)(t'1

( ll \l'l I l{ 7 '

.f

}lE tlf }tlCS ()F lMMl(;RA1'l()N

J o s te r l i L C a n E N s

Migration and MoralitY:

A Liberal EgalitarianPerspective
borcasefor freedom of movementacross
Josephcarens examinesthe liberal egalitarian
he
movement'
such
of
presumptiol i1.th1or
ders.Then, after presentinga casethat createsa
various
evaluated
pr.rurnption. Finally' having
considersargumentsthat might trump that
open
liberal egalitariansshould favor more
that
objections as to tbrce, cor"i, concludes
immigrationPolicies.
chap' I ' sec' 2G' in particularthe discusRe..t*nettdetlReutlittg:social contracttheory'
justice'
sion of Rawls'sprinciplesof distributive

a prerequias both an important liberty in itself and

What must we do to treat all human beings as free
ts tor
presumptlon
the
Thus
site for other tieedoms.
that
and equal moral persons'lThat is the question
restricdefend
would
who
anyone
fiee migrationand
liberal egalitarianismdemandswe ask of all institutions fices a heavy burclenof proof' Nevertheless'
afl-ecting
tions anJ social practices,including those
justified becausethey
restrictionsmay sometimesbe
citizenship,bordersand mi gration'
in the long run or
equality
and
will promote liberty
Like any traditionof moral tliscourse,liberalegalia distinctculpreserve
to
becausethey are necessary
issue
tarianismis filled with conflictingarguments'The
ture or waY of life.
of movementacrossbordershasonly recentlyreceived
major
lind
any sustainedattention,but alreadyonecan
there
,piit, o*ong liberal egalitarians'Some claim
or
shouldbe no restrictionson tieedom of movement'
entitled
almostnone;otherssay that statesare morally
a
to admit or excludewhomeverthey want with only
in
position
t'ewqualifications;still othersadopt some
egalitarLike all thosein the liberal traclition'liberal
to
between.lIn this chapter,therefore,I will not claim
be
should
People
freedorns'2
ians care about human
I will
representthe consensusof the traclition'Instead
to. make their
free to pursue their own projects and
to
otL, rny current view of what anyonecommitted
lives so.long
their
live
they
own choicesabbut how
liberal egalitarianismought to think about mlgratlon'
clairrn
legitimate
ttt"
*itt'
as this does not interfere
lib'
notingalongthe way the major pointsof disagreement
acltlition'
In
likewise'
do
to
of other individuals
I
within the tradition and inclicatingthe placeswhere
oflollll
arecommittedto e9u.al
eralegalitarians
f'eelleastcertainabout my own argument'
be
should
positions
Acces-sto social
Overall,rny positionis this.Liberalegalitarianism
capacities'
by an individual's actual talents and
movement
entailsa deepcommitment to tieedom of
eds''
in B' Barry anclR E' Goodin'
EgalitarianPerspective"'
19
FrornJosephH. Carens."Migration and Morality: A Liberal
Harvesterwheatsheaf'
in tltt, TnmsnutiomlMigratiortol'peiple untl of M.rtet'(Hertfordshire:
Mo,ctnent:Erltit.al Issrres

C . r n r . N s . M i g r a t i o n . r n r l M o r . r l i t r . :A L i b c r a l
[ r g a l i t a r i a np c r s p e c t i v t

z9s

limitedon the basisof arbitrarynativecharacteristics

modernpracticesof citizenshipand statecontrol over
(suchas class,race,or sex).Finally, Iiberal
egalitar_ borderstie peopleto the land of their
birth almost as
ranswant to keepactualeconomic,socialand politi_
effectively.If the feudal practiceswere wrong. what
cal inequalities
assmallaspossible,partlyasa means justifiesthe
modernones?
of realizingequalfi.eedomand equal opportunityand
Somewould respondto this challengeby drawing
partly as a desirableenclin itself..r
a distinctionbetweenfreedomof exit and fieedom of
Freedom of movement is closely connected to
entry and arguingthat the two areasymmetrical.lThe
each of these three concerns.First, the right ro so
former, the right to leave one's own state ought
to
whereyou want to go is itself an importantlie.aoil.
be virtually absolute,precisely becauserestrictions
precisely
It is
this fieedom, and all that this freedom
resemblethe objectionablefeudal practices.But that
makespossible,that is takenaway by imprisonment. does not
imply a right to enter any particularplace.
Second,fieedom of movementis essentialfbr equal_
From a liberal egalitarianperspectivethis answer is
ity of opportunity.You have to be able to move to
clearly unsatisfactoryif entry is so restrictedin most
wherethe opportunitiesare in order to takeadvantage states
that most people who want to leave have no
of them.Third, freedomof movementwould contrib_
place to go. That is certainly the casein the modern
ute to a reduction of political, social and economic
world. The liberal egalitarianbranchof liberalism is
inequalities.Thereare millions of peoplein the Third
sympatheticto the chargethat liberal freedomscan
Worlcltoday who long fbr the fieedom and economic
be empty formalities under some circumstances.
opportunitythey could tind in affluent First World
Liberal egalitarianswant to pay attentionto the con_
countries.Many of them take great risks to come:
ditions (material and other) that make fbrmal free_
Haitians setting off in Ieaky boats, Salvad<lrians doms
meaningfulandeff'ective.So, a right of exit that
being smuggled across the borcler in hot. airless
does not carry with it some reasonableguaranteeof
trucks,Tarnils paying to be set adritt otT the coast
entry will not seemadequate.
of Newfoundland.If the borderswere open, millions
The initial allocationof citizenshipon the basisof
more would move. The exclusion of so many poor
birthplace,parentage,or somecombinationthereofis
and desperatepeople seemshard to justify fiom a
not objectionablefrom a liberal egalitarianperspec_
perspective
thattakesseriouslythe claimsof alt incli_ tive. Indeed
it is morally required becausethitOr"n
vidualsas fiee and equal moral persons.
are born into a community with ties to others that
Considerthe case for fieedom of movement in
should be acknowledged.In principle,however,indilight of the liberal critique of feudal practicesthat
viduals should be free to changetheir membership
deterrnineda person's lif'e chanceson the basis of
at will.
hisor her birth. Citizenshipin rhe modernworld is
Finally, comparefreedomof movementwithin the
a lot like t'eudalstatus in the medieval world. lt
is
state to fieedom of movementacrossstate borders.
assigned
at birth; for the most part it is not subjectto
Like everyfreedominvolving humanaction,tieedom
change
by the individual'swill and efTortst
ond it ho,
of movementis not unlimited,but becauseit is an
a maJorimpactupon that person'slife chances.
To be
important liberty limitations haveto be justified in a
borna citizen of an affluent country like
Canadais
way that givesequalweight to the claims of all. Some
like beingborn into the nobility (even
though many
restrictions on movement are easy to justify, e.g.
belongro the lessernobility). To be
born i citizen
traffic regulationsor a right to exclude others from
poorcounrrylike Bangtadeshis (for most)
like
one's home (assumingeveryonehas a home or a rea_
3f.a
oetngborninto the peasantry
in the Middle Ages.In
sonableopportunity to obtain one). But imagine an
thlscontext.Iirnitingentry
to countrieslike Canada attemptby officials in one
city or county to keepout
*uV of proteuing a birthright privilege.
Liberals
people from another.That sort of restrictionis seen
lt 1
to the way t'eudatismrestricted fi.eedom,
as fundamentally incompatiblewith a commitmenr
l_o]:.1:d
mcludingthe freedotn
of inclividualsto move from
to
free and equal citizenship.Cities and provinces
oneplaceto another
in searchof a better lif'e. But
have borders but not ones that can be used to keep

296

CHAPTER7

'

