A Question for Immigration Restrictionists
The current refugee surge into Europe has caused a lot of my friends who are immigration restrictionists to say this proves that I am naive.
During the Cold War, we (including most Conservatives) considered it immoral that Communist countries would not let their people leave (Berlin Wall, etc.). Now, however, it is argued by many of these same folks that it is imperative that the Western democracies build walls to keep people out.
So here is a question -- not of practical consequences, but of pure morality. Consider this picture of people being prevented from crossing the border.
Explain to me why this scene is immoral if the wall and police forces were put there by the country at the right (the leaving country) but suddenly moral if the same wall with the same police force were put there by the country on the left (the receiving country). Don't they have exactly the same effect? Same wall -- How are they different?
"So you agree with me ..."
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Then you disagree? Please dispute the hypothetical.
No, I do not care about your hypothetical. It includes too many assumptions that are contrary to our real world.
So you're simply not interested in engaging the ethical question, despite posting in a thread regarding an ethical controversy?
The ethical controversy our fearless leader trolled us with is much simpler and different from the hypothetical you would like to talk about. Not every ethical question you can imagine is on topic here or worth our time.
Hypotheticals are how we identify ethical principles divorced from the emotional baggage and political assumptions of real world situations.
So the question is whether any country could ever have an ethical policy of restricting emigration. This is a sub-issue of the question in the original post. If the answer to the sub-issue is "yes, it could be ethical under certain circumstances" then the answer to the original question is "they are not inherently ethically different, but they might be different in application."
"So the question is whether any country could ever have an ethical policy of restricting emigration."
*Your* question is that. I am not sure & I don't care. Please talk amongst yourself and let us know your conclusion on that. Or not.
That is what you said above. Please explain why the following statement, adapted from yours, is not also valid:
No, you argue it if you like. (I suspect such a situation would not arise; certainly no examples come to mind, unlike my unadapted claim.)
All right, I guess you just prefer to troll but not to discuss. Not sure why you post so prolifically and quickly when you decline to engage in a discussion.
I'll just continue assuming that you have no reason other than your personal preference.
"I guess you just prefer to troll but not to discuss."
No. I prefer to discuss realistic situations, and not do your homework problem of dreaming up workable opposites. Hey, how about this, why don't you work out your hypothetical question and let us know.
No wait, I've already asked, and you just toss it back to me. Who's trolling again?
I already did explain that I do not see any way to distinguish your "interests" justification between immigration and emigration.
You believe that "insider interests" justifies blocking immigration but not emigration, which is the original question. You won't explain how you think they are different, probably because you originally phrased it so broadly that you legitimately cannot.
I didn't offer this distinction, you did. I said it doesn't offer any difference between immigration and emigration, which is the original prompt. You've so far refused to offer any possible difference. So you've justified restricting emigration, but you for some reason don't want to just agree that maybe emigration restrictions are sometimes okay.
"You won't explain how you think they are different"
The former clearly exists. The latter has not been shown even to exist (never mind ethically/justifiably). Big difference, and the burden of proof is on you. Put up or ... you know.
"An answer" doesn't mean it's a good answer. Isn't that why you two are talking? To work out the merits of the answers? If you refuse to engage or even defend your own assertions, then there's no point in anyone talking to you. It just seems like whenever it gets a little hard, you default to "someone already made an argument for me" and "I don't want to play."
How many countries have to remain open before this is no longer true? Several? One other option? What if the only country to allow the refugees in is a war-torn country currently mostly controlled by various factions that want to kill the refugees?
What if every country in the world prohibits immigration from country X, such that everybody in country X must stay there? This roughly describes East Germany, except that East Germans could travel to Russia and other Soviet countries. Doesn't universally prohibited immigration look functionally like prohibited emigration? If the effect of both situations is you can only lawfully live in one country, why does it matter whether the restriction is enforced by the outside or the inside?
They were following the orders of their government and were told that emigration is bad for the country and anybody trying to flee is likely a traitor and spy. Many of them probably thought the patriotic thing was to police the wall for traitors. In a socialist state, the state owns your skills, your labor, and your body, for the good of the whole community. Fleeing over the wall was stealing yourself away from the community. It makes sense, if you assume a socialist legal regime.
Why does he have to show something exists in order for the analogy to work?
If emigration and immigration restrictions for "insider interests" are not analogous, then why not? He did "put up" when he compared the two. If you don't they think they're similar enough to justify the analogy, then by all means, say why. But until you do, the analogy stands.
Your argument is "it's different because it's different." That doesn't explain anything. He's already aware of where the guards are standing. The question is why that location matters.
Yeah, exactly. Frank here is making a false assumption, which that emigration restrictions necessarily violate the interests of citizens. Why? And do emigration restrictions violate the interests of citizens any more than immigration restrictions? If immigration leads to cheaper consumer goods, more affordable hotel stays, and inexpensive home health services for the elderly, then wouldn't keeping immigrants out be contrary to the interests of many citizens?
