Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/immigration.htm

by monort • 9 years ago

39 124 9 years ago

spot.colorado.edu

CuriouslyC4• 9 years ago

The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively eliminate people's choice (at least at the national level), and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package.

_yosefk• 9 years ago

Doesn't unrestricted immigration also eliminate the choice of some (those whose government enacts different policies with the new voters)?

I don't think "choice" is how you decide these arguments. Either your choice to make noise limits my choice to sleep or vice versa. There is not always a way to limit the choice of none.

CuriouslyC4• 9 years ago

If people choose to emigrate to places based on their agreement with current policy (which you would expect if we can achieve some parity in terms of opportunity) then no.

In regards to the condition of conflicting interests, all you really have is mutual agreement among all involved parties. In this case, you agree to make less noise late at night in exchange for my agreement not to turn the neighborhood against you by telling everyone what a dick you are. Unfortunately given the dissolution of community reputation isn't the effective check it once was, and as a result we end up being both alienated and mired in bureaucracy.

coldtea15• 9 years ago

This doesn't make any sense.

"A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone.

So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is another thing altogether.

Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350 million strong people.

You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say, 50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to americanized preferences of living.

It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind (forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions.

Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.

fleitz2• 9 years ago

Yeah people seem to definitely think US troops don't have the right of 'immigration'

MichaelGG4• 9 years ago

This is what I never see addressed, and it certainly must be helping the "right wing" groups because it seems so obvious.

Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off.

So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin?

Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?

CuriouslyC4• 9 years ago

That is kind of a contrived scenario. For starters, what is the motivation for these Muslims to migrate to America or western Europe if their goal is to create an Islamic state? They already have a much larger majority in the nations where the currently live, migrating to the united states would only dilute their influence. If your argument is that they want access to our economic prosperity, the act of converting our government would destroy the very system that created it. If your argument is that they are dicks that only care about creating a tyranny of the majority to "punish" others, I would argue that is only true of a small pathological subset of humans, and that subset would be insufficient to influence a nation. Such a subset might be able to create an Islamic town, but why shouldn't that town be able to live according to its religion? If such dickishness was a widespread attribute we wouldn't have societies at all.

My experience with immigrants is that they generally want to be able to maintain some semblance of their culture in their new homes, but they generally aren't interested in foisting that culture on others.

CalRobert• 9 years ago

Do you mean immigration, or emigration? A person can choose to leave, if at least one of the 180-someodd other countries in the world will take them. Or they can go to unoccupied land, which is admittedly in very short supply (Antarctica, Bir Tawil).

I believe you can also go to Svalbard if you do so without passing through another nation on the way which would restrict your passage.

lngnmn• 9 years ago

There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to others.

Doxin• 9 years ago

IMO there's no right to be accepted, but any country capable of supporting a person has a moral obligation to do so. Every human deserves a decent life, or at the very least an okay life.

jerkstate6• 9 years ago

No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

maxerickson2• 9 years ago

That just sidesteps the interesting part of the question.

It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.

Kequc• 9 years ago

How deep into the bowels of history are you digging because I'm not young. What are you suggesting exactly, nations are illegitimate?

wayn32• 9 years ago

Nations do not have rights granted to them the same way they grant rights to you. Nations are essentially sovereign. They can do whatever they want. If they piss off some other nation, that may lead to war, but there is no court that rules over nations. There have been some of these in recent times, but nations decide to accept their rulings by choice, not because they have to. remember how they veto'd the USA going to war in Iraq and the USA still went to war and nothing happened to them?

Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle.

Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.

ubernostrum• 9 years ago

This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

This is an interesting claim to make.

For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration.

And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.

jerkstate6• 9 years ago

I agree with all of that. Whether or not we are in a time of war/threat seems to be at the heart of the current immigration debate.

coldtea15• 9 years ago

Only when one believes in "God given rights" or similar, that exist independently of man-made laws and customs.

Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one.

Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there?

And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the question.

P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. "how you A people think you ended where you are now?", we can make A's proclamation as "no further immigration to our parts" -- this is selfish maybe, but not hypocritical.

P.S 2: Since few/no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A's will as the usual majority/plurality will, especially as expressed through their typical form of elections.

jerkstate6• 9 years ago

The right to determine immigration policy is a sovereign power, in the US it is granted by law to the executive branch (subject of course to many other natural and national laws.)

coldtea15• 9 years ago

Sure, but we are discussing above and before those concepts now.

On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.

unlmtd2• 9 years ago

The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.

jerkstate6• 9 years ago

For that to be true, the landowners must depose the government, and give up the protections and benefits afforded them. There is an exchange of natural rights for the protections and benefits of belonging to a nation.

fiatjaf3• 9 years ago

Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now.

The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.

coldtea15• 9 years ago

First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners.

You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land.

So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast.

Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans, who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a legitimate right to a piece of land).

Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises.

So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of govermnet as well.

fiatjaf3• 9 years ago

You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land.

You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it?