T H E E T T I I C SO F I M M I G R A T I O N

is not entitled
security.Presumablyan invadingarmy
fiee.movement'
of
grounds
the
to unopporedentry on
because
But thaidoes not entail any real modification
citientitle
not
does
the principle of free movement
the
challenge
to
armies
,.n, ,o oiganize their own
subversives?
about
What
authority ol the stateeither'
to try to
Again, if it is againstthe law tbr citizens
prewould
activity
of
ou""nhro* the state,that kind
peoSo'
outsiders'
to
sumablyjustify refusalof entry
securitycan
ple who posea seriousthreatto national
legitimatelYbe excluded'
to a liberal
A relatedargumentconcernsthe danger
of people
influx
large
egalitarian,.gitn" posedby a
if they do
even
,riho.orn" from non-liberalsocieties'
it another
put
To
not come with any subversiveintent'
individuall
way, are people committed to treating
to admit
obliged
als as free and equal moral persons
to the
close
is
This
peoplewho arenot so committed'?
in
intolerant
the
of
iurnitiu. question of the toleration
(which
I
answer
liberal regimes.One conventional
to
tolerate
accept)is that liberal regimesare obliged
so long as
the intolerant and respect their liberties
maintenance
they do not posean actualthreatto the
pose a threat'
of ilberal institutions.When they do
in order to however,their liberties may be curtailed
imply '
would
pr.r"ru" th" regime.6Here that answer
jusbe
would
ihat restrictionson non-liberalentrants
'
they
that
tifiecl only if one had good reasonto believe
II
regime-if
'
the
would thieaten the liberal character of
it couldbe
admitted.This entailsthe conclusionthat
and
beliefs
i"giti.ute to exclude people for holding
create at
The arguments in the preceding section
are
valluesthat are also held by people who
from a
l"ur, u ir"rurnption for freedom of movement
membersbut only becauseof the presumed
presumption
liberal egalitarianperspective'Can this
tive efTectof their Presence'
is to argue
ever be o=veniden?One possible approach
Would it be justifiable to expel non-liberal
necessaryin
that restrictionson free movementare
iftheir
bers becauseoith"it beliefs and values
in the long
order to promote freedom and equality
threat?
a
i"r, gr"* large enough to constitute
aspectof the
run. On tiris view, free movementis an
betl
t argrieOabove that the radical disjuncture
ideal which we should ultimately
iiU*rut
conven
fteJom of entry and tieedom of exit in
"gutitarian
of open bortry to u"ii"u" but to adopt the practice
thereis.
morality is not justified. Nevertheless'
egalitarian
ders now would jeopardizethose liberal
many
thing to the claim of asymmetry'Under
exist and
lI
institutions and practices that currently
more
stances,the right to leave is much
elsewhere'5
It isr
slow their development
place'
than the right to enter any particular
most of
go
to
This argumenftakesseveralrelatedforms'
in the limiting casewhere thereis nowh-ere
liberal
them focu-singon the needto protectexisting
notedI
as
it. ,*o b.coile equivalent'although
(howeverlmperI
egalitarianculturesand institutions
approximateo
closely
is
case
limiting
that
of national
fJctly realized).First, thereis the question

fieedom of
peoplein or out againsttheir will' Indeed
widely acknowl*ou"rn"n,'tv ithin thenation-stateis
criticized
states-are
and
right,
human
.ag"a u, a basic
by thosewho
even
movement
internal
ioit"t,ti.ring
soverelgnty'
accept the conventional view of state
membership
their
change
to
free
i"opt" on generally
at will'
in sub-nationalpolitical communities
the right to
have
to
people
tor
If it is so important
important
move freely within a state,is it not equally
borders?
state
across
move
to
right
for rt a* to ttuuethe
within a
move
to
want
might
one
Eu"ry ,"uron why
states'
between
moving
for
reason
statemay alsobe a
with
love
in
tall
might
job;
one
O"" tigtt, want a
to
belong
might
one
country;
,or.on! from another
state
native
one's
in
adherents
a religion that has few
to pursueculand riany in another;one might wish
in another
available
only
are
iurut opiottunities that
of
freedom
treats
that
lund. ihe radical disjuncture
and
imperative
moral
a
as
state
movementwithin the
as merely
freedom of movement acrossstateborders
from
sense
no
makes
u rnuu"t of political discretion
and
freedom
the
seliously
u p"ttp"oiu" that takes
equalitYof all individuals'

L.\l{rNs

Migration

real world for many people.Similarly, under many,

perhapsmost circumstances
the right to remain in
a country where one is already a member is rnuch
more fundamentalthan the right to get in. AII of the
tiesthat one createsin the courseof living in a place
nlean that one normally (though not always) has
a
much more vital interestin being able to stay where
one is than in being able to get in somewherenew.
This is not a denigration of rhe imporranceof the
fieedomto move, but rathera claim that the freedom
to remainis even more important.Thus. expulsions
of membersare almost neverjustitiecl from a Iiberal
egalitarianperspective.
Although it is a distractionfrom the threat to lib_
eralismargument,it is worth pausinghere to explore
the inplications of this point about expulsionsfor
the issue of migrant workers and their families.T
In the precedingparagraph,I deliberately used the
'members'
term
rather than .citizens,becausebeins
a memberof a society and having the moral claimi
of a member is not dependentupon having the fbr_
malstatusof a citizen. Indeed,one of the ways states
may act unjustly is by denying citizenshipto people
who are members.When a state admit; people to
live and work in the teritory it governs, it admits
themto mernbershipso long as they stay any signili_
cantperiod of time. It cannot do otherwiseand still
treatthern as free and equal moral persons.Thus
it
is obligedto admit their immediateiamilies as
well
andto openthe doorsto citizenshipto them and
their
families.Even if they do not become citizens,
they
havea right to stay for all of the reasonsdiscussed
in
theprecedingparagraph.So, the statecannot
rightly
expelthem even if circumstanceshave changed
and
it is nolonger advantageous
to havethem.Arid again
m parallelwith the precedingparagraph.
it is much
y:lt..t? deport people who have atreadycome and
settled
thanto refuseentry to new workers.
.
Theseclaims about membershipand
the right to
rmainare not altered even
if the migrant workers
. wereadmitteclunder terms that explicitly
provided
rerurnshouldcircumstances
ctrange.
Liberal
Yr$.I
c8artananism
placeslimits on freedom ol
"on,ru"r,
void any agreemenrsrhar are incompatible
;T.lng
for tpersons.
And
n
rru
unlike
ulrtt[g
lmosr
llust
/vrovrrJ.
:- a , ._
ofl
u
: uE
#.,:::-.1{espeo
clalmsI make in this
chapterabout what liberal

"rnriMoralitr.: A Libe ral Egalitarian l)crspcr.tir.t

297

egalitarianismrequires with respect to migration,

these claims about migrant workers are generally
reflected in the practices of conternporari
liberal
democraticsocieties.
To return to the threat to liberalism argument,
anothervariant fbcusesnot on beliefsand vJues
but
on sheer numbers. Given the size of the potential
demand,if a r-ichcountry like Canadaor th;
United
Stateswere to open its borders,the number of
those
coming might overwhelm the capacity of the
soci_
ety to cope, leading to chaos and a breakdown
of
public order. The risk would be especially
great if
only one or two of the rich countries*"."
L op"n
their borders.One cannot assumethat the potential
immigrants would see the danger and refrain
fiom
coming becauseof the time lag betweencause
and
effect, becauseof collectiveaction problems,
and so
on. Call this the public order problem. Note that
the
'public
order' is not equivalentto the welfare state
or whateverpublic policies are currently in place.
It
is a minimalist standard,referring only to the
marn_
tenanceof law and order. A threat to public
order
could be used to justify restrictionson immieration
on groundsthat are compatiblewith respectin!
"u.ry
individual as a free and equal moral peison,b*ecause
the breakdown of public order makes everyone
worse ofT in terms of both liberty and welfare.
In
some ways, this is reminiscentof Garrett Hardin,s
famouslifeboat ethicsargument.sIt doesno one
any
good to take so many people into the boat that
ir is
swampedand everyonedrowns.
Even if one acceptsall of the argumentsabove
as sourcesof possibleconstrainton entry, the basic
commitment to free movementas the fundamental
goal and underlyingprinciple remainsintact.
Jusr as
thosein a lifeboat are positively obliged to take in
as
many as they can without jeopardizing the safety of
the boat as a whole (a point that those fond of
this
analogyoften neglect),rhestateis obligedto admir
as
many of thoseseekingentry as it can without
ieopar_
dizing nationalsecurity.publicorderand the inoint"_
nanceof liberal institutions.
One obvious danger,however,is that an expan_
.
sive interpretationof the criteria in the preceding
argumentswill open the door to a flood of restric_
tions. For example, the United Stateshas used the

