Carens: Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders

PART A

According to Carens, a person reasoning through Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance would certainly opt for open border policies. While I do think this is true, I also think it is unimportant for the conversation of immigration. Carens wants to place a theory created in an ideal world into not just a non-ideal, but a chaotic, messy and hugely complex world (Carens 259). What seems like a good idea in a perfect world can often create more issues than solve them when put into practice. Ironically, Carens himself agrees with this, saying that a mass migration of individuals into affluent western countries could indeed cause all sorts of problems, including economic strain, bringing some countries far past their carrying capacity, and leaving others devoid of manpower (260). Here Carens completely deviates from his own argument, saying that there actually are needs for restriction on immigration (261). This hurts his own essay because it is not an argument for open borders but rather an argument for restricted borders. Carens goes on to say that we should then give priority to those seeking political asylum over those seeking economic gains or vise versa allow those seeking economic gains if it would in the long run give them liberties (261). Either way, if Carens wants to argue for open borders, he should argue for open borders, not the partially closed ones he talks of.

Carens then tries to talk his way out of this by saying that we have to differentiate between reasonable expectations and hypothetical scenarios (260). For one, how can we even begin to tell these two things apart? We cannot see the future and we have no example of how open borders might actually work. Carens tries to use America as an example but it is non-applicable because despite having different cultures across the country, we share both a common identity as Americans and a common language. The types of problems we could run into also should not be downplayed as crazy hypothetical situations when they are in fact very possible. With completely open borders mass migration and its impacts are reasonable worries. They should be looked at not with the blind eye of the ignorant but with a realistic view of the world we live in.

PART B

Regardless of whether or not Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance provides any relevant information, Carens argument can still stand: it is unjust to restrict those seeking a better life from entering our country. It is not unjust that members of affluent countries have certain privileges but rather that members born outside were denied those same privileges. We can offer them those same liberties that they cannot find within their own borders, so when we disallow them from entering our country, it is us that is denying them their liberties. It is not some dictator or poor economic policy but rather affluent countries that directly withhold their rights from them. It is understood that taking away people’s rights is unjust so if closing our borders denies people liberties, then closed borders too are unjust.

Furthermore, to close our doors to those seeking asylum goes against our very values. As Carens said, liberalism is the core and foundation of American culture (269). This is why the example of aristocracy in the 18th century and their privileges is relevant - it is one example of the many times where the U.S. chose to fight for the expansion of liberties and not the exclusion. This has been the case for religious freedom, for the right to own property, the right to vote, the right to equal employment opportunities and for many other rights. We want more people to have more rights so it only follows that we should open our borders to allow others to have the same rights we do. In fact, of the other alternatives, it is probably the easiest solution towards making sure all people have equal rights.

PART C

When talking about open borders in the non-ideal world, Carens says, “Perhaps the ones who come are not the worst off, however. It is plausible to suppose that the worst-off don’t have to resources to leave. That is still no reason to keep others from coming” (Carens 261). The entire basis of the argument for open borders is that those in Western countries have rights and privileges that others do not in their own countries. This still leaves potentially huge numbers of people behind. Even with open borders, these people are no better off and still lack the some of their basic human rights. We can see now that open borders wouldn’t solve the problem but would merely rephrase it. Whereas before it was unjust that some people had privileges while others neither had them nor had the ability to get them, with open borders it would be unjust that some people could go to other countries to have more rights while others would lack the means to be able to. Open borders wouldn’t fix the problem of the disparity of liberties and so a new solution would be needed. Barring that somehow affluent countries are both able to and willing to take in those people left behind under open borders, the solution would have to do with fixing the structure and institutions of a country so that people have the same liberties regardless of where they are in the world. This would make open borders unnecessary in the end because no country would be denying anyone their liberties by not allowing them into their countries.

PART D

As for the economic argument against open borders, Adam Davidson neatly counters all possible objections in his aticle “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant”. One of the biggest reasons people do not want to accept immigrants into their country is because they fear wages will go down and immigrants will end up taking job from native born citizens. Interestingly, it is almost unanimously agreed on in the economic field that this is actually not the case. The truth is that accepting more immigrants into the U.S. would actually give us long term benefits with no short term costs. Immigrants coming into the country not only increase the supply of labor, they also increase the demand for it. Their impact on both supply and demand does not cause wages to drop - something we have actually seen firsthand throughout our history during periods of mass migration. The fear that immigrants are taking away jobs from native citizens in also unfounded. In general, immigrants take on support tasks while other more skilled workers take on the tasks that require more education and more cultural and language fluency (Davidson). These facts all support Carens’ utilitarian side of his argument. It gives us not just a moral justification for open borders, which will always be open for debate and disagreement, but also hard, mathematical facts.