In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?

unlmtd2• 9 years ago

No. Ownership of a good is acquired through homesteading.

Hydraulix9893• 9 years ago

Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.

arcticbull3• 9 years ago

Is that true of the US/Canada border? I ask because it seems to work fine inside continental Europe to have open borders. Even opening up the eastern bloc hasn't had devastating consequences and instead leads more to normalization/improvements in underdeveloped areas.

Hydraulix9893• 9 years ago

Is that actually true though? I don't think I can just pack up my bags as a US citizen tomorrow and move to the EU.

WillyOnWheels3• 9 years ago

The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

whorleater• 9 years ago

Does Japan have the moral responsibility to accept Chinese immigrants after the atrocities committed in WW2?

WillyOnWheels3• 9 years ago

That's a good question! I don't know. Our stunts in Central America were pretty recent.

wayn32• 9 years ago

Let's talk about the ethnic Koreans living in Japan first. They feel like second class citizens. Heavily discriminated against.

MichaelGG4• 9 years ago

How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

wz10005• 9 years ago

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

This view is simply ignorant of history.

The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.

Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies.

This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

pimmen894• 9 years ago

How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution.

One word; remittances. They already make up far more money than foreign aid, and the best part is that it's far harder for corrupt governments to get their hands on it. Don't underestimate the passion those few people who enter the country has for their families back home.

pimmen894• 9 years ago

I didn't say that, I said that even if only a few people could move it could help. You asked "How would that help?"

I'm not saying that remittances from some lucky people who have the means to move are the solution to world poverty, but they help. If you don't want to do anything that helps, but won't solve the problem in three seconds flat without any side effects, then I'm all ears of what your suggestion is?

mc322• 9 years ago

If you're going to ask this question, then you might want also ask how would they had fared had Cuba and USSR succeeded in those places, it's not as though we don't have people fleeing post-USSR countries like Cuba, Georgia and Russia and Ukraine, etc.

And how much is Russia taking in for their past internationalist activities?

I think the answer in the current world political context should be obvious if we consider Singapore. What would happen if they just opened the doors and let anyone who wanted to go in, go in (IN, ID, PH, MY, BD, as well as Pan-EU)?

coldtea15• 9 years ago

If you're going to ask this question, then you might want also ask how would they had fared had Cuba and USSR succeeded in those places

Better? Cuba, considering the embargo that fucked them twice over, is better off compared to most of the hell-holes intervention created in Latin America.

Even as a dictatorship it's much more benign compared to people like Pinochet that was supported, put in place, and much beloved by the US.

75dvtwin• 9 years ago

The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here

"... A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. ...."

Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing.

Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies.

First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy.

Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".

fleitz2• 9 years ago

The idea that all 7 billion people In the world have a right to live In the US is rediculous. Even if it were those people's right, it's virtually impossible to make that happen

return0• 9 years ago

Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?

classicsnoot6• 9 years ago

To treat them any other way is to call into question the foundations of progressive/enlightened ideology. Movements, ideologies, and factions all must have a point of departure, and this point is predicated on assumptions. Liberal Western thought wanted equality but needed to remove god (as equality under a godhead was undesirable). Enlightenment thinkers felt free to say and do as they wished, so they formalized the feeling into an argument of the universality of rights. Whether they are god given or inherent, they must exist for the rest of the progressive framework to maintain its structure.

The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away with believing that rights come from rifles?"

Mikeb852• 9 years ago

Because it makes it easier to dismiss the concerns of those who disagree or bring up actual problems with the issue at hand.

cttet• 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_State...

fixxer15• 9 years ago

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer

Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl...

I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism.

Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit?

I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!).

In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.

nyrulez• 9 years ago

I agree. It reminds me of the quote "Civilization is built on what men give back to the society, not what they require from the society." While I know it can improve standards of living for a ton of people if they were allowed to immigrate out of their current situation, it also means the benefit may only be one sided and not to the society receiving them. The author fails to sufficiently argue this part. In that sense, having some sort of merit and cultural compatibility system makes sense. Without it, original society can lose it's identity and could also devolve into an irreversible mess.

pimmen894• 9 years ago

The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into?

Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).

BeetleB2• 9 years ago

Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.

Based on this:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...

The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries.

Likely a larger percentage of local non-Muslim Americans want to ban homosexuality than do immigrants to the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if in the US, immigrants are more open to homosexuality than US citizens.

fixxer15• 9 years ago

I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.

verbify2• 9 years ago

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9

But also consider this:

a) Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time b) By stopping people from immigrating, you're just keeping homophobia away from you, you're not preventing it existing. A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.

fixxer15• 9 years ago

NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others, which is really just jingoism.

Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)

coldtea15• 9 years ago

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim.

At the time, yes. But if TFA author's idea ("boundless immigration for everybody") was allowed, that could very well include all areas of UK, no?

that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with.

