Global Ethics: Philosophy
Critical Analysis
The debate of migration is a pressing and relevant issue that is currently being discussed from various perspectives. In a world riddled by warfare and political persecution, the refugee crisis is a prevalent issue with many poignant and passionate arguments arising from both sides of the conversation. Most significantly for the topic of this essay, is the justification and defence of a legitimate State’s right to determine who it associates with. In his co-authored book Debating the Ethics of Immigration: Is There a Right to Exclude?, Christopher Wellman, an American philosopher, puts forward an argument in favour of closed borders. However, throughout this essay three different philosophical theories will be presented that each respectively challenge Wellman’s position.
Wellman’s argument for closed borders can be summarised in a series of premises; as a democracy, legitimate States are entitled to self-determination in the interest of the people who elected their governing body. Self-determination includes the right to decide who the state interacts, collaborates, and associates with, and more importantly, who it doesn’t interact, collaborate, and associate with. Wellman concludes that a state is thus entitled to turn away and reject those who seek entry and residence within their borders under self-determination, regardless of need. His second premise, that state’s have the right to “determine whom (if anyone) they would like to invite into its political community” can be argued to be considered false, and thus the conclusion is inherently flawed. Wellman himself recognises that his final argument is based on conjecture, and this essay will endeavour to disprove it.
John Rawls postulates that most people, without knowing their own personal situation, when asked to choose government principles, would most likely choose the option that allows equal freedom to all as it would be seen as the best scenario were that person in the same situation. He uses this argument to conclude that “as a basic presupposition we should treat all human beings, not just members of our own society as free and equal moral persons”. The purpose of Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” is to negate preconceived societal influences, such as privilege and prejudice, and create a context where the individual focuses purely on the moral consequences. In the context of closed borders, in order for optimum justice, governmental decisions must not be influenced by factors outside one’s control. Just as political rulings should not be influenced by factors such as gender or race, so too should they not be influenced by where you’re born. Thus, Rawls’ philosophy objects to Wellman’s argument in that it denies the moral justifiability of a state’s right to determine who enters and lives within its borders, and that, instead, we should aim towards a “global, not a national, view of the original position”.
However, Rawls’ theory does not account for how his “veil of ignorance” depends on the assumption of a constant moral understanding throughout varying societies and contexts. From his perspective, his postulations rely mainly on societal influences on his own morals and do not account for the non-absolute nature of morals, understood as relativism.
Robert Nozick, a 20th century American philosopher, similar to Rawls, posits notions that can be used to argue against a state’s right to exclude. According to Nozick, the state exists for the purpose of “protecting people within a given territory against violations of their rights”, most importantly their right to acquire and use property. As the state only operates for the purpose of defendings its citizens, it thus has “no right to do anything other than enforce the rights which individuals already enjoy in the state of nature”. This theory hypothesises that the individual’s right to interact with other individuals is the forefront of a state’s purpose to protect, and therefore should not impede these exchanges. Wellman’s argument does not consider the overarching purpose of the state and instead defines it as a separate entity that has control over an area, regardless of the people within it. State control over immigration actually impedes the rights of its inhabitants, as it takes away their autonomy surrounding the entrance and invitation of others into their property. Furthermore, it “pits the claims of the state as a whole against the individual rights of both citizens and foreigners.” Nozick’s theory states that while individuals have the right to exclude others from their own private land, as the state exists to defend this liberty, the state itself does not have the right to restrict immigration.
However, an objection could also be made to this argument as Nozick’s definition of a state could be challenged. Under the right of owning private land and acting freely within that land, individuals have the right to collectivize and govern as a community. Using the same argument as Nozick, this community has the right to self-determination, and thus freedom of association, similar to Wellman’s. Thus, while a state may not have the intrinsic right to exclude, a cooperative movement does, which can lead to restricted immigration.
Finally, from a utilitarian perspective, Wellman’s assumption does not consider or justify why the state’s right to self-determinately reject those seeking entry is greater than the individual’s need to relocate. Utilitarianism states that “moral equality is reflected in the assumption that everyone is to count for one … when utility is calculated”, and Wellman’s argument places a higher value on the citizens within its borders than those who happen to be born outside those borders. Allowing some people access to the benefits of citizenship and residence within a thriving country, while denying others this same right, can not be defended on the basis of egalitarianism. Discrimination based on factors that one cannot control is inherently immoral, meaning that this argument does not morally justify the outright denial of entry. Furthermore, utilitarians argue that an open borders policy is in actuality better for human welfare than operating under a closed border system; the “catastrophe prediction”, a notion that increased immigration will cause the significant depletion of liberal values within a state and negatively impact the economy of state, is purely hypothetical and “no serious study of the consequences of migration has provided any evidence for it”. In fact, many studies have proven the opposite.
Wellman’s argument, while true in its reasoning that states have the right to political self-determination, fails to justify the inclusion of the right to exclude, shown by the three philosophical theories discussed. John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” suggests that the support of closed borders stems only from a position of privilege. Similarly, a utilitarian approach to Wellman’s argument asserts that the advocation of closed borders cannot be morally justified as it does not account each individual, both inside and out of the State’s territory, at an equal and non-partisan level of utility. Finally, Nozick’s definition of a State challenges Wellman’s presumption that these States have the right to exclude, claiming that it exists for the purpose of defending individual rights, and thus should not exclude on a general basis. While each of these theories do have objections, they are minor in comparison to their power against Wellman’s second premise and, as they all conclude on the same point, can be taken as a strong objection against his case for closed borders.