Immigration: Who gets in, who stays out and how that’s decided

America recently relaxed green card eligibility, which is likely to help skilled Indians looking to move there. Meanwhile, India has hardened its policy on refugees and remade its citizenship rules. Between refugees, migrants, immigrants and expats, moving between countries means entirely different things to different people.Immigration has been one of the most fraught questions in wealthy democracies, recasting politics, stirring up economic resentment and identity crises, and dividing opinion. Far-right nationalists cast it as alien invasion, leftist politicians also resist it, seeking to protect domestic workers. Meanwhile, both egalitarians and libertarians see borders as unjust and inefficient. For many, there is no moral framework that can justify banning the free movement of people or denying equal rights to those who happened to be born elsewhere.Immigration and Democracy by political theorist Sarah Stone lays out the middle path. It outlines the ethics and norms at stake, and how they mesh with current law and practice. It makes a case for “controlled borders and open doors” arguing that states have a right to control immigration, and also an obligation to provide entry to refugees and migrants seeking to unite with their families.There are four strands in debates around immigration: Majoritarian politics, nationalism, capitalism and liberal constitutionalism. The first two factors push for restricting immigration, as can be seen in recent right-wing upsurges across Europe and the US.Immigration is practically a ‘structural requirement of advanced capitalism’, which seeks both low-wage ‘flexible’ labour and highly skilled workers. Liberal constitutional norms meanwhile ensure that this principle applies not just to ‘desirable’ economic immigrants but also to ‘undesirable’ persons, in areas of asylum and family reunification. medium101224464Stone tells open border advocates that it is justified for governments to exercise authority over immigration, based on the principle of collective self-determination. She tells restrictionists that humanitarian and democratic values must constrain the exercise of this power.To philosophers who argue that there is an arbitrariness in how citizenship gets distributed, the book responds by saying every political community is partial towards the interests of its own members. To those who argue that historical injustice should be a reason to admit migrants, like the US having an obligation to Vietnamese refugees, or former colonial powers to their former subjects, the book argues that this is a separate matter of what is owed to those harmed by historical injustice, rather than a reason to open borders.Stone also says open borders are not a solution to global poverty. It is not the poorest who migrate. Migration affects those who stay behind, and brain-drain hurts the home country.Governments are entitled to prioritise the interests of their own citizens. For instance, they may deny entry to migrants whose basic interests are protected in their home countries, or those moving for higher wages, if doing so sustains social welfare programmes and helps the domestic poor. But countries must open their doors to those fleeing persecution and violence, and those with family links.In 2015, family ties migrants made up 65% of admissions to the US, while refugees and employment-based migrants were at 14% each. Some defend this immigration system that prioritises family ties, others make a case for higher-skilled migrants who can add more to growth.Each country will have to adjust its own settings, based on its own values and needs.