Discuss the view that borders should be open because where one is born is a matter of luck
Dan T
To many, if not most, the notion that a state has discretion over who to admit or exclude from their country seems obvious. Every state has the right to exercise their self-determination to secure the wellbeing of their community and pursue its collective interests. Though states may choose to allow certain immigration and a degree of open borders, they are under no moral obligation to do so. While this reasoning appeals to principles of sovereignty, it rests on assumptions that are at odds with principles of liberal democracy and egalitarianism. Democratic principles hold that all human beings are of equal moral worth, and that restrictions on individual freedoms require legitimate justification. 1 These principles better reflect fundamental moral norms of equality and individual liberty than the sole assertion of state sovereignty, which alone does not provide a moral justification for the restriction of movement. ‘Citizenship in western liberal democracies is the modern equivalent of feudal privilege — an inherited status that greatly enhances one’s life chances.’ 2 Just as entrenched hierarchies such as feudalism, contemporarily considered morally and institutionally correct, were eventually challenged on moral grounds, so too can the arbitrary restrictions imposed by birthright citizenship and state borders be understood as a matter requiring moral scrutiny. Being born in one country rather than another is a matter of luck, not merit, yet this arbitrary fact often determines access to freedom, opportunity and security. Liberal democracies reject as unjust any social hierarchy based on birth, such as race or class, yet they accept global inequalities created by the accident of birthplace. This inconsistency undermines the moral foundation of democratic equality itself. If internal freedoms are guaranteed irrespective of birth, external freedoms should follow, for luck is no less arbitrary across borders than within them. Philosophers like Amartya Sen argue that we should strive for ‘equality of capability’, 3 but only extends this view to those within the political community enclosed within certain borders. Yet closed borders trap people in their circumstances, directly limiting their right to self-determination and access to opportunities these people wish to take advantage of. This directly contradicts the democratic commitment to equality of opportunity, as a citizen of one country is of no less moral consideration than another. As article 13 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of movement is already considered a human right by democratic institutions. 4 Furthermore, it reflects the belief that a person’s place of birth within a country should not determine their access to opportunity, due to the very fact that where one is born is luck-based and comes with certain advantages and disadvantages. Yet, if equality and liberty are universal values, as democratic institutions seek to uphold, why should
1 Mill, J. S. (2002). On Liberty . Dover Publications. 2 Carens, J. (2013) The Ethics of Immigration . New York 3 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ . 4 https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights .
158
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting