CHAPTER 21

Immigration Policies of Developed Nations: A New Wave of Sympathetic Imperialism

Bellarmine U. Nneji

Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Men ran to meet their chains thinking they have secured freedom - Jean Jacques Rousseau.^[1]

Immigration is a global phenomenon. There are nuances of reasons and arguments surrounding the phenomenon which is drawing the attention of many scholars. There have been compelling arguments both for and against the idea of open borders in the philosophy of immigration. Who benefits from open immigration policies? The sending or receiving nation? Are such policies acts of charity to sending nations?

The relaxing of immigration policies (open borders) by developed countries (such as United States) is coated with the impression that it is a real expression of freedom of movement and is presented as a way to ameliorate the poverty crises in developing nations. Many scholars proffer arguments that allowing immigrants will benefit the home nations (hereafter, sending countries or nations) through such factors as remittances and human capital development (improved skills). Of course, the immediate beneficiaries and their relations tend to believe so.

This chapter posits that this new form of colonialism is worsening the gross poverty margins in supply nations. Under normal circumstances this type of “charity” and sympathy would not be made available to developing nations’ citizens. The receiving countries’ open immigration opportunities are in most cases only trying to balance a distorted equilibrium in their home country while perpetuating one in the sending countries.

This work is mostly gleaned from the philosophical perspective. However, the historical and economic perspectives would be equally applied in the course of analysis of the idea and concept of sympathetic imperialism. To form the foundation of the analysis, this chapter will explain the concept of immigration, the trends involved, its primary causes, and the concept of imperialism. There is also the need to establish the primary or fundamental spoor of decay or decoy by developed countries to spark this issue of forced migration through certain international economic policies forced on developing nations, especially Asian and African countries who are popularly seen as the major victim/affected societies.

Immigration is an applied philosophy issue, unlike a concept within core philosophy, which includes epistemology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and politics. According to Hudson, a renowned scholar and philosopher of immigration, most applied philosophy employs moral philosophy and involves serious ethical theorizing and analyses to understand a specific issue, especially one of a public nature^[2]. For Risse, a philosopher and scholar on the ethics of immigration, who believes and argues that immigration is a moral issue, immigration debates should ”not look at the scenario solely from the standpoint of ’what is good for us‘ without regard for the justifiability of immigration policies to those excluded and left behind.”^[3] Applying philosophical standpoints to immigration, this chapter asks whether there is something or nothing wrong with sympathetic imperialism and if it is any different from exploitation. Of course, its impacts—whether positive or negative—have a role in the equilibrium (balancing) of any society. Some ethical theories and approaches—e.g., the justice approach, the common good approach, the fairness approach—may be employed. Popular media show cases of helplessness created by the powerfully advantaged over the disadvantaged. What are the moral justifications to buy away a society’s talented, reliable, and available middle-class human resources to serve their own needs and thereby create a lacuna in the sending countries? Also, what morally justifies the selection criteria of destination or receiving countries if they discriminate between applicants with skills and those without skills, as if those without the necessary skills hold no rights to the same freedom of movement and association as being advocated by those in support of open borders? This chapter offers a look at ”ethical recruitment” policies and practices and the role of international bodies in this regard.

Policies such as the U.S. Visa lottery, immigration laws, and other programs affect developing countries of Africa and Asia. Some policies and measures adopted by international organizations—e.g., the International Labor Organization (ILO), United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO)—are ethical in their efforts to address international immigration policy problems. However, many immigration policies of developing nations are not ethically justifiable; there is an intentional and active recruitment of skilled personnel away from developing countries; and there is a need to address such injustices. In the long run, despite its influence on economics, immigration has a strong ethical dimension as it affects human rights, justice, exploitation, enslaved labor, responsibility, and climate ethics.

Immigration and its impacts cut across disciplines and sectors. There is a vacuum somewhere in the receiving countries that immigration policy is trying to fill; otherwise, the rate of migrants would have been seriously curtailed. A question arises regarding the unprecedented rush and increase in the recruitment of medical and health personnel from the developing countries of Asia and Africa. There is a distorted equilibrium being taken care of, which creates a disequilibrium somewhere, in a vicious cycle.

