Free Borders - an idea whose time will come

Why borders should be free - A short sermon

There is a fundamental unfairness in the world. Through no work of my own, I have rights which most of my fellow human beings do not have, and that is not fair.

It is not because I am a male. Some sexual discrimination still exists, but women in my country generally have good opportunities and standard of life.

It is not because my skin is white. It is true that many white-skinned people in the world enjoy the same unfair priveleges that I do; but many dark-skinned people share these priveleges too, and many white-skinned people do not.

It is not because I was born into a moderately wealthy family. My country is a classless society, and any person can achieve a good standard of living if they apply themselves and make the correct decisions.

No, the unfair advantage I have is that I am a citizen of a wealthy country - in my case, Australia.

As a citizen of Australia, I have certain rights, no matter how lazy or dishonest I am. I have (almost) free access to essential medical care. If I am unable (or even unwilling) to work, there is social security to give me at least a basic standard of living.

People in many countries - in fact, the majority of people on earth - do not have these rights. Many of them work much harder than I do, but they receive much less for their work. The difference is that they happen to have been born in a poorer country.

That is not fair.

So, I believe international borders should be free. That is, I believe all people should have the right to move to a different country to pursue a better standard of living.

Note that I am advocating free borders, not no borders. Different regions - that is, different countries - have a right to govern themselves in the way they see fit. Borders are fine. What is objectionable is when people are not allowed to cross those borders.

How it should work

1. Every country, or as many as possible, should have free borders. That is, any person (with a few restrictions) is allowed to immigrate to that country if they want to.

2. If a person is fleeing justice or punishment in another country, the destination country would have the option of sending them back to face justice.

But this would be an option, not an obligation. Countries would be free to shelter people who they believe are fleeing unjust punishment in their country of origin.

3. Countries are free to set their own laws, and immigrants must be willing to obey the laws of the country to which they emigrate.

In the short term

My vision of free borders is a long-term goal.

In the short term, I want to see developed countries increase their immigration and refugee intake quotas, so that the oppressive effects of restricted borders are reduced even if not eliminataed.

Other Benefits from Free Borders

The prime reason for free borders is one of fairness: giving to people in poor countries, the chance of a better standard of living.

But there are some important side benefits:

1. The end of people smuggling

At the moment, people wanting to emigrate often have to pay "people smugglers" enormous sums of money for illegal entry to their destination. These journeys are usually under very dangerous conditions, and many people die making the journey. Free migration will spell the instant end of the people smuggling trade.

2. Solve the aging population problem

Most developed countries face the problem of an aging population: as the country becomes more wealthy and technologically advanced, people are having less children and living longer. As a result, there is a growing aging population, with a shrinking workforce having to provide for the increasing number of retiring people.

I find it ironic, and a little sickening, that some governments and organisations are promoting solving this problem by taking measures to increase the birthrate in developed countries. And yet poorer countries generally have larger families and a younger population overall. Surely a better solution all round is increased immigration rather than a higher birthrate.

With free borders, labour shortages caused by an aging population (or anything else) will be solved naturally, as people migrate in order to find work.

3. Eroding the power base of dictatorships

There are two main reasons why people will be desperate to leave their home country: severe famine, or an oppressive government. In the case of famine, many people will be inclined to return when conditions improve. In the case of oppressive government, people again will not want to return until conditions improve - that is, until the oppressive regime is gone.

So if people are leaving in droves, it weakens the power base of a dictator: he (it is rarely "she") has less people generating wealth for him, he is ruler over a shrinking empire.

In other words, if free countries are willing to take as many immigrants as possible from oppressive countries, it will erode the power base of dictatorships.

Philosophical Objecions

1. "Free immigration is not fair on the wealthy countries. They will then be forced to share their hard-earned wealth with those who did not earn it!"

There are two points that can be made in response:

First, it is not at all clear that rich countries have become rich through fair means. Some of the wealth (though it is hard to quantify how much) was generated by colonising and exploiting the poorer countries. Now that the poor countries are independant, the wealthy countries preserve their wealth by using cheap labour from poorer countries. Consider: how much did you pay for the shirt you are wearing? How much was paid to the person who made it?

Secondly: even if rich countries have become rich by fair means, does it automatically follow that they have a right to bequeath those riches to their descendants, and no-one else? Is it fair that descendants of a rich country can be lazy and have great wealth, yet descendants of a poor country can work hard and yet die through lack of access to even the most basic of health care?

2. "Why should we help people from other countries? My only responsibility is to look after myself and my family!"

If that is what you believe, then I feel sorry for you.

As a follower of Jesus, I believe that we are called to help all people. I believe that free borders are for the good of the people most in need, so it is an idea whose time will come.

3. "Charity begins at home!"

Says who?

I believe charity should go first to those who need it most.