CliAPl'E.l{ 7

'

fHir I:-fHlCSOF lN'lN'l1(;lLA-flC)N

entry (eventor
nationalsecurityjustification to deny
as homosexutemporary visits) to people identified
do
whose,views
people
of
sorts
all
to
olr,'a, w.ll as
And
ideology'
noi .ontort to the reigning American
economic
state's
the
to
linked
is
iinational security
costsconeconomic
any
is).
(as
otlen
it
oerformance
as threatening
n..,"4 with immigration can be seen
nineteenth
the
in
Exclusionists
nationirl security.
of
dangers
the
cited
States
."n,uty in the United
grounds
as
societies
immigration fiom non-liberal
Europeand
i.t f..""pi"g out Catholicsand Jewsfrom
had
Australia
and
Canada
all Asians-andAfiicans'
(Today
grounds'
similar
on
restrictions
"ornpuruUl"
main target
Islamic fundamentalismseemsto be the
And' of
values')
of those wonied about non-liberal
in
order
public
to
threat
a
course,some people see
They
system'
social
a
on
any new demand placed
in a lif'e*un, o safety margin of lifty empty places
boat built for sixtY.
not
Despite these sad examples' one should
theof
level
the
at
least
exclude proper concerns,at
and
ory, becausethey are subject to exaggeration
between
distinguish
to
abure in practice.The task is
sorts of
reasonableand unreasonableuses of these
that
acknowledging
in
it
arguments.As Rawls puts
of
sake
the
for
restricted
tif,erties may sometimesbe
possibilhypothetical
public ordei and security,the
be a
ity of u threat is not enough'Ratherthere-lnust
'reasonableexpectation'that damage will occur in
has
the absenceof restrictionsand the expectation
'evidence and ways of reasoning
to be based on
to all
acceptableto all'.e The same stricturesapply
along
immigration
on
attemptsto justify restrictions
examples
the lines sketchedabove' and none of the
restricof
use
cited is really justi{ied as a reasonable

erode the
system.At the least' this reaction might
that
identilication
,"n*" nf mutuality and commttnity
programmes
makes egalitarian and redistributive
threaten
politically possible.At the worse' it might
glance
A
it',e Uori" liberal democratic framework'
this
that
clear
it
at current Europeanpolitics makes
extreme
countries'
threat is all too real. In several
so veiled
right-wing parties, using veiled and not
ground'
gained
,u".ir, unJ neo-fascistappeals,have
current
to
primarily.it seems,by makingopposition
in
element
key
and future immigration a
irn.nigrantt
-platforms.
borders
the
In this context, to open
their
well provokea political reactionthat
might
no*
rnor"
other
would quickly slam the doors shut and damage
well'
as
liberal egalitarianinstitutionsand policies
Would this justify restrictions on immigration
answer
from a liberal egalitarianperspective?The'perhaps'
'no' at the level of principle and
must be
that the
at the level of practice' I am assuminghere
yet unspeciclaims to excludedo not reston someas
we are dealthen
hypothesis
By
argument.
fied valid
ing with a casein which restrictionson immigration
in
wJuld not be justified if one took a perspective
permoral
equal
and
fiee
as
regarded
were
which all
putting
sons.Those advocatingexclttsionare either
(e'g'
raclst
unjust
intrinsically
are
that
forward claims
(e'g'
their
concerns
legitimate
are
that
ones
claims) or
claimsof
the
by
outweighed
but
interests)
economic
their right
the potentialimmigrants(both in terms of
economic
own
their
of
in
terms
and
to free movement
'justification' tor restrictionsis simply
interests).The
that if no concessionsare made to the exclusionists
way it
they may make things even worse' Put that
of prinis ctearty no justification at all at the level
are
ciple thoughone cannotsaythat suchconcesslons

tive criteria.
that is
A variation of the preceding arguments
problematic
more
basedon real concernsbut is much
might
from a liberal egalitarianperspectiveis what
the
view'
this
On
be called the backlashargument'
not
is
principles
commitment to liberal egalitarian
citizens
Current
very secureeven in liberal societies'
miitrt oUjectto the ethnic and cultural characteristics
in the
of new immigrants,fear them as competitors
burdens
economic
workplace, and perceivethem as
welfare
placing excessivedemandsupon the social

neverprudentin Practice'
whether 'r,
Compare this issue to such questions as
for th! i
compensated
been
have
should
slaveowners
abolished':
loss of their property when slavery was
b9e1..;
whetherholdersof feudal privilege shouldhave
' "shed
uoot-lr-,
compensatedwhen those privileges *ttt
been
have
should
segregation
and whether

;;;ilttr'ili,t'

:^rr?.iiu"rate
thanall
rather
spee<l')

issuesoncGl
It once.All of thesequestionswere live
old
in potiticat contextswheredefendersof the

stlit naa sutficientpoliticalpowerto resist

L ru.Ns

. l \ { i g r a t i ' ' a ' r l M , r . r l i t r . : A l _ i l >re: r ] [ J g a l i t . r r i a ln) c r s P c r . t i r e

and perhapseven reverseit if pressecltoo hard. In

noneof thesecases.it seemsto me. wereconcessions
requiredas a matterof principle,but in any of them
they may havebeendef'ensiblein practiceas the best
thatcould be achievedunderthe circumstances.
The
latter seemsan applopriatemorarlguide to political
action assuminga definition of the good that takes
into account independentethical constraintsupon
ilcrtion.And so the backlashargument,too, may provide groundsof this lirnited sort fbr restrictionsin
somecases.
Finally, there are argumentsfbr restriction that
fircr,rsnot on the protection of liberal egalitarian
institutionsand practicesin states that currently
havethem but on their developmentelsewhereand
on the reductionof global inequalities.
Accordingto
'brain
the
drain' hypothesis,the movementof people fiom the Third World to the First World actually
global inequalitiesbecausethe best eduincreases
cntecland most talentedare among the most likely to
nrovein orderto take advantageof the greaterprot-essionaland economicopportunitiesin affluentsocieties. Even among the poor, it is the most energetic
and ambitious who move, and r"rsuallypeople from
the lower middle classesrather than the worst ofT
becuusethe latter do not have the resourcesneeded
fbr mi-uration.Thus rnigrationactually involves a
transt'erof human resourcesfiom poor countriesto
rich ones.This often involvesthe loss of actual,econornicinvestmentsin the fbrm of scarceand costly
expenditureson education and training, but the
greatest
cost is the loss of peoplewith the capacity
to contlibuteto the transformationof their country's
conclition.Freer movementwould only make the
sttuationworse, making developmentin the Third
World and a reductionof global inequalitieseven
moreunlikelythan it is now.
A variantof this argumentstresses
politicsrather
thaneconomics,drawing attentionto the way in
whicheasyexit may act as a sat'etyvalve fbr a repressiveregirne.It may be easierto silencedomestic
oppositionby sendingit abroadthan by suppressing
it internally.
Anclif exit is an easyoption,thoseliving
underl lepressiveregime rnay devotetheir energies
to gettingout rather than to transfbrmingthe svstem
underwhich they live.