Additionally, the analogical method, which makes for ease of references and inferences, is inherently employed in this research. The analogical method is very strategic and useful in explanations as this chapter tries to explain the underlying presumptions of open borders policy as it relates to developing countries. This method will enable us to see the analogy between “colonialism” (mostly before the achievement of independence of most developing nations) that depleted our material resource base and the “imperialism” (mostly postcolonial) that is depleting our human resource base.

Determining the origin of what is believed to be the crisis of impoverishment in developing countries of Africa could reveal the remote or ulterior motive behind the present trend of subtle “buying away” within migration. There will be critical assessment and analysis of immigration selection criteria of receiving nations. This will also tell us how morally justifiable such would be. Why hunt for the highly specialized middle class in developing nations? This is a depletion of available middle-class personnel who would have contributed to the development of their home nation – this is from the functionalist perspective. It is intended here to challenge the situation and suggest that philosophy should play a serious role in addressing the entire scenario with the hope that it is time to fulfill the eleventh Marxian thesis on Feuerbach, which is a clarion call to put philosophy and thoughts to action. Philosophy is a special discipline in the art of aletheia, the art of unveiling and saying the unsaid. Africans must come of age. It is not every bait that Africa must fall to. No matter how well-coated the arguments for open borders for the sake of developing nations, African nations should put up significant resistance to all forms of imperialism.

IMMIGRATION AND ITS NATURE

Immigration is a broad term. However, it is usually associated with the movement of non-indigenes or natives to other areas or lands for settlement. This definition is, however, associated with different rights and privileges. Immigration happens for different reasons and occurs in types such as individual/voluntary, forced, and mass migrations.

ORIGINS/FOUNDATIONS OF IMMIGRATION

Immigration happens for various reasons, especially since the 21^st century. Douglas S. Massey, a social scientist and an international immigration scholar, believes that immigration is a global phenomenon.^[4]He noted that despite the fact that immigration is influenced in most cases by proximity of borders, business interests, and political allies, these no longer hold water. He identified several causes and foundations of the immigration of humans, but he highlights four areas as being crucial for a better understanding of immigration: first, the economic bases of immigration; second, its social foundations; third, its policy foundations; and fourth, the voluntary policy bases of immigration.

Within the economic bases of immigration,^[5] Massey disagreed with the argument that wage differentials in sending and receiving countries are the major reason for economic migration. He also dismissed the idea that immigration is spurred by lack of development in sending countries. Massey argued that if wage differentials are the major economic reason, then when migration happens, it would reduce the differentials in receiving countries. This process leads to equilibrium, a balance, thereby removing any differentials. When this equilibrium or balance is obtained, it does not put a stop to immigration. He therefore reasoned that wage differential is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for migration.

According to Massey, economic migration is not solely an individual issue. It involves families or family members in decision making, especially in contributing to generate resources along with financial resources to fund the migration. Furthermore, economic conditions in developing countries are volatile, not only a wage issue. The nature of such volatility includes natural disasters, political upheavals, insecurity, and economic recessions. These factors make migration a safety net for families from the risks associated with such conditions. Thus, migration is not necessarily solely to maximize wages. In Nigeria and in many other African countries, many families collectively contribute to send one of their family members to a developed country to diversify the strategies to take care of such volatilities.

Massey asserts that since immigration is caused by lack of development in sending countries, then once the situation is improved, the migration rate should reduce greatly. Otherwise, he argued that development has its many inherently destructive impacts on the average citizens of the society, which creates infinite cycles: “Many development projects and policies destabilize existing economic situations or status quo to which the people have adapted.”^[6] Such situations, he argues, tend to increase the quest for emigration because “economic development destroys previously stable economic and social systems, peasant agriculture, by substituting capital for labor, privatizing landholding and creating markets.”^[7] The destruction of peasant economic systems creates a pool of socially and economically displaced people, who begin to seek alternative routes. Migration increases. The cycle continues.

