Feeds
Liberal opponents of immigration August 21st, 2008
There is a strand of liberalism or libertarianism that is skeptical of, and sometimes even hostile to immigration. This piece in The Australian by Gaurav Sodhi is a good example, which appears to be a follow up of a 2006 paper that raised some of the cultural and social objections to immigration that are typical of this view.
Sodhi doesn’t quite go so far as outright opposing the scheme - he conspicuously avoids passing judgement, except to raise a rather peculiar objection. Surely nobody has claimed that a tiny guest worker program could single handedly resolve Pacific development problems alone? The scheme will be wonderful for the guest workers, wonderful for their families who will benefit from their comparatively high salaries, wonderful for the farmers who need the labour, and pretty good for consumers who like to eat cheap fruit. The dire situation of some Pacific economies is not sufficient reason to oppose such an exciting opportunity for everybody involved. And the less said about the implication that the potential Pacific island workers are criminals, the better.
I admit to being very uncomfortable with those supposedly free market advocates who oppose immigration, for whatever reason. Too often the objections are so strained as to be suspicious. The idea that we should stop an individual from searching for work beyond the national borders of their birthplace simply because we believe that their culture is somehow incompatable with ours is a deeply illiberal position to hold. Our existing skilled migration scheme discriminates on the basis of education, and, by implication, wealth. That is, to my mind, already unconscionable; ‘liberals’ who propose further group discrimination on the basis of culture are even more worrying.
How does the free movement of people differ in any significant way from the free movement of goods or services? Surely we have enough faith in the strength of liberal democracy - and the persuasiveness of liberal civil society - to withstand potential ‘clashes’ of culture? The only concrete thing we ask of migrants is that they obey existing laws - and in this concern we already have an elaborate mechanism to monitor and assure compliance of all those on Australian shores regardless of their birthplace.
This is not merely apologetics. I suggest that not only is immigration practically beneficial, but we have a moral obligation to accept into our borders those who want to come. For individuals born in under-developed countries, simply crossing into the developed world can dramatically increase their potential salary, as well as allow them to experience the historically unprecedented living standards that we already enjoy.
The objections to expanded immigration seem nationalistic or economically illiterate at best, and immoral at worst.
You write, “How does the free movement of people differ in any significant way from the free movement of goods or services?”
Do you really have to ask this question?
We partake of goods and services, we do not partake of people. Goods and services do not have personal and familial and cultural histories that command our thoughtfulness and respect. We visit heart and mind in our movements between countries or regions, often with much angst and trepidation. Goods and services are the result of people living productively and in accord with localized social norms, not the other way round. Without dehumanizing and commoditizing your fellow man, how can the movement of these things be said to have any similarities?
As to the remainder of your philosophy as given here, it might help you to consider those who wish to preserve some historic measure and particulars of community as working to protect what they see as good, rather than unduly emphasizing their rejection of so-called progressivism. Are you concerned about what they are protecting-advocating, or more afraid of what they are preventing from advancing?
You seem to be saying that we have some obligation to support and help up, even absorb into our nations, our fellow man who finds himself, by dumb luck apparently, stuck in the developing world. There is something strange about this argument, the way you have presented it. Not a whimper of kindness and charity, of doing the right thing or the Christian thing, but simply a way to get out from under the crushing guilt of the material and cultural success of the West. This is a sterile, reductionist politics, offering up only pragmatism (on a false basis) and non-discrimination as the driving precepts of post-modern society. It is heartless and it is tragic only in so far as it succeeds in corrupting a majority of citizens.
Comment by Hannon — 24/8/2008 @ 2:35 am
I agree with most of what you say but I am afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I am particularly disappointed with your assertion that you feel very uncomfortable with those supposedly free market advocates who oppose immigration, for whatever reason.
Whatever reason? This position lacks ALL reason.
I don’t seek to speculate too much however think it reasonable to assume that should we open our boarders there would be plenty of takers. You say that simply crossing into the developed world can dramatically increase their potential salary but would it not have a possibility of reducing ours? You might be ok Chris but what about those people working as unskilled labour?
What would happen once all of the low skilled jobs were taken (again I don’t think it unreasonable to assume that they soon would be) even with a stronger domestic market our minimum wage would continue to ensure that industrial jobs went overseas.
What is your position of welfare? Surely we could not provide it for every new resident, people would continue to come and inevitably large numbers of people would be unable to find suitable work- we would either have to provide welfare or they would understandably communalise and perhaps (out of need) turn to crime ala France and many other European countries (although with an open boarder this would be many times worse).
Then there are the issues of housing (tried renting lately?), the environment (yeah I have to admit that I am loath to raise it but still…), the impact upon an already overcrowded hospital system (given the tone of your article you wouldn’t oppose entry by people with sicknesses), the impact upon our education system etcetc… all of which (depending on numbers) would require massive additional investment.
This doesn’t even scratch the surface of possible concerns, including those concerns relating to cultural integration which I do think are valid.
Like I said I do agree with most of what you say and perhaps this issue will make a good topic for an expanded IPA article, if any such article addressed some of these issues I would read with great interest.
Comment by Mattofact — 25/8/2008 @ 5:16 pm