Should countries regulate immigration solely based on their economic best interests?
No, countries should no regulate immigration solely best on their economic interests. Countries in the modern world are defined by their founding ideals and liberties. To protect these, countries have engaged in actions to the extreme extent bloody wars, for centuries. It would be antithetical to the nature and purpose of the state to regulate immigration, an issue which will significantly and undeniably affect the same, solely from an accounting profit-maximisation principle. The reasons underlying my argument are that the state must regulate immigration to first considering the protection of its institutions and founding principles, then considering its social and cultural practises and only then adopt an economic perspective. This essay assumes it is the state's government who would regulate immigration.
First, the state must act to protect its institutions and founding principles, something its citizens respect and cherish alike irrespective of any human characteristic. These, though often varying significantly between different countries, must never be threatened or altered by immigrants. In essence, these principles are elements of constitutional law and the institutions are those that maintain order. By permitting immigration without checking an immigrants adherence to a country's founding moral principles would be an invitation for the law to be broken. These immigrants if permitted would disrupt peace in society even if they don't break the law in fear of sanctions. Their presence will not be looked upon favourably, merely tolerated at best. A (immigrant) man refusing to tolerate gender equality in the UK or a woman demanding legal (gender-based) superiority in Saudi Arabia are examples of the same. Similar examples can be drawn of immigrants refusing to accept the presiding structure of government, be it a dictatorship in North Korea or a democracy in Germany. The negative externalities associated with these immigrants outweigh the impact of their economic contributions to the state.
Second, the state must regulate immigration to preserve cultural and social practises. Here, I define cultural and social practises to be religion/ethnicity neutral. A community's culture and social activity not only uniquely characterise the community, they add value to it, enriching it to be more than plain co-habitation. Whatever these practises may be, ranging from politely greeting people they see in public to teaching children to be disciplined in social gatherings to respecting people's physical and intellectual privacy, altering them destroys the community as it intends to be. Assuming that the community under the state is currently successful, it must not be modified without consent of a majority of its inhabitants. Allowing immigration solely on economic merit to the entire country may serve to severely harm if not eradicate local communities. Again, the problems related to these immigrants is very likely to outweigh their economic contributions.
The state must prioritise these two goals over economic development. Else, it seizes to be known as the same state in anything but its name, which may also end up changing. Only when these goals are achieved, the state may entertain immigration of economic benefits. Lastly, once these two goals have been met, the economic criteria is crucial for the wellbeing of the state. The state must not welcome an excess of people dependent on the government financially merely because they afform to similar culture and principles. The government must now abide by a policy maximising economic targets of the country, whatsoever that policy may be. Note that these (above) arguments are for general circumstances, not for the most extreme events where a very low immigration population may drive the economy of the entire currently, though this is highly unlikely.
A utilitarian might argue that the state must act as a "rational profit maximiser". A state doing so might very well be nothing more than a protected territory. It would be guaranteed to loose its moral and cultural principles significantly if not in whole. Further, regulating immigration solely on economic interests might lead to an increase in crime (more people whose ideas might conflict with ours, more crime). Increasing crime rates is almost never favoured in policy decisions. Safety of the state's people is a priority second only to the safety of its founding principles.
In conclusion, I reaffirm the necessity of the state not to employ a purely economic lens in regulating immigration. As the state posses its value in its founding moral principles and virtues of its communities, it must not allow immigration which may threaten or injure the same. While the economic lens is important and essential, it must only follow as the third level of scrutiny. Upon such policy may we preserve our countries, our national identity and the value of our law.
Comments