With the social foundations of immigration, which is his second reason for immigration, Massey argued that migration “creates social networks of interpersonal ties.”^[8] He observed that the bonds of kinship, friendship, and shared community origins (especially Africans) facilitate and enlarge the migration spread. Thus, there is a tendency for immigrants to go where they have kin already. Those who have moved already create room for their relations to come over. Therefore, Massey concluded that once a “network of connections reaches a certain threshold, migration becomes self-perpetuating.”^[9]

In relation to policy foundations of immigration, which is Massey’s third factor in the comprehension of immigration, some policies meant to control immigration are in most cases the major causes of inflow of increased migrants. He observed that many “economic policies embarked upon due to economic growth have led to great demand for foreign workers in certain sectors.”^[10] But when the need or demand has been fulfilled or met, the inflow would presumably reduce, but unfortunately this effect has never been the case. The migrants continue to bring in their families, and the circle continues to expand. It appears plausible, based on Massey’s paradigm, that immigration somehow involves an infinite regress. It is self-replicating.

Voluntary policy recruitment,^[11] Massey‘s fourth factor of immigration, relates to the third reason. In most cases, visa lotteries lure labor across the globe, but not everybody who has the capabilities is qualified. Selection criteria, in most cases, recruit away human resources from sending countries. When people with specialized and professional talents are seriously recruited with such simple methods or conditions of migration that they wouldn’t have otherwise received, they feel compelled to emigrate. Under such conditions, middle-class medical and health professionals are recruited away from their home countries. Because the process has been officially made facile for them, the tendency to voluntarily emigrate increases. These lotteries and other efforts to broaden selection criteria offer a reason for the high numbers of foreign medical and health professionals.

If the lack of development in sending countries is the major reason for immigration, why would nations that buy the idea indulge in recruiting away middle-class professionals who would have contributed greatly and immensely to the development of their home countries? This question raises serious ethical issues. Levatino and Pecoud, scholars of economics and social justice, suggest that the out-migration of skilled workers (e.g., engineers, doctors, teachers, nurses) is commonly “associated with negative consequences and raises serious range of normative questions, especially the roles of developed countries in attracting (buying away) the ‘best and brightest’ from poor/less developed nations.”^[12]

THE ORIGIN/CRISES OF IMPOVERISHMENT OF DEVELOPING NATIONS

When the colonialists came to Africa and most other colonized nations of the world, economic interests were topmost in their mission. The industrial revolution in the West brought many ills and woes to the developing nations. The West had to take many measures to sustain the quest for industrial development, which had far-reaching negative consequences on other nations. Many African nations and other developing nations outside Africa were seen as havens for the harvest of the necessary material and human labor resources. Thus, exploitation of both human and raw material resources of Africans and other developing nations became the order of the day. These were exported to the West for their economic development at the detriment of the developing nations.

In such a situation, the need for economic survival became the trouble of every individual in the developing country, and the crisis became a collective responsibility and challenge. It appeared that there was no collective challenge and that the solution was only an individual issue. This perception became a problem and a starting point for political and economic tensions, especially corruption and the get-rich-by-all-means syndrome that bedevils these developing nations. The idea of collectivity and collective survival became a mirage. Individuals had to look for options in their own ways. What others reasonably rejected, others willingly accepted to better themselves, and collective will for survival was defeated. The adverse conditions generated by the impact of colonialism created such conditions.

After impoverishing these nations, especially during the colonial periods, an era marked by exploitation of human and material resources led to fewer alternatives for survival within the developing country. The possibility of migration became a carrot dangling in front of their faces as bait. Falling prey to such conditions became facile for individuals and catatonic for the countries. They could not distinguish between bait and bread because of desperate situations.

Colonialists did not leave voluntarily as their missions were mostly incomplete because many of the African nations started rising up against the colonialists, fighting for independence, especially after the Second World War (WWII). The colonialists attached a string to the granting of independence to many of the African nations, their colonies, in the form of economic and political influences. Many French-speaking African nations were hooked through the policy of assimilation after independence that is, to a great extent, still operational. This is the major grouse of the younger generations there, especially the Francophone West African nations, who have spurred the military takeover (coup d’état) of governments, alleging that their past leaders have been colonial stooges. However, before the colonizers left, they had already created a channel or a condition to perpetuate their exploitation. This is because the economic situation has been made uncomfortable for these nations and conducive to a new dimension of exploitation. One such strategy remains their immigration policies, which have evolved into a new wave of “sympathetic” imperialism.^[13]

