that people do come here exclusively for or even primarily for economic opportunity although I think it's a major motivation I think they come here because it's an open society. I mean America is essentially the land of the free and they are attracted to this and in response to an earlier comment what I would say is I'm not talking about generosity on our part by having these qualified open borders I'm actually saying that we ought to be grateful because they bring intelligence, they bring energy and they bring actually a belief in the American dreams. Scott I want to ask you a question from Virginia. You are for open borders Qualify. Then all of us today we're going to come to your house we're going to eat your food we're going to sleep in your bed and you have to obey us don't discriminate, don't do anything tomorrow we come to your office and we do the same thing okay? Well I'm going to have to go to the market before you come to the house I don't know who's going to be is that going to be every single day you are not going to know who's going to sleep in your house who's going to eat your food and so forth I believe like the other young lady said this is not, this is reality this is what we have to discuss here and I believe United States of America as any other country is a sovereign country so the country should decide who's going to come and who's not going to come here I agree with you that new immigrants they bring a new blood and they work hard but we discuss about what it's best for our country what it's good for our economy we do have people who come to United States to harm us and that's the reality so we have to deal with that too with respect to everybody coming to my house for dinner coming to my office I'm not sure that the analogy holds my office is small so it doesn't matter it's open but actually this this analogy raises a question is a country the private property of those who already happen to live there in the same way that Scott's house is his private property Scott what would your answer be to that analogy well no I actually don't think that the country belongs to us first of all we'd have to distinguish between the nation state and culture and some of the people who are coming may actually have a greater claim to ownership than others of us who were born from people who came from other places and why do you say that well because in the southwest in particular you're talking about so it's hard to know who the outsiders actually are if you take the long view right and to play out the analogy of people invading your house Scott I thought they were coming as guests why did you not give Virginia a different answer why didn't you ask her whether all of the new citizens who are born to existing American citizens and become citizens in virtue of birth every year why is it that they are also not considered invaders of your house why didn't you ask Virginia that question I wasn't bright enough to think of it my name is Bill and it seems to me the issue here on an open society and numbers and the things we've been talking about the last 10 minutes or so really goes around the capacities of a nation for integration I mean if a nation is going to exist and thrive it has to have an identity kind of a cultural functional identity and and this becomes increasingly impossible and a very difficult thing for America which is among the most open of societies so I think integration takes some time and care integration is a very difficult thing I don't think the economy just integrates one thinks of an influx but there have to be powers for integrating my name is Bill Bill you worry about a country possibly losing its identity with open borders and you suggest maybe there should be some kind of test for citizenship now naturalized citizens do have to take a test what about citizens who become citizens simply because they're born here under the constitution someone who is born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen, birthright citizenship it's called and recently some Republicans in Congress have proposed changing the law to change the practice of birthright citizenship but what about it do you think it's fair Bill that just because someone is born in the United States that that fact alone automatically makes him or her a citizen first of all if it automatically makes him or her a citizen it's because a nation has decided that it would people who are born certainly to their parents but they're also generally speaking despite the fact of worldwide migration are born in a surrounding supporting culture they go to the public schools for example yes sir they do they learn to speak the language they belong to a neighborhood they have a recognition identity they're expected in some way or other to serve and to sacrifice for their country at some stage in their lives they were qualified open borders that the people who came provided they went to those public schools and participated in their communities and learned the language and maybe sacrificed for their country would they be integrated in the same ways that native born citizens are integrated it certainly could be that way Shirley my name is Beau I'll preface this by saying that I believe everyone here the gentleman back here said there are no easy solutions now you either got an open border or you don't if you have restrictions there's no open border but if you've got an uncontrolled or semi-controlled environment you really don't know our government is inept what would the words that said one time some of the most frightening words in the world is I'm from the government I'm here to help you no thanks our government is inept and I worked for the government for years federal, state, local and I see the ineptness we feel the ineptness alright but Beau I want to know what your policy is my policy is the first thing we've got to do is hurt we're going to have to hurt that means stop the influx whatever it takes I don't like the idea of martial law that scares me to death but they're coming in too much so we can deal with what's here why are you here how long have you been here what have you done constructive to society there is no right to immigration there is a privilege and we allow it and as far as the born here thing you know I wasn't here when the 14th amendment was passed it's unclear it just says anybody born here is a citizen do you think that's fair I think it was at the time no no today today no because look at the pain that it's caused because so many people have used that to come here and say maybe he's born here and I get to stay here the poor children are the victims there and we're victims those of us who've been here now put aside immigrants why should your children or mine born in the United States why should they automatically be citizens through no doing of their own they've not done anything to earn it they haven't done anything to earn it or not they are victims either way but why should they have a right to citizenship just due to the lucky fact that they happen to be born on this side of the Rio Grande River rather than in Mexico on the other side is that fair fundamentally I don't believe that should be we're the only country in the world and my knowledge it allows that the only country in the world that I know that you could have the kind of citizenship rights that you have here I don't think it's a good idea but I don't think we can just suddenly stop it tomorrow obviously we've got a constitution what do you think my name is Beth and you're a professor at Harvard right I confess I am it's a good