Warning lots of rambling. A very interesting topic Camoscato. I am for open borders and I do believe individuals have the right to decide where they wish to live. To answer the question... hmmm... stats say that only about 3% of the entire population is living in a country different from the one of their birth so being a migrant is an exception. Immigrants are typically young, healthy and educated. It also doesn't make sense to pay thousands of dollars to move abroad just to mooch off 60 quid a week in job seekers allowance--hint, migrants don't move for benefits, they move to make real money. It takes a special, enterprising person to move away. Unfortunately because of the lack of recognition of job experience or education, many workers take jobs they're well over-qualified for. Fortunately, you see enterprising spirit when many of these workers get tired of wage-labor and become their own bosses and open small businesses.
I think the case for Americans (generally more pro-capitalist) is especially funny since those who seem to despise socialism almost always employ a nanny-state opinion of 'keep 'em out!' You'd think they'd be more open to the idea of employer liberty (freedom to hire who they want and see fit), free competition for the best workers, allowing workers to choose where they want to work, and allowing their own community to assess their needs rather than the government. Economically I'm left leaning, but I also think my work place and my employers have a better ability to decide who they want to hire rather than some whigs in Washington or Parliament
Passports and migration controls are only about one hundred years old so I can't see why people think they're natural and fundamental to nations. I also believe people who fear open borders fear their first world countries will be 'swamped' with poor people who will steal all the welfare, enact shariah law and maim people with red eye beams as the amazing EDL guy has prophesized. There is legitimate concern for social institutions and that 'so many' will move in and bring their inflexible social beliefs and change everything--even among people who speak favorably of open migration. It's been explained to me before as Country A has open borders so citizens from Country B swamp in, change major opinion and turn Country A like Country B.
However, that doesn't make practical sense to me. Back when the EU expanded, only three EU countries allowed the emerging Eastern European countries full access to their labor markets, Sweden, Ireland and the UK. I know some DM readers will say they were 'swamped' but how can that be the case? The misguided collective term 'Eastern Europeans' is not homogenous in language or culture. The UK still has a firm British identity, it hasn't become a third world country, they still have the NHS, they still have public housing, they still eat fish & chips, etc. Yes, there is the issue of social institutions feeling pressure from the initial swell in population. Fair enough, but studies show those institutions adjust in time, especially from a larger pool of tax payers.
There might even be an initial 'swamp' but even with Eastern Europeans, the numbers coming to the UK have slowed. I've read articles and studies (I still have them if anyone is interested...) that compare the German experience with Eastern European migrants (they waited until 2007 for open access) with Britain. Guess what? The workers aren't moving there in 'heaps' like the Germans thought. Why? Possibly because over the years of being in the EU and with workers moving to the UK, Ireland and Sweden conditions have improved in countries like Poland. Why would a Polish worker who has found full time work in improved conditions want to take a temporary part time job in Germany? Yep, the UK is still the number one destination for E. Europeans but I would blame a lot of that on the draw of opportunity of London--as an EU friend of mine said, you have to go, because it's
London. Also work conditions and communities for E. Europeans have improved and grown in the UK. When the kiddies born in Britain grow up, there will be more bilingual British workers who can push British business in E. Europe. Is that a bad thing?
Economic nationalism is funny to me as are the people who believe it--I believe it's multiculturalism and the wealth of ideas that create innovation. Silicon Valley--beckon of innovation, draws the best talent from around the world, VERY diverse. Someone from a completely different background from Americans, say Korean or Iranian would arguably bring more innovation and different ideas to the table than someone more similar like Canadian or British. Why do cities like New York and London draw more people than say Berlin or Tokyo? Philipe Legrain, a renowned scholar on immigration, says that a more insular city like Tokyo cannot achieve the financial powerhouse or even romantic cosmopolitan status of NYC or LDN unless it becomes more multicultural. Also, with English being the global lingua franca, those cities and countries have that advantage, since most kids aren't encouraged to learn Japanese or German. Also migrants might feel a sense of longevity in their investment in moving to a migrant country (AU, CA, US, UK) rather than a more insular country. They're more likely to start businesses, buy homes, investment money in places they'll expect to be accepted within society.
One thing most scholars say on this topic is that only one or a handful of countries can't enact open border policies. I think it will have to happen progressively in regions of the world with regional cohesion and lax nationality and immigration laws. I used to sharper with these details, being out of school for a year has done the trick... but I know regions of South America and Western Africa are allowing free movement of their citizens, why do you think Lagos is the fastest growing city in the world at the moment?
Even more closed societies like South Korea have recently allowed dual citizenship for their citizens. Why? Because of cultural reasons (some disillusionment here and there...again I have article and can discuss further if people are interested...) but they want their citizens abroad who wanted to naturalize in their host countries the ability to keep their SK passports and return some day (and bring their skills and money with them)... Interestingly, what I consider an unexpected consequence of SK new law is that more SK mothers are paying heaps of money for their children to be born in the US and have dual citizenship. I know to the 14th amendment haters out there this is despicable, but I see it as in 18 years we’ll have more SK students and entrepreneurs who will make the US more awesome. If they have a US passport, they’re less likely to emigrate to Canada, Australia or EU (and make those places more awesome). SK has an outstanding standard of living so I doubt they’ll move over to steal our pathetic benefits… Even if they never ever touch US soil again, we all know they’ll have to pay taxes anyway as US citizens, so where do we lose?
I know some people will bark and say ‘oh that ruins the integrity of citizenship!’ IMO, citizenship has already been ruined because it’s systematically built not for integrity and more with state sovereignty and exclusion. Statelessness is not to be encouraged because being stateless makes you less than human. Citizenship somewhere is necessary to have rights, suffrage, right abode and right to emigrate.
Speaking of rights, I'm one of those who is annoyed about the lack of symmetry in our right to exit and enter. In the UN universal declaration of human rights (currently the closest thing recognized as universal human rights) article 13(2) says we as humans have the right to exit and return to our country of origin but it does not specify a right to enter another country. I argue the ability to leave is difficult to exercise without the ability to enter.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13As for arguments against it, the article said (as many others have argued) the welfare state can be protected by setting certain limitations—be it long term residency or citizenship. If the argument against migrants is fear of their use of welfare, that in itself is more of an argument AGAINST the welfare state than it’s protection.
For a micro example, El Paso and Juarez is one city cut in half by some line in the sand, Americans can go to both sides, but Mexicans can’t come to the other. A lot of people fully justify borders by language and cultural barriers, fine fair enough. BUT I think I as a Texan have more in common with the residents of Juarez than those in Maine, so culture and language is not wholly sound for justifying borders. My friends in Spain feel the same about their neighbors in Morocco and the retirees from Sweden and Finland. As someone who lives in a border state, it’s frustrating to be dictated by rules set by politicians thousands of miles away when I know border cities could gain economically from fewer restrictions.
That's all I'll say for now, I apologize for the rambling
