November 2, 2007
Immigration as a Human Right
This post is a slightly amended version of a comment I published in Martin Wolf’s Economists’ Forum on 02/11/2007, in response to Martin Wolf’s column "Why immigration is hard to tackle", in the Financial TImes of 01/11/2007.
I have to declare an interest in the subject of immigration. I am an immigrant (born in the Netherlands), and so are my wife (USA), my son (Peru) and my daughter (Bolivia). We have currently 8 operational passports between the four of us (two British, two Dutch and four American). Even our two cats are foreign breeds – Maine Coon and Norwegian forest cat. Only the newts in our garden pond are truly British (I think).
I feel about nationalities/citizenship and passports the way I feel about underwear: always carry plenty of it, and change it regularly. I have been fortunate indeed in that nationality or citizenship have never been a constraint on what I have been able to do. I served as an external member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England before I became a British citizen. I became Chair of the Netherlands Council of Economics Advisers when I no longer held Dutch citizenship.
From a normative point of view, I am with Philippe Legrain who believes that freedom of movement is a human right. For me, when it comes to the rights of nations and countries, libertarian political instincts combine with religious convictions: “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein”. Not: Britain for the British or Scotland for the Scots, or even British jobs for British workers. I do not recognise national property rights.
Indeed, I would go further than that, and admit to a visceral dislike of and contempt for all forms of nationalism and patriotism. I consider them regrettable historical accidents - manifestations of communal mental corruption that has too often exploded into collective madness, including violent confrontations and war. I recognise the historical reality and continuing significance of the nation state and the notion of ‘country’, just as I recognise the reality and continuing significance of the HIV virus and of AIDS. I allow for their existence, while hoping for and striving for their elimination.
I disagree with Martin when he says that a country is not just a set of institutions, but also a home, and that people have a right to decide who enters their (collective) home. I view a country as a club with a set of institutions and membership rules. The rules cannot be different for those born in the country (or related through kinship to people born in or resident in the country) than for those contemplating emigrating to that country. Anyone who is willing to abide by the membership rules has the right to join. Anyone also has the right to leave and to join any other club.
Under certain circumstances, exit taxes may be appropriate. These are, however, easily abused for opportunistic political ends, or to abrogate the right to leave. It is clear that, despite remittances and the prospect of eventual return to the country of origin, certain forms of emigration (a brain drain, the departure of qualified doctors and nurses, the exit of the most dynamic and youthful age cohorts) can do serious damage to the rights of those left behind. Whether compensation is due from the emigrant or from the government of the destination country is an interesting question.
Citizenship is, in my view, purely residence-based, and residence is a personal choice. It clearly makes sense, to avoid certain obvious free-rider or collective action problems, to link entitlement to some of the benefits of citizenship in a country to the duration of one’s residence there and/or to the magnitude of the contributions in cash (taxes) or in kind (compulsory military service, jury duty) one has made to the country.
I disagree with Mr. Legrain as regards some of his positive or factual statements about the consequences of immigration on the native population. There are certainly plenty of instances where these effects can be negative. Unskilled immigration into the UK may well bring in labour that is complementary to the labour of native skilled workers; it is likely to lower the wages of native unskilled workers, or to displace them altogether if wages are rigid downwards.
When immigrants are different from natives in appearance or speech, the diversity they bring can as easily become a problem as a benefit. On the Isle of Dogs in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where I lived for many years, the old native population, working class white Englanders left behind and marginalised when the docks left, co-existed badly with the large Bangladeshi immigrant community. The resulting resentment let to the first election of a BNP Councillor in a local election (in the ward where I lived, Millwall, in 1993). The two communities are brought together only by their shared dislike of the affluent yuppies that are the most recent immigrants into the area.
This is a huge topic and there are many loose ends. A key question for the ‘countries as open clubs’ view concerns the kind of membership rules that are legitimate. Clearly a rule for citizenship in a country that reproduced the BNP’s party membership requirement – restricting it to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" - would not be my cup of tea. I would begin by accepting only those clubs as legitimate whose membership rules (in theory and practice) respect the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Beyond that, as long as immigrants impose no adverse rights externalities on natives (that is, as long as they do not infringe these same human rights), they should have the right to settle in the country. Absence of negative rights externalities is compatible with negative conventional externalities (adverse effects on the standard of living of natives, for instance). So it would not be an argument against immigration that it makes (some or even all) natives worse off. I recognise that, given the political governance realities of nation states, this moral argument will carry little practical weight.
If this policy of free migration were adopted by the EU, this could mean that, say, 150 million people might be queuing up to escape the low-lying areas of the Indian subcontinent and move to western Europe in less than a decade or so. In addition to great cultural gains and economic benefits for some of the natives (European landlords and those native European workers with skills complementary to those of the newcomers), this would no doubt also create massive disruption, congestion, overcrowding, urban decay and growth of shanty towns in parts of Western Europe, and to drastic declines in the standards of living of native European workers whose skills are rival with those of the immigrants. The immigrants themselves would on average be significantly better off, or they would not choose to come.