In any case, there is much charitable work done for the poorest people in Australia (and probably most other developed countries). It far outweighs what is done for the people in the poorest countries on earth.

4. "Most people coming to another country are just "economic refugees" - people looking for a better way of life!"

And what's wrong with that?

Wouldn't you want a better way of life if you knew of countries where you'd be paid many times your current salary for the same amount of work, and have access to better housing, education and health care?

Besides, for inhabitants of some countries (such as Australia and the USA), nearly all of us either came here ourselves looking for a better way of life, or are descended from people who did. In other words, we were economic refugees too.

Practical Objecions

1. "Won't the country's laws be changed if a huge mass of people move to that country, enough so they can vote to change laws in their favour?"

You are assuming that a new immigrant should have instant voting rights. I do not see why that should be so. To stop a bloc of people moving to a country and then voting to change its laws in some way, I see no reason why countries should not be able to set very long waiting periods (such as 10 to 20 years) before new immigrants can vote. That way, immigrants cannot vote to change a country until they have lived in it a long time and truly become part of it.

2. "How can a country then stop terrorists, or even fully armed armies, from crossing its borders?"

Like I said, countries should be free to set their own laws. That includes demanding that new immigrants surrender any arms. Because, again like I said, new immigrants must abide by the laws of the countries they enter.

3. "What about criminals fleeing justice?"

Free borders must not override justice. Countries should be free to send criminals back to face justice.

But countries must also be free to not send people back if they believe they are being prosecuted unjustly. (In other words, repatriation conventions must not override justice either).

4. "But this will lower the standard of living in the rich countries!"

That's right!

The question is, is our high standard of living justified, in the face of extreme poverty elsewhere on earth? Surely it's better for us to lose some of our services, so that many more people can have some of the basics of life.

5. "Allowing more people from non-European countries will cause an increase in crime and unrest in developed countries!"

I don't accept that this true. Even if it is, see the answer to the last question: it is more than offset by the good it produces in raising the standard of living of a great many people.

6. "If one country (such as yours, Australia) opens its borders, it will just be overrun with refugees and immigrants. And it would be a futile gesture if the rest of the developed world does not follow, because Australia can only house a tiny proportion of the potential immigrants anyway."

We must distinguish between the ideal long term outcome, and the practicalities in the short term.

I see free borders as a long term ideal. I agree that, even if I somehow became Supreme Dictator For Life in Australia, it would be futile for me to declare Australia's borders free if the rest of the developed world did not follow suit.

But what would be a good start would be to significantly increase Australia's immigration and refugee intake, and pressure other countries to do the same. Hopefully, countries would continue to increase immigration numbers (or, to put it the other way, reduce restrictions on immigration), until eventually all restrictions are removed.

7. "The poorest people cannot afford to emigrate. Therefore, all free borders will do is take all the best and brightest from poor countries."

We already take the best and brightest!

Due to the discrimantory nature of immigration laws in developed countries, developed countries welcome skilled immigrants from poor countries. In fact, they are in competition with each other to get them!

Here in Australia, people often lament the "Brain Drain" - the habit of many of our brightest minds to emigrate to seek better jobs in the USA or in Europe. However, Australia (and I am sure all developed countries are similar in this way) in fact more than compensates for this by the "Brain Gain" of skilled immigrants we receive from poorer countries.

So rich countries already take the best and brightest people from poor countries. The question is: will we make the equation more eqitable by allowing all sorts of people to immigrate?

Besides, I believe that the emigration from a poor country will benefit the poor country in the long run. People do not forget their country of origin. Of the people who emigrate to the developed world in search of wealth, many of those will in some way return that wealth to their country of origin: either by returning themselves one day, or trading with that country, or by raising awareness in the developed world of the needs of their country of origin.

8. "No-one will be left in the poorer countries!"

I believe that only a small proportion of people will ever move. Emigration is a great life change, and the majority of people will always want to stay in their country of origin.

But if by some chance a country did suffer a massive exodus of people, you can be sure that there will others who move there to take advantage of the opportunities left behind.

Unless that country is under a severe dictatorship which nobody wants to live under. But if that is the case, the constant stream of emigrants will erode that dictator's power base, and his dictatorship will be shorter lived as a result.

9. "The real answer to poverty is for the poor countries to become wealthy, not free borders!"

That is true, but free borders is an excellent stepping stone to making poor countries wealthy, for a number of reasons.

First, it provides an escape valve, so people can leave a poor country when the situation becomes too dangerous to stay.

Second, it raises the profile of poor countries, so that people in developed countries will be more inclined to act to help poor countries. It is hard to ignore the plight of poor countries if people are constantly arriving from them!

Third, as mentioned earlier, I believe that immigrants from poor countries will be the people in the developed world most able to take measures to help their country of origin. People do not easilt forget their country of origin.