On the whole, I think theseare the sorts of argumentsthat have given utilitarianisma bad name in
sorxequarters,although,as is otien the case.I do not
think a clearthinkingutilitarianwould suppor.t
thenr.
What is particularly objectionableis the way they
propose to extract benefits fbr some people by, in
eff'ect,imprisoning others.As is so otten the casein
discnssingmigration,it is helpful to colrpare inter.nal
migration with migration acrossstateborders.Many
statessuffer from severeregional inequalitiesand it
is often suggestedthat these inequalitiesare made
worseby the movementof the brightest,best-trained
people fiom poor regionsto rich ones - an internal
braindrain.But what would we think if Canadatried
to cope with its regionaldisparitiesby prohibiring
peopleftorn moving fiom Newfbundlandto Onrario.
or if Italy limited migration fiom Naples to Milan'l
The regional dift'erencesare a seriousproblem that
states have a duty to address,but they would be
wrong to try to solve this problem by limiting the
basic fieedomsof their citizens.
So, tooo with the international brain drain.
Internationalinequality is a seriousmoral problem,
but restricting movement is not a morally permissible tactic tirr dealing with it. And that assumesthat
it would be a usefultactic. In f'act.the benelitsthemselvesareextremelyproblematic.Emigrantscontribute in various ways to their communitiesof origin
(otien through direct financial remittances),and it is
far fiom clear that making them stay home wor.rld
lead to the desiredeconomic and political transtbrmation. On the other hand. the cost to those denied
permissionto leaveis clear and direct.Limitations
of important fieedorns should never be undertaken
lightly. In the face of great uncertaintyabout their
efTectsthey should not be undertakenat all.
What about linancial compensationfor the costs
of education and training? Here it is important to
distinguish between basic education and advanced
educationor training. For the former no compensation is due. Everyoneis entitledto basiceducation,
and children cannot enter into binding contracts.
Whateverinvestmentsa society ntakesin its young,
it cannotrightly requiredirect repayment.Advanced
training is somewhatdifferent both becauseit is provided only to a f'ew and becausethose receiving it

100

'
CtlAPl'trlt 7

't

lON
l l f r t r ' ll l l C S ( ) F l N ' l N ' { l ( ; l { ' \ ' t

and
It would be both paternalistic
of destination'?
tbr
responsibility
assume
to
were
say that they
are normally old enough
hypocliticaltbr rich countriesto
by the state'espepotlr ones otlt'
the
their choices.lf it is subsidized
help
to
.ioring their borclels
it
t'ew.resources'
conparatively
state with
abotttthe lela;i;liy
Moreover.given nly irrgurnentsabove
" reasonableto expect the recipients,tocom'lt rightof
rnay'be
ii""rrtip b"i*."n tie rightof exit "lq
of servicein the counthe goal of
with
so
clo
,rliirft"rnr.rues to a few years
to
i woulcl be wrong
training' But these
"nny, potentialemigrantsany placeto go'
iry o, ,o repay the cost'sof the
and reasonable' Aenying
,ortt; of expectation'must be limitecl
with any fbrm
L;;r;i .gotitari"nitm is incompatible
of
.-- indenturedservitude'
normally limit
in orguing that the statemay not
III
to the serclaim
a
as-a way of entbrcing
*i;;Ji""
that peoplehave
ui.?, of its citizens,I am not saying
It is
to their communitiesof origin'
I have.been
One objection to the line of argLlment
the
that
theories
"" "Uiig"i""s
liberal
of freefeature of most
problem
J.""f"pi"g so tar is that the whole
"-t"tifi*,ttoufa not enforce many sorts of moral duties
epiphenomenal'
,toi.
,;f irovement is essentially
;;;
groundsthat
expectthat most
or oUtigationsnotjust on the prudential
Other thingsbeing equal,one could
but on the
ineff'ective
or
costly
be
will
land where they
the
enforcJment
would not want to leave
must have considerable oeople
individuali
,n"t
language'cusO**i"'
were born and laised, a place whose
identities'includand
lives
own
their
deflne
other things
But
:;;p;i"
io*, *A ways of lif'e are familiar'
This does not
inhabit'
they
that
worlds
inequalities
moral
i"gifr"
ilre not .quui' Th"," are vast economic
are a matter of
commitments
moral
all
libertiesto
ot
,t
basic
n Eun
o.ong states,and some statesdeny
th-emoral
perspective'
individual's
the
From
circumstancesthat
.tt"il".
,tr"it 5*n citizens.These are the
a productof unchogiven'
as
experienced
be
acrossbor;"y
;;
createsucha vast potentialibr movement
of one's family'
members
with
seemlike
."iutionrhips
,"n
ders and that make the issueof migration
comegaligroop, ..ligiout faith' or even political
liberal
a
un u.g"* moral problem' But tiom
United States'He
"ittni.
the
in
doctor
black
least
a
at
fo["
are
,nuni,V".
iution-p.ttp.ctive, these circumstances
obligation to
freedom
on
ttt" t igtt, or might not feel a special
* *o*tty^objectionable as restrictions
or shedoes'he or
"t
to respect
work in the black community'If he
of movement. Stateshave an obligation
other black doctors
that
think
not
have
might
or
states
might
rich
she
basic liberties' and
egalitarianism ifreir citizens'
Liberal
obligation'
other
adopt
u".o*polaile
and
t ou"
an obligation to transt'erresources
It does not
intertto, nott'tinj to say about these matters'
to reduce drastically the prevailing
;;;#t
doesnot deny the
It
world'
moral
whole
these
the
fill
fulfilled
to
try
nationaleconomicinequalities'If they
imply that they are
or
obligations
such
serious
of
a
be
.*ir,"n."
ottigotionr, migration woulcl no longer
rational discttspurely subjectiveand not subjectto
t'ew peoplewould
moral problem, becauserelatively
places
egalitarianism
liberal
that
limit
only
ttre
and would be
sion.
want to move and thosewho ditl could
is that
commitrnents
moral
and
views
moral
such
on
accommodatedsomewhere'
and dutiesthat
theseobligaii"V *"" not conflict with the rights
If one repliesthat stateswill not meet
prescribes'
itself
egaliteranism
liberal
is thirtwe gain nothingby focusing
tions,the re.sponse
feel a special
People fiom poor tountti"t may
equally unlikely
on anotherobligationwhich ihey are
and they may
home'
at
talents
their
use
to
and self-interobligation
io tulfil. tvtost of the same practical
sameobligation'
the
have
compatriots
their
that
rich statesfrom
think
estedconsiderationsthat wiliprevent
or affirm this
deny
not
does
states'will
egalitarianism
poor
Liberal
ffansfening significantt"tt'u"t' to
of enforcing
propriety
moral
the
to poor
denies
only
It
view.
keep thern from opening their borclers.wide bad
movement'
on
is a
restrictions
it
it through
-immigrants.tn strugffi ogoins injustice'
havefocused
drain
brain
the
about
immigrants
irgut"nt'
fufy
new
,irorJgy to make tfre actlission of
the cottntries
on the co-untriesof origin' What about

C a n r . r u s . M i g r . r t i o n a n d M o r a l i i l : A L i b e r a l E g a l i t a r i a np e r s p t , c t i r . c

to rich countriesa priority, becauserestrictionsare a

symptom,not a cause,of the real problems,because
irrmigration can never be a solution for more than
a relatively small number, no matter how open the
borders,and becausethis fbcus on people who want
to move from the Third World to the FirsrWorld may
perpetuateneo-colonialassumptionsabout the superiority of the First World.
I think thereis somethingto be said for this objection. Internationalinequalitiesand political oppression are certainlymore important moral and political
problemsthan restrictionson migration. The sense
that the latter is an urgent problem derives in large
part fiom the sizeof the potentialdemandand that in
turn derivesfrom internationalinequalitiesand other
tbrms of injustice that free movement will do little
to cure. Nevertheless,we cannot entirely ignore the
questionof immigration.In the long run, the transforrnationof the internationalpolitico-economicorder
might reducethe demandfor internationalmigration
and the resistanceto it, but, as Keynes said, in the
long run we are all dead. We have to consider the
moral claims of those whom we confront here and
now (as well as the claims of f'uturegenerations).For
exanrple,retugeeswho have no reasonableprospect
of a return to their homes in the near term need a
place to settle if they are to have any chance of a
decentlif'e.Moreover,we lack knowledgeas well as
will when it comesto radicallyredr.rcing
international
inequalities,as is illustratedby the failures of most
attemptsto eliminate regional inequalities wirftin
states.In termsof politics, it is not clear that increasing aid and increasingimmigration are really incompatible.In general,the samepolitical actorssupport
or opposeboth.
But the objection that the demandfbr ftee movementis essentially
epiphenomenal
posesa theoretical
challengeas well as a practical one. To what extent
doesmy earlier claim about the liberal egalitarian
commitmentto fiee movementrest upon the current
realitiesof internationalinequalitiesand political
oppression'lWould people have the right to move
freelyin a worlcl without the cleepinjusticesof the
onewe live in, or might there be legitimategrounds
ror restrictingfiee movement,say, fbr the sake of a
certainkind of communitv'/ ln other words. is free

&,

]01

movement epiphenomenalat the theoretical level,

not deriveddirectly f-romfundamentalprinciplesbut
rather from the applicationof thoseprinciplesto the
circumstancesin which we find ourselves?
To explorethis question,I proposeto focus in the
next two sectionson the questionof movementacross
borderswhen the statesin questionenjoy comparable
levelsof affluenceandcomparableliberaldemocratic
political institutions.

ry
The epiphenomenonargumentraisesquestionsabout
the consequences
of focusingon possiblechangesin
migration policies in abstractionfrom other issues,
but it does not directly challengethe principle that
free movementis good from a liberal egalitarianperspective.Are there any elementsin the liberal egalitarian tradition that would give pauseto this general
embraceof openness?
One possiblesourceis the liberal egalitariancommitment to pluralism, and the consequentrespect
for difference and diversity. Consider first the case
of Japan.Should Japan'simmigration policy be the
sameas that of the United Statesor Canada?A commitment to fiee movementseemsto require a positive responseto this question,exceptthat the public
order constraintmight kick in soonerbecauseof the
high populationdensity in Japan.But to answerrhat
question positively seemscounter-intuitive,and not
just becausewe assumethat all stateshave the right
to control their borders.Rather a positive response
seemsto imply that all stateshave a moral obligation to becomelike us-multicultural countrieswith
large numbers of immigrants (or at least to open
themselvesto that possibility). (This sounds like a
form of North American moral imperialism;our way
is the only right way.;
Now that does not prove that the claim is wrong.
Appeals to diversity and pluralism carry no weight
when it comesto the violation of basichumanrights.
From a liberal egalitarianperspectiveall statesare
obliged to respect such rights regardlessof their

102

'
C'II,\l'I l:tt 7

l()\
l llt: t: l l ll('S ()l: lN/ti\ll(;l{r{l

alongwith
marrywhonrtheywantandto livetogether'
seen,it
ha'e
we
As
traditions.
or
histor.y.culture
i s p o s s i b l e t c r c l a i n l t h a t t i . e e t l c l m c l f m o v e n r e n t i s a t h e f ufrom
n < l alris
t r ror
e nher
t a ho*re.
l r i g h t shor"rld
o f t h e Jt*lrnp
a p a nany
e s ecour-citizennottobe
egaritari^nperspec- expelled
(And'
cultu'e'
basic lrn'r.n r.ightti'rn a liberal
preservation.f
tbrthe
pay sirttjcient 'runal coucel'r.,s
tive. But perhaps,rr", .ir,i," ao.r-nu,
d.es indeedadmit sp.*rses';
know..rap.r.r
r
as
firr
as
can
of rnclve'rent
rrtrcuurrr
ir"freedom
"
attentionto the coststhat
peoprewantedto cometo
that
Suppose,however,
lrnpose.
.
.f pursuingeconomrc
way
a
as
tiueanclwork in Japan
c.se, Japanis a co.nTrr returnto the Japanese
the concernof the
trump
.pportunity' Shouia that
popuioi,*. r, i.'
try with a highly h""r;;;;;r;,
The answerr.r.right
"",
culture'l
Japaneseto preservetheil
religiousditl'ercornpletelyho,].,,g"n.,rir. irt"r. or.
alternativesthe
the
of
clepenclin part on the natttre
as there are in
encesiurd ethnic minorities in Japan
closed'Recall
is
Japan
if
potentialirnrnigrantsface
shareacoueverycountry.Bnt rutlstpeopleiniapan
by hypothes.ide'
one
to
pr-rt
il-rot*" havetempcllarily
a urnch gfe.rter
rnon cultnre. traclitio' and history to
like Canacllancl sis,theproblernsilfcleepinternationalinecltralitiesand
extentthan people.to in.,,untri.s
tirrrnsor.ppressio'' Pres'rnably'
refirgee-gene'ati'g
to s'pposethat
ecothe u.ite<JStates.It seemsfeers'nable
reasonable
then' the potentiaiim'rigrants h've
way 'f life'
'rany Jap^nesecherishtheir clistinctive
t h a t t h e y w a n t t o p f e s e r v e i t a n d p a s s i t o n t o t h e i r n o quite
t n i c oas
p good'
p o r t uI ndo
i t inot
e s *tt*.11-,"::Lt"terest
e l s e w h e r e ' e v e nini fmartlnesthatare
not
gives meaningancl
counr
chilclrenbecausethey fincl that it
sh.uld
betterec.nornic .pportunities
ginaity_
fo'., rt on uncha"ngecl.
depthto theirlives.Th;.;',;
an interestin preservinga cttlture'
than
inore
rernainsenti"rely
i'rrnigrat0 be sure, becauseno wiry of lit'e
one obvio's rejoi'cle'is that restricting
that
but they .on t,op. t. do so in a fbr.'r
unchangecl,
tionlimitsincliviclualf.eecrom,wrrirecult'r'alchiurges
wiit tt.
indiretainsbclth its vitarity and its continuity
that develtlp as a by-protlttctof ttncoordinated
a vital
of
past. [n theseways n.,uny:npnn"sernay.have
clairns
legiti'rate
clon't violateany
vidyll.ac1io1s
toi"n"'"
interesti' the preserv.tionof a distinctive
c u l t l t r e ; t h e y r r r a y r e g a r c l i t a s c r u c i a l t o t n e i r t i t (which
e i n c l i vclearly
i d r r a ldoes
s . T hlite pwith
r o bsonre
l e m wstrains
i t h t h iin
s sthe
o r tlibtrfresponse
this
per.spective
pr.ojects.From a libeial egalitarian
liberal
of
fkr.ns
s.me
ererltr.dition and eve' with
counts as a
concer.l tbr preservingJapanesecurtnr.e
is that it usestoc.rnarrow a cletinition
egi'rlitarianis'-r)
(as r cro)that this cLrlle-ritimateinterest,o*iu,ning
concern for the
J freeclom'It excluclesby hat any
hur]latrbeings
ture is conrpatiblewith respectfor all
individual
cu'rulative,ifunintenaecr'conseq*encesof
pay attenas fiee ana eq'ar moralper.sons.
will
actions'A richer conceptof tieedom
that this disIt also seemsreasonableto sLtppose
to which
extent
the
choice'to
be protbunclly tion t0 the contextof
to
people
tinctivecultureanclway of life would
tbr
possible
nl.ke it
of itt-tn-'ig'onr' backgroundco.ditions
their
tr.anstbr'reclif a signilicant number
purs'e
an<I
goal's
realiie their 'rost irnp.rta't
Japanioulcr
c*me to live in Japan.A murticultural
b e a v e r y d i l f b r e n t p l a c e . S o , l i m i t s o n n e w e n t r a n t s n r o s t i m p othot
| t a p..,.,-tit'
n t l i t . e pus
r oto
j esee
c t sthe
. T hways
a t i s pinr ewhich
ciselythesort
of apprJach
.tis
ro preservethe culture it
w.ulcl be r.recessary
resources
valuable
""v
particular cultures can provide
'ificant nuurberof peoplewantedto imrnigrate.
with the lossof a
io' peopleonJ tnt costsass.ciateil
That .epends.I think'
of
Woul. the lirnitsbejustifiecl'?
assessment
culture.*f-tiit tiif f perruittinga critical
haveto weigh
who
on why the people*ont.,l to come.We
those
tbr
both
tht ton'"qu"nttt i''f the cuiture
with the
the clairns of thosetfyin-eto get in equnlly
palticipatein it anclfilr thosewho do not'
but to do that
justitiedto preclaims of thosewho are alrea<lyinsicle,
But if we sdythat exclusi.n rnaybe
of th.se
we haveto k'clw sornething^brut the nature
the doorto
open
not
cr.lt.,,.e.doesthat
ser.veJirpanese
pernon-Japanese
sclme
Stlppose
c|airns.For exarrrple,
others'or certaln
any other stateth.t wantsto exclucle
woutJ clearly
son had rnarrieda Japanesecitiz.en.It
a.d its way of
tinds of ottrtrt' to preserveits culture
if
.pour",
'orr-Japan"r.
the
policiesl
be wrong to exclucle
"u"n
racistirnnrigration
of Japanese tite'lnoe.nliit iegiii,,rate
exampter
'rixeclmarriageswereseenas subversive
tbr
policy'
whirt ab<luttt'reihit. Australia
to
incrividuars
culture.Here the tu'rra'rentalright oi

