Immigration Control as Self-Defense

Abstract

This article defends the claim that citizens are justified in supporting immigration restrictions which are necessary to protect access to resources which (a) they have a claim right to and which (b) they and not migrants require to sustain their lives. Moreover, citizens are justified in supporting such restrictions even when it means blocking migrants' access to lifesustaining resources so long as (a) migrants lack a claim right to these resources and (b) the number of migrants seeking entrance is below a given threshold. Though citizens act permissibly in supporting restrictions in such cases, and act permissibly in voting for policymakers supporting such restrictions, the policymakers themselves often act impermissibly in implementing such restrictions. This is because the actions which citizens are justified in pursuing to defend their own lives are distinct from the actions which policymakers are justified in pursuing to defend the lives of citizens. Immigrants generally increase the medium wage of native workers, pay more in taxes than they use in resources, and contribute in countless non-monetary ways to the culture and intellectual life of their adopted countries. They also dramatically increase their own resources and liberties when given the option to migrate, creating a strong prima facie case for open borders. 1 Despite the prima facie case for open borders, the short-term impacts of immigrants can be lethal for some. Consider the case of Siama. On a rainy morning in March 2012, she was sitting on a sofa in her Juba home, comprised of a dirt floor, a couch, and straw walls. The only visible food was a sack of rice leaning against her west-facing fence, and she was unemployed, lacking nutrients necessary for survival. She decided that the government should limit the number of migrants entering and working in South Sudan. "Most jobs are in hotels, and most of the hotels are owned by Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians," she explained. "South Sudanese cannot get jobs." 2 Siama acknowledged that migrants might help the South Sudanese economy eventually, creating more jobs than they take. But this would take time, and Siama lacked time. To survive she needed a job as soon as possible, and so felt justified in limiting inward migration. This article considers whether and when citizens like Siama are permitted to support immigration control to defend their survival, and whether policymakers act permissibly in acting on behalf. More specifically, it considers whether citizens and policymakers act permissibly in restricting immigration to protect citizens' access to "adequate food, water, clean air, shelter, health, and a livable environment." 3