Works Cited

“Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant”. The New York Times. The New York

Times. 24 Mar 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015. 

Carens, Joseph. “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders”. The Review of Politics.

(1987): 251-273. JSTOR. Web. 15 Nov. 2015. 

Refugees and the Case for Open Borders

            David Ingram asks his readers what the weaknesses are of both the cosmopolitan and communitarian approaches to immigration in terms of open or closed borders. In Chapter 3 of World Crisis and Underdevelopment, he shows that since both accounts have strengths and weaknesses, a combined account would work best. His account of is “an ethics of migration that would be neither strictly communitarian nor cosmopolitan. Such an ethics commands respect for the human rights of both political and economic refugees to resettle abroad while at the same time endorsing the rights of democratic peoples to set priorities for normal immigration” (Ingram 3). By creating just and comprehensive immigration policies that balance the needs of refugees and the rights of sovereign citizens of a country, an ethically acceptable solution could potentially be reached. However, I believe that all the benefits lie in a cosmopolitan account while all the weaknesses are within the communitarian account. As such, there’s no need for combination of the two accounts when just the one would work better.

            Communitarianism is a sect of philosophy that focuses on the relationship between individuals and the community they are part of. It stresses the idea of humans as innately social creatures that seek out relations with others. Form these relations and communities, individuals gain a sense of identity and belonging which contributes to their own personal agency. In terms of migration, communitarians tend to place greater value on nationality and geography. This means more restrictive border control, but also immigration policies that do not split families apart as well as more comprehensive paths to citizenship. Cosmopolitans are people that believe all humans belong to the same global community, regardless of nationality, geography, or citizenship. They see issues, regardless of if they are happening on a global or more localized scale, to be something that the world must deal with together.  Cosmopolitans then on the other hand tend to be more supportive of open borders. This is particularly true for welfare cosmopolitans in that all nations have a responsibility to help resettle refugees. It is also particularly true for libertarian cosmopolitans because they believe freedom to come and go from different parts of the world is a human liberty that can and should be maximized through open borders (Ingram 2).

            Currently, humanitarian laws only require states to offer sanctuary to the politically oppressed. Not only that, but the actual method of ‘helping’ refugees is left un-specified. This leads to a lot of leeway. Wealthy use to their advantage to shrink their responsibilities and avoid accepting refugees into their country (16). Part of the reason that there is such a large refugee crisis, beyond sheer numbers, is due to this “failure of states and international relief agencies to resolve a legal tension between rights of sovereignty and human rights of refugees” (Ingram 7). Trying to respect sovereign nations right’s to create their own laws, a communitarian worry, leads to the lack of specificity and subsequently action for taking care of refugees, are more traditionally cosmopolitan worry (8). By synthesizing the two theories though, Ingram hopes to both respect the sovereign rights of nations and provide sanctuary for both political and economic refugees. 

            Personally, I’m not sure these two things are actually synthesizable. Having less restrictive borders, or creating “graduated or disaggregated rights of citizenship” (Ingram 3), and respecting the sovereign right of a country seem to be two increasingly mutually exclusive goals. Society is becoming more and more isolationist and xenophobic. If immigration policy were to be left to the citizens of a country, its very unlikely that they would actually vote for and create these new paths to citizenship. This is very clear from President Trump’s election and the anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican platforms on which he carried his campaign. It’s clear also from Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU) in order to avoid illegal immigrants from the Middle East entering the EU via Turkey. The popularity of Le Pen during France’s election season may also come to be an example of this increasingly xenophobic world. It’s unlikely that less strict immigration policies are going to be created in this political atmosphere. If on the one hand we have refugees needing to leave their country enter another one, but on the other we have that country voting, as is their democratic ‘right’, to not let them in – then there’s an impasse.

            If the two goals are mutually exclusive, then we would have to take either a cosmopolitan stance or a communitarian stance. The best way to respect the human rights of refugees is to take the cosmopolitan approach and have open borders. In essence, it makes no sense to force people to stay in a place that will very likely lead to their death. Two examples are the genocides of Rwanda and Sudan, which led to 800,000 and 500,000 deaths respectively (Goldin 154). To even entertain the idea of forcing someone to return to their countries under those circumstances is absurd. Likewise, horrific economic circumstances and extremely low standards of living can lead just as certainly to death. If countries are unanimously disallowing refugees to enter their country, it is equal to forcing them to stay in the unsafe situation. Having restrictive borders is the same as keeping refugees out, which is the same as forcing them to stay. Refugees should have the full right to remove themselves from bodily harm. Even if some nations were open to immigrants and refugees such that they would have options of countries to go to, most likely this would come from the countries least able to actually handle an influx of refugees. Completely opening borders would allow for a shared responsibility. This is not to say that even with open borders all people would even be able to leave an unsafe country, so it would certainly not fully fix whatever problem was occurring – be in gang warfare, government and rebel conflict, or economic problems. But open borders does not have to imply that no actions towards stability in a region are to be attempted. Allowing those who can leave the legality to as well is beneficial. (Carens 261).

