Free migration

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free migration or open immigration is a normative position which holds that people not be prevented should immigrate to a country of their choice.

Open borders vs. Abolition of borders

“People are authorized to live wherever they want” - expression of the dream of freedom of movement as a human right on the welcome column at a refugee home in Bremen-Osterholz

In the English-speaking world, a distinction is made between the demand for free migration: “open borders” and limitlessness: “no borders”. Free migration is propagated as a state migration regime, whereas limitlessness is an anarchist position. For example, the British section of the “ No Border Network ” propagates that a world without borders must also be a world without states: “We believe that a world without borders must also mean a world without states.”.

Libertarians , socialists and anarchists advocate open immigration or limitlessness, regardless of the other differences between the three ideologies and the associated differences in the justifications for this position in the discourse . Minarchists , too, question the authority of states and the legitimacy of their actions by attempting to undermine or prevent the control of entry, residence and work by states, for the benefit of all groups of people, not just for the benefit of migrant workers. Anarchists turn against any statehood in general.

Fabian Georgi explains in the magazine published by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation “Luxemburg. Social analysis and left practice ”the“ left ”strategy of a world without borders:“ With slogans like › No man is illegal ‹ and ›No border! No Nation! ‹[The activists] put the idea of ​​global freedom of movement on the agenda of social movements. They describe the idea that all people can move freely on earth, that they can live and settle where they want and enjoy equal rights, regardless of their 'nationality', their 'citizenship' or other criteria. Self-organized sans-papiers and refugees as well as the NoBorder movement have constituted global freedom of movement as a counter-hegemonial project, as a political project that radically questions the ›deep hegemony of borders‹. ”However, Georgi admitted in 2012 that on the following questions there was a lack of conclusive answers that could reach consensus among leftists: "How can one imagine a 'world without borders'?"

Leoluca Orlando , Mayor of Palermo and main initiator of the “Charter of Palermo” adopted in March 2015, put forward the thesis that it was impossible “to block the relocation of millions and millions”.

Historical and current examples of free migration

Until the twentieth century, the United States and Canada allowed almost entirely open immigration for Europeans. The geographic expansion into the "wild" west made migration of the surplus population of Europe possible. This phase ended in the 20th century when further geographic expansion was no longer possible. In the Immigration Act of 1924 , the federal congress adopted strict immigration controls, particularly for those who came from outside Western Europe. These rules were later relaxed in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act .

There is currently free movement of persons:

A human right to freedom of movement is not recognized as a positive right in any country in the world for those willing to migrate .

criticism

Consequences for the welfare state

The business journalist Patrick Welter warns that when there is a high level of immigration, a curtailment of the welfare state can only be avoided if the incentives to immigrate to the welfare state are limited. It is reminiscent of the dictum of Nobel laureate in economics, Milton Friedman , that one can either have free immigration or a welfare state , but not both. According to the economist William Niskanen , however, it is possible to enable free immigration if a “wall around the welfare state” is built at the same time to limit incentives for immigration into it. Following this idea, in 1996, at the suggestion of President Bill Clinton , the United States withdrew all new immigrants from access to all federal welfare benefits for five years.

With reference to the situation in the USA, Hans-Werner Sinn analyzes that the immigration of predominantly low-skilled people will lead to an oversupply in this segment of the labor market and thus depress wages. The welfare state will have to cushion hardships here.

The internationally known British economist and migration researcher Paul Collier also pointed out in his book “ Exodus - Why we have to re-regulate immigration ” in 2014 that open borders and the welfare state are incompatible: “Helping the poor in other countries is a clear moral duty. But the duty to provide assistance cannot result in the duty to allow generally free border traffic. Indeed, those who believe the poor should be allowed to emigrate to rich countries would probably be the first to object to the right of the rich to move to poor countries because it had an unpleasant colonial aftertaste ”. To play off free migration against the nation state is considered absurd by Collier, since nations defined by borders are important, legitimate, moral and attractive entities, especially for migrants: "In fact, it is the fruits of successful nation-statehood that attract migrants". The “successful nation-statehood” requires a high degree of stable cooperation within society (“... fundamental for prosperity”), mutual trust and the mastery of informal rules and standards acquired in a common national identity, which are endangered by unlimited immigration and thus endanger the attractiveness of individual countries for immigrants again. Collier therefore advocates nationally regulated, adapted immigration: "Moderate immigration will bring overall social benefits, while persistently high immigration rates will entail the dangers of considerable costs." The greater the proportion of immigrants in a country, the lower the trust between immigrants and locals and thus for social peace, the basis of the achieved prosperity and welfare attractiveness. For Collier, this is especially true where “immigration reduces the social capital of the local population”. Colliers' conclusion: "For densely populated countries ... the open door ... could inevitably lead to complicated, protracted social problems".