C , , r t r r n s . M i g r . r t i o n a n d M o r . r l i t v : A [ - i b c r a ]E g a l i t a r i . r np c r s p e c t i v e

That wasdet-ended
as an attemptto preservea particular culture and way of life, as were similar racial and
ethnicpoliciesin Canarda
and the UnitedStates.l0
From some viewpoints every fbrm of exclusion
that draws distinctions based on race, ethnicity, or
cultural heritage is morally objectionable.I think,
however,that one cannotmake such a blanketjudgernent.Dif}'erencedoes not always entail domination.
One has to considerwhat a particularcaseof exclusion means,taking the historical,social and political contextinto account.ll For example,the White
Australia policy cannot be separatedfiom British
irnperialismand Europeanracism.That is why it was
nevera def'ensibleform of exclusion.
Japan'sexclusionarypolicy seemsquite difTerent.
Firstit is universal,i.e. it appliesto all non-Japanese.
It is not aimed at some particular racial or ethnic
group that is presumedto be inf'erior,and it is not
tied to a history of dominationof the excluded.Japan
hasa centuries-oldtradition of exclusionbasedpartly
on fears of the consequencesof Europeanpenetration. Of course,there is also the Japaneseimperialism of the twentiethcentury,but that developedonly
afier the West had forced Japanto end its isolation.
Moreover,it wasonly during its periodof imperialist
expansionthat Japanadopteda non-exclusionarypolicy,declaringall the subjectsof the JapaneseEmpire
to be Japanesecitizens and bringing thousandsof
Koreansinto Japan as workers. Both before and
afterthis period, Japanstrictly limited new entrants.
Unlike much of WesternEurope,for example,Japan
rejectedproposalsfor guest worker programmesto
solve labour shortagesin the 1960s and 1970s. I
trustthat it is clear that I am in no way defendingor
excusing
Japanese
imperialism.On the contrary,my
pointis that the Japanesepolicy of exclusionwas not
a produe
t of. and was in importantways antagonistic to, Japaneseimperialism.In that respect,at least,
exclusion
was not linked to donination.
But doesnot a policy of exclusionalwaysimply
thatthecultureandthe peoplebeingprotectedthrough
exclusionare superior to the ones being excluded?
Not necessarily.It may simply reflect an attachment
to whatis one's own. Presumablyit doesentail the
viewthatthis way of lif'eis worth preserving,that it is
Detter
thanwhateverwould replaceit underconditions

t0l

ofopenness.But thatis not necessarily

objectionable
in itself. Besides,having relativelyopen bordersmay
also generatea senseof cultural superiority,as the
American casereveals.
I do not pretendto haveestablishedthe legitimacy
of Japaneseexclusion.That would require a much
more detailed and careful examination than I can
provide here. What I do hope to have establishedis
that such an examinationwould be worthwhile. that
exclusionfor the sakeof preservingJapaneseculture
is not self-evidentlywrong, at leastin a contextwhere
we have temporarily assumedaway the most utgent
concerns(desperatepoverty and t'earof oppression)
that motivateso many of thosewho actually want to
move and that make their claims so powerf'ul.
What if we let those concernsback in and at the
sametime assumedthat the positivecasefbr the preservation of a distinctive Japaneseculture could be
sustained?One possibility is that we would conclude
that not all of the rich statesshould have precisely
the sante responsibilitiesregarding admission of
new membersand assistanceto poor states.Perhaps
it would be appropriatefor Japanto meet most of
its responsibilitiesthrough aid rather than through
admissions. (I express these thoughts tentatively
becauseI f'eelunsureabout them.)
Even if one did follow this line of thought,
howeveg Japan would face certain responsibilities
regardingthe admissionand integrationof 'outsiders', For example,Japanshould admit some reasonable numberof refugeeson a permanentbasis.Their
needscannotbe met by aid and Japancannotrightty
expect others to assumeall the burdensof resettlement.Perhapsit would be acceptableto selectamong
the refugeeson the basis of their adaptability to or
compatabilitywith Japaneseculture.
Even more important,Japanhas a responsibility
to treat its Korean minority differently.Most of the
Koreansin Japanare people who were brought over
to work in Japanduring World War II or their descendants.They havelived in Japanfor many years.Most
of the children have never lived anywhereelse, and
many do not even speak any other language than
Japanese.
Japanhasan obligationto treatthesepeople
as full membersof society,to grant them citizenship
easily if they wish it and to make their position as

-r.F

304

'
CtlAl'l't:l{ 7

lllL E llllCS ()F IMMIGnAI'l()\

pernlanentresidentslllore secureand more equitable

In
it ,fr"y pret'erto retain their Korean citizenship'
cohesiveshort. Japan'sclesireto protect its cultural
in stlmecasesby the legitintate
nessis outwei-ehed
claims of othersto entry and integration'
The discussionof Japanmakesa preliminary case
trafor exclusiontbl the sakeof preservinga cultural
tradition
clitionand a way of lit'e.ln Japanthis cultural
with the politiand way of lite arecloselyassociated
not
cal boundariesof a sovereignstate'But this does
state
establishanything about the moral statusof the
there
as such ntlr does it rr-rleout the possibility that
of
ways
may be othercommunitieswith culturesand
Take'
lite worth preservingthat do not exist as states'
North
fbr exampie,the caseof nativecommunitiesin
way
Arnericawho are trying to preservea traditional
what
of
Most
area'
land
clefirlecl
some
within
of lif'e
casecould also be
hasbeen saiclaboutthe Japanese
saiclabout them: they are trying to maintain n disto
tinctive culture anclway of lit'e that gives meaning
highly
as
regard
they
which
ancl
it
inhabit
thosewho
pret'erableto the way of lif'e that would be entailed
this
it,tr"y mixeclwith others'they cannotmaintain
to
come
of
outsiders
number
significant
any
culture if
have
outsiders
the
reasons
the
and
land
their
settleon
purtbr coming (e.g. ttl use the land tor recreational
the
than
compelling
less
tar
seem
generally
poses)
out'
them
keeping
fbr
have
natives
the
i.oront
I acceptthese generalclaims' Indeed the control
a
that nativepeoplesexerciseovertheir land provides
mobilfree
of
right
general
the
to
striking exception
ity within the modern state.and one that is entirely
perspectivein my
iustilied tiom a liberal egalitarian
'view.
gives rise to a
that
such
as
state
the
not
is
it
So.
of a comexistence
the
rather
but
claim to exclucJe'
lif'ethat
of
way
valuable
and
clistinctive
a
rnunity with

'political
and protection'lBy
worthy of preselvation
the
culture' I meanthecollectiveself'-unclelstanding'
relatheir
and-of
thenselves
way citizensthink of
in their
tionshipwith one anotheras this is letiected
One
practices'
and
policies
oolitical institutions,
etrtry
is
lesttict
to
wanting
i"oron people have tbr
of
ar'rtonotny
clemocratic
their desire to protect the
the communityin which they live' This view.pt'esupposesthat there is some significant space between
what is rnorallyrequiredof all anclmorally prohibited
to all so that tlitfbrentcommttnitiescan legitimately
rnake diff'erentchoicesabout goals' institutionsand
policies, or, more broadly,about the ways they leLid
iheir collectivelives.Call this the zoneof the morally
permissible.One need not think of this as a realnr
however'The tnoral afguments
of ,r',"." pret'erences.
that belclnghere (and are lnost apt to be used in real
political debates)areonesaboutthe history and character of the comrnunity rather than abclutuniversal
lights anclcluties.Most tbrms ol libelal egalitarianSo'
ism Oo not pretendto settleall rnoralquestiorrs'
decisions'
difl-erentcommttnitieswiII make dit'ferent
adopt tlitl'erentpolicies and develop ditferent charmay be threatenedby
acters. But these clift'erences

open bolders
Let rne otl'er a concreteexampletiom a comparlStates'll(I write
and the Unite<J
sonbetweenCanacla
as someoneborn anclraisedin the United Stateswho
has lived in Canadafbr the past tbur years')Canada
has a nationalhealth insttranceplan that pays tbr the
medical care of all citizensand permanentresidents'
The Unite<IStatesdoes not. According to someestino
mates,30 per cent of the Arnericanpopulationhas
health insurance,ancl lnany nlore are underinsured'
be
ShouldAmericanswith seriousheatthproblems
health
ableto moveto Canaclato take advantageof its
care system'lTake those with AIDS as an example'
would be threatenedby imrnigration'
medThis is an illnessthilt requiresa lot of expensive
be
ical care over a long period' care that may simply
insurunavailablein the UniteclStatesif one has no
might
ance.Peoplewith AIDS anclwithout insurance
V
so'
do
well chooseto move to Canaclirif they could
per
l0
populationils a whclleis only
But Canacla's
the United States'If evena smallproof
that
of
cent
of
Can a parallel argumentbe developedon behalf
would
portionof theAmelicanswith AIDS nroved'it
the staie as such' perhapson the grounds that eetch
system'
healthcare
on theCanaclian
( lerritimate)state has a distinct political cttltrtre puta severestrain

