On Liberalism and Open Borders, Parts I and II
Twitter: @soapboxscholar
Instagram: soapboxscholar
YouTube: Scholar’s Soapbox
The first and second parts of this four part essay on open borders and liberalism.
Part I
At the time of writing, a man who stands four to one to be the next President of the United States has called for “a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States.”[i] The number of people seeking refuge in Europe has surpassed one million.[ii] And a United Nations report revealed last month that the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide “far surpassed” sixty million in 2015.[iii]
In response to these political problems, I have questioned the compatibility of liberalism and border controls: there seems to be a tension between a philosophy that holds people in equal moral standing and a policy that, by design, treats people differently according to their legal status vis-à-vis a political community. Having explored this issue, I have concluded that such tension need not exist as liberalism does not, under ordinary circumstances, require a commitment to open borders.
I have taken Joseph Carens’ Aliens and Citizens: The case for open borders, as a comprehensive argument in favour of open borders. I find his interpretation of the three strands of liberalism wanting as it appears to be based on an incomplete reading of those strands. Indeed, on my reading, each strand works to the contrary.
I have also considered liberal thinkers who explicitly justify discretionary border controls as a matter of right and found them more convincing. Although, this is not all to say that there is no liberal case for opening borders during extraordinary circumstances.
Part II
Carens explores three liberal theories: Nozick’s minimalist state, Rawls’ justice as fairness argument and utilitarianism. He holds that their convergence on the principle of open borders despite their significant divergence on other points strengthens the case for open borders.[i] As an inductive argument, this is vulnerable to attacks.[ii]
Carens’ interpretation of Nozick’s Lockean philosophy begins by recognising that property rights derive from self-ownership of the body and property is acquired by employing the body in labour. The uncertainty of the state of nature gives cause to establish a minimalist state to which is delegated the task of preventing rights violations. Crucially, this state cannot enforce rights that are not naturally occurring within the state of nature.[iii]
In this state, individuals by right may enter voluntary exchanges with whomever they choose and without state interference; the right to exchange is held by the “individual qua individual, not by the individual qua citizen.”[iv] Therefore, the British Government cannot rightfully prevent a British employer from hiring a Romanian labourer, if the exchange is voluntary, as the exclusion of a person can only be performed by the employer as the property owner. On this basis, Carens concludes that, as closed borders violate property rights, “the state has no right to restrict immigration.”[v]
Carens reading of Nozick is too narrow, a wider reading reveals that the state can implement discretionary border controls while respecting these rights. His justification lies in his concept of border crossings. Border crossings are the unwarranted violation of one individual’s natural rights and moral space by another.[vi]
Compensating for border crossings is fraught with practical issues:[vii] obtaining permission to violate and determining and retrieving the appropriate amount of compensation. In response, Nozick argues that the state ought to take preventative measures due to the risk and fear of border crossings.[viii]
There is evidence to show how the threat of border crossings causes widespread fear. In the United Kingdom there is a fear that European migrants are saturating the labour market and ‘stealing jobs’. Politicians and the press have ramped up rhetoric on job protectionism, making it a central feature of the 2016 referendum debate.
Nozick’s “argument from general fear”[ix] justifies delegating discretionary border powers to the state (passports, visas, background checks) to enable it to prevent the border crossing violations that leads to this fear.[x]
The second liberal theory Carens interprets as requiring open borders is Rawls’ justice as fairness argument.[xi] This holds that individuals in the original position, behind the “veil of ignorance,” choose two principles of justice to form the basis of their society.[xii] The first is a system that guarantees equal liberties for all. The second promotes an equality of opportunity which tolerates economic inequality only to the extent that it benefits the least advantaged socio-economic group.[xiii]
The veil eradicates the arbitrary nature of citizenship within Western liberal democracies that Carens sees as “the modern equivalent of feudal privilege […] an inherited status that greatly enhances one’s life chances.”[xiv] His interpretation of Rawls culminates in his assertion that we ought to acknowledge the immoral nature of citizenship, just as with feudalism, and endorse the unfettered freedom of movement. Only then can we fulfil the liberal commitment to the freedom and moral equality of all.[xv]
Carens is unduly hyperbolic here. The debate around extending Rawls’ theory is well attended but what Carens suggests is fundamentally illiberal. He ignores the desire of peoples to create different kinds of society, which use the same standard values to view others, thereby removing the liberty to create different societies.[xvi]
I shall pick this theme up later with Michael Walzer; for now, note that despite Rawls specifying in A Theory of Justice that shared human nature makes it theoretically possible to extend the original position globally, he does not include freedom of movement among those basic liberties.[xvii]
In Political Liberalism Rawls’ does concede that freedom of movement is connected to the liberty of personal integrity.[xviii] Nevertheless, at best freedom of movement can be regarded as a supporting policy for the maintenance of personal integrity. In other words, it is a contingent, not an absolute freedom to be applied in the original position; Carens ignores this.[xix]
The final theory Carens employs is utilitarianism. His interpretation is classical: that the morality of an action can be determined by seeking the greatest good for the greatest number through balancing pains and pleasures, to maximise the later and minimise the former.[xx] Carens argues that the economic gains of migration for a country’s poor out-weigh the losses suffered by the wealthy, therefore open borders serve the good of society.
Furthermore, he points to the widely accepted economic theory that economic performance is boosted when there is free movement of labour and capital enabling the more efficient market to allocate resources. This is a corner stone of Western liberalism as the foundational principles of the European Union and the World Trade Organisation. There are four problems with Carens’ employment of utilitarianism.
First, in focusing solely upon the economic, Carens ignores the “higher pleasures”[xxi] that are just as important for achieving the greater good and that are adversely affected by migration.[xxii] For instance, there are concerns about the erosive effect of globalisation on cultures (languages, values and structures of authority) which may not be outweighed by economic gains.[xxiii]
Second, Carens’ reliance on gross domestic product (GDP) as an indicator of pleasure is misleading. While GDP does reflect the macro-economic growth of an economy, it by no means reflects pleasures and pains at the micro level.[xxiv] Since the crisis of 2008, the UK has experienced consistent growth in GDP and is the fastest growing economy in the Group of Seven. Yet, this growth primarily reflects corporate profits and macro-economic productivity ignoring the fact that many individuals have suffered from falling wages, increasing inflation and lower welfare insurance in that time.[xxv]
Third, Carens’ interpretation suffers from the general problem with consequentialist thinking: the difficulty in extracting some sort of quantifiable measurement from qualitative observations and vice versa. Even with the means to do so, differences of opinion regarding the values attributed to various aspects of the equation makes the issue of who decides problematic. For utilitarian calculations to be valid and representative, it is essential that there is some general agreement about the values concerned.[xxvi]
Finally, he ignores the effects of open borders on the migrant’s home country. Human capital flight, the “brain drain effect,” occurs when people leave a lesser well-off country with voids in the social network and skill base.[xxvii] Therefore, it is not axiomatic that a utilitarian calculation will bolster any liberal commitment to open borders, instead it may justify border control.
