Immigrants: the market needs them

A policy of “open borders” raises fundamental questions about political representation, the provision of social services and the maintenance of employee’s rights, none of which were adequately dealt with by Legrain. In arraigning racism and xenophobia as the imagined targets of his proselytising, he rhetorically side-steps even more fundamental issues. It is the act of a neo-liberal adopting the pretence of left-cultural progressivism in order to advance an ideologically ambiguous agenda.

During the lecture, Legrain seemed unwilling to engage with opposing ideas and resentful of the implication that he was not a champion of liberal values. He was defensive when confronted with questions about the impact of increased migration on the environment or the challenges posed by including people of different cultures in the community. He answered that these were “political” issues not “immigration” issues, and the latter was not to blame for either.

Similarly, in response to a question about the Paris riots, Legrain responded that these were not riots about race, but riots about poverty and social exclusion. Even if he was correct and some of the rioters were white French nationals, the idea that considerations of ethnicity, class and social exclusion should be isolated from each other is not convincing. In the real world, policy problems do not observe the neat compartmentalisation on which Legrain seems to insist.

Legrain argues that Canada is a model nation due to its acceptance of high numbers of migrants and the strong adherence of both immigrants and residents to liberal values, including tolerance and the rule of law. He suggests that other developing nations should stop clinging desperately to old-fashioned notions of a distinctive national identity and embrace the Canadian model.

Putting to one side a troublingly un-complicated view of Canadian political history, Legrain does not consider the significance of controlling borders for constructions of national identity. Policing borders is possibly the strongest assertion of national identity that remains available to a modern nation. The control of migration is the final (symbolic) bulwark of the state against globalisation.

Canada does welcome large numbers of migrants from developing countries, but selection is a complex bureaucratic process relying on criteria that reveal the kind of person upon whom the nation is willing to bestow the rights and privileges of residency or citizenship. There is little incentive for the Canadian government to abandon its immigration programs because surrendering control does little to enhance legitimacy and removes a vital mechanism for shaping Canadian society.

Legrain concedes that “nation states still matter”, but leaves the reader with no doubt that he believes globalisation will continue until borders are completely porous and communities thoroughly diverse. To resist the breakdown of national borders is futile, so why not accommodate the movement of people that accompanies it?

The reason is that free market globalisation may be inevitable, but that does not make it desirable. Legrain gives up on persuading his audience to his way of thinking, and settles for making shrill and insistent pronouncements about the end of the geopolitical world as we know it. Fortunately, we don’t have to leave it to the market to determine the most efficient and compassionate immigration program for Australia. We may benefit from asking some of Legrain’s questions, but we can discard his simplistic answers.