The paper being referenced is available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1124296&download=yes
Udhay (utterly fascinated, and also wondering what Andrew's response to
this will be :-))
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/06/25/morality_of_immigration/index.html
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 14:11 PDT
On the morality of immigration
Some statistics on population density:
* Germany -- 600 per square mile
* United Kingdom -- 600 per square mile
* Japan -- 830 per square mile
* Netherlands -- 1200 per square mile
* Bangladesh -- 2600 per square mile
* The United States -- 80 per square mile.
Based on these figures, Mathias Risse, a professor of public policy and
philosophy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, concludes in "On
the Morality of Immigration," published in the March issue of Ethics &
International Affairs, that "the United States is severely underusing
its chunk of three-dimensional, commonly owned space." From which it
follows, argues Risse, that it is unfair for the U.S. to restrict
immigration, legal or illegal, across its borders.
This is a perspective one is unlikely to hear espoused by presidential
candidates in the U.S., no matter how liberal their views on immigration
are. For one thing, it requires that one think about the world as if it
was collectively owned by all of humanity, rather than divided into
nasty little nation-states dedicated to protecting their most cherished
NIMBY values with armed forces, fences and elaborate visa regulations.
It is hopelessly utopian to imagine that national politicians would ever
make decisions on topics as explosive as immigration policy on the basis
of what would be best for the world.
But even as one shakes one's head at the uber-ivory-tower-ness of it
all, one can still admire the sheer courage of such a stance. Risse
argues that "as long as a country underuses its resources and refuses to
permit more immigration in response, illegal immigration cannot be
morally condemned."
Indeed, he turns the whole concept of fairness, as it is normally
applied to the question of illegal immigration, completely on its head.
"To speak of the United States specifically, one might also argue
that the opposition to illegal immigration is based on commonly accepted
notions of fairness -- including the notion of due process -- which loom
large in the American psyche. For example, searches on Google using the
keywords "wrong," "illegal," and "immigration" delivered a number of
American Web sites on which the unfairness of illegal immigration was
emphasized. Illegal immigration makes a mockery of those who abide by
the rules, so this argument goes. To pardon illegal immigrants would be
unfair because it lets them get away with their offense on the basis
that they have succeeded thus far. This standpoint, however, presupposes
that immigration is indeed a matter for the respective country alone to
sort out, and that the "insiders" are entitled to determine how many and
exactly who enters their country. But the argument offered here implies
that this is not so. If would-be immigrants are being illegitimately
excluded, one cannot complain that they are violating due process if
they come anyway."
I'm going to amuse myself right now by imagining the sight of Lou Dobbs'
head exploding after reading that last paragraph. Of course, the right
to decide "how many and exactly who" enters their country is one of the
foundational benefits of having a nation-state in the first place. Maybe
someday this will no longer be so. Maybe the challenges of climate
change and the constraints of finding enough food and water and clean
air for nine billion people will force the world to deal with all its
problems in a fashion that puts collective welfare above the interests
of any isolated community. But we've got a ways to go before we get
there. And is that John Lennon on the piano I hear in the distance?
-- Andrew Leonard
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
