On Discrimination and Borders
Jul. 2nd, 2015 10:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pseudomonasRacism has a bad image, and quite right too. It's not that it's been eliminated, but that its social acceptability is such that even the BNP pays lip service to Not Being Racist. The very existence of the phrase "I'm not racist but…" is testament to how widely everyone, even massive racists realise that racism is probably not the ideal policy to cling to in life.
But. It seems to me1 that the lines of acceptable discrimination have been drawn such that it just so happens there's no problem at all with discriminating based on place of birth. The UK does it, just about every other country does it; the idea that it's legitimate to say "if you were born here (and/or if your parents were) you are One Of Us and you have these rights and entitlements and may come and go freely, otherwise you are a Foreigner and Not Our Problem" is fully normalised in mainstream political thought.2 We happily abridge the freedoms of myriads of people because they weren't born here. This cannot be right.
I can see absolutely no principled reason for this that wouldn't also amount to an extremely racist justification. I can see many pragmatic reasons for allowing this state of affairs to continue; but working backwards from pragmatic reasoning to a principle is exactly as bad as saying "our economy would collapse without slavery, therefore let us posit that the group we are enslaving are subhuman" (if you think that's too extreme then I would argue that this is merely the most graphic and most recent example of the injustices perpetrated by the mindset).
In the short term I would prefer we accept the cognitive dissonance of saying "this policy is immoral but we will stick to it for pragmatic reasons except in cases where people absolutely require refuge" than maintain the current pretence that there is anything morally acceptable about it. In the longer term, we should work towards (minimally) fully open borders and citizenship on demand for residents of any state3. I would argue that there are pragmatic advantages to that situation too - in particular in terms of increasing economic parity between regions. But even if there were no such advantages we should pursue this goal anyway, on purely principled grounds, just as abolitionists believed in their cause regardless of its undoubted economic impact.
[I considered giving here lots of examples of how the implementations of immigration controls are evil in practice, but actually the point I'm trying to make is that the very concept is evil in principle]
1Yes, I know I'm not anything like the first person to realise this.
2I don't even know of a word or short phrase that means "discriminating against someone based on their place of birth"; there's a lot of pernicious nitpicking by people who hold to this that "oh, it's not really racism because 'people from X' aren't a race", and yeah, OK, it's not exactly racism, but it's ALSO BAD so your argument is crap. [ETA:![[twitter.com profile]](https://p.dreamwidth.org/e0caa790ec10/-/twitter.com/favicon.ico)
abigailb suggests "Nativism" which is pretty close, but I would like a word describing the phenomenon of discrimination, not its political application, so as to be able to say e.g. "Nativism is a political doctrine based on _____". ETA2: "Xenophobia" is pretty damn close and well known, so maybe we should leave it at that for now. ]
3I have no major problem with the existence of national governments - just as Leicestershire and Lincolnshire have different local governments but there is no suggestion that people born in one shouldn't be permitted to travel, reside, or work in the other.
But. It seems to me1 that the lines of acceptable discrimination have been drawn such that it just so happens there's no problem at all with discriminating based on place of birth. The UK does it, just about every other country does it; the idea that it's legitimate to say "if you were born here (and/or if your parents were) you are One Of Us and you have these rights and entitlements and may come and go freely, otherwise you are a Foreigner and Not Our Problem" is fully normalised in mainstream political thought.2 We happily abridge the freedoms of myriads of people because they weren't born here. This cannot be right.
I can see absolutely no principled reason for this that wouldn't also amount to an extremely racist justification. I can see many pragmatic reasons for allowing this state of affairs to continue; but working backwards from pragmatic reasoning to a principle is exactly as bad as saying "our economy would collapse without slavery, therefore let us posit that the group we are enslaving are subhuman" (if you think that's too extreme then I would argue that this is merely the most graphic and most recent example of the injustices perpetrated by the mindset).
In the short term I would prefer we accept the cognitive dissonance of saying "this policy is immoral but we will stick to it for pragmatic reasons except in cases where people absolutely require refuge" than maintain the current pretence that there is anything morally acceptable about it. In the longer term, we should work towards (minimally) fully open borders and citizenship on demand for residents of any state3. I would argue that there are pragmatic advantages to that situation too - in particular in terms of increasing economic parity between regions. But even if there were no such advantages we should pursue this goal anyway, on purely principled grounds, just as abolitionists believed in their cause regardless of its undoubted economic impact.
