David Miller's Justice In Immigration

“Justice in Immigration”
Immigration is not a human right, it is not a solution for a problem either, and immigrants who are denied admission into another country cannot claim it is violating their human rights because there are other options rather than emigrating. The article “Justice in Immigration” written by David Miller explains that nations have the ability to decide if they want to help immigrants and if they choose not to, it is not a violation of human rights. The article argues that refugees, people who are trying to get into another country since their human rights are under attacked, should be allowed to migrate, but to become a citizen or to even receive help is completely up to the other states. The next argument is the case
These economic migrants are people whose human rights are not under attack but want to migrate to another country for better jobs or life, but their human rights are not under attack. It is not a violation of human rights to deny them access to the country, but if the economic migrant has something to offer or if they reach a certain agenda they can be admitted. It is fair for a migrant to be chosen for how much of an asset he or she may potentially be and can benefit the host state. These migrants cannot be chosen by the bias of race, gender, or religious practice. The migrants must be chosen fairly and without bias. Every migrant must be looked at thoroughly, and if they are not accepted they must be given a legitimate reason to why they were rejected. If they are rejected for a ludicrous reason and through biases then it is a violation of human rights. If the migrant is denied for a legitimate reason then they cannot cry out that their human rights are being
The author was way too ambiguous on the information that he gives. For example, when he talks about refugees, he states that they cannot claim that their human rights are being violated when they are denied admission. What is the solution for refugees that have no way out? He did not give a proper solution for immigrants whose human rights are definitely under attack. The article is lacking severely in examples. David Miller uses too many hypotheticals and does not use enough real situations that have actually occurred. The author also should have added statistics and harder evidence. For example. when he states that the Gurkhas are unhappy and are living in measley conditions barely getting enough reparations to get by.That is an example of misleading vividness. For all we know that could just be a handful of people. He did not add enough statistics to back that up. Another topic he could have added statistics to, is how many economic immigrants are accepted and rejected. I believe it would have make his claim stronger. The author’s premises are also lacking in strength, which make his main points weak. An example of this would be when he talks about particularity claimants, he states that immigration is not the best decision for immigrants this makes the author sound not credible. Lastly, his arguments are very easy to counter argue and simple to shut down. The