Another source of decay occurred through the contentious policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The developed nations, through the auspices of IMF, came up with the idea of privatization. The majority of the government establishments were sold, such as the public power supply companies (e.g., National Electric Power Authority or NEPA) in Nigeria, national oil companies (e.g., Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation or NNPC), mail and telecommunications companies (Nigerian Postal Services or NIPOST; Nigeria Telecommunications or NITEL; Kenya Electricity Generating Company; Telkom Kenya; Kenya Reinsurance Corporation; and Kenya Railway Corporation. In many African nations, the government remains the major provider of employment. Jobs were lost, coupled with the corruption that challenged the entire privatization process. The public sector could no longer offer hope to the labor markets. Citizens of developing nations were then forced to look elsewhere for their livelihoods and survival. A gap was thus created. Privatization was a condition for aid from the developed nations. This sequence of events illustrates imperialism. Foreign buyers came or bought shares through their African cronies. As a result, Africans were divested of their establishments.

This scenario has been corroborated by some scholars and analysts. Many analysts have become aware of these developments and tactics. For example, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) has it thus:

The PSL further observed:

These developments in different sectors are impacting other areas and subsectors of the entire developing world. They appear as coordinated efforts in the long run.

IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is a broad term covering a broad spectrum of economic, political, and cultural aspects. It is also known as neo-colonialism, and it no longer involves a physical presence (settlements) of superior powers. A generic definition of imperialism comes from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: “state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military force or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible.^[16] Imperialism involves further perpetration of exploitation of the material and human resources in developing nations, possible through foreign policies being imposed on many developing nations across the globe.

When Encyclopedia Britannica defined imperialism as being possible not only through physical force and presence but also through some other “subtler forms,” the idea of sympathetic imperialism becomes a predictable outcome.

SYMPATHETIC IMPERIALISM

There are many types of imperialism, such as economic and cultural imperialism. However, economic imperialism occurs through immigration policies and most prominently affects developing nations, especially in Africa.

Imperialism is a new dimension of colonialism. Whereas colonialism involves direct contact and interference with a particular nation’s affairs (prior to their independence and sovereignty), imperialism is the opposite way around (mostly post-independence) a sort of neocolonialism. Examples of nations still under the weight of pronounced imperialism are some Francophone nations of Africa, like Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and a few others in the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS) region, which still remit taxes to the French government and do not hold absolute control over their own natural resources, leading to a major reason for a spate of military coups this millennium. Imperialism can come about through policies. Colonialism has a political undertone and involves direct settlements whereas imperialism (neocolonialism) is more economical and operates from the outside through policies. Colonialism in Africa started with the scramble and partition of Africa around the 1880s with two notable imperial powers, Britain and France. At the Berlin Conference of 1885, Africa was shared by the colonizers on the drawing table. The colonial powers drew their own boundaries, and they joined together (in some cases through the process of amalgamation) peoples who were otherwise strange bedfellows and separated homogeneous societies. Typical examples are Nigeria (with different ethnic nations who have different languages, cultures, and religions but were amalgamated) and Congo (with a common language) was split into two, Congo Brazzaville (Republic of Congo) and Congo Kinshasa (DR Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo), respectively. The Congolese were one people but two imperial powers, Belgium and France, scrambled and partitioned them into two separate nations. In the case of Burundi, the result was genocide through an ethnic war between the Hutu and the Tutsi around 1994. In some of these instances, the colonial masters seem to have favored one ethnic nation over others and those who were favored continue to lord it over others. This divisiveness has been causing perpetual conflicts in many African nations and equally cause people to migrate. These are some instances of unholy marriages commissioned by the colonial powers that remain causes of political and economic instability in most African nations.

Sympathetic imperialism is a condition whereby the developing nations, through an initial scenario created by both colonialism and current global economic development policies, have been put into an economically precarious situation. This situation made them have no options other than to accept exploit-laden and bondage conditions given them as if they were avenues for assistance. Latently these serve the interests of the nations with such policies. These conditions appear to be primarily for the good of the developing nations, but a deeper look unveils that they are for the good of the developed nations. It is a case of sympathizing with someone and at the same time exploiting them in a predicament of need. The irony is that the initial situation that led to the cause of the sympathetic situation was engineered by the same people, agents, and policies sympathizing with them and offering a cure that acts like the disease.