My position that the wellbeing and rights of actual and potential immigrants count neither more nor less than those of the native-born is of course not exactly the brick with which the house of modern nationhood is built. In the UK, as in the Netherlands and the US, vile and virulent anti-foreigner and anti-immigrant sentiment is never far from the surface. The pages of most of the UK tabloids drip with poison when they address immigration-related matters. The flames of xenophobia, racism, anti-foreigner hysteria and anti-immigrant psychosis are also regularly fanned by opportunistic and spineless politicians from both government and opposition parties, oblivious of the damage they do to the social fabric. Large-scale immigration has often provoked communal violence, and at times enduring civil conflict (as in Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Assam).
Peaceful coexistence and mutual tolerance among diverse communities, and a significant degree of integration and assimilation are necessary for a ‘country as an open club’ to thrive. The British and Dutch models of multiculturalism, which have encouraged ethnic and religious apartheid, have failed. Something closer to the original American melting pot model is more likely to be successful.
Despite the shock and horror about the recent UK immigration numbers (and yes, it is a scandal that the data are so poor), the scale of recent immigration into the UK (4.8 million gross and 1.6 million net over the last 10 years according to the (unreliable) official figures) has certainly been manageable from the point of view of the natives. The net immigration of about 2.1 million expected between 2006 and 2016 also looks manageable, although it will exacerbate pressure on certain key scarce resources (housing, transportation infrastructure, health and education). We will have to pay somewhat higher taxes to provide the necessary infrastructure and public goods and services.
Immigration has made London the most interesting, diverse, exciting and creative city in the world. It is no longer be an English city, a British city, or even a European city in anything except a geographical sense, but it is the first true ‘worldcity’ or global city – an open city which belongs to all the people of the world. This is no doubt why the enemies of the open society, including the suicide bombers that have targeted it and may to so again, hate it so much. Those who don’t like what immigration has done and will continue to do to London or who feel threatened by it can, of course, under the ‘countries as open clubs model’, always move somewhere else in the European Union.
The late Harry Johnson, professor of economics at the LSE and the University of Chicago, used to say that the whole ‘aid vs. trade’ debate about how to promote development and eliminate poverty was just shadow boxing. If the rich, economically developed countries were serious about development and the elimination of global poverty, they would simply open their borders to all comers. He was right.
I disagree. What you are proposing would bring an end to European culture(s) as we know it; the world would indeed become one monolithic melting pot akin to America. Putting aside my personal distaste for American LCD, I believe in the preservation of global cultural diversity, as much as I believe in the preservation of biodiversity and heritage buildings. I do not rule out limited controlled immigration, which can be very beneficial economically and, as you mention, could create interesting and diverse world cities, such as London — but I would limit it to that. Massive immigration would also massively disrupt the welfare of the source countries (e.g. brain drain). Just as it is right to subsidise the countryside (notwithstanding the excesses of CAP) so should we help world citizens develop in a way that contributes to even-handed development around the globe. We would not like to have one global LA contrasting with a depleted global backyard, or would we?
As you say, there are limits to liberalism where negative externalities exist. Global immigration is such an area. Your personal case is unhelpful to the analysis, as the culture of your source country and your host country are very similar (from a global perspective).
Ron Cohen-Seban
Posted by: RCS | November 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 am | Report this commentIsrael
I could not agree more. There is no morally justifiable case for controlling immigration: certainly not for Christians.
Higher immigration increases (not decreases) cultural diversity. There would be many national melting pots, not one global one. It is also highly unlikely that immigration would ever be high enough to affect the “separateness” of a major culture. What objections of this nature boil down to is an aversion for change: but the alternative to change is stagnation, which is fatal.
Posted by: Graeme Pietersz | November 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 am | Report this commentI can’t agree with the basic tenet of this posting that freedom of movement is a basic human right, and anybody can decide to go and live anywhere they like. A person’s decision to move doesn’t only effect himself/herself, but it also effects the members of the society to which one moves - and those people should have a say.
I don’t know you live; but if I did how would you feel if I just happened to enter your house totally uninvited, spoiling a family get-together or an intimate moment with your spouse? This is the logic of what you are arguing.
Posted by: lee | November 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentFantastic idea! I think your mixed nationalities enabe you to bring a new perspective not easily reached by home bodies like Wolf.
Impeccable logic except for the loose ends. I do imagine if you put your mind to it and work hard for a couple of decades that setting up your own non-country is not beyond your talents.
I will be then be privileged to be the first to immigrate.
Posted by: Emperor Trajan | November 3rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm | Report this comment“I view a country as a club with a set of institutions and membership rules … Anyone who is willing to abide by the membership rules has the right to join. Anyone also has the right to leave and to join any other club.”
Fair enough. But what about those who become members of the club and then break the rules? Can the other members kick them out? Whether they are natives or were immigrants?
Posted by: Ed | November 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm | Report this commentFor my background, read my response to Willem on the economists’ forum. I look forward to Willem’s reply to Ed.