C r \ R r : N s. M i g r a t i o n a n d M o r a l i t r ' : A L i b e r a l E g a l i t a r i a nP c r s p c c t i r e

At present,Canadianimmigration requirementskeep
out potentialimmigrantswith medical problemsthat
seemlikely to put an unusuallyhigh linancial burden
on the healthcaresystem.Is that an unjust restriction
on potentialAmerican immigrants?
Canada'shealth care systemis only one example
of a pervasivedifference between Canada and the
United Statesin social welfare policy. In one area
after another Canada provides greater benefits to
those in need, and, of course,Canadianspay much
higher taxes than Americans to fund these programmes.If the borderswere open and if many of
the needy moved across,both the capacity and the
willingnessto support the programmeswould be in
jeopardy. The capacity would be threatened by the
relative size of the Canadianand American populations, the willingness by the sensethat Americans
were taking advantageof Canadians(not so much
the needy Americans, who would probably arouse
both sympathy and resentment, as the greedy ones
who refusedto bear the costsof caring for their own
andtried to shift thesecostsonto others).Restrictions
on immigrationfrom the United Statesthereforemay
help to make it possiblefor Canadiansto take a different and more generouspath from Americans when
it comesto social policy. Does liberal egalitarianism
require them to open the borders anyway?
If the questionsin the last two paragraphssound
rhetorical, it is only becausethe presumption that
stateshave the right to control entry is so deeply
rooted in our thinking. One has only to shift the
focus to intra-statemovementto see why the questions are real and important. In the United Statesas
in many federal systems,sub-units bear much of
the responsibility for social policy and they differ
greatly in the ways they carry out these responsibilities. For example, Wisconsin's welfare policies
are much more generous(or much less stingy) than
those of the neighbouring state of lllinois. Some
Wisconsin officials claim that people are moving
from lllinois to Wisconsin for the sake of these
benefits.These officials propose to discouragethe
influx by reducing benefitsfor new residentsduring
a temporarywaiting period - a strategythat may or
may not pass legislative and judicial scrutiny. But
not even the most ardent advocatesof exclusion

]05

think that they can prohibit people from moving to

Wisconsin from Illinois or keep them from gaining
accessto all of the state'ssocial programmesafler
a waiting period. This is not just a quirk of the US
constitutionalsystem.As we have seen,freedom of
movementwithin the nation-stateis widely regarded
as a basic human right, and if this freedom is to be
more than a mereformality, it necessarilyentailsthat
new arrivalshave accessto the rights and privileges
that currentresidentsenjoy,at leastafter the satisfaction of a modestresidencyrequirementand, in some
cases,immediately. But this freedom of movement
has the sameeffect of erodingor at leastlimiting the
democraticautonomy of Wisconsin as it would that
of Canada.
Is that bad? Should Wisconsin have the right to
keep out people from Illinois after all? Or should
Canada be obliged to admit people from the United
States?If the two casesare different, how and why
are they different? I find thesequestionsgenuinely
puzzling, but in the end I cannotseethat sovereignty
makes that much difference from a liberal egalitarian perspective.Despite my attachmentto Canada's
social welfare policies, I do not think they justify
restrictionson movement.On the other hand, I do
think that this commitmentto free movementis compatible with shortterm residencyrequirementsso that
one must live somewhere for a few months before
becoming eligible for social programmes, and that
such requirements would do a great deal to protect
againstthe erosionof social programmes.Living in
Canada, one cannot help but be aware of the importance some people (especiallyin Quebec) attach to
maintaining the distinct culture and way of life of
their province. It turns out to be possible to do so
even within a context of free migration within the
state and considerableimmigration from outside.
Despite its occasionaleffects on social policies, it
is easy to exaggeratethe impact of free movement
within the state and also to ignore its importance
to those who do take advantageof it. The same is
true of movement across borders. Perhaps even the
Japaneseought in principle to begin with a policy of
opendoors,closingthem only if a substantialdemand
actually appears.Given the difficulties of fitting into
Japanesesociety as an outsider, how many would

106

'f
F l EE - lfl l c s o t r l M M l G l { Al1( ) N
cttAP'tEl7
l '

reasonable
actually want to settle there if they had
elsewhere'J
opportunities
I began'
So, I return to the theme with which
powerf'ul
and
deep
a
entails
egalitarianism
Liberal
can be
comrnitm-entto freedom of movementwhich
with great
overriddenat the level of principle only
dificultY. . . .

VII
of
I will conclude with a few remarks on criteria
be
will
there
that
inclusion and exclusion.Assuming
reasome restrictionson entry, either for legitimate
illegititor
or
sons like the public order constraint
privilege'
mateoneslike-adesireto protecteconomic
that
exclusion
and
aretheresomecriteriaof inclusion
a
from
others
than
are more (or less) objectionable
should
need
Certainly
liberal egalitarianperspective'?
and refube one important criterion tbr admission'
high
very
rank
geesseekingpermanentresettlement
live'
to
place
a
need
in this scoresincethey literally
(spouse'
members
The claims of immediatetamily
No one
minor children) rank very highly as well'
famher
or
his
with
shouldbe deniedthe right to live
as
not
but
claim
ily. Other relativesalso have some
stronga one.
the
TJreturn to the criterion of need' ifone accepts
to
appropriate
brain drain hypothesis.it would seem
among
needy
most
give priority to the leastskilledand
negpotentiatimmigrantsasthis would havethe least
other
the
On
ative impact on the countriesof origin'
hand, if tne admitspeoplewith skills and education'
(which appears
it may reducethe backlashproblem
that
to beL real or potentialproblemin every country
acceptsimmigrants,especiallyret'ugees)'.
Are criteria that servethe interestsof the receivway'
ing country always morally problematicin,this
necesNot
defensibleonly on prudential grounds?
sarily. Taking linguistic and cultural compatibility
is not
into accountdoes not seemobjectionableif it
if
and
prejudice
a disguisedtbrm of racial or ethnic
different
by
the c-umulativeeft'ectsof such policies
countriesdo not leaveout somegroupsaltogether'

Criteria of selection that discriminate against

potentialimmigrantson the basisoi t'ace'ethnicity'
religion, sex, or sexual orientation are particularly
perspecobjectionable fiom a liberal egalitarian
to
legitimately
used
tive. Can thesecriteria ever be
rs
question
crucial
give priority to some?Again, one
discrimiof
lorms
i"tr.,it"t they constitutecleJitc'to
with
nation. Considerfour recentor current policies
think
I
but
bit'
thesesortsof factors(I oversimplity a
I describethe main lines accurately):
l. Britain removed citizenship tiom holders
of overseaspassportsand citizens of commonwealth countries,except for those whose
granclfatherwas born in Great Britain'
2. Irelandgrantsan automaticright to citizenshipto
anyonewith a grandparentbom in lreland' provided that the personcomesto lrelandto live'
3. Germany grants citizenship (upon application in Germany)to anyoneof ethnic German
descent.no matterhow long sincethe person's
ancestorslived in GermanY'
4. Israel grantsautomaticcitizenshipto any Jew
who comesto live in Israel'
Of these,the British law is the most objectionable
lrish
tiom a liberal egalitarianperspectiveand the
The
similarity'
fbrmal
their
despite
law the least,
It
racism'
of
tbrm
disguised
thinly
a
British law is
as
of
rights
citizenship
the
preserve
to
was designed
of white settlersas possiblewhile
many deJcendanLs
and Atiicans as possibleof
Asians
deprivingas many
clause' by contrast'has
grandfather
theirs.The Irish
is merely an attemptto
It
goal'
no hidclenexclusionary
of some of those who left'
lure back the clescendants
ftlr two relatedreasons'
is
troubling
The Germanlaw
ethnicity and citizenbetween
link
First, the explicit
thoseGermancitwhether
about
ship raisesquestions
really regarded
are
Germans
ethnic
izenswho ui" not
ot' citizengrant
easy
the
Second,
as equal citizens.
Germany
in
lived
never
have
who
ship to people
the lanspeak
even
not
do
whom
of
rcttre anOsome
grant
guagecontrastssharply with the reluctanceto
Turkish
iitiienstrip automati;aily to the children of
'guest workers' even when the children were born
speakno
alnOUrougntup in Germany(and sometimes
'Law of Return'
other language).Finally, ihe Israeli

:
I

I
?

