Do States Have the Right to Exclude Immigrants?

by Christopher Bertram

States claim the right to choose who can come to their country. They put up barriers and expose migrants to deadly journeys. Those who survive are labelled 'illegal' and find themselves vulnerable and unrepresented. The international state system advantages the lucky few born in rich countries and locks others into poor and often repressive ones.

In this book, Christopher Bertram skilfully weaves a lucid exposition of the debates in political philosophy with original insights to argue that migration controls must be justifiable to everyone, including would-be and actual immigrants. Until justice prevails, states have no credible right to exclude and no-one is obliged to obey their immigration rules.

Bertram's analysis powerfully cuts through the fog of political rhetoric that obscures this controversial topic. It will be essential reading for anyone interested in the politics and ethics of migration.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy

140 pages, ebook

First published June 1, 2018

Reviews

[Horza]

Yes, but it needs to be drastically constrained.

Bertram lays out the case that the current system of unilateral state discretion over migration and residence is:

1) inherently unjust, as it is binding on those it excludes while offering no reciprocal obligation;
2) turning the world into a giant prison, regardless of how comfy your current wing might be.

He thinks something should be done about this, arguing that we all should fight framing of migration questions in terms of what is beneficial to states and their citizens, as this inherently privileges already over-mighty state discretion, and work instead towards a framework that is fair to all parties, migrants, citizens and states.

There's a lot of work to do, but this book makes a good argument for taking up the task.

[cardulelia carduelis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm probably one of your classic immigrants. I've lived and/or worked in a multitude of countries for over 15 years either as an EU citizen, or outside the EU as a visa holder. Being in this situation has allowed me to become intimately familiar with the various regulations and hurdles faced by expats and visitors alike. And one thing I learnt very quickly is that having the right passport makes all the difference. A 6-week interview & paperwork process for my visa approval can take over a year for someone from the 'wrong' country, if it gets approved at all.
So I was excited to pick up this short thesis by Bertram, because so much about the immigration situations I've encountered, home & away, leave a lot to be desired.

Unfortunately, despite his carefully worded and defined premise, I felt that the meat of the proposal was lacking and that removing his framework leaves the following points:

- Individual states defining an immigration policy that tends to be more open than closed won't solve the problem.

- Instead, all states must cooperate globally and find a common immigration scheme that allows for free movement and refugees alike, subject to sustainability and natural resources.

- The burden of proof, ideally, would be on the state to show a good reason to exclude the immigrant, not (as it is now) for the immigrant to prove their value to the state.

- In general, people and states should seek a mutually beneficial relationship when it comes to immigration. In that way neither will feel the need to thwart/trick the system, nor to use force or criminalize not adhering to the system, respectively.

I can't say I disagree with any of these points. The problem is that they don't offer any sort of suggestion as to how they might be applied! Part 2 of the book outlines these principles and Bertram suggested that how we reach them from the current political climate would be elaborated in Part 3.
Unfortunately Part 3 is more of the same, only with slightly different wording, quietly urging everyone to come together and work things out. Of course, in an ideal world moving country would be at most a logistics problem, but these principles fail to address both the implementation as well as many of the more mundane issues that cause a resistance to immigration on the ground. A couple of examples of things I would have liked addressed in more detail, that always turn up in current affairs and when people who are in favour of more stringent immigration policies are interviewed: unfairness and culture clash.

Currently, there are a few countries in the EU that have a more generous refugee programme than others. After a few years this has led to native residents of those countries believing that their government is too lax and that they shoulder too much of the burden of these individuals when other should be doing their part (this is a belief also harboured by citizens of countries, such as the UK, that do not in fact bear a fair share of the burden, but that's besides the point). Bertram's solution to this is: that the countries should do what they can to accomadate as many refugees as possible and try not to worry about other countries that are not following this principle, as they may or may not come around in their own time. This feels so unsatisfactory because it gives no incentive to other states to follow suite and why would they other than a sudden onslaught of empathy and humanitarianism, which if they don't have already, why would they suddenly acquire?

And there are also the issues raised by voters opposed to immigration policies, the likes of which led to Brexit, and the recent rise in nationalism in Europe: whether states have the rights to refuse an individual because of culture clash. Most of the refugees seeking asylum in the EU & UK are from middle-eastern and African countries that have less progressive views on the rights of women, members of the LGBTQA+ community, and others who are not straight cis men of the top social class. Likely, many of the people fleeing these countries do not harbour such extreme views but their own values may still be less progressive, or at the very least, different than those of the majority of states in Europe. So how do you handle that? Currently the approach varies country to country, see Germany vs. France's attitudes to face-coverings for example. Should refugees assimilate their destination country's culture and principles entirely, forgoing their home country & culture? Should you check, after some fixed period, that they have assimilated and do hold your values when you don't test your native citizens? Or should they be encouraged to maintain their culture and enrich the society they move to with it? How long should they be resident in a country before they obtain citizenship? None of this is really explored.

Betram outlines these main principles with a prelude in which we consider a thought experiment. During the experiment, citizens should decide on a global immigration policy (that includes refugees as well as voluntary migrants) but without knowing their own race, sexuality, income, class, nationality, etc., which is drawn at random. Unsurprisingly, in this situation, he surmises people will try and make migration as easy for an individual as possible as the people framing the policy have no idea if they will be discriminated by it or not. This felt like such an unnecessary part of the book, it was as if Bertram was trying to justify empathy to someone who had none. Perhaps he felt he had to?
It's not all bad though, the first half of the book lays out quite well what a state is, why immigration policies developed and how they are a relatively new feature of society, and how this has worked out in the past decade or so.
Bertram also makes many good arguments for paving the way for as-free-as-is-reasonably-achievable global migration, not limited to: stateless individuals, the fact that the path to citizenship and contributing to a resident society has such varying timescales depending on the country (just compare the US and Canada!).

But ultimately this book failed to give me enough fodder for the next time I speak to a Brexiteer about my utopian views of globalization and how much better off we'd all be (which I feel in my bones is true but have no practical ideas on how it could be implemented given the heterogenous distributions of wealth, natural resources, and climate globally).
Aside from the opening chapter, the references are to poorly cited books with very little by the way of statistics or numbers to back up the arguments. The message I got from this book is that, when it comes to immigration, there isn't a practical way to go about things, such that they seem fair to both states, citizens, and migrants, without a collective philosophy as to what fairness looks like. Something so self-evident, I'm not sure it bears repeating, let alone reading a book about.

2.5 stars rounded down.

[spen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-argued thesis, although a bit breezy for me.

[Lilybug · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well argued but the citations were odd