Immigration

Abstract

More often than not, debates about immigration concern disagreement about “what is best for us.” The presumption is that immigration policies must be justifiable only to those who already live in a country. “Modern states,” writes political theorist Chandran Kukathas, “are like clubs that are reluctant to accept new members unless they can be assured that they have more to gain by admitting people than they have by keeping them out” (2005, pp 209f). What is “best” for a country (its “gain”) might be controversial, and turn on conflicting cultural or political considerations. What is beneficial for one segment of the population may not be for others. Yet this standpoint tends to view immigration as a privilege and neglects to ask about possible duties to would-be immigrants. Notice for instance how the economist George Borjas discusses immigration to the US:

Current immigration policy benefits some Americans (the newly arrived immigrants as well as those who employ and use the services the immigrants provide) at the expense of others (those Americans who happen to have skills that compete directly with those of immigrants). Before deciding how many and which immigrants to admit, the country must determine which groups of Americans should be the winners and which should be the losers. (2001, p xiv)