[I considered giving here lots of examples of how the implementations of immigration controls are evil in practice, but actually the point I'm trying to make is that the very concept is evil in principle]
1Yes, I know I'm not anything like the first person to realise this.
2I don't even know of a word or short phrase that means "discriminating against someone based on their place of birth"; there's a lot of pernicious nitpicking by people who hold to this that "oh, it's not really racism because 'people from X' aren't a race", and yeah, OK, it's not exactly racism, but it's ALSO BAD so your argument is crap. [ETA:
3I have no major problem with the existence of national governments - just as Leicestershire and Lincolnshire have different local governments but there is no suggestion that people born in one shouldn't be permitted to travel, reside, or work in the other.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 10:55 am (UTC)Indeed it needs a word, so that it can be thought about and discussed. I can think of several rather silly words for it, but that wouldn't help. Perhaps "them-and-us" translated into Latin or Ancient Greek would have sufficient gravitas. ;)
I find it difficult to answer the frequent question: "Where are you from?". I should think it's even harder for m'friend who was born on a tiny island in the Pacific because his parents happened to be there that year.
Passing by via friendsfriends
Date: 2015-07-02 11:06 am (UTC)"Nationalism"? Although the usual motivations are more specifically "economic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism". As British racists often currently refer to non-white people as "ethnics" when they want to use a slur but also don't want to be called out for it, I confess it would amuse me if the same racists were also referred to as "ethnic nationalists".
Re: Passing by via friendsfriends
Date: 2015-07-02 11:20 am (UTC)Re: Passing by via friendsfriends
Date: 2015-07-02 11:22 am (UTC)* Who am i kidding, really?
Re: Passing by via friendsfriends
Date: 2015-07-02 11:23 am (UTC)Re: Passing by via friendsfriends
Date: 2015-07-02 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 11:37 am (UTC)It would be funny to hear what cats thought of the notion of nation states. Maybe this is why they adopt us as pets - to try and civilise us?
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 05:26 pm (UTC)purrhaps drifting a paw or two off-topic here...
Date: 2015-07-02 05:58 pm (UTC)And when cats have been forcedly in awfully overcrowded conditions, they develop social hierarchies - one or two top cats, various strata beneath, and a few scapegoats at the bottom - all too recognisable from human society.
Not for nothing is the image of the archetypal cat owner someone who lives alone and in defiance of conventional social expectations; I have a nagging feeling that cats regard such people as having been successfully liberated from captivity. I'm not at all sure they're wrong, either.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 03:18 pm (UTC)As well as being a UK citizen, I am a member of another social unit as a result of an accident of birth. The people with responsibility for assigning resources within that unit have favoured me, and have granted me substantial privileges which it would not occur to them to grant to people who were not born into the same social unit. The social unit in question is my family, and I don't think my parents were acting immorally by feeding and clothing and accommodating me while not doing exactly the same things for all other children.
Specific circumstances can confer particular obligations, or make particular instances of favouring certain groups appropriate, without implying anything about the absolute value of that group relative to any other. For example, I buy birthday presents for my close friends and relatives, but not for other people. That doesn't mean I think my friends and relatives are intrinsically more deserving of nice things than everyone else, but just that the relationship I have with them makes it appropriate for me to be the person buying the nice things.
Of course, it being legitimate to favour one group doesn't remove all obligations to other groups. I don't have to buy presents for strangers, but I have a basic duty to treat them decently, and probably to help in certain cases of urgent need - though exactly how far that extends is a whole other ethics essay.
I'm personally inclined to feel that the obligations national governments have to people in general (simply on the basis of their being fellow human beings) are sufficient to mean that many of the restrictions currently in place shouldn't be. But to my mind, that doesn't imply that governments favouring people born within their jurisdiction must always be the result of racism - in some cases, it may be more like parents favouring their children. There are arguments one could put forward for it falling at various points on the spectrum - but it doesn't strike me as a trivial question.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 05:53 pm (UTC)And I agree that this needs to go up different levels. Your family is allowed to treat you well, but must also contribute to all families in the country. And our country is allowed to treat us well, but should probably also contribute to all countries in the world.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 06:28 pm (UTC)One's family is not only expected to treat one well, it is enjoined from not doing so, socially and in extreme cases legally. Although in fact, in legal terms, the bar for acceptable behaviour within a family is actually lower than outside; if you tried permitted physical chastisement on a random stranger, it would constitute assault. Likewise, there are proposals to outlaw between adults the kind of emotional abuse that goes unchecked within families.
