'Em Foreigners'

Finally occurred to me why I vehemently disagree with Daily Mail-esque “em foreigners took all our jobs.” As has been pointed out, the statistics used by such tabloids are absolute nonsense, but my quibble is not over numbers. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that ‘foreigners’, however we define them, coming to a country is a Bad Thing. Why? I’m a liberal. One of my fundamental values is freedom, the pursuit of personal autonomy. Where possible and sensible, I should find my own ideal of the 'good life’, and be allowed to follow it. (Note that that the conditions of possibility and sense separate the liberal from the libertarian).

A central issue is the avoidance of what John Rawls called “morally arbitrary disadvantages, especially if present from birth”. (AToJ, 1971, p.96) What is a morally arbitrary disadvantage? Birth, for example. Where, when, how and to whom you are born is the event which simultaneously has the greatest influence over your life, yet which you have the least control over. Therefore, we can consider it 'morally arbitrary’. Such factors will always exist, but it concerns liberals when such factors are particularly advantageous, or disadvantageous. Why should person A be given more life choices, more opportunities to lead the life he desires, than person B, simply because the former was lucky enough to be born to different parents?

For example, when one examines the elite universities in nearly any developed country, one finds that the average family income of students is far higher than the national average. How can this be? Are poor kids just naturally inferior? I think not. It seems that there are two possible answers: that the tangible benefits of money (better schools, tutors, environment) make kids smarter, or that the less tangible benefits (connections, class, etiquette) push average kids higher than they otherwise deserve to go. For myself, neither answers are acceptable.

Moreover, I have an international outlook. When I say that the inequalities of birth concern, I do not merely mean within a country, but between them. I believe our concern should be to raise the average welfare of every human, not the 'poor within a rich country’ which worry most nationalist socialists. As one might guess, I have little time for nationalism, which Ignatieff calls the 'narcissism of minor differences’. Why does a British child deserve access to so many more opportunities, such a deeper 'societal culture’ (Kymlicka), than a Bosnian or Bolivian child? Nationalists will generally point to history to make their case, yet I find little support for it there. Countries and empires rise and fall for numerous reasons, such as diseases, famines, colonialism and conquests. None of these seem factors on which we could base a morally-acceptable system. If some countries do better than others because of inherent strengths or weaknesses (as nationalists claim), why do their relative positions vary so much? See the Roman Empire in 1AD versus 501AD, or the British Empire in 1800 versus 2000. Claims of inherent superiority appear a nonsense, which denies a Rawlsian liberal from allowing them to influence our moral framework.

What do these concerns of birth have to do with “em foreigners”? I was born in one country, educated in another, have lived in a third, and will almost certainly die in a fifth, sixth or seventh. The value of the freedom to move seems self-evident to me, as clear as free speech or conscience. I move for economic, cultural, social reasons; I may move for no reason. The central liberal idea is that we should not (where possible) judge another’s conception of the good, but allow it to flourish. I wanted to live in Britain for a time, and now that I tire of it, I’ll leave. My freedom to leave is allowed (likely applauded, even) by the tabloid press, but the reciprocal is not. The millions of Britons living in other countries is ignored, only the millions of non-Britons living in Briton. Of course, on aggregate they put more into the economy than they take out, but it only wastes breath to argue facts with tabloids. Their argument is not factual, but emotional: we don’t want 'em foreigners’ here. It is also fundamentally illiberal.

The argument is illiberal because, when considering any sovereign nation, the land mass is sufficient to keep two people separate. If you want to live in Britain but not meet me, you can. If you want to live in an area free of 'em foreigners’, you can (despite what the tabloids might claim, there isn’t a Romanian under every floorboard). However, in favour of the tabloid/BNP argument, that all of Britain should be 'kept British’, I have heard no sensible justification. Why should it?

Of course, the possibility of a an extreme yet liberal nationalism fails further. Go to the most anti-immigrant parts of Britain. (Unfortunately, they aren’t hard to find). Ask whether someone would mind living near a Canadian or a New Zealander. The answer will be, almost inevitably, no. Ask about an American or Australian and, (barring some grumbling about sports), the answer will also be no. Ask about someone from Ireland, or Iceland, or Switzerland, or Norway, and the answer will almost almost always be no. However, ask about someone from Bolivia, or Bosnia, or Burkina Faso, or Bangladesh, or Bahrain, and the answer will often be yes.

Why is this? The most obvious answer from the options I selected is race, and this may be well be a factor for some. But, I believe that, in writing off those who oppose immigration as mere racists, many liberals ignore more salient points. My guess would be that the real bugbear is not race, religion or culture, but class. People from Canada, America, Iceland and Switzerland are, in global terms, rich. Whether a school teacher or CEO, they will be pretty comfortable. They can afford a gardener to keep the hedges tidy, and a new car to keep in the drive. People from Bosnia, Bangladesh and Burkina Faso are (except small elites) poor in global terms. They can’t afford the gardener or the new car. Their walls may go unpainted and their broken windows unfixed.

These may seem like mere concerns, more suitable to Mrs. Bucket than political philosophy. But I believe class is of importance in the world today, perhaps now more than ever. Socialists have long since given up on Marx’s global communism, preferring to retreat to their national dens and grumble about local conditions. Conservatives have always agreed that we should do little, if anything, to aid those from other countries. Who’s left to ask whether maybe, just maybe, we’ve got it wrong? That arguing over changes to National Insurance contributions in Britain isn’t worth the breath, when the average life in Botswana is currently 36? If you consider yourself a liberal, wake up and smell the coffee. 

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

- Emma Lazarus, 1883. Mounted on the Statue of Liberty, New York.