Then how is immigration a source or avenue for economic imperialism. Is a person not free to migrate? What are the issues in immigration that make it an avenue for imperialism? What is ethically wrong with immigration policies as they affect developing nations?

From the sending nations’ perspective, when the economic environment becomes inconducive for the citizens to the point of impoverishment, one of the options left for them is migration to greener pastures as a means of livelihood and sustenance. From the perspective of the developed nations, there is a dire need to fill the gap in the labor force created by the unwillingness of most of the citizens to take up certain jobs which they consider as “demeaning’” for average citizens. Thus, disequilibrium has been created. To fill these gaps and balance the equilibrium, there has to be a relaxation of the immigration policies in relation to the developing countries of the world.

It is not that the developed countries are not aware of the economic and underdeveloped situations in most developing countries and are therefore indifferent. But the way they have chosen to respond and contribute is the major issue. To show concern is not wrong, but the manner this concern/sympathy is operationalized is the major factor. If the only way developed nations can assist developing nations is to facilitate the movement away of skilled citizens from their own countries, then such a policy is suspect. In most cases the immigration policies of these developed nations are formulated so that only the middle-class citizens of sending countries can be privileged and lured. In essence, the policies are discriminatory since not all citizens of every class are qualified and privileged.

If the economic conditions of the sending countries were conducive, there would still be migration, but it would have been limited, or the reason for migration would not have been economic. If the developed nations wanted to show sincere and committed concern, they would have to fight the situation from within by investing in those nations and formulating economic policies that would assist such nations and discourage migration. In effect, these policies encourage middle-class citizens to immigrate to developed nations with promises for a better life. The movement is economy-driven. Thus, the already impoverished nations continue to be impoverished in human resources.

The other perspective that leads to sympathetic imperialism is the attempt to balance the economic/labor disequilibrium created by the unwillingness of the citizens of developed nations to perform jobs they consider as demeaning. If there was no such gap, these immigration policies wouldn’t have become what they are today. The borders wouldn’t have been easily accessible to developing nations as is the case with many western (for example, Scandinavian) countries. It would have been a herculean task for the current beneficiaries. These policies are couched in a way that appear to show sympathy for sending nations, as if to cushion the effect of their economic hardships or predicaments. The major thrust and primary beneficiaries of these policies are the receiving nations.

If the developed countries were truly sincere in their stated mission of helping the developing countries, the policies would allow for a longer or even no time limitation for renewing the agreement of services. When the services of most policy beneficiaries are no longer needed, their time frame can no longer be renewed. But in most cases, when some of the migrants have made serious and substantial impacts on any of their social and economic sectors, in most cases the person must sign an agreement—called an “undertaking”—not to leave to ensure that such knowledge is not transferred to any other organizations or countries. A typical example is Saudi Arabia, where migrants apply for both resident and work permits. The “Iqama” visa or permit gives the migrant legal residency and a work permit so they may live and work in Saudi Arabia. This strategy seems helpful to the expatriate, but because the undertaking is designed by employers,^[17] the employer has the right to cancel an Iqama at any given time and prohibits the employee from leaving the organization. In such an undertaking, the person has no option not to sign an Iqama. This kind of unethical requirement represents imperialism, and it is why many migrants stay in crucial positions and sectors of many western nations instead of returning and helping their home countries.

In most cases the quest to lure and keep the best employees also spurs these immigration policies. Most developed countries lack adequate numbers of professionals, but their underqualified workforce cannot be compared with developing nations. The small numbers of professionals in developing nations are being taken away from them.

However, the Iqama and similar contracts are not the only reason why professionals stay in the developed countries. At home, they constitute the middle-class, and they complain that because they are not well remunerated, the immigration policies make it rosy for them to exit. They are being massively recruited away. In the long run, a great gap occurs in the sending countries, thereby aggravating the economic situation. Levatino and Pecoud assert that “high-skilled migration has distributive consequences, usually benefiting receiving countries while imposing costs on sending nations.”^[18] They also point out that there is serious “competition among developed nations for skilled migrants.”^[19] To illustrate the enormity of this situation as a matter of urgency, the UN and WHO appealed to high-income receiving countries to refrain from “actively recruiting away skilled personnel in countries already experiencing skilled workforce shortages” because of the adverse consequences on sending nations.^[20],[21] Kapur and McHale strongly believe that “competition for developing countries’ talents will increase in the years ahead.^”[22] According to Sriskandarajah, the African Capacity Building Foundation reported that “African countries lose 20,000 skilled personnel to the developed world every year.”^[23] Worried by the above situations, Brock points out:

In such situations, most of the sending nations greatly suffer and are in most cases helpless. Brains are being drained away. The country’s development is stunted. The issue of signing these undertakings to keep expatriates hangs like an albatross on the neck of the developed countries. When a person gains knowledge that can help their country exit poverty and rise in technology, they are restrained. This further disproves that any sympathy for the impoverished country ever existed.

The combination of broadened immigration policies with restrictive residency permits signals unethical arrangements on the part of the developed countries. There are abundant examples of developed countries that actively recruit away the available middle-class human resources of developed nations. This practice has reached a worrisome level in the views of the WHO, ILO, and the UN. These humanitarian organizations question the justifications of “aid” that developed nations offer in depleting the little that the developing nations have. This depletion aggravates an already precarious situation in such nations. If indeed there is a sense of justice in the efforts of these developed nations toward assisting the impoverished nations, then they should find a way of making conditions conducive for these middle-class citizens to stay in their countries and help with further development. If, for example, the WHO says that there should be a healthcare worker for every 50 citizens in the globe, then considering the population of developing countries with regard to the level and degree of education of trained health professionals, there is no morally justifiable ground for the recruiting away of such human resources. Such recruitment unfortunately worsens the health situation in these affected developing nations. Even if it creates an economically advantageous situation for the individual professionals, the general wellbeing of such societies will continue to dwindle beyond the estimated average. This effect of depleting a country’s already limited resources is inconsistent with the UN’s “health for all” program.

Moreover, some developed countries exclude some categories of people from entry, such as some major Western nations’ immigration policies. According to Ochel:

The U.S. Diversity Visa (DV) lottery specifies a range of professional and technical qualifications and experience for participants, ensuring the active recruitment of middle-class professionals from developing nations.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs, there are serious conditions for qualification to immigrate through the DV lottery:

These requirements demand ethical justification for the exclusion of people without such qualifications on the basis of justice, fairness, and equity. The stipulations directly attempt to target and deplete middle-class human resources in developing nations, evident in the different, relaxed requirements for other developed nations. Undoubtedly, these policies are not targeted at global poverty reductions. Rather, these developed nations show preference for immigrants with skills and other special abilities that benefit their national interests.

When some of these migrants/beneficiaries thrive and excel to a high level, based on fears of competition and technology transfers some are forced to sign undertakings, like Saudi Arabia’s Iqama. This practice is ethically unjust. The fundamental rights of the individual are being infringed upon when they are coerced to sign such undertakings. Duress implies absence of freedom. Many world-class firms and establishments owe their great repute to migrants, such as Apple, Google, PayPal, Yahoo, and other large, successful corporations.

MIGRANTS AND FREEDOM AND THE RECEPTIVITY OF HOSTS

Many immigration policies of developed countries have been called highly elitist, and many citizens oppose their nation’s immigration policies as an attempt to deconstruct them, most especially their national identities. Cases of xenophobia across the globe raise concerns about immigration. Many scholars have sounded a caution call in their works, including Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity by Samuel P. Huntington. Such work represents the resentments toward immigration policies in many developed nations of the West. Some of them (particularly American writers) have pointed out what they considered the origin of the decay of the entire situation to the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Law of 1965. Huntington cited the passage of this act, especially its misinterpretation, as the major point of his and few others’ identification as the source of the crises, especially Title VII, which prohibits discrimination. Huntington pointed out that this bill intended to encourage hiring candidates based on ability and qualifications, not race or religion. However, the courts added a requirement not intended by the proponents of the act. Even though the act’s proponents expressed their rejection of the additional requirements, the newly passed version of the act gave extended rights and privileges—like rights to teach and to learn immigrant languages—which started affecting American identity.