But basically, I think the metaphor collapses as soon as one looks at the nature of the familial bond vs that of the bond to location of birth. One is based on (hopefully reciprocated) love, primarily, with a backing of social expectation should that fall short. The other is simply a grid reference - or at best, a set of assumptions about the character of the governmental entity inside which that grid reference happened to be included at the time... a relationship rather more similar in nature to that between a convict and a prison.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 06:29 pm (UTC)Some people _do_ feel very strongly about their country of birth. They feel a deep and abiding love for it. I don't, my self. But then I know people that don't feel love for their family members.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 07:16 pm (UTC)but the topic under discussion is place of birth, isn't it, rather than country of birth? i don't think the two are interchangeable, which is rather the point i'm making. is the country of england defined by the set of grid references within its borders, or what one imagines the shared assumptions of its people? if england and spain, say, were to suddenly switch populations, in their entirety - what would one call the nation on the kind of triangular-ish land mass twenty miles off the coast of the great big landmass?
and if people really do adore the geography of their birth, are they in love with the scenery per se, or with the lifetime of emotions it triggers within them - the fact that it tells them that they are, in some evanescent way, home? and what, if anything, does that imply about their emotional attachment to the prevailing government, and its preferential treatment of those born onto that scenery?
too many concepts are being conflated here, and then not-quite-appropriate metaphor is being heaped on to confuse the picture even further. social units, jumbled up with love-based relationships, intertwined with landscape paintings...
before we can talk sensibly about any of this, we need to try and sift out what is being talked about. which
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 08:18 am (UTC)I think, you could reasonably cobble together some system of citizenship by descent, possibly augmented with some rules about physical presence in the country that don't refer to place of birth, that more or less preserve the status quo in practise and don't have particularly far-reaching implications. OK, it would be nice if people who are permanently resident here but not citizens (or for that matter, are citizens by descent) and might expect British citizenship for their child could pop abroad on holiday while pregnant without worries, but that seems a minor thing in the grand scheme of things.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 01:56 pm (UTC)Prong 1 is to say, "place of birth, colour of passport, people are discriminating on irrelevant things, don't do that."
Prong 2 is for someone else to say, "OK, place of birth, colour of passport etc. are basically easily-observed proxies for the real thing of interest, which is having some substantial connection to the country/nation/state; the latter is the thing that's directly relevant but it's too subjective to define properly let alone measure directly so we have to rely on proxies (probably in practise some hodgepodge of them with odd edge cases and interactions)." and to reply, "yes, I'll grant you that (maybe if only for the sake of argument), but even if you could neatly define and measure the 'substantial connection' it's still wrong to deny citizenship to people willing to physically relocate themselves."
What I'm seeing in boldface in the OP is "fully open borders and citizenship on demand for residents" which looks pretty clearly like prong 2; however the insistence that this about place of birth looks like prong 1.
I disagree with prong 1 but am undecided on prong 2 (and even if I'm persuaded of it, there's still the debate as to how much it's a practical thing to start chasing now and how much it's a utopian dream to start chasing some time after doing the other utopian stuff like eliminating private property); I'd like to see prong 2 debated on it's merits rather than on prong 1 reasoning.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 02:18 pm (UTC)On the one hand, it's currently a utopian dream. On the other, in the C18/C19 century slavery went from the Natural Order Of Things to Universally Unacceptable; in the course of the C20 century colonialism went from the Natural Order Of Things to Universally Unacceptable. I'd like to see a twofold approach of a) making the philosophical case for absolutely open borders in principle; while b) making the political case for consistent loosening of immigration controls (as far as is unlikely to cause chaos at any given time) in practice.
There are lots of other evils to be tackled, but I believe that many of them would be significantly addressed by any approximation to open borders.
(also I don't think elimination of private property is desirable, but would prefer it if we argued about that in another forum, cos one can of worms at a time plz...)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 03:26 pm (UTC)With families, it seems to be the case that adults can refuse to join or form families for whatever reason they like; this takes precedence over antidiscrimination. Things are a little different with people born into families or adopted as children (we don't really do adult adoption in this country, do we?) but even then, giving up children for adoption is a thing. OTOH, disowning a child I think is seen as rather more dramatic - condemnable in a wider range of circumstances - than getting divorced, and getting divorced as far more dramatic than not getting married in the first place.
