The Case for Open Borders

In a column at the New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo makes the argument for completely open borders in the United States:

There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.

It would be a change from the stale politics of the modern era, in which both parties agreed on the supposed wisdom of “border security” and assumed that immigrants were to be feared.

As an immigrant, this idea confounds me. My family came to the United States from our native South Africa in the late 1980s. After jumping through lots of expensive and confusing legal hoops, we became citizens in 2000. Obviously, it was a blessing: In rescuing me from a society in which people of my color were systematically oppressed, America has given me a chance at liberty.

But why had I deserved that chance, while so many others back home — because their parents lacked certain skills, money or luck — were denied it?

The answer to his question is complicated and various but I’ll summarize it this way. Open borders do not provide a system of universal peace, prosperity, and brotherhood but rather war and misery without limits. No right of immigration is recognized under that most expansive document of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is a right of self-determination which means we have a right to limit immigration. There is no moral obligation to take immigrants in. Mass immigration tends to destabilize both the sending and receiving countries socially and politically.

Expect to hear Mr. Manjoo’s argument with greater ardor and vehemence in the coming years.

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment