A discussion with Professor Joseph Carens on the ethics of immigration
As we plunge into 2025, federal elections loom over Canada where immigration is a heated topic of debate in political arenas. Unsettling levels of inflation and unemployment have been pinned on the governing Liberal Party’s laxed immigration policies. Often perpetuating racism and xenophobia, anti-immigration rhetoric has been increasingly deployed in political discourse as a shallow solution to complex internal issues.
Seeking insight on this debate, The Strand interviewed Professor Emeritus Joseph Carens, a political theorist on immigration. Professor Carens provides a refreshing take in his philosophical case for open borders.
The Strand: Could you elaborate on your arguments for free cross-border movement?
Carens: The case for open borders is not a policy proposal that could be adopted by any country today. The way humans have organised the world is profoundly unjust. We have a world where most people face more difficult life circumstances than the relatively few of us who live in rich countries. Being born in a rich country gives you a better set of life chances than most people in the rest of the world. The argument is—that’s unjust, and opening borders is a component to address it. There should be a transformation of the inequalities between states. One symptom of having solved the inequalities between states is that the borders can be open. Once you have reduced the vast inequalities to something modest, most people will not want to move. Most people want to live more or less in the communities in which they’ve grown up. A perfect illustration of this is the European Union. These are countries that fought wars with each other for 100s of years and speak different languages, and now they have open borders. If you’re born in Portugal, which is about half the GDP of, say, Sweden, you’re not going to move from Portugal to Sweden just to make a little more money. Being able to move is an important freedom, they should have that option. We see that within countries where you have the right to move anywhere, such as in Canada. There are no controls for moving from one province to another. That is a fundamental freedom. The freedom to move is important, but it’s not the most important thing. The most important thing is this background inequality. Opening borders is a component of addressing that, but not the best. If people believed my argument, they would be changing the economic arrangements first, not opening borders.
The Strand: Given that in Canada, many immigrants are from relatively poor nonwestern states, do you think this injustice takes a racial form?
Carens: Yes, there’s no question about that. Racism lies behind a lot of the opposition to immigration. We see that in various ways, such as in the different responses to people fleeing Ukraine and people fleeing comparable difficult circumstances or even worse circumstances elsewhere. People from Africa or Asia do not receive the same kind of sympathy and support. As is often the case with prejudices of this kind, many people are not conscious of their prejudices, so it deeply shapes the degree to which people are willing to accept immigration.
The Strand: Assuming that Canada’s inflation and housing crisis and social services are rooted in its immigration policies, would the right to immigrate still stand at the expense of the comfort of the country’s citizens?
Carens: The presupposition of most people is that citizens come first, and we are entitled to what we have collectively. What is the possible justification for that? Canada has emerged out of the conquest of indigenous peoples. Our position in the world is one of privilege. Even if you thought that the wealth of a country was from the hard work and effort of its people, there would still be the question of why that gets to be passed on generationally. The assumption is that we’re entitled to what we made possible. But your children are not the ones who worked hard. They don’t have the same claim of entitlement. If there are inequalities, they should be limited and not transferred over to subsequent generations. We recognise this in the creation of public education. You should be able to go to school for free. There are advantages one has in education by money, but there remains an ostensible commitment. The rights we recognise in areas of our public life ought to be extended across the world. Why should these rights be limited to a person with the citizenship of that country and not for the world? The argument, ‘why should we let people in?’ If people from Alberta want to move to Ontario, they’re free to do so. We see a vast migration from rural areas to urban areas. That migration has a lot more to do with the housing shortages than those from other countries. We don’t think, ‘they can’t come.’ We have to deal with that. People get to do that.
The Strand: Many would say “damn the importance of the freedom to move and immigrate. I need to lower inflation and to make housing prices cheaper for myself.” How warranted are those sentiments?
Carens: People feel entitled to what they have and want to protect it. But they get upset when they see other people in more privileged positions doing the same. There’s a New Yorker cartoon from years ago that showed one king talking to another, and the first king says, ‘monarchy may not be the best form of government in principle, but it is the best form of government for me.’ That seems so hypocritical, but that’s what your imaginary citizen is doing. If everybody does that, what happens? The ones with advantages get more. You have to reason for why what you’re advocating is fair. Oftentimes, people don’t feel the need for that. So part of the challenge is to bring those stories into the fore and ask, ‘are you being consistent?’ If you can show that self interest and morality fit together, you have a better chance of getting people to be act morally. One example is the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis, and Trudeau advocated for taking in more Syrian refugees in Canada than most other countries. In doing so, he brought in educated and skilled people. I’m in favor of making interests and morality align.
The Strand: Would open borders create a parental responsibility of the rich state towards people of poor states? If so, does that create an informal racial structure?
Carens: That question presupposes the way to address the problem of inequality between states is by opening borders, which I disagree with. I use the example of feudalism in my book. One of the things that made feudalism work, is that the peasants were tied to the land. You couldn’t move from one place to another without the permission of the lords. Control over immigration has that same function. Permitting freedom of movement within feudalism is not a solution but is a component that makes it work and I’m drawing attention to that component. The fundamental problem here is the inequality, the lack of movement is not.