North Korea, Cuba, East Germany, Soviet Union, to name a few. Tons of countries have interpreted emigration as an act of treason that steals resources from the country being fled. They also interpreted flight as a prelude to espionage or sabotage. Considering that many smart doctors and academics fled communist countries, and that the CIA recruited many emigrants to return home to spy, they weren't entirely wrong.
So given that there are and have been countries that restrict emigration for what they believe is their interests, why does your justification not work for them?
"So given that there are and have been countries that restrict emigration for what they believe is their interests"
See above re. rejecting presumption that a dictatorship represents people's delegated wishes.
Speaking of shoddy metaphors, it's a false analogy to compare immigration to an invasion.
"If immigration leads to cheaper consumer goods ..."
Yes, "if". Make the case to the populace, get the laws changed, bingo.
Yeah, that's a process argument. I know how governments work. I am not talking about 'democracy.' I'm making an ethical argument.
It's a big if whether immigration makes us worse. Of what evidence there is, it's usually pretty weak. It's irrelevant to the discussion, though.
If restricting emigration can be beneficial for citizens, why not do it? Why do you assume it's necessarily against their interests?
And if restricting immigration hurts citizens, then wouldn't it be okay ethically to legalize more of it?
If you want to make the argument utilitarian, then please, engage it.
So just to be clear, you think that a government only needs to serve the interests of its own citizens, not of outsiders, and has no ethical obligations to outsiders, right? And that's why you don't care whether immigration restrictions harm outsiders?
"If restricting emigration can be beneficial for citizens, why not do it?
Why do you assume it's necessarily against their interests?"
... because if it weren't against their interest, it would not have to be mandated.
"you think that a government only needs to serve the interests of its own citizens, not of outsiders"
I wouldn't say "only", but "mainly". I believe this is an uncontroversial position.
This would only be true of the people who tried to leave. Most wouldn't try to leave. Wouldn't they be better served by restricting emigration?
But by your same argument, if employers are mandated not to hire illegal immigrants, wouldn't that suggest it's against their interests and perhaps not a very good idea?
So you've provided a rationale to distinguish between emigration and immigration restrictions, and I've given you countries that claimed emigration hurt their interests, but you won't discuss the issue until I show a country that you believe thought emigration hurt its interests. How can I accept your proffered rationale if you won't explain why it proves anything?
I'll offer you an additional example of restricted emigration - for centuries the English restricted the right of laborers to leave their home towns and get a higher wage elsewhere. If a laborer wanted welfare, he had to go back home to get admittance to a poor house. His new home did not have to support him because he wasn't supposed to have left. These laws were enforced well after England was a democracy, and continued solidly into the 20th century. So we can assume that the English and British public and their leaders thought it was in their interest to punish laborers who left their home towns (i.e. emigrated but stayed within the country). So there's an example of a democratic country that controlled the movement of its own population and did so to protect labor markets and control welfare costs (i.e. for insider interests).
So now that we have an example, explain to me why it was wrong to limit emigration away from your English hometown.
"Most wouldn't try to leave."
How do you know that?
"But by your same argument, if employers are mandated not to hire illegal immigrants, wouldn't that suggest it's against their interests"
Probably, approximately, short-termsy.
"and perhaps not a very good idea?"
Not necessarily.
I'm sorry, your example of a democratic nation preventing emigration consists of laws deterring internal migration? That's not on topic.
I know because it's logistically difficult to relocate to a new country. You might see a slow emptying out, maybe even of a lot of people, but probably not a majority, and probably not right away. Just balance of probability.
If it makes you feel better, though, let's say for this hypothetical that most do not leave. Why shouldn't they control the minority emigrating if it's in their interests?
You keep avoiding this point. If it's in the majority of citizens' interests, is it okay to limit emigration? The conclusion is only true if the premise is true. I am not saying the premise is true, but I am asking you for the purpose of a hypothetical scenario to assume that it is.
And since it mainly serves the interests of insiders, it may ruin the interests of outsiders? For example, a Haitian who works in the US has an economic value 20 times greater than a Haitian in Haiti. May the US government destroy 95% of the economic value of a Haitian, since the Haitian is an outsider?
"May the US government destroy 95% of the economic value of a Haitian, since the Haitian is an outsider?"
It is an unrealized value (so "destroy" is a goofy word choice) that the outsider is not entitled to in the first place, so to that extent "yes". So what?
Sure, it's emigration. You may not leave your home town or county for another. Emigration is the act of migrating out; immigration is the act of migrating in. It's literally emigrating from a subnational jurisdiction.
Let me guess, for some magical reason you only have to engage in a discussion of purely national emigration restricted by a democratic country?
You presume they are not entitled to it, then think it's fine for a government to prohibit them from collecting it.
What if an outsider had 95% of their lifetime net worth, which they already own, in a security deposit box in the US - would it be ethical for the government to prohibit them from ever coming into the country to collect it?
"You may not leave your home town or county for another."
That's not what your blurb said was going on, rather that those leaving their home areas couldn't count on state ("welfare") support in their new location. That sounds relatively uncontroversial.
So, did you misdescribe English history or misapply it to the current topic?
