De Facto Times

Who can stay and who must go? Should anyone be allowed to migrate, so long as they work and refrain from criminal acts? Or ought we be even more specific in our criteria? Some countries wish to take no immigrants, and others take them all. Alas, it is worth investigating what immigration standards should be and why.

Is intracultural diversity good? To better elucidate how immigration policy ought to be conducted, we must first determine whether or not maintaining cultural particularity is good. Then, we shall use an example to understand how certain outcomes might impact cultural particularity. If it is the case that upholding cultural particularities is morally neutral, then immigration has little reason for limits outside of safety concerns. However, if it is the case that upholding cultural particularities is good, then strict and culturally dependent immigration policies would be completely justified.

As I considered in the article, “Assyrians in the Face of Global Monoculture” (you really should give that a read), large-scale cultural diversity is good because the alternative is monoculture. As with a field of crops, monoculture is far less resilient when presented with risks. Additionally, global monoculture is simply bland and uninteresting. Though it is mere speculation, I would guess that increased global diversity can, to a degree, have a positive effect on wellbeing. At the very least, the maintenance of cultural particularities is more positive than negative, unless those particularities are proven without a doubt to negatively affect the group at hand.

Above is a crude diagram meant to represent two actors in a hypothetical on immigration: Country A and Country B. Country A is represented by the number 10, and Country B is represented by the number 5. These numbers, using a scale of 1–10, are meant to roughly represent a surveyed sentiment regarding some cultural aspect. So, in the case that a trait such as “extraversion” is tested for via survey, 1 would represent the least extroverted, and 10 would represent the most extroverted. Due to the nature of individual differences, there is a variety around the average within each population, but seldom stretching beyond a point or two.

An important clause worth establishing is that people may slowly inch towards the average of their community over time. This is the process of assimilation. Let’s say that one person from Country B migrates to Country A. Not only will their effect on Country A’s average number be marginal from the outset, but their difference with the average will wane over time until it approximates full assimilation. Though some are frightened by the word, assimilation is a necessary aspect of immigration if a country wishes to retain its particular identity, as has been demonstrated numerically. Small-scale assimilation proves that immigration can be at least neutral (and I would wager to say positive in many cases).

Now, let us say that 50 people from Country B migrate to Country A in a very brief period of time. Country A’s average number has been altered significantly, going from 10 to 8.33. Moreover, given the quantity of people from Country B who have come over in such a short time, they are unlikely to disperse into separate areas and assimilate with the surrounding natives, but instead congregate together and effectively establish a piece of Country B within Country A. Thus, assimilation rates are unlikely to change in any significant manner, and Country A’s average has been, until further notice, permanently altered. There are even numerous ways in which such a situation could disadvantage Country B, such as potential brain drain or economic disruption due to a lack of human capital. This is mass migration, a process which is disadvantageous if a country wishes to preserve its particular cultural identity.

The hypothetical is exacerbated when the population is Country B dwarfs the population of Country A. The more B citizens immigrate, the more they are incentivised to do so, as B citizens will inevitably create networks of family and friends in Country A. Eventually, Country A is dwarfed by the new population, and its original identity effectively dies. Now, combine the population disparities with decreasing birth rates and emigration in the native population of Country A, and the original occupants are likely to lose their country and territory in only a short time.

This is to demonstrate the fact that population density must be taken into account in the equation of immigration. Mass migration is disadvantageous because it results in high-density, low-assimilation settlements. The greatest kind of immigration is dispersed and assimilable, traits which are best achieved when immigration is slow and not highly networked. Now that we have established these basic principles of migration, it is worth examining the extremes: can extreme closedness regarding immigrants be good? What about extreme openness?

II. The Extremes of Immigration

Norms regarding assimilation vary by culture. Who has the right to decide who can and cannot immigrate? In some instances of migration, negative repercussions may be ascertained, allowing certain immigrants to be prohibited on moral grounds. For example, one might prove that accepting too many immigrants from a country where consent is not respected would have a net negative effect, thereby justifying restrictions. However, the net effects of immigration aren’t always clear-cut, which is why cultural norms are an authority worth consulting. There is seldom a single arbiter of migration policy, but rather, general cultural sentiments that may be ascertained through averages and historical precedent. Average sentiments and history are worth consulting if the migration cannot already be proven to have a negative effect on the country. If the norms are permissive of open immigration, open immigration policy is an aspect of that country’s particular culture, and therefore not inherently bad. Similarly, if the people are protective of their particular identity and do not wish to allow immigration, immigration might betray their culture. I shall detail what conditions and arguments create both closed and open immigration cultures.

The threat of job replacement is perhaps one of the most cited reasons for anti-immigrant sentiments. Whether or not job replacements are likely to occur is highly contextually dependent on the economy of the host country. Many economists cite the fact that immigrants often perform jobs that natives refuse to do, such as those of low pay and high labor. However, the problem here might not be a lack of willing labor, but a business owner failing to adjust wages correctly. Additionally, an economist may be inclined to look at the overall net outcome in jobs without properly addressing the permanent job displacement that results from importing labor, particularly among the working class. While managerial positions tend to benefit among natives, working-class laborers tend not to. Such an issue cannot be handwaved, though it is certainly difficult to test and isolate due to the confluence of factors that affect it (outsourcing, automation). In the case where working-class laborers are displaced, an argument against more closed immigration policies can credibly be made.

