Fremde in unserer Mitte: Politische Philosophie der Einwanderung

by David Miller

Rare Book

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Sociology

Paperback

First published May 7, 2016

About the author

David Miller is professor of political theory and official fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford. He is a fellow of the British Academy and the author or editor of fifteen books, including On Nationality and Principles of Social Justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mi...

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Lukas op de Beke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Usually, academic philosophers and democratic majorities in Western liberal democracies are miles apart in matters of immigration. Whereas philosophers like to pontificate free movement, human rights, global equality of opportunity and the open borders necessary to achieve all these things, most ordinary people do not feel the least bound by a moral obligation to let in large amounts of strangers from unfamiliar cultures who seek to improve, and understandably so, their economic prospects.

Strangers in Our Midst is a deviation from this pattern, and one that is long-overdue. It proves that what these majorities feel and think but often struggle to articulate, especially compared to the high-minded and glib rhetoric of their well-educated globalist/progressivist opponents, also withstands more sustained, philosophical scrutiny. So, this book can be seen—though I am not implying it was intended as such—partly as a philosophical vindication of the current, quite restrictive status quo on immigration, which approaches immigration as roughly the prerogative of the nation-state.

To illustrate what this prerogative amounts to, consider the following. If, hypothetically, the Netherlands are distributing immigration quota between a group of Christian Afrikaans-speaking South Africans and a group of Muslim Somalians, then it is free to give more of these to the former if it reasons that it will be easier for this group—after all, they already speak the language and ascribe to a Western religion—to integrate in Dutch society and adopt those aspects of Dutch culture that it deems important. You might suspect that this is about race, which Miller rightly argues is not a permissible selection ground because it is a morally arbitrary fact of someone's identity, but that is false; for, there are as many if not more Black South Africans who speak Afrikaans as their mother tongue as there are white people. (Of course, this does presuppose that the Somalians only have a relatively weak, economic interest in moving to the Netherlands, and not a far stronger interest, e.g., to seek refuge because natural disasters have made their country unliveable or because they are being persecuted by a hateful regime. I will try to return to the question of what to do with refugees at a later date.)

In contrast to other works in the philosophy of immigration like Joseph Carens' The Ethics of Immigration, Strangers in Our Midst adopts a real-world or realist approach. That is, it does not evade the challenges posed by immigration by fleeing into ideal-theory, that is, by presupposing an ideal world in which as a result of very little economic inequality and the absence of oppressive regimes there would not be any large flows of immigrants to begin with. Obviously, in such a world immigration would not give rise to any problems and philosophers of immigration would soon be out of business. In reality, however, as Miller notes in the introduction, polls suggests that 38% of people living in Sub-Saharan Africa and 21% of people living in the Middle-East would migrate if given the chance. These are truly staggering, disconcerting numbers. Clearly, mass immigration, or the possibility of its occurrence, has to be taken seriously.

I won't give a summary of all the ground that is covered in this book. However, here were some points I found particularly convincing:

— The argument that border controls do not amount to coercion but are merely a form of prevention, on the grounds that, conceptually, coercion means forcing someone to specifically do one particular thing intended by you (e.g., a gunman threatening to kill a bank clerk if she does not hand over the money) whereas prevention means taking away one possible course of action, leaving the agent with an ample amount of other options.
— The distinction between weak (partiality towards compatriots is permitted if reasons can be given) and strong (partiality towards compatriots is never permitted) cosmopolitanism and the dismissal of the latter. According to Miller, weak cosmopolitanism boils down to a broad humanitarianism, which though not entirely toothless (immigrants cannot be turned away without a good explanation, that is, without explaining what sort of costs their entry would involve) does not come close to securing the case for open borders and free movement.
— The rejection of the various arguments for immigration as a human right.
— The defense of a 'thick' account of public culture as well as some degree of cultural (in addition to civic) integration.
— The argument that refugees are to be much more narrowly—and perhaps literally—understood as those people who can only be helped by providing 'refuge', that is, by moving them from their location and not by any other means. That this is far from obvious is shown by the fact that many so-called 'refugees' could be helped, at least in principle, by providing ample protection and shelter in situ and by improving and expanding already existing camps.

In sum, this book shows that immigration is not just a happily-ever-after but that it can generate considerable costs for the receiving country (and sometimes to the country of origin as well, when there is a risk of brain-drain). Consequently, countries can reasonably refuse to shoulder these costs if they have good reasons, one such good reason is if they wish to protect their rich cultural traditions and national identity. To be clear, the reverse is also true: if countries do not care much for their cultural traditions and are happy to see their culture and language be displaced by other, foreign ones, then they are free to pursue corresponding immigration and integration policies.

[Kaleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for my Migration class. I don't feel like writing a long review, as I have written a lot of reaction papers for class. Long story short, Miller believes that states have a right to close their borders, weigh the interests of their own citizens over foreigners, and control their culture through immigration. It's not all bad—he also thinks states have an obligation to help refugees (if not necessarily admit them) and believes you cannot reject refugees on the basis of race or ethnicity.

The weak point of the book was his chapter criticizing open borders. Despite being so radical, open borders is actually a quite strong argument, grounded in principles about equality and freedom that almost everyone shares. Miller just does not effectively criticize open borders.

The equality argument: (1) No one is entitled to privileges because of an accident of birth (feudalism, racism, sexism, all bad!), and (2) our current system entitles people to privileges because of an accident of birth (no one has earned/deserved being born in a wealthy country, obviously).

The freedom argument: (1) The ability to move freely is an important component of human freedom (in fact, the freedom to move within a country is a recognized human right), (2) closed borders restrict freedom (duh), and (3) restrictions on freedom are only justified for some kind of strong reason (think restrictions on freedom of speech and religion; they exist, but they're the exception, not the rule). Miller only devotes one chapter to open borders, and his criticisms just do not land.

However, if you assume Miller's argument for closed borders works, then the rest of his arguments are quite good. Lots of clear writing and well-argued points. His only effective critique of open borders is the risk of brain drain, that was compelling. There's a solid point of the importance of national sovereignty, hence the importance of the anti-colonial movement. Besides that, he just doesn't beat the equality and freedom arguments for open borders.

One more point. Miller says we shouldn't demonize people who support immigration restrictions. Some are racist, of course, but some are "thoughtful social democrats who fear the power of global capitalism and see citizen solidarity as the only countervailing force that can be relied on to oppose it." Brother, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who are these "thoughtful social democrats"? This was written pre-Trump, but still lol.

Quotes

Looking at immigration through the lens of political philosophy involves asking how the principles and values we collectively endorse can be pursued consistently with one another in the light of the best available evidence, including evidence about how far it is possible to change individual behavior and the beliefs and attitudes that lie behind it.

Individual people will react to the presence of a stranger in many different ways, including positively embracing the chance of experiencing and understanding a new way of life; others will be disturbed and respond more negatively. In either case, there is going to be some disruption to existing cultural patterns: new cuisines, new forms of dress, new languages, new religious practices, new ways of using public space.

[Monica · Rating 3 out of 5]

That topic of immigration has taken on unprecedented prominence in recent years. Economic migrants seeking better opportunities, refugees drowning in open seas while fleeing conflict, and irregular migrants who enter illegally all pose challenges to receiving states. What justifications guide decision making, and are these justifications morally defensible?

My initial impression was that David Miller sits at the right of the political spectrum but he claims at the end of the book that his position is that of a social democrat. On reading the book further, I can see that he is examining the issues fairly holistically and rationally. It is difficult to be rational and not be swayed when we see whole boats of refugees drowning at sea, but his point is that there are many different types of immigrants and even different categories of refugees, and that there are different options besides the option of opening up borders too freely.

Miller argues that those seeking entry into any state do not have unfettered rights to do so (as opposed to the hard-lined humanitarian rights position), and that a state has the right to determine who it admits into its borders and lays out the principles which a state can use to shape its decision. He argues that each state’s immigration policy has to be developed alongside and in line with other goals that each society has set for itself - those adopting a multicultural approach would decide differently from those that are relatively homogenous, and those facing skill shortages or falling population would have different considerations.

Looking at the dilemmas that liberal western democracies face, Miller proposes four main values/principles which states can use to decide and defend its immigration policies.