"What if an outsider had 95% of their lifetime net worth ... "
Such a "what if" is loaded with so many silly assumptions that I don't care to play. If you think hard, you will think of cases where people may hold title to assets that they are not permitted to physically touch. The horror! The relevance?
It's a control on emigration, they just didn't usually use raw force to enforce it by the time they were a democracy. They enforced it by cutting off welfare and making it illegal to offer them extra wages. It's equivalent to not having a border patrol or a border fence, but making it illegal to hire immigrants and prohibiting immigrants from getting welfare.
Either way you slice it, it's a legal restriction on leaving your home area intended to make you stay in your home town. An emigration restriction by a democratic country. Now please explain why insider interests wouldn't justify that.
I just want to understand what ethical obligations you think people in one country have towards people in another. It sounds like you don't have any particular principle and just accept the conventional practices.
So it sounds fine to you to condemn people to poverty. And you aren't interested in hypotheticals because you don't care to illuminate any ethical maxims or rules. You prefer custom and convention rather than a philosophically consistent rule. Correct?
"And you aren't interested in hypotheticals because you don't care to illuminate any ethical maxims or rules."
No. I'm not interested in silly hypotheticals.
"You prefer custom and convention rather than a philosophically consistent rule. Correct?"
No. But few philosophically consistent rules come in bite sized absolutes.
"An emigration restriction by a democratic country. ... Now please explain ..."
Sorry, "prohibition of emigration" is still not close enough to "deterring intra-country migration with a combination of reasonable and possibly-reasonable penalties" to bother.
No I' not. I'm saying that your insistence on making a distinction between people from other counties entering this country without the proper legal permission and a person entering your house without legal permission is not only arbitrary but also both nonsensical and completely without a legal basis. Furthermore, I doubt you can get anyone other than a minority of self identifying libertarians and leftist who believe the US is morally inferior to the third world to agree with the premise. If one border is not legitimate, then the other is in doubt. The citizens exclusive rights to certain types of access to their country is just as legitimate as a property owners exclusive rights to certain types of access to their property.
Correct, borders are ethically irrelevant. Humans are the only ethically relevant unit.
I don't know most of you Americans, you're all strangers to me. Why should I prefer Americans over Belgians or Argentines or Koreans? That's all an accident of birth. It makes more sense to privilege people I know versus strangers instead of privileging American strangers over foreign strangers.
"If it's in the majority of citizens' interests, is it okay to limit emigration?"
Probably not even then. But thankfully one doesn't have to overthink this hypothetical, since there appear to exist no examples.
I know you think that's very damning, that you can't find a relatively free country that limits emigration, but since we're dealing with an ethical question, it's hardly relevant to this discussion.
Moreover, I'm glad you've admitted that it's probably not "okay." So, if it isn't, that would beg the question why limiting immigration for insider interests is.
"but since we're dealing with an ethical question, it's hardly relevant"
Of course it's relevant. The details of the "majority of citizens interests" could make all the difference of how defensible such a measure might be. I am humble enough not to assert its nonexistence, but am not going to do your homework.
"So, if it isn't, that would beg the question why limiting immigration for insider interests is."
There are obvious reasons, many times given, for the latter.
There may or may not exist reasons for the former.
Homework means there's some duty to do it. I completely disagree. I think when we're asking ethical questions, we don't need to concern ourselves with real-world circumstances or, if we do, they only matter insofar as they advance or relate to the moral principle we're attempting to establish.
The fact that something has never existed, existed in the past, but not now, has kind of existed or could never exist doesn't matter to the hypothetical. I'm not asking you to evaluate a real-world policy. I'm giving you a controlled environment called a hypothetical to test your moral principles.
For example, I could pose a hypothetical scenario about [insert ethical issue here] and use a Mars colony as my backdrop. Does it matter that we don't have a colony on Mars? Does it matter that I don't have all the details about the colony? No.
Take another example. What if I asked you a hypothetical about child-rearing even though you don't have children? Would that mean you can't answer it because you can't engage in the mental exercise disconnected from your reality?
Hypotheticals illustrate abstract moral points. Since I haven't required you bog yourself down in the details, you don't need to worry about them. Since I haven't claimed that lots of countries are restricting emigration, you don't need to worry about that, either. You only need to know the confines of the scenario and your answer only applies within those confines. So, if you had said that limiting emigration can be justified for inside interests of the majority, I wouldn't be able to accuse you of supporting North Korea's shoot-on-sight emigration policy. That would be disingenuous of me.
I only asked you a simple question. If it's bad for the majority, however you define bad, then is it wrong to limit emigration? You said probably yes, it's wrong.
I understand that you are a literal thinker and that you simply reject being drawn into these discussions when they don't interest you, and that's actually fine with me, but I don't accept any of your notions about what a hypothetical is supposed to look like.
Right, but none of those reasons address this inconsistency.
Please identify the logical inconsistency that concerns you, if any, ideally in the form of contradictory propositions you believe I hold.
Same wall -- How are they different?
People who encounter a wall when trying to enter a country are always free to try somewhere else. Not so with people trying to leave a country.