What is Intellectual Property (IP) and how does counterfeit merchandise impact the U.S. economy?
What safety and health concerns are posed by counterfeit products?
How does IP theft pose an existential threat to national security?
Discuss the action that prompted the “border control offensive” and made the issue of illegal immigration a priority.
What are “Smart Borders”?
How have the SMART Port Security, the SAFE Port Act, the Small Vessel Security Strategy, and the Marine Transportation Security Act impacted port security?
Compare the similarities and differences of the external borders of New Europe with that of the U.S./Mexico border. Which of these (similarities/differences) have had the most positive or negative impact on border security?
need to be completely loose accordingly borders have to be open. the alternative view is that states have a right to exclude foreigners from settling within their borders. on the face of it, the proper to exclude seems morally contestable as it includes sizable country pressure. as an instance, criminalising people for unauthorised border crossings and it involves forcibly stopping humans from getting things that they might desperately want like a better existence for them and their family. As those elements are usually considered to be morally incorrect, then can this kind of right to exclude be morally justified. inside this essay, i can showcase each positions from the perspectives of Joseph Carens and David Miller. i will argue that states do not have a right to exclude. first off, i'm able to exhibit the argument from Joseph Carens for open borders therefore disagreeing with the announcement that states have a right to exclude. Advocates for open borders aren't arguing for wholly removal of borders but as a substitute for changes in how the ones affected might pass across them and in how they're understood. Carens claims that there's no proper for states to unilaterally control their personal borders as he believes that “borders should usually be open and those ought to typically be free to go away their u . s . of beginning and settle in every other” (Carens, 2013,225) He contends that states’ rights to exclude outsiders from settling in their borders are incompatible with our fundamental values and commitments. One being freedom. Immigration restrictions are a serious infringement on freedom, especially on freedom of movement. This freedom both precise in itself as it is an expression of autonomy and it is also instrumentally precious as it permits individuals to improve their potentialities if they have the capacity to transport to a greater high-quality location. the other being essential moral equality. Immigration restrictions enforce big inequalities of possibility. Freedom of motion is vital for equality of possibility and this explains our instinct about the wrongness of feudalism. Carens affords an analogy wherein he compares present day states’ exercise of border manipulate to medieval feudal societies. he's claiming that being born in a wealthy state for instance, Europe and North america is like being born into medieval nobility and to be born in a negative united states of america is like being born into peasantry. this is applicable to now with the deductions that your region of birth determines your preliminary potentialities and that states save you you from seeking to imp>GET ANSWER