            Ingram writes that “the (il)legality of migration has no bearing on the moral merits of whether or not a refugee should be granted sanctuary” (Ingram 15). Likewise then, neither should sovereign rights.  If refugee rights, which are simply human rights, are non negotiable and universal, it makes no sense to leave them in the hands of the citizens of a country. Whether or not a country wants to or does not want to provide sanctuary has no bearing on the moral right a refugee has to sanctuary. Furthermore, if in some cased illegally entering a country is to be excused due to the extreme economic or political circumstances of the refugees, then that means some kind of line has to be drawn. These lines almost always end up being arbitrary and open for debate. Looking at it this way, its obvious that a refugee’s right to safety and any humans right

            In general, I think the discussion of “cosmopolitan human rights…against the communitarian democratic rights of sovereign peoples” (Ingram 6), seems to be textbook definition of injustice. Injustice occurs when a person or peoples gain benefits simply based on where they were born or the some other arbitrary factor. In Rawlsian terms, justice is when “in all parts of society there are to roughly the same prospects of achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed” (Rawls 44). The claim that someone should have the power to determine if another person can enter their country simply because they were born there is dubious at best. When we take into account that many immigrants attempting to enter a country are classified refugees attempting to escape bona fide economic, political, or social peril, it is clearly unjust. That strangers would have a specific right to determine another person’s ability to maintain basic rights makes no sense. So even conversation of democratic rights of a sovereign people against the human rights of refugees directly implies a form of injustice. If we were to think of it in terms of Rawls’ veil of ignorance, it is clear that we would agree to open borders (Carens 259). No one would want to risk the chance that they could potentially be born into a unstable nation instead of an wealthier or more stable one and then find themselves unable to leave.

            Ingram does point out some weaknesses of the cosmopolitan open borders approach. Constantly relocating refugees does not take into account the sense of belonging that is lost from this relocation and displacement. A resulting loss of self-esteem and loss of recognition can result in a loss of agency (Ingram 37). Having more restrictive border can creat a greater sense of identity and belonging, which is essential to human functioning. Open borders also creates a ‘brain drain’ on a country. This is when professionals and skilled individuals leave a country, which can undermine development in that country (Goldin 149). Not relocating refugees but instead creating camps in their country of origin also forces the root cause of economic or political problems to be fixed (Ingram 1). Many people also believe that hosting refugees can create large burdens on countries as well as “further [strain] their political relationship with the country generating the refugees” (Ingram 21).

            Lastly, there is the ever present worry of culture. If there were no borders, westernization of the global community may be much more likely. Displacement of a peoples across the globe could lead not just to a loss of belonging but to a loss of their culture. In his essay “The Hispanic Problem”, Samuel Huntington points out that the influx of Hispanic immigrants affect “the United States in two Significant ways: Important portions of the country become predominantly Hispanic in language and culture, and the nation as a whole becomes bilingual and bicultural” (Huntington 40). He writes that Mexicans fail to assimilate into American culture in such a way that America’s own culture is at risk. He also points out that they lag behind in education, economic status, and income. (37). Though Huntington is only talking about the Mexican-American border, it is still a result that many people think could happen from fully open borders. 

            I think that any weaknesses of a cosmopolitan stance cannot stand against the results of communitarian restrictive borders. Goldin points out that a brain drain is not necessarily a bad things, saying that “the ability of graduates and professionals to work in other countries can also lead to high levels of provision of professional education (stimulated by the desire to migrate), return migration (which brings new technologies and skills), and strong networks with diasporas” (Goldin 149). Importantly, open borders not only allows people to leave their country, it allows them to return as well. As for creating burdens on other countries, I think Bryan Caplan from Time puts it best: “Immigrants are rarely charity cases” (Caplan). Though refugees and immigrants may need assistance at first in finding places to live, assimilating to an entirely new country, and possibly needing to learn an entirely new language, immigrants and refugees want to work. Often they take the jobs that Americans do not want for very little pay and long hours. Incoming refugees and immigrants means more people working, which means a better economy. This actually creates less of a burden for a country. Furthermore, if immigrants coming in can work legally, that creates even more tax revenue for a country (Caplan).

