More open borders for those left behind

Abstract

Including the interests of those migrants leave behind in debates about migration and justice is a strategy which theorists who are sceptical of open borders have made use of, most notably in brain drain critiques of emigration. In rejecting this view, and in invoking an epistemic conception of liberalism, I claim that not only can the interests of those left behind be appealed to by defenders of more open borders. For at least two reasons such interests should be included. First, more open borders have a unique role to play in addressing the interests of those left behind via the transformative economic effects of remittances and the state signalling mechanism that migrant and remittance flows provide, both for wealthier states as they dispense foreign aid and for poorer states as they implement national development programmes. Second, more open borders are also compelling for those who are sceptical of immigration insofar as they help them identify the obligations of justice they may owe to the world’s poor and how these are best discharged; obligations whose fulfilment lessens the pressure to migrate from poorer to wealthier states over the long term.

Returning empty-handed or going somewhere? Tales from social division networks of re-migrants in the polarized post-COVID-19 era: A phenomenological study

“…The results showed that motivation, re-migration strategies, job opportunities, and minimum wage are the most influential reasons for Laotian re-migrants to polarized post-COVID-19 Thailand. This finding is consistent with Ikotun et al (2021) and Tebble (2020), indicating that the reason for re-migration is the continuing era of reopened borders after the COVID-19 pandemic, due to its benefits. Our results also support previous studies which showed that many reasons for re-migration strategies, such as agency-facilitation, host country wages, and aspiration, may reinforce cross-border mobility (Daovisan et al, 2022; Hayakawa et al, 2022; Suhardiman et al, 2021).…”

‘More open borders and deep structural transformation’

“…Individual actors, therefore, can be said to participate in the transformation of deep structure, even if often only accidentally so. It is also with this epistemic understanding in mind that I (Tebble, 2018) advance an argument for freedom of movement between states because of the intended, and crucially unintended, poverty alleviating effects of immigrant remittances.…”

Contesting border artificial intelligence: Applying the guidance-ethics approach as a responsible design lens

“…Those decisions have regularly been justified based on maintaining state sovereignty but can also be seen as processes of (re)territorialization (Vigneswaran, 2013). Political philosophy at this stage remains divided about the ethics of borders (Bartram, 2010; van Houtum, 2012; Genova, 2017; Paasi et al, 2018; Tebble, 2020), with strong arguments being made in favor of open borders (Bartram, 2010). In this article, we cannot resolve those debates.…”