Download
1 / 15
160 likes | 250 Views
Immigration. Introduction. In our ‘globalised’ world, goods, services and capital have become increasingly mobile. People, by contrast, are less mobile. Why is this and is it a justifiable state of affairs? . Immigration: how much is right?.
E N D
Introduction In our ‘globalised’ world, goods, services and capital have become increasingly mobile. People, by contrast, are less mobile. Why is this and is it a justifiable state of affairs?
Immigration: how much is right? Most countries control the rate at which foreign nationals may enter/reside in the country. Which factors should one consider if one is to judge whether immigration policy be ethical?
Moral arguments for immigration 1) Liberty 2) Welfare (Kukathas, 2005, pp. 210-11).
Efficiency/economic arguments Considerations of market efficiency suggest that borders should be as open, and immigration as easy, as possible (see Kukathas, 2005, p. 208). Why?
The efficiency argument A worker, W, should work where her productivity is greatest. Productivity is measured by her real wage. If her real wage as a nanny, cleaner or taxi driver in Canada is greater than her wage as a doctor in Bangladesh, efficiency would require her to work in Canada.
Against immigration The “what is good for us” standpoint (Risse, 2008, 25). Examples: • Do “we Canadians” have more rights to Canadian jobs than foreigners? • Should foreigners have access to welfare payments?
The “rent-seeking” retort Through “rent-seeking”, interest groups acquire privileges from government through which they gain vis-à-vis their competitors (Kukathas, 2005, p. 212).Examples: • Corporations receiving subsidies • Exclusive government contracts for firms • Groups receiving tax-breaks • Certification of employment groups.
Immigration restrictions and rent-seeking By excluding foreigners from the Canadian labour market, domestic workers are protected from competition. Who pays for this?
Nationality – a morally relevant category? Recall Sandel’s view on loyalty and obligations: we have special obligations to those with whom we share a (national) community and identity. Applied to immigration, one might say: we should be more concerned about the interests of our fellow citizens than those of foreigners when we formulate immigration policy.
Nationality – morally irrelevant? “Egalitarian ownership”: does humanity own the resources of the earth in common? “[N]o matter when and where they were born, [human beings] are ... symmetrically located with regard to the earth’s resources and cannot be arbitrarily excluded from them by accidents of space and time” (Risse, 2008, pp. 28-9).
Underuse of resources U.S. has a lower population density than many other countries of the world. Canada has a still lower population density. Those in other parts of the world who do not have access to the U.S. have just as much right to these resources as citizens of the U.S.
Rawls’ argument (again) May those of us who were born as citizens of affluent territories (and therefore have a right to live in them) say that we have deserved this luck?
Illegal immigration “If would-be immigrants are being illegitimately excluded [from a country], one cannot complain ... If they come anyway” (Risse, 2008, p. 31).
Immigration policy Traditionally, each nation-state is sovereign over its own immigration policy. Risse’s argument suggests that this is not a legitimate state of affairs: “outsiders” have a say in who may reside in a given state (Risse, 2008, p. 31).