From another perspective, Huntington pointed out that American identity has been threatened by mass immigration and predicted that America would soon become a bilingual, bicultural nation. This view was based on his fears of Hispanicization, which he saw as a threatening culture. Such trends, he argued, would necessarily lead to the “revival of the discarded and discredited racial and ethnic concepts of American identity and to create an America that would exclude, expel or suppress people of other races, cultures or ethnicities.”^[27] He further asserted that the current immigration policies were engineered by elites (politicians and bureaucrats) to promote their own interests, which led to the promotion of minority rights to the detriment of individual rights. Huntington further noted that these were measures “consciously designed to weaken America’s cultural and creedal identity and to strengthen racial, ethnic, cultural and other subnational identities.”^[28] These points illuminate some of the hidden agendas of the elites and corroborate the thesis of this chapter that immigration policies are couched with ulterior economic motives. Huntington is among those scholars and some Americans who see immigration as a threat to social security of developed nations.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

There has been a justification employed to favor this trend of immigration, arguing that it actually favors the sending countries. They sustain this argument by what they termed “degree of remittance” to their home countries. But a closer analysis using the Marxist surplus value theory indicates that the migrants’ earnings are deducted as taxes/commissions and support the receiving countries. These regular remittances make the money transfer market boom. The family members of the migrants at home do not pay for these services as their migrant relations have already paid the major bulk of the charges, which increases the coffers of their host/receiving nations.

The argument of global poverty reduction is a circular one. In the immigration policies only the already advantaged in the sending countries succeed or benefit from the entire process. In the long run, remittances go only to the already advantaged families and still leave the poor in their conditions, and in most cases, it widens the margins of poverty existing in such societies.

The entire scenario indeed indicates the economic dimension and motivation that sustains sympathetic imperialism. Sympathetic imperialism once more is an elite policy because despite the gains in receiving countries, the average citizens are beginning to feel the brunt. The employers of these migrants make great profits as these migrants are ready to settle for a lower salary for jobs that have been rejected by host/receiving citizens. In Britain, France, South Africa, and even the U.S., there is clear apprehension of the threatening situation of open borders.

In the philosophy of immigration, there is an argument in support of open borders based on global poverty reduction. According to Wilcox, the basic claims of this argument are that “members of affluent societies have strong obligations to mitigate global poverty” and “policies favoring open borders are an effective means of fulfilling these obligations.”^[29] Supporting this line of argument is Peter Singer, who sees immigration as a moral obligation and as such should be guided by strict moral principles. If this had been the case, the current trend of sympathetic imperialism would not have been obtainable. The argument here is that, if it is true that the major reason for open borders is on charitable grounds, why create a criterion focusing on certain professional skills and talents that deplete resources from the immigrant’s home country? How can such nations claim to be contributing to fighting global poverty by recruiting away the few available specialized human resources in developing nations? Many developing nations in Africa are worried about “brain drain,“ the term used for the phenomenon of large numbers of professionals leaving in droves. Some countries are even trying to promulgate various policies to reverse the trend.

Based on the normative perspective, ethical theories and principles justify whether there is anything wrong in this trend of sympathetic imperialism. Economics is, of course, a normative science and, as such, cannot escape moral scrutiny. One of the major criticisms of capitalism is exploitation in the quest for profit maximization. Maximized profit without an ethical basis is unjustifiable. Many believe that migration policies are guided and motivated by economic forces and factors, which subject them to normative scrutiny.

Developed countries argue that visas privilege immigrants at the cost of depleting human resources of poorer nations, but this justification ultimately fails. From the Kantian and Rawlsian perspectives, the unjustifiability becomes glaring. From the Kantian principle of the “categorical imperative,” it is unjustifiable to use others as a means to an end. Also, from the Kantian deontological perspective, such actions and policies are not motivated by the duty imperative, and acts performed for self-benefit or ulterior purposes can be seen only as acting from inclination instead of duty.^[30]

One of the normative questions in economics is about whose preference that policies should satisfy: should economic policies favor the worst-off or the better-off? Rawls, a philosopher and a social justice advocate, believes that policies that favor only the least disadvantaged or worst-off have value and should be the goal. In essence, Rawls concluded that it would be unjust and unfair for anybody (particularly the already rich and advantaged) to engage in anything that would make the poor even more disadvantaged. Such actions and policies only perpetuate poverty and marginalization.^[31]

CONCLUSION

Social boundaries pose a great problem in human societies and in the philosophy of immigration. Many societies latently and manifestly show their level of acceptance of migrants. Through their policies, some societies discriminate against migrants through practices such as racially forced segregation (e.g., Bahrain) and restriction from working in many organizations. Yet, the majority of these societies profess to be liberal democracies, offering a great philosophical challenge. After all, philosophy is a pedestal for unveiling injustices among humans.