First is the principle of “weak cosmopolitanism” – recognising common humanism broadly but not at the expense of “compatriot partiality” and the rights towards a state’s own citizens. This is opposed to the position of “strong cosmopolitanism” which posits that all humans have equal right to the earth, to equal opportunities, and have a right to migrate anywhere – that is, open international borders. However, Miller’s clarifies that his argument for a state’s right to determine who to admit does not preclude the obligation to admit on humanitarian grounds and states categorically that it is morally wrong for states to cherry-pick only certain individuals (eg skilled professionals) from groups of refugees seeking entry.

Second, is the principle of national self-determination - that state and its citizens have a right to determine its future. Miller posts this question - should national self-determinism be understood as a decision by the majority or recognises the existence of a “people” or nation that thinks collectively and has a shared past and future aspiration that endures over time? If the latter, that the state has a moral defence to decide who it allows to become citizens because immigrants with different culture and beliefs can significantly change the fabric of a society and its future direction if these immigrants become the majority over time.

Third, the value of fairness. That it is fair to expect that those who seek to enter and settle into a state and enjoy rights there also have certain obligations to the state including respecting the conditions on the specific scheme on which they were admitted. Those admitted on a short-term basis, cannot demand to stay permanently and those who were given permanent admission and citizenship have obligations as such. Miller talked about the importance of distinguishing the different groups with their various claims to enter a states’ borders, including different categories of economic migrants, different types of refugees, and also irregular migrants. He argues that distinguishing different groups of immigrants is critical in considering the options available in decision-making since opening borders is not the only choice. For instance, instead of being pressured to admitting entry to refugees who already have temporary sanctuary in another state but have fled because of poor conditions, a state can offer aid to improve conditions in the country that is giving temporary sanctuary.

Fourthly, Miller talks about the principle of an integrated society and the importance of social cohesion and social justice. He clarifies that he is not referring to assimilation, which requires an immigrant to give up all his previous identity and culture, but states that immigrants have to be prepared to give up some aspects of his previous life and embrace the larger national value and identity of the society he is joining as this matters to national self-determination.

Chapter 8 specifically talks about the integration of immigrants. Miller is an advocate of citizenship tests and that tests are justifiable as they a) equip immigrants with the knowledge of language, social, political information and skills for settling in b) provides knowledge of laws and values and c) are equitable since local-borns are obligated to learn these as part of the school curriculum. It is therefore important, and fair to expect, that those seeking to join the society as a permanent member with full rights to be given an incentive to prepare and make an effort, and that the test would serve as an important symbolic signal to the immigrant of the values of the state and society he is joining. However, he admits that citizenship tests do not necessarily mean that immigrants would embrace the receiving state’s values, and that implementing tests also mean dire consequences for those who fail them.

Miller said that there is rarely any definition of integration and proposes integration can be defined at three levels:

a) social integration – involves both formal and informal social and spatial integration, promoting conditions for interactions and creating rich, friendly and respectful relationships.

b) Civic integration – imparting principles, norms and values that guide social and political life in the new country

c) Cultural integration – which Miller admits is more challenging and ambiguous. The lines between a private culture and public culture can be grey and sometimes, even conflicting. What does integration entail when an immigrant is allowed to continue with his religious practise and identity when the different core religious practise and identity of the wider society he is joining is vastly different or even in conflict with his own? While the state cannot be expected to be neutral about this, it can be guided by the following principles in relation to minority groups within the state a) giving fair opportunities (vs “equal” opportunities); b) being even-handed in giving resources and support; and b) giving minority groups equal claim to be listened to.

While this book is quite conceptual and abstract (it is a book on political philosophy, afterall), and I may not always agree with some of the arguments when I react emotionally to the plight of refugees and individuals, I do understand the need for states to make decisions based on the larger good of its citizens.

We do not face the problem of refugees where I live - as we only have economic migrants, and being an island state with short borders the number of irregular migrants are few and far between. But I find the arguments in this book expands my consciousness on the challenges that many countries grapple with as they face the current wave of refugee and immigrant crisis.