Even social democratic critics point out that states are responsible welfare states in particular that the auskömmliche already in them living people have income. For this reason, statutory minimum wages have been introduced in most of the countries of the European Union , which should be measured in such a way that at least single workers earn more than their subsistence level through work . The system of minimum wages is at risk if a large number of low-skilled migrants, due to the additional supply of labor, significantly lower the market price not only for their labor but also for the labor of locals who are dependent on “everyone's work” Minimum wage pressures.

Cultural identity

Conservative critics point to the cultural and / or national identity of states and see them as endangered by excessive immigration of foreigners .

Migration needs control

Historical evidence suggests that free migration only works as long as the interests of the migrants, the donating and the receiving countries are in harmony. As soon as there are social or economic disruptions, a regime of free migration collapses. With controlled immigration, migration is less conflict-prone and a higher volume of migration is sustainable in the medium term. From this point of view, the arguments against controlled immigration lose substance. It is true that controlled immigration means hardship towards individuals willing to migrate. This is justified, however, because overall human welfare is promoted more strongly by managed migration than by free migration. For the superiority of the controlled immigration regime there are a. the following reasons:

  • With controlled migration, such workers can be recruited as a complex, highly specialized economy needs. In the case of free migration, mostly unsuitable migrants come.
  • The volume of immigration can be aligned with economic growth (increase in the means of production). If immigration is higher than the increase in the means of production, the standard of living of the native population falls. There is friction between locals and immigrants.
  • With free migration, immigrants can come in large numbers within a short period of time, which can lead to great problems and tensions. In the case of controlled immigration, the size and composition of the immigrants is planned in advance and geared towards their ability to integrate.

According to a survey carried out by the Ifo Institute in February 2016, the majority of German economics professors expect economic disadvantages from the federal government's refugee policy . A relative majority expects asylum seekers more disadvantages for the country (40 percent). Only 23 percent see more advantages. In the eyes of the professors, the best performers are the immigration policies of Canada and Australia, both of which select very strongly according to the qualifications of the immigrants. The vast majority of economists are calling for better security of the external borders of the Schengen area . At the same time, they warn against closing national borders in the Schengen area even temporarily.

Against the background of the refugee crisis in Europe from 2015 onwards , journalist Klaus Geiger viewed open borders as inhumane and unjust. On the one hand, human lives would be endangered if parents sent their children to Europe without protection and / or if refugees board unseaworthy boats to get to Europe. Secondly, young men with enough money would have the best chances of coming to Europe; really poor refugees would stay away from any welcoming culture. Thirdly, it is 130 times more expensive to care for refugees in Europe than near their home region. While a lot of money would be spent on refugees who made it to Europe, little would remain for the others.

Web links

literature

  • Amani Abuzahra : Cultural Identity in a Multicultural Society , Passagen-Verlag, Vienna, 2012
  • Andreas Cassee : Global Freedom of Movement - A Philosophical Plea for Open Borders , Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt, 2016

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ About No Borders . noborders.org.uk
  2. ^ Immigration Control: What about the workers? ( Memento of the original of July 7, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Paul Marks, Free Life No. 19, Page 12, November, 1993.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.libertarian.co.uk
  3. ↑ Fabian Georgi: What is left migration policy? . In: Luxembourg. Social analysis and left practice . January 2015
  4. ↑ Fabian Georgi: On the Critique of Migration Policy - No border and Critical Theory ( Memento of the original from September 10, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . 2012 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www. Grenzfrei-festival.org
  5. ↑ Leoluca Orlando: International Free Movement of People. Palermo Charter 2015. From migration as a problem to free movement as an inalienable human right . P. 2
  6. ↑ Julius Issac, Economics of Migration , Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9781136228063 , pp. 103, 104
  7. ↑ a b FAZ, We can do what? , December 29, 2015
  8. ^ Zeit Online, interview with Hans-Werner Sinn October 8, 2015.
  9. ↑ Paul Collier: " Exodus ... ", Siedler, Berlin, 2014, p. 21
  10. ↑ Collier, ibid., P. 31
  11. ↑ Collier, ibid., P. 37
  12. ↑ Collier, ibid., P. 69
  13. ↑ Collier, ibid., P. 81 f
  14. ↑ Collier, ibid., P. 147
  15. ↑ Julius Issac, Economics of Migration , Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9781136228063 , pp. 103, 104
  16. ↑ Philip Plickert: German economists criticize Merkel's asylum policy . FAZ Online . February 17, 2016, accessed February 25, 2016
  17. ↑ Die Welt, Open borders are unjust and endanger human life , June 12, 2017