Opening Australia’s borders

But before those of you who are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of yet another argument against immigration get too excited, I should add that I do not think these arguments can be used so easily to this end. One could not credibly employ the arguments I have made against immigration as a solution to poverty and just leave it at that. The two ends of the argument must necessarily go together: one can argue against further immigration on the grounds that it is not an effective strategy of poverty alleviation only if at the same time one makes credible attempts at poverty eradication itself. Otherwise, the charge of serious hypocrisy could be levelled all too easily.

I could push this further and say that, in fact, a state is justified in restricting immigration only if it has done what is in its power to eradicate poverty globally. This is particularly evident when we consider that much of world poverty is not just the result of richer countries’ failure to help, but often the direct result of policies the same rich countries pursue in their own national interest. This connection between poverty and migration is not underlined nearly often enough. When discussing how many migrants and refugees we should let in, hardly anybody points out that often we are directly responsible for the conditions of need that have forced them to flee in the first place. This consideration should dispel the comfortable notion that by letting migrants and refugees in we are doing them a favour, when in reality we might simply be redressing wrongs for which we are, at least partially, responsible.

If a connection between poverty and migration is to be drawn, it ought to be this one. Our discussion of migration policies should be more firmly framed within an assessment of the fairness of the international system of relations and institutions as a whole.
 
This article is not meant as a condemnation of activists who work to further the rights of migrants, especially when such political activism is aimed at ensuring the protection of the rights of migrants who are already here. However, if we are interested in addressing global poverty and inequality, it seems migration is the wrong battle to pick. Activists’ political energies may well be better spent elsewhere. It may be wise to question how much energy we spend trying to get our governments and compatriots to open borders and how much is spent convincing them of the urgency of finding and implementing a permanent solution to world poverty and human rights violations.

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of free movement, this line of argument cannot be a successful strategy either politically or practically to the problems and injustices that underlie so much of our international relations and institutions.