With companies, there is some antidiscrimination in place; direct discrimination is disallowed, also there is some restriction on indirect discrimination, but it's not total. Companies are allowed, for example, to insist on particular skills, even if the presence of those skills is correlated with protected characteristics[1], if there is a bona fide occupational requirement. A lot of people think of immigration policy in the same light; they want to let in people who have the right skills etc.
(Aha, I see an edit to add "Certainly to be consistent you'd have to apply the tests to people who were (otherwise) born into citizenship as well as those who relocated into it")
One test in current use is the "would otherwise be stateless" test; if this test isn't allowed, and it's not OK for people to be left stateless, then the only remaining option is to allow citizenship on demand. "Would otherwise be stateless" correlates remarkably well, I think, with a lot of the citizenship by birthright that already applies; it would certainly have applied to me.
I brought up private property because in a sense, a lot of this is to do with property. With my citizenship comes a sort-of share in the national wealth - in the form of everything from protection from foreign armies through to easy access to Medieval ruins, and in particular access to well-paying employers. I think a lot of anti-immigration sentiment is to do with controlling access to that wealth - see the common complaints about immigrants taking people's jobs or being on benefits. Also I suspect that a lot of the benefits of open borders would come precisely from spreading that wealth.
[1] Note Meehl's observation that in "soft" fields everything is correlated with everything else.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 08:05 pm (UTC)aid payments...
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 07:37 pm (UTC)I think it is HIDEOUSLY unfair that some children have a brilliant start to life, with all sorts of vistas of opportunities open to them and other children have instead only bad things. I have been known to suggest that the state should take all the children and put them in regimented children's homes run in carefully regimented ways to ensure that every child got the SAME start in life... but alas I know that in the real world such places are usually awful, and only marginally better than parents who are utterly unforgivably abusive. A more realistic option is the one we (in the UK) mostly go with - providing children opportunities independent of what their parents are like through schools and youth programs funded by taxes and charities (and also benefits, for when the parents have insufficient money to provide things like food); an option that is alas being chipped away at :(
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 07:43 pm (UTC)I think you may(!) be aware of my hatred for the actuality of being pregnant, but the fact remains that I spent over a decade with a near-constant physical craving for a child, before getting pregnant the first time, and its slow return was why the second child, and I've just realised it's back again even though I am determined never to be pregnant again.
That's not an ache that would be solved by working in a state creche and is only slightly eased by raising my two beloved and and exasperating offspring.
On the child side, having a few consistent carers over a long period is vitally important - one of the reasons I love N's nursery is they said "you know about our key worker system from when C was in preschool, well in babies we're much stricter about it".
Seriously raising inheritance tax would be a more practical intervention; the pupil premium and its extension to preschool education and childcare is an actual thing that may make life chances less unequal; I'd also like to see something about reducing the house price / school quality correlation (e.g. experimenting with the effect of diffderent %age of school places available by lottery rather than distance).
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 09:07 pm (UTC)Doing more to help increase chances for kids whose parents can't or won't provide is a much better plan. Im not convinced that bussing kids around to increase school diversity helps, long commutes to school suck. More diversity of housing might be better - insist that every catchment has x amount of affordable or social housing.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 08:58 pm (UTC)Agreed, in many senses it would be nice if there was complete freedom to migrate anywhere in the world, thereby promoting parity between people everywhere. The problem is: which nation is willing to be first to operate an open-door immigration policy?
Amsterdam, for example, is very liberal in a variety of ways. That's commendable. On the other hand, because it's the place to go if you want to smoke dope and watch women insert bananas, it's become a sleazy dive. If everywhere allowed that, Amsterdam would be a far more pleasant place. They're doing the right thing, and they're suffering. (Note that I'm not saying it's right to smoke dope and watch women insert bananas; I'm just saying it's wrong to legislate against it.)
The other problem is that we don't see very much wrong with institutions such as national parks, where there are strict controls on new development and therefore, in effect, population controls. Why, when it comes right down to it, should one person get a lovely house beside Ullswater and another a semi in Cumbernauld? The thinking is that some areas should remain "unspoiled", and it's easy to see how that thinking could extend to the national level. Bhutan as a Country Of Outstanding Natural Beauty, for example?
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 08:08 pm (UTC)