            For belonging, if we think about it in Maslowian terms, physiological and safety needs are prior to needs of belonging. Those whose physiological needs are left unmet would include economic refugees and immigrants attempting to escape economic strife. If someone cannot afford food or does not have access to clean water, it is not a surprise that they might choose to leave their country. Likewise, political refugees are those who’s safety needs could not be met. Belonging is obviously extremely important, but it seems silly to compare it to potential death for those living in warzones. More so, I think open borders could actively change the rhetoric surrounding immigrants and refugees. With open borders, there would be no illegals or aliens or refugees. The “treatment of undocumented migrants as outcasts and criminals” (Ingram 1) that Ingram worries about could lessen since immigrants would no longer even be criminals. Hopefully, with time, the ideology surrounding opinions on this topic could change. Later generations could take for granted and accept as the norm the spread and diversity of people across the world the same way current generations accept immigration policy and closed borders as the norm. This could go a long way towards recognition of immigrants and refugees and the corresponding self-esteem and personal agency.

            I do not think that open borders would destroy identity either. Ingram points out that, “the communitarian privilege of solidarity undervalues the human rights of migrants and exaggerates the degrees to which communal relationships require restrictive borders” (Ingram 5). The United States has open borders across states and the EU has open borders across most of Europe but people still identify with their home country despite where they may live. Student at Loyola that are from all across the world or the country still easily identify with their own state or country of origin.

             As for culture, economic globalization is the biggest factor bringing the world towards a monoculture. If it’s a road the world is going down, it will occur regardless of open or closed borders. However, I personally don’t think that is where we are heading. Like the EU, we could have open borders and retain a multiplicity of cultures. Obviously, being forced to leave a home as opposed to leaving of your own free is never going to be a good thing in the way that any forced thing never is. But I think open borders could both ease the sting by creating a stronger sense recognition of immigrants as humans instead of aliens and provide an alternative to living in extremely poor economic and political situations at the same time.

            Not only that, I think open borders would not destroy cultures but help create a more culturally diverse yet integrated global community. Through open borders, the world can become more of the quilt of different cultures, identities and backgrounds. Some people, such as Huntington, see this as a bad thing, but I disagree. Diversity is very beneficial, especially for younger children but also for all people. Interacting with different people from different walks of life helps individuals develop open-mindedness. It helps break down the sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ that can lead to conflicts. When a community, be it the work place, the government, a neighborhood, or any other community, has diversity, problems can be looked at from many different viewpoints to find solutions that a group of only one ethnicity or nationality maybe would not have found. Likewise, by facilitating that openness, open borders could contribute to combating discrimination based on race or religion. Fernandez outlines his entire theory on how an immigration from Central and South America would actually be very beneficial for the United States in terms of racism in his essay “La Raza and the Cosmic Race”. In it, he descries how due to the differences in history and patterns of settlement, led to very different views on race. For example, the United States prescribes to the one-drop rule for considering someone black while Latin America countries had for more intermarriage  and racial mixture which led to a much different understanding of race (Fernandez). Integrating this view point wouldn’t fix institutional racism but it could help towards bridging America’s racial tension.

            Though it’s a nice thought, open borders would not fix all of our problems. In fact, it probably wouldn’t even fix most of them. There is still the issue of the affluent countries being partly or even mostly responsible for political and economic instability in across the world. That we could be directly responsible for the situations refugees find themselves fleeing and then deny them access into our country is absurd. But for any instability, open border would not fix the root causes. That is not to say that there isn’t a strong moral case for open borders. That is also not to say open borders would not be beneficial to the world as a whole. I don’t think that open borders is overly idealist either. If citizens slowly work towards changing mindsets on immigrants and de-bunking many of the myths that surround these migrants and refugees, I think open borders is possible sometime in the future. It wouldn’t happen all at once, but if citizens steadily vote more pro-immigration, immigration policies could start to become less and less restrictive. That is a road we can plausibly put ourselves on that could eventually lead to open borders some time in the future.

            In the end, I think the case for open borders is as simple as the fact that human rights simply cannot be weighed against democratic rights. It maximizes liberty. It is beneficial to the global community because it could lead to more people working, more diversity, and less deaths due to murder, poverty related causes, or unsafe border crossing techniques. And regardless of benefits to individuals or the global world, open borders meets a necessary moral standard for basic human life, respect, and decency.

Works Cited

Caplan, Bryan. “The Case for Open Borders”. Time. Time. Oct. 7 2015. Web. May 3, 2017.

Carens, Joseph. “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders”. The Review of Politics.

(1987): 251-273. JSTOR. Web. 3 May. 2017.

Fernandez. “La Raza and the Cosmic Race”.

Goldin, Ian. The Pursuit of Development: Economic Growth, Social Change, and Ideas. New

York: Oxford University Press. 2016. Print.

Huntington, Samuel. “The Hispanic Challenge.” Foreign Policy. (2004): 30-45. JSTOR. Web. 3

May 2017.

Ingram, David. “World Crisis and Underdevelopment”.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 2005. Print.