C',rur,Ns .

]! i{r.ition arrrlNlor.rlitr; A Libcral [:g.rlitari.rnPcrsPcctivc

raisesquestionsabout whether the Arab citizens of

Israel whose fiiends and relativesdo not have comparablyeasyaccessto citizenshipare really r"egarded
as equal citizens.On the other hand, the Israeli law
is tied both to national security concernsand to the
historicpurposeof lsrael as a homelandfbr Jews.

t07

Ackennarr.Sot'ialJu.sticein the Liberul Srcte(New Haven,

Conn.: Yale University Press. 1980), pp. 89-95: Judith
Lichtenberg,"National Boundariesand Moral Boundaries:
A CosmopolitanYiew,"
Bouudnries: NutiottctlAutuutnty and
Its Litrrits,ed. Petel Brown and Hemy Shue (Totowa.N.J.:
Rowman& Litttelield. t98l). pp. 79-100; and Roger Nett,
"The Civil Right We Are Not Yet Ready For':The Right of
Free Movement of Peopleon the Faceof the Earth,' Etlric'.r,
8 I ( I 97 I ) 212-27. For the state'sright to control entry. see
MichaelWalz-er,
Sphere.s
o.fJustic'e(New York: Basic Books.
1983),pp. 3l-63. For the middle position. see Frederick
VIII
Whelan."Citizenshipand Freedomof Movement:An Open
Admissiorr Poficy" in Open Borders? CloseclSot'ieties?:
TheEthitul und Politic'ulIssues,ed.Mark Gibney(Westport,
L-iberalegalitariansare committed to an idea of free
Conn.:GreenwoodPress.1988).pp. 3-39.
nrovement.with only modestqualifications.That idea
2. The argurnentsin this section draw upon Carens.
is not politically t'easibletoday anclso it rnainlyserves
'Aliens
and Citizens" and Whelan. "Citizenshio and
to providea criticll standardby which to assessexistFreedornof Movement."
ing restrictiveplactices and policies. While almost
3. This brief sketch necessarilycoversover tleep disall torrnsof lestrictionon moveurentare wrong f-rom
agreementsarnongliberal egalitarianswith legard to rnany
a liberal egalitarianperspective.some practicesand
issuessuchas how much inequalityis cornpatiblewith or
requiredby the cornrnitmentto freedom,whether aflilrnlpoliciesare worse than others.Expulsionis worse
tive action firr groupshistorically subjectto discrirnination
than a refusal to adnrit. Racism and other forms of
is a violationof. or a meansof realizing.libelal egalitardiscrirninatoryexclusional'ewo[se than policiesthat
ian principles.what are the fbundations(if any) of liberal
do
not
distinguish
in
objectionable
ways
excludebut
egalitariancommitments,and so on.
anlongthoseexcluded.Idealsdo not alwaystranslate
4. SeeWalzer.Splrercsof Justic'e.For a detaileddiscusclirectlyinto prescriptionsfbr practicebecauseof the
sion of the right of exit seeFrederickWhelan,"Citizenship
problemstamiliar fiom economictheory
second-best
and the Right to Leave."ArrrericanPoliticalScietu'eReviev',
wliich havetheir analoguein moral theory.In theory
75 ( l98t ).636-53.
this urightseemto makeit dit{icult to identify the pol5. I havediscussedthesesortsof argumentspreviously
icy irnplicationsof liberal egalitarianismwith regard
in'Aliens and Citizens."
to free movement.One can doubtlessimagine cases
6. Here I fbllow John Rawls, A Theory of Jusrice
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, l97l),
wlierethe suddenopeningof the bordersof one counpp.216-21.
try (with all the other circumstancesof the modern
7. I develop the claims in the next two paragraphsat
wollclremainingunchanged)
wonld do moreharmthan
greater length in "Membership and Morality: Admission
goodti"oma liberalegalitarianperspective.In practice,
in Liberal DernocraticStates,"Inmtigration
however,we can usuallyignorethis concelnbecause, to Citizenship
cutd the futlitics tf Citizenshilt in Europe and North
in evely polity, dornesticpolitical considerationswill
Anterittr, ed. William Rogers Brubaker (Lanham, Md.:
conlinef'easiblepolicy optionsto a relativelynarrow
Cernran Marshall. Fund of America and University Press
range.excludingalternativesthat would entail major
of America,1989).pp.3l-49.
coststo curent citizens.Given these political reali8. Garrett Hardin. "Livine on a Lif'eboat."Biost'tertce
ties.liberalegalitarians
(October1974).
shouldalmostalwayspressfbr
morcopennesstowardsimmi-urants
and refirgees.
9. Rawls,A Theon,of Jusrice,p.213.
10. For a firller discussionof the White Australiapolicy. seeJosephH. Carens,"Nationalisrnand,the Exclusion
NOTES
of Immigrants: Lessons from Australian Imrrigration
l. Fola def'ence
seeJosephH.
of f'ewor no restrictions,
Policy," Opert Bonler:;? Closed Societies?:The EthiL'al
Calcnr."AliensandCitizens:
TheCasefirr OpenBorclers," und Polititul /ssrre.r,ed. Malk Gibney (Westport.Conn.:
Thellct'ietrtl PolitiL's.,19
(Spring1987).2-5l-7-l: Bruce CreenwoodPress,1988).pp.4l-60.

]08

C H A P ' fE R 7 '

- T H EE T H I C SO F I M M T G R A T I O N

JosephH'
I I . For a fuller defence of this approach see
on the
Reflections
Domination:
Carens, "Difference and
and
Majorities
Equality,"
and
Pluralism
Relation between
and Alan
Chapman
John
ed'
XXXII,
NOMOS
Minorities:
1990)'
Wertheimer(NewYork: NewYork UniversityPress'
pp.226-50.

social
12. I explore the relevance of differences in
States in
United
the
and
Canada
between
policy
welfare
State"'
a similai way in "Immigration and the Welfare
Gutmann
Amy
ed'
Democracy and the Welfare State,
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press' 1988)'
pp. 207-30.

READING QUESTIONS
presentas importantly related to freedom of moveL Which liberal egalitarian concernsdoes carens
concerns?
ment? How does freedom of movement bear on these
one of the objections to his view' what is
argument,"
"backlash
the
calls
he
what
discusses
2. Carens
it?
to
this argument, and how does Carens reply
that from a liberal egalitarian perspective,rich nations
3. In section III, carens considersthe objeciion
other measuresto reduce drastically the prevailhave an obligation to "transfer resourcesand adopt
such nations fulfilled theseobligations, migration
ing internationur..ono-i. inequalities" and so ii
Carens reply to this objection?
does
How
would ceaseto be a seriousmoral problem.
used as a reason for limiting immigration'
sometimes
is
culture
4. The interest in preserving one's
as an example' How does he respond to the
Carens discussesthis objJction, using Japaneseculture
"culture preservation" objection?

DrscussloN QUESTIONS
position on immigration do you think makes the stronl. which of the various objections to carens's
Carens's reply is either effective or inefgest casefor limiting im|igrationt Explain why you think
iective in responding to the objection in question'
limiting immigration provide a strong reason for
2. Does the "preservation of culi'ure" argument for
policy? Why or why not?
the United Statesto adopt a restrictive immigration

:!;
,;

xj

'4

g
$