Perhaps because as an white programmer (I suppose, not sure about the former, but being on HN puts you statistically closer to the latter, and to higher incomes in any case) you tend to only work with progressively minded muslim people, from more affluent backgrounds? Which would be an even less representative sample than the one in the poll?

Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time

Only when there's assimilation, and when their numbers are small. E.g. in the US, any particular immigrant group was still a relevant minority compared to the rest (though even today WASP ideas and power are prevalent in US culture).

If the mainstream culture is not what it used to be (UK is no longer an empire of any sort, and it's not even "Swinging London" anymore), and the numbers of immigration population and the ease of communication with their originating country/culture, the internet, global TV programming etc make it much easier to stick to their original culture. Younger generation that look to upward mobility tend to adopt mainstream culture more easily, but that's not something many people, even from the "native" population, realistically aspire to anymore.

A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.

Only if the number of homophobic immigrants are not greater than the number of gay immigrants. Which, depending on the country of origin, might be a hard thing...

thomasahle• 9 years ago

I very much agree with you. Spreading western values by taking in immigrants is not a bad idea. Even if it doesn't change everyone in the world, it still shows that it is possible for the values to include everyone.

It does assume integration though. If you take in immigrants, but isolate them and/or treat them badly, might it not be that you actually radicalize them further?

(Of course we shouldn't isolate them, but if that effectively ends up happening it has to be considered.)

mozumder5• 9 years ago

Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.

We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as domestic violence causing death among people that stray away from their family. And what good are laws against murder if the government doesn't enforce it, like the current US Attorney General is doing?

But, it doesn't matter since immigration isn't designed to influence culture. The US government isn't a Cultural Government. We don't even have a national language. Pretty cool, huh?

Immigrations instead is used to maintain economic welfare, as immigrants work harder than natives and have a lower crime rate. Otherwise, you have a stagnant economy like Japan.

You have plenty of other options to control culture besides immigration. Learn how to make a TV show, or speak in public.

So, the correct answer to everything is to make sure we have an open border. Let's work to make sure that happens.

classicsnoot6• 9 years ago

I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag.

I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew.

Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.

fiatjaf3• 9 years ago

Although the author is a libertarian, I don't think his views express what libertarians in general think about it.

Libertarians recognize property rights and that property owners should be able to prevent people from "immigrating" to their property.

In practice that could materialize in a number of different laws and costumes, depending on the culture and society.

How that should work in the context of State regulation is a problem for which libertarianism has no solution.

fixxer15• 9 years ago

Libertarians also have a lot of internal divisions. Noam Chomsky, for example, is a "libertarian socialist" and gets along as well with the Cato Institute as a Trump supporter at a BLM rally.

phy62• 9 years ago

Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border. Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn't violating Marvin's rights any more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it's uncle Sam, you can expect to be returned to your town.

Edited because I was distracted by children.

exit2• 9 years ago

in reality, sam isn't the sole associate of "his marketplace", and sam can't form a consensus with the others there.

i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on this notion of us being one tribe.

phy62• 9 years ago

We are stretching the (possibly false) analogy that Sam is an individual and that Marvin is also an individual. In reality, US Sam is an evolving (or revolving) representative electorate of a lands citizens, and 'Sam' controls the town, land, infrastructure and laws which support the marketplace, including the land, towns infrastructure and laws of the buyers. Sam doesn't need to be an associate, as he owns and operates the ecosystem that makes the market exist, except for the vendors and their tents.

microcolonel• 9 years ago

I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified.

This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions do violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses don't violate rights.

With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.

gonmf• 9 years ago

There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.

exit2• 9 years ago

the most fundamental form of democracy is voting with your feet, and the passport regime has destroyed that.

nationality is segregation.

Banthum• 9 years ago

No, nationality is property rights.

Voting with your feet was not significant before passports as the masses were too poor to move (which is why nobody had passport systems to begin with).

thescribe• 9 years ago

I hadn't though of nationality as property rights, but it makes a ton of sense. Thank you.

booleandilemma• 9 years ago

I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many people pouring in.

Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I feel like it.

arcticbull3• 9 years ago

Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there?

There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach equilibrium.

One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.

ap32• 9 years ago

Or it's not so awesome

coldtea15• 9 years ago

1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture. 3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations.

The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.

First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so).

But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea.

Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).

First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration.

And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for).

But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?

Koshkin• 9 years ago

It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always depend on, well, one's philosophy.

For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a right to immigrate into your home?

If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.

wz10005• 9 years ago

An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy reform on this basis.

Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.

Mikeb852• 9 years ago

First, let's start with the fact that "rights" are a human construct, and have only been allowed insomuch as there's no conflict with society or governments. My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given the current state of the world, should be very limited.

The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world.

The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population.

So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially living in a completely stratified world.

Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're leaving loses.

And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page:

"In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!

I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information."

And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight

yellowapple• 9 years ago

Is there a right for a person to move into my house?

Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is it even "my" house in the first place?

ap32• 9 years ago

My question: do I have a right to immigrate to your house?

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

Related Stories