I know there will be many, many counter-arguments to Miller's position, and there is no room to go into them here. The justifications that Miller put across are not exactly new. But it is useful to see how he placed before the reader the different contemporary arguments and counter-arguments regarding immigration, admits that there are no easy decisions, and that while a state has the right to decide on who can enter its borders, it also has to be able to provide moral justification to defend its decision.

[PolicemanPrawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A highly academic and abstract treatise by an Oxford professor on the political philosophy of immigration to liberal democracies. It analyses in a rigourous and dispassionate way what obligations we have to compatriots and foreigners, arguments for and against open and closed borders, refugees, economic migrants, migrant rights, and integration. The issue of immigration is one of the most important and controversial of our time, a prime dividing line between the different camps. Intelligent discussion on this topic by the political and media class in the West is non-existent, so this book provides a welcome injection of sense into the debate. How we proceed will play a large role in shaping human history.

It’s worth noting straight off that David Miller’s views place him quite deeply on the right of the political spectrum, by the standards of the Western political and media intelligentsia (though there has been a slight shift recently). Some would even deploy the r-word against him, with writing such as: “The key issue is the kind and the scale of cultural diversity that immigration will introduce. How likely is it that immigrants will form themselves into self-contained groups standing apart from the rest of the society, and if they do, what are the implications for public culture?”, “But the distinction matters because different forms of private culture can usually coexist peacefully, whereas in the case of public culture there needs to be a considerable degree of convergence if the society is going to function without serious conflict. To put it simply, one can have a state made up of meat eaters and vegetarians in roughly equal numbers, but not one similarly composed of democrats and theocrats.” People with these views are usually denounced in the media and by politicians as bigots and literally Hitler. Of course, sensible people don’t take these folk seriously, and academics, while not perfect, are much smarter and independent.

The author’s views on immigration are in fact quite liberal. Much emphasis is placed on the rights of foreigners, though he does concede that some “compatriot partiality” might be appropriate. Miller believes that genuine asylum seekers should have their rights protected, whether by migration or by improving circumstances in the claimant’s country. Countries should work together to ensure that these rights are protected in a way that is fair to the claimant and receiving country. We should be careful about using any selection criteria when deciding which asylum seekers to accept. We are entitled to use some criteria for economic migrants, however, such as the contributory potential of the migrant, but other factors such as race would still be unacceptable. All migrants whether permanent or temporary are entitled to basic rights, although whether they can vote, serve on juries, or access public services would depend on their status. Immigrants have a duty to immigrate, which can be done socially, civically, and culturally, with the latter being ideal but not as compulsory as the others.

I would say the material is well-argued and the conclusions generally sound. It would be helpful if our media and political class could engage in topics in this manner, but that isn’t going to happen as they prefer identity politics and divisive tribalism. Nevertheless, one should approach the book as a citizen of indeterminate nationality at an indeterminate time, in a world where people are much nicer and friendlier than they are now, and not as a resident of Western Europe in 2016 with the reality that has been happening around us. Miller does not or barely discusses the issue of when migration destroys the way of life of a liberal democracy; when it damages values such as freedom of speech and the democratic system itself; when it harms the economy; and when it replaces the native population – and it’s this discussion that is the most important and relevant to have.

[Ellen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this kind of a frustrating read - part of that probably comes from the fact that many of the ethical and policy problems Miller discusses are themselves frustrating, and certainly lack easy or straightforward conclusions. It's pretty comprehensive at outlining various dimensions of immigration philosophy, from the distinction between economic migrants and refugees to dilemmas of integration, even though I don't agree with all of the conclusions. Broadly would disagree with the argument that these conversations have to be divorced from the individual stories of immigration and suffering (thinking holistically rather than thinking interpersonally) -- would argue that rendering this issue impersonal enables the suffering of current migration regimes.

[Harry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think Miller’s argument is strongest once you take for granted that a state has a right to close its borders. If you reject that premise you’ll naturally disagree with the rest of the book.

However even if you do, it is still worth a read because I think his chapter on integration is one of the most thought out pieces on the subject.

[Diana Ghigufa · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was all well and good until we got to the 2015 crisis post scriptum to which all I have to say is: nope.