Posted by: Martin Wolf | November 4th, 2007 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentThe argument about the seriousness about development and poverty of the developed contries goes beyond late Prof. Johnson comment.
Posted by: Enrique Fleischmann | November 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentIf globalization is considered as the most efficient tool to eradicate poverty, as long as the mobility of the most important production factor ( human work ) is limited the process is not complete ,remains discriminatory ( capital over labour) and under constant social and political threat.
On theoretical ground ALL markets should be free and not only capital and ( some ) products markets. I am afraid that the alternative to a liberal immigration policy will be a slow return to protectionism in products and capital markets.
Mr Fleischmann,
Human beings are not capital and certainly not products; your comparison is inappropriate.
Between protectionism on the one hand, and complete trade liberalism on the other, there exist shades of grey. Theory is often too crude to be applied in any straightforward manner, as witness the row over the Washington consensus. As just one salient example: free capital flows wreaked havoc on South-east Asia in 1997.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | November 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pm | Report this commentIn response to Ed’s question, yes, clubs have the right to expel members that violate the rules. Couintries have a right to banish or send into involuntary exile those who constitute a material threat to the rights of the inhabitants of the country. This would apply equally to first-generation immigrants and to natives. Banishment and involuntary exile have a long tradition in human history, and while it is an extreme measure, it has to be available as a last resort. Banishment could be temporary or permanent.
There are some caveats.
(1) the breach of the rules has to be a serious, material one. In particular, permanent banishment should only be resorted to if there is no reasonable hope of redemption.
(2) there has to be a place (country) willing to take the person that is up for expulsion.
(3) There has to be a high degree of confidence that the human rights of the person that is expelled will not be violated in any country willing to take him or her in. No extraordinary or irregular renditions therefore. Together with the torture camps of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, these have done more to damage the international reputation, prestige and image of the US than any other act of public policy since 1776. No club of mine would engage in such practices.
This means that there may be instances where a person cannot be allowed to live freely in a country, say because he is in persistent and material violation of important rules of the club and infringes on the fundamental rights of the other members of the club, without it being possible to expel him. Some form of detention or imprisonment will have to be designed (perhaps a small uninhabited island in the Outer Hebrides?) to neutralise his threat. Not very satisfactory, but I can see no alternative.
Posted by: Willem Buiter | November 5th, 2007 at 1:37 am | Report this commentIf the US model is the best then shouldn’t you lobby the US to open its borders first so as to demonstrate your theory to the rest of us?
The system would certainly increase growth and lift immigrants out of poverty but significant state action would be required to compensate the sedentary population in:
- destination countries, where job competition would get fiercer and training/support would be needed
- source countries, which would experience significant capital flight and brain drain
Posted by: dave | November 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentIn response to Dave: if you are making a positive statement about the need for compensation of the sedentary populations in the destination and source countries, because without such compensation these sedentary populations could, through their political influence in contemporary nation states, veto open borders, you could well be right.
From a normative point of view, just because some in the destination and source countries would be worse off because people are exercising what I consider to be their fundamental human right of freedom of movement, it does not follow that compensation is due. I don’t accept that the status quo should be so dominant that only Pareto improvements are allowed. There will always be losers and winners when the realm of freedom is enhanced. A utilitarian cost-benefit analysis could even indicate that, in the aggregate, the losers lose more than the winners gain. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Freedom can be its own reward.
When the impoverishment of members of the sedentary populations threatens their ability to exercise their fundamental human rights, there can be a libertarian argument for restricting mobility. But the maintenance of the status quo in general, including existing standards of living, is not a fundamental human right.
Posted by: Willem Buiter | November 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm | Report this commentBuiter says: “But it is important to recognise that for every unhappy banker who writes off $200,000 of mortgage debt, there is one happy mortgage borrower who now will no longer have to service that debt.”
I don’t get it. All the eager happy bankers that lend out the money helped to push up the price of the houses and these now collapses so I cannot really seem to find that “happy mortgage borrower” in town that Buiter refers to.
Buiter says: “All these derivative claims are ‘inside’ financial claims – for every creditor there is a matching debtor. These write downs and write-offs do not in and of themselves destroy any net wealth.”
Problem now is that even distribution has been placed on hold as in many cases no one really knows who is the winner and who is the loser. Wealth might not have been destroyed but it has been placed on ice and is inaccessible for now… what does inaccessible wealth mean?
Consider a buyer and a seller whose respective position has been valued by their respective investment broker with their respective model and both have for years shown big gains on both ends, on which juicy commissions have been charged. De-leverage this and please explain me how the win and losses balance out? Of course you could go to the initial moment of investment when a million was invested… but that was many years and much growth ago and now each party feels they have ten million invested.
Friends, we are not talking about money in the banks… we are talking about money in valuation accounts. The crisis could be horrendous and the destruction of illusionary wealth mind-boggling. By the way in this case the real distribution of the initial million was from the investors to the brokers.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | November 12th, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Report this comment