I have several thoughts. Japan are not alone in undergoing a declining population and obviously migration may be part of an answer. But Japan is also a country that has refused to permit much immigration for a long time. Perhaps this population decline would be more obvious in other countries that have been reasonably open to immigration, over the years.

This gets to the heart of one problem that often goes undiscussed, mainly because it is a deeply political problem. People don’t like immigration unless they can see some advantage in it, and have expectations that new immigrants should adapt, rather than bring with them demands of cultural recognition and separateness. The country I’m from has a reasonably good record on immigration, both allowing a fair amount of it, and being reasonably successful at integrating new arrivals. But the numbers of people on the move are only going to increase in the future, partly because it is just easier to get around now than it once was. Consequently, traditional ideas about political community, about culture, etc. do come under pressure eventually.

However, many countries have become accustomed to reasonable levels of immigration partly because immigrants bring new skills etc. to the extent that some countries (like Canada and Australia) operate a points based system, allowing them to set conditions on acceptance for migrants.

So, the problem that countries are not (very) open to immigration is unlikely to change, but even if it evolves will still not be able to cope with large, unexpected flows without political tensions, in my view.

Hence the idea for ‘Free Cities’ seems to offer several things.

1/ A place of refuge for immediate needs.

2/ A place in which a desire to emigrate might be facilitated by offering a chance for those without many skills or language abilities to learn new ones, or gradually accumulate the ‘points’ they need to be welcome somewhere.

3/ A place where work is possible, families can stay together, children — in particular — can go to school and either stay and build a life, or maybe qualify for a new life elsewhere.

4/ A secure place to live for as long as necessary, with a mind to returning home when the emergency has subsided or conditions have changed.

5/ All plugged in to the global economy in such a manner that allows people to travel without losing their security. For example if a migrant living in a ‘Free City’ wished to visit their homeland and family, this should not mean they then lose their status and are back to square one. Equally, if a child grows up in a ‘Free City’ and is then accepted into the US or the UK or wherever, but his family is not, he should be able to return and visit, to send them money securely, etc.

I imagine one effect of this would be to undermine these awful migratory networks that rob desperate people of their funds, leaving them with nothing, and no way to contact families etc. Equally, if a migrant has saved an amount of money for a dangerous journey, perhaps a ‘Free City’ could just allow them to open a bank account and immediately contribute to the economy in some way.

I like the idea of ‘Old Cities’ and think that in a sense this already happens. In the UK for example, many old Northern towns that experienced falling populations due to de-industrialisation and emigration (of British people to Australia, Canada etc) had an influx of new immigrants from India, Pakistan etc. In some cases this has led to problematic political tensions, which contributes to the negative sentiments towards more immigration (at the moment there is a big debate about Syrian refugees, which the UK has been very resistant to accepting). But in a way, this is a more long term question of actual migration, rather than an attempt to set up some sort of institutionalised setting for the management of migration.

Certainly I would have no objection to establishing a ‘Free City’ on UK soil somewhere. In fact, another mooted suggestion for the people of Hong Kong was to build them a new city in Northern Ireland. This was never taken very seriously, but it was an interesting idea. I’d be curious if the city would have been granted self-governing autonomy, and been considered a separate sovereign domain. Then you might encounter problems of setting up separate enclaves, but as long as you could deal effectively with those problems, that would be ok I think. This, I think, is where a UN body should have a supervisory function, to ensure that ‘Free Cities’ remain dynamic open, transitory spaces, rather than ghettoes where problems can be parked, like the current system of refugee camps around the world.