Many western nations are still enacting and promoting policies that have adverse economic consequences on developing nations. They entice these individuals and later sometimes make it impossible for them to return to their home countries through the compulsory signing of bonds/undertakings. Such practices defeat the entire argument of proponents of brain drain.

The relaxed policies of many developed nations are not necessarily for the good of developing nations, but policies couched in ways that appear as if they are sympathetic toward poor nations but serve only the interests of the developed nations in an imperialistic trap—a trap that made developing nations’ citizens run to meet their chains while they think they have secured freedom.

END NOTES

1. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discours sur l'origine et les Condiments de l'inegalute parmi les Hommes (Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men. Vol. II. (Paris: Gallimard, 1985), P.54 ↑

2. James L. Hudson, “The Philosophy of Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies No.1, Vol. VII (1986): 51. ↑

3. Matthias Risse, “On the Morality of Immigration.” Ethics and International Affairs 22(1) (2008): 25. ↑

4. Douglas S. Massey, “The Social and Economic Origins of Immigration” The Social Contract. Spring (1994): 183. ↑

5. Massey, “The Social and Economic Origins of Immigration”. 183 ↑

6. Ibid., 183 ↑

7. Ibid., 183 ↑

8. Ibid., 184 ↑

9. Ibid., 184 ↑

10. Ibid., 185 ↑

11. Ibid., 185 ↑

12. Antonio Levatino and Antoine Pecoud, “Overcoming the Ethical Dilemmas of Skilled Migration: An Analysis of International narratives on the ‘Brain drain’” GRITIM Working Paper Series No.11, Spring (2012): 1259. ↑

13. In this trend of thought, one necessarily has to recall Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. This remains one of the cries/foresights of the imperialization of Africa. ↑

14. Party for Socialism and Liberation, Imperialism, immigration and Latin America: An Analysis of Why People Migrate. (2020) 1. https://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/newspaper/vol-7-no-6/imperialism-immigration-and-latin-america.html (Assessed: 03/03/2020) ↑

15. Party for Socialism and Liberation, Imperialism, immigration and Latin America: An Analysis of Why People Migrate. 1. ↑

16. ”Imperialism.“ Britannica.com, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism. ↑

17. Expat.com, Iqama Visa in Saudi Arabia. (2020), https://www.expat.com/en/guide/middle-east/saudi-arabia/8461-iqama-visa-in-saudi-arabia.html. (Assessed: 04/03/2020). ↑

18. Antonio Levatino and Antoine Pecoud, “Overcoming the Ethical Dilemmas of Skilled Migration: An Analysis of International narratives on the ‘Brain drain’”, 1259. ↑

19. Levatino and Pecoud, 1259. ↑

20. United Nations, “International Migration and Development” Report of the Secretary General (New York: UN General Assembly, 2006), 19. ↑

21. WHO, World Health Report 2006: Working Together for Health (Geneva: WHO, 2006), 103. ↑

22. Devesh Kapur and John McHale, “The Global Migration of Talent: What Does it Mean for Developing Countries?” CGD Brief. Global Centre for development (October 2005): 1. ↑

23. Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, “Reassessing the Impacts of brain drain on Developing Countries” Migration Information Source. Migration policy institute (August 1. 2005): 1. ↑

24. Gillian Brock, Global Justice. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 196-199. ↑

25. Wolfgang Ochel, “Selective Immigration Policies: Point system versus Auction Model”. CESifo Forum Vol.2 (2001): 48. ↑

26. Bureau of Consular Affairs, Diversity Visa (DV) Program. 1. (2019), https://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1322.html#occupations. (Assessed: 06/06/2019) ↑

27. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), 231. ↑

28. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, 231. ↑

29. Shelley Wilcox, “The Open Borders Debate on Immigration”. Philosophy Compass 4(5) (2009): 813. ↑

30. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 68-69. ↑

31. John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 42-45. ↑