Three Mistakes in Open Borders Debates

Author(s):  
Adam B. Cox

What might justify laws that restrict the free movement of people across international borders? This chapter corrects three common mistakes made by those who try to answer this question. First, debates about open borders often conflate three quite distinct questions—about whether border restrictions are permissible, when they are permissible, and who gets to decide. Second, the early American immigration jurisprudence often cited by legal scholars was not about open borders arguments as many have supposed. Third, it will be very difficult to make a persuasive argument in favor of border restrictions without simultaneously tackling the question of what principles of equality require for those who are admitted into a state’s territory. These twin questions are typically segregated in philosophical work on immigration, but they are tied together in ways that are too often overlooked.

Transfers ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Author(s):  
G Douglas Barrett

Reassembly, curated by G Douglas Barrett and Petros Touloudi Tinos, Greece 5 July 2017 to 31 October 2017 The free movement of bodies and objects once considered critical for the smooth functioning of contemporary art has appeared, especially since 2017, increasingly uncertain in this era marked by new forms of nationalism, xenophobia, and economic isolationism. Indeed, many artists working in this environment have found it difficult or impossible to cross once unquestionably open borders, or to ship works to and from exhibitions held across a requisitely international stage. As an attempt to respond to this crisis, I, along with Petros Touloudis, curated Reassembly, an exhibition held in the summer of 2017 on the island of Tinos, Greece. The exhibition came out of an annual residency program organized by Touloudis’s Tinos Quarry Platform and was held at the Cultural Foundation of Tinos. Overall, we wanted to ask if there is a critical role for music can play in the field contemporary art, especially as its plagued by new forms of border policing and geopolitical conflict.


Author(s):  
Bas van der Vossen ◽  
Jason Brennan

The chapter discusses an important set of economic objections to the case for open borders. These objections focus on protecting the wages of domestic workers, maintaining a welfare state, and the effects of admitting migrants who come from illiberal societies. All these objections are shown to be insufficient to overcome the basic case for free movement. They either rely on false empirical claims, or assume—rather than establish—that countries can close their borders to immigrants. As a result, the presumption in favor of free movement, established in the previous chapter, remains undefeated. This concludes the case for open borders.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace Westman

As a result of the neoliberal ideological turn the past few decades have seen a vast liberalization of markets for capital and commodities. Paradoxically, the liberalization of international borders for capital has occurred alongside a restriction of mobility for human beings. Scholarship surrounding migration generally focuses on formulating recommendations for improving the immigration system. Few scholars have focused their attention on questioning the foundational premises of this system. This paper engages with the literature on open borders. It examines the ways in which international borders simultaneously produce and maintain global inequality. It will argue that discussions of liberalizing borders can only take place in the context of a discussion about how to remove those factors that prompt migration in the first place. Studies of migration must be embedded within the broader debates surrounding the political economy of globalization and its impacts on international development.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace Westman

As a result of the neoliberal ideological turn the past few decades have seen a vast liberalization of markets for capital and commodities. Paradoxically, the liberalization of international borders for capital has occurred alongside a restriction of mobility for human beings. Scholarship surrounding migration generally focuses on formulating recommendations for improving the immigration system. Few scholars have focused their attention on questioning the foundational premises of this system. This paper engages with the literature on open borders. It examines the ways in which international borders simultaneously produce and maintain global inequality. It will argue that discussions of liberalizing borders can only take place in the context of a discussion about how to remove those factors that prompt migration in the first place. Studies of migration must be embedded within the broader debates surrounding the political economy of globalization and its impacts on international development.


Author(s):  
Bas van der Vossen ◽  
Jason Brennan

The chapter makes a prima facie case for open borders. It argues that there is a strong common-sense moral case for free movement because migration restrictions coercively interfere with people’s freedom of movement. Such restrictions generally stand in need of justification. Second, there also exists a strong economic case for free movement. Economic models and history suggest that freeing up migration will be an enormous benefit to both migrants and receiving populations. The chapter concludes by suggesting that even though it does not offer a conclusive case for open borders by itself, the burden of proof squarely lies with those who would oppose immigration.


2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti Tamara Lenard

AbstractCommunitarians are derided for their commitment to closed borders. According to their critics, if we balance the claims of cultural preservation (deployed primarily by wealthy countries) against the claims of economic betterment (deployed primarily by the very poor), the correct moral ordering will prioritize the claims of economic betterment, and thus support claims for open borders over closed borders. Yet, this standard way of framing the debate ignores the deep connection between cultural claims and freedom of movement. In the near-exclusive focus on the relationship between cultural preservation and the alleged importance of closed borders, free movement advocates have lost sight of how frequently culture bolsters claims in favor of freedom of movement. I argue that cultural claims should not be ignored in discussions of free movement. To do so fails to give a full account of the reasons we have to favor free movement, oftentimes across borders.


2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUARA FERRACIOLI

AbstractThis article focuses on two questions regarding the movement of persons across international borders: (1) do states have a right to unilaterally control their borders; and (2) if they do, are migration arrangements simply immune to moral considerations? Unlike open borders theorists, I answer the first question in the affirmative. However, I answer the second question in the negative. More specifically, I argue that states have a negative duty to exclude prospective immigrants whose departure could be expected to contribute to severe deprivation in their countries of origin. Countries have a right to unilaterally control their borders, but their exercise of this right is constrained by the demands of morality.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 783-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Dustmann ◽  
Ian P. Preston

Straightforward economic arguments point to the potential for large global output gains from the movement of labor from less to more productive locations. Yet the politics of receiving countries seems resistant, characterized rather by efforts to limit migration or to stop it altogether. In this article we examine the foundations of claims of large welfare gains through free mobility, studying implications of liberalizing migration for world welfare under a variety of models, paying attention not only to overall gains but also to how gains are distributed and reviewing attempts to quantify the benefits. We conclude by asking how far considerations beyond economics motivate keenness to impose restrictions on migration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-159
Author(s):  
Dario Mazzola

In these times of walls and razor-wires, open borders appear to be more utopian than always. Nonetheless, philosophers like Joseph Carens and, similarly but earlier, Timothy King and James L. Hudson, famously argued that the major philosophical perspectives in the Western world—libertarian, egalitarian, and utilitarian—would support a right to freedom of international movement of people. What would be the relative default position from the standpoint of natural law theory? In this article, I present a general introduction on natural law theory and its role in and outside philosophy, before presenting claims specific to the migration debate. I then recall the defence of a right to free movement by two authors sympathetic to the natural-law tradition, Ann and Michael Dummett: a defence which is grounded in principles of fairness and reciprocity and develops elements belonging to international law. I also outline John Finnis’s more critical and nuanced position. Finnis is eager to legitimize state authority and the “special relations” binding fellow countrymen: however, I claim that the classic Thomist perspective in which he situates these claims ensure his respect of a right to international movement which could be characterized as a version of “open borders,” with some definitional restrictions and qualifications of this latter phrase. Finally, I deal with the theory of Alasdair MacIntyre. Trying to infer MacIntyre’s attitude toward migration from the classic but short article on patriotism, might turn out to be no less dif ficult than potentially misleading, especially if that article is not read in its details. Complementary elements are offered in MacIntyre’s account of natural law “as subversive.” On these grounds, I claim that, contrary to simplistic misreading of MacIntyre’s alleged “communitarianism,” MacIntyrean Aristotelian Thomism would endorse a theory of migration more compatible with reasonably conceived open borders. I conclude my chapter with a presentation of Aquinas’s concise intervention on the subject, and I show that it further supports my reading of the natural law tradition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document