In most instances, the native population of the country has genetically adapted to their environmental conditions over hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years. Most countries have certainly experienced migration during environmental adaptation, but seldom from distant lands, and more often from neighbors with shared adaptations. Geographic distance correlates positively with genetic distance. The actual impact of these evolutionarily short-lived genetic adaptations is small, but nonetheless present, to the point where an impact on health may be observed. For instance, Sub-Saharan African populations adapted the trait of dark skin in order to adjust to the high amount of UV radiation received under the sun in Sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, people of Sub-Saharan descent in northern climates experience high rates of vitamin D deficiency. Proper levels of vitamin D are crucial for a host of metabolic functions. Low levels may cause increased likelihood of bone disease and fractures, weak muscles, risk of falling, cardiovascular disease, and autoimmune disorders. This is not to say that such problems cannot be remedied, but to demonstrate that even brief periods of evolutionary adaptation are able to disadvantage non-native, distant immigrants. The differences are notable enough to warrant slight selectivity if it is, on average, preferred by the native, adapted population.

Certain conditions may naturally cause a low immigration tolerance. A country is, more than a place, a people. Small communities are more heavily affected by low rates of immigration than larger communities. Thus, higher immigrant selectivity is a natural outgrowth of low populations. They are more vulnerable, and therefore more cautious.

Furthermore, if high standards are held for every person within a country’s borders, this may manifest in what appears to be a strict immigration policy. This may not be a result of disproportionate treatment, but the fact that other countries, including the source of emigration, hold their citizens to an incompatibly lower standard. Abnormally high standards for citizens are likely dependent on how cultures view pride, work, productivity, shame, and the relationships between these variables.

A people may be more recalcitrant in tolerating migrants if their nation has a history fraught with foreign-born conflict. Poland is a prime example of this phenomenon. After centuries of invasions and wars imposed on Poland, Poland is one of the most isolationist, anti-immigrant countries in the European Union. It is common for Polish citizens to feel as though they have a duty to protect their identity and sovereignty, with the repression of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany living in recent memory. Negative foreign pressures may lead to highly protective, nationalist reactions.

There is nothing inherently immoral about a country being highly selective in the immigrants they accept. There are relatively reasonable motives to do so, often confluencing with conditions that conduce low tolerance. There are, of course, immoral expressions of low tolerance that should be avoided. A refugee with no alternative paths should be welcomed if the alternative is their death. But overall, if the citizens of a state wish, on average, to have closed borders, then in most cases, it is their sovereign right to do so.

Immigration can, in some contexts, rectify ongoing issues in the host country, such as a labor deficit or low birth rate. These are not justifications alone, but factors worth considering on the whole. If the choice is between socioeconomic ruin and immigration, immigration will in many cases have the highest net gain. Marginal cultural differences are often worth sacrificing to avoid death and dramatic reductions in well-being. Sometimes, immigrants may generate more jobs than natives, resulting in more jobs for natives (unless they are victims of high ingroup bias).

Open immigration may be conditionally enabled by precedent. That is to say, if a country has, as a matter of principle, continuously accepted large waves of immigrants since its inception, the people of the country are not likely to stop the precedent unless extraneous pressures overwhelm them. In such circumstances, each new wave of immigrants has only inhabited the country for a couple of generations before the next wave arrives. Thus, for one wave of immigrants to bar another from entry would be a sort of “pulling up the ladder” effect and be seen as unfair.

A country with a precedent of continued immigration is likely to have a low bar for assimilation, perhaps based on a series of fundamental values. The United States fits both these criteria, with its bar of acceptance being a subscription to American values. Few norms outside of basic values are enforced. Though the United States has certainly had its share of nativist movements and violence, the population largely consists of descendants of immigrants whose families have inhabited the land for only a few generations. A pro-immigration sway has long sat behind America, beginning with the Founding Fathers, who explicitly expressed that their country was not just for the opulent man, but also for those who flee oppression. If such boundaries were not established at the country’s beginning and demonstrated in its actions, there is little reason to believe American culture would be as immigrant-centric as it is today.

If the historic flows of migration are from places of ancestral or proximal likeness, views on immigration may be more positive due to a history of easy assimilation. The Mexican population in the United States is a staple example of such a phenomenon. Not only did population exchange begin early, but territories have bounced between the two. Both Mexico and the United States fought bloody wars of independence from their colonial European overlords, from which much of their moral groundwork was laid. Thus, integration comes relatively easily. Not only does the United States have historic Mexican communities, but the Catholic, big-family values of the Mexicans are paralleled in the previous waves of Catholic immigrants from Italy and Ireland. Americans are likely to see their values paralleled in Mexican immigrants as a result, often deeming them “hard-working,” an attribute that is reflected in the rate at which Latin Americans start small businesses in the United States.

Open immigration can, in certain circumstances, produce a net benefit for all parties involved. Though, it is nonetheless worth being careful with open policies; knowing when the gates of immigration should be closed is important in ensuring that all citizens are safe. Additionally, details on the negative influence are paved over when it is viewed from a purely economic basis of jobs created or lost. Open immigration is most sensible when assimilation rates are incredibly high and displacement is low.

In the coverage of both extremes, I wish to have demonstrated that both closed and open immigration policies can be possible and done well depending on a series of cultural conditions. The underlying principles remain the same: mass migration over a short time to a concentrated area, especially from a culture with extreme differences, is likely to damage particular cultural identities. Assimilation is key for those who wish to maintain their culture, but the standards of assimilation may reasonably vary by culture.