school right it's a good school be proud of it say yes lots of people want to go there right but they have standards you have to apply you have to be accepted you have to be interviewed and it's an expensive school let's face it it's a really expensive school but as a graduate from Harvard you basically open up a lot of opportunities and as many people want to go a lot can't get in and a lot can't pay for it and as much as Harvard would love to be able to open its doors it would be tough for you to stay the best university in the country you're suggesting by analogy the same is true of the United States of America I would say it's a similar circumstance and what's your name Beth you have a reply to Beth my name is Wendy and I don't think that the analogy works because to get what you described is a qualified way of getting into Harvard and we're talking about qualified admission into the United States so we're saying that there is a standard that you have to meet in order to get here and if there is a standard then what's wrong with it why can't people come here right and the same would be true for going to Harvard so my question becomes why wouldn't we want an opportunity for people to make our country better you just made my point I'm saying that we need to have qualified standards Beth let me ask you this question you believe that to be an American citizen one should have to deserve it pass a test to show that you're qualified to become a citizen that's the analogy with Harvard or university do I have it right I'm not saying that you have to pass a standard I'm not saying we have to define standards that we can't simply open it up to everyone what should the standards be what do you say what I would say is you have to look at what you need we have a shortage right now of nurses and we need X amount we have to look at how many we need we have to look at how many we can bring in from out of country but we have to set qualifications based on our need we also have to set limits on what we can't support because if we don't set those limits and we don't know what we need we're opening it up to everybody and there's no possible way to sustain that Beth I want to ask you one question about your suggestion the analogy with admission to Harvard your suggestion of of admission standards what this country needs there is one statement of the admission standard for the United States that is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor the admission standard comes from a poem by Emma Lazarus do you remember what those admit what that admission standard is it says quote give me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free the wretched refuse your teeming shore send these the homeless tempest tossed to me I lift my lamp beside the golden door that's the admission standard on the Statue of Liberty do you think it should be revised I think on a Statue of Liberty representing what we would like it's very idyllic I think we would love to be able to do that but is it pragmatic the fact is it's not that any other country has that opens up their borders to everybody because they want to be there and so you would revise tell me if I have you right back you would revise the admission standard that's currently inscribed on the Statue of Liberty instead of saying give me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free you would say give me your computer programmers your well qualified nurses and other people with skills that you often need right now in the United States something like that I guess it's okay if Harvard does that but it's not okay for the United States to have standards what I'm saying is it sounds really good to set this in black and white either you are for immigrants or you're not for immigrants but the problem is it's a lot more complex of a standard and it sounds easy but the fact is as you could argue with Harvard it's a very very complex issue but the analogy may not be perfect there is no perfect analogy out there period but what I'm telling you is there's no way that you could open up your borders to everybody that wants something because you can't sustain it thank you for that I want to thank everyone who's joined in this discussion and I want to step back from the debates we've had here today about immigration and see whether there are we can learn about the philosophical ideas that animate these debates there are few issues if any that are more passionately debated than immigration in the United States part of that debate as we've seen is about the rule of law many people object to a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants or their children it rewards or seems to reward those who have broken the law but then we pressed beyond the question of law and we asked what should be the immigration law in the first place suppose we could screen out terrorists and criminals then are there any morally defensible grounds for restricting immigration almost every country in the face of the earth does but that doesn't necessarily answer the question whether it's right why shouldn't people be able to live anywhere they please people like Scott and others favored qualified open borders provided we screen out terrorists and criminals other people said no that would be a bad idea and they gave different reasons some of the reasons had to do with economics immigration would place too great a burden on the system of public provision others offered a different kind of reason having not to do with jobs and public benefits but instead to do with shared national identity the difficulty of integrating citizens into a shared political community and so what we see in the debate over immigration when we get to the fundamental question of why have any immigration restrictions at all we see two accounts of what citizenship and political community are all about on one conception political community is really an economic relationship it's a system of jobs and public benefits and according to some open immigration would do damage to the economic relationships that define a political community others say no that's not really the ultimate point of a political community that's not what citizenship is about it's not only about working and exchanging goods with one another we can have free trade agreements if that's all political community consists in some say no it's really about sharing a common culture a shared national identity even if one accepts this second civic or communal idea of citizenship it doesn't necessarily determine where you wind up on the immigration question because as we heard some people who invoke shared identity the need for cultural integration some people say that's why we need to limit immigration we could never as a society integrate an unlimited number of immigrants but others argue no if a sense of community a common language a shared culture if that's what this country is about then in principle everyone including the children of immigrants can come to share it I think one of the reasons that immigration is so fiercely debated not only in this election but over the years in this and other countries is that it raises these fundamental questions about what it means to be a citizen I want to thank all of you here at the University of Dallas for joining in this debate and I want to invite our listeners on BBC Radio 4 to join us next time from Harvard University where we will take up another philosophical question against the backdrop of this presidential campaign the American dream of individual success is it a reality or a myth? thank you all for joining us