Do states have the right to limit immigration in order to protect the cultural traditions and practices of their countries?
Daniel O’C
Recent rises in the levels of global immigration, in particular to western European countries and North America, have seen a tsunami of far-right nationalist ideology consume occident politics, with the likes of Reform UK and the AFD gaining great traction. This emergence of what some might deem ‘fascist’ parties has dredged up the persistent debate over whether sovereign states ought to have a ‘right to exclude’ – that is, a moral and legal right to refuse immigrants entry into their state. Whether this refusal can be levied on the grounds of protecting their cultural traditions and practices is a point of contention which many skirt from discussing, for fear of being branded racist or a member of these far- right groups. However, in defining culture as David Miller does: ‘ a common public culture that in part constitutes the political identity of their members, and that serves valuable functions in supporting democracy and other social goals,’ 1 which, importantly, people have an interest in controlling, then it is clear that cultural reasons for a right to exclude are acceptable. Despite that, a culturally based right to exclude must be augmented with the idea that states can only exercise this right in extreme cases for reasons of justice, human rights, and realistic proportionality in immigration policy. A right to exclude on cultural grounds stems from the premise that culture, defined as above, is a feature of society that members wish to protect and cultivate. Culture is an integral part of every society and being able to evidence a cultural continuity across generations, through both language and a community’s physical appearance, is greatly desirable for future members of said community. Following that all states have some form of culture, it is further clear that (a) immigrants will enter with likely different cultural and political values; (b) as a result of living in a new state they will absorb some of the existing culture, and, crucially (c) the culture of the immigrant population will change the existing culture. 2 Cultural change will of course happen as a result of immigration, but surely cultural change occurs anyway. Therefore, limits on immigration on cultural grounds are surely only justified in excluding huge numbers of immigrants to prevent too rapid acculturation. 3 Alas, this argument falls quickly. Even small numbers of immigrants can catalyse huge levels of acculturation, in turn irreparably changing the cultural continuity of a society. Take the example of Quebec: in Quebec, the native language, Quebecois French, is unique to that region. The local government has placed limits on immigration to prevent the extinction of their language, which would leave children without heritage links to their ancestors, and render much important literature illegible, bar in translation. 4 The threat to Quebecois French arises from the prevalence of English as a global language, needed for trade and commerce. Therefore, many people who emigrate to Quebec, some due 1 Miller 2005. 2 Ibid. 3 Perry 1995. 4 The widely accepted assumption here is that the literature loses some authentic quality and beauty when read in translation.
168
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting