State borders, Immigration and Sovereignty.
A Global Policy paper.
The notion of borders has proven to be a contentious topic over the past decades and centuries, most likely due to its far-reaching implications on the running of nation-states. The so-called ‘Trump wall’ which is a physical wall and border promised by President Donald Trump during his 2016 election campaign can be cited as a recent and well-known controversy on borders (Rogers and Bailey, 2020). Another illustration is seen in the 2016’s Brexit referendum which led to the exit of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union. The promise and aim of Brexit as claimed by the UK government was to take back control of its borders, finance, and laws while protecting its nation (HM Government, 2018).
Aside from the simplistic view of borders as a passive line between countries, Diener and Hagen (2012) describe borders as integral forces that transform a nation’s economy, society, politics, and the people within. This can explain the nationalistic sentiment for borders.
From a purely humanitarian perspective, it can be asserted that there is a legitimate case for borders to be open for all, irrespective of race, culture, religion, and social class. This liberal and egalitarian view is posited on the basis that all humans are born equal, and that borders are the result of social constructions (Popescu, 2011). However, this humanitarian conception contrasts with the Westphalian concept of state sovereignty which remains relevant in today’s globalised world order.
Drawing on the theories of globalisation and sovereignty, this paper analyses in section 1, the legitimacy of an open border policy on the ground of human rights and moral obligation. In section 2, this essay touches on the paradox of globalisation in connection to the existing ‘core and ‘periphery’ relationship and its consequences. Finally, section 3 makes a counter case for open borders with the need for sovereignty as a legacy of the Westphalian state system.
Analysis
1. Legitimacy of open border policies
Migration crisis and global ethic
The year 2015 has been marked by an unparalleled influx of refugees and economic migrants fleeing war, persecution, and poverty across the Mediterranean Sea to reach European shores. This dangerous exodus has led to thousands of lives being lost in the Mediterranean. These were innocent children, women, and men fleeing countries that can be described as failed states, with the sole hope to reach a peaceful land (UNHCR, 2015). These deaths can be attributed to the hard European borders based on the country of origin of migrants and refugees. This somber picture suggests the necessity and the moral obligation to help people in need and accept foreigners in distress. Without entering a debate on creation where people are said to be created equally according to religion, it is worth pointing out the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, as set out by the United Nations Charter (UN Charter, 1970).
Open borders: a global advantage
One of the nationalistic claims against open border policies has been the negative impact on social services and low-skilled workers with its repercussions on the national economy. This claim is not without limitations as seen in the recent bordering process of the United Kingdom following its Brexit vote. A CIPD (2021) report addressing the post-Brexit skills and labour shortages finds that most labour and skill shortages in the UK started well before the Covid-19 pandemic, which is contrary to the claims of the Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2021). As a result, the CIPD calls for urgent and temporary immigration schemes to ease the acute labour shortages in the UK. The ONS, in this case, acts of course as a governmental agency and therefore has a duty to stay true to national policies. These conflicting reports exhibit the high stakes involved in a bordering process and its implications in politics and the labour market. For the Libertarian economist, Brian Caplan (2019, p.50), global freedom of movement would radically increase the gross world product with a positive impact on gross domestic product (GDP) for nation-states in the long term. Singapore as a country is an effective contemporary illustration where a liberal migration policy is both positive and constructive to a nation’s economic prosperity (Varathan, 2018).
2. The paradox of globalisation and ‘open borders’
The process of globalisation triggered by the European imperial expansion gave an early idea of what a borderless world could entail. For European imperialists, internationalisation meant securing new revenue streams and a new source of labour for their metropoles or cores in Europe. This new source of revenue and labour was indispensable for an effective industrial revolution in Europe between the late 1700s to the early 1900s. These new trading links were thus, the primary signs of the growing and beneficial interconnectedness between national economies (Falkner, 2011). In other words, ‘open borders’ have not just enabled the early international trade of capital and goods but also the movement of people although the latter is now a subject of controversies as described by the ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ relationship and the slave trade (Wellhofer, 1989).
Imperialism, whether good or bad, with its facet of internationalisation has created an unequally yoked system where the poorest countries remain poorer while the cores become richer. This is because the new borderless world focused on creating economic values for countries and multinational corporations in the Western world with an absence of similar opportunities for countries in the South (Woolf, 1998).
Despite the decolonisation process of peripheries in Africa and Asia between 1945 and the 1960s, and the advances in telecommunication which intensifies interactions and global exchanges, borders are still not open to all who wish to cross them. In fact, from the Schengen agreement in 1985, followed by the creation of the European Union in 1993, and Frontex in 2004, there is an increasingly stronger will for border protection in industrialised nations (Frontex, 2022). Here, the question lies in the non-reciprocity of these border control policies between North and South. In practice, being a passport holder in one of the Schengen states gives you visa-free access to most African states while having an African passport subjects the traveler to a hideous visa application process with no guarantee of acceptance.
3. Sovereignty and protection of borders
Contrary to the libertarian and egalitarian view on open borders, a more realistic approach to borders needs consideration. The 1648 treaty of Westphalia sees state sovereignty as a founding principle of international peace and order. This principle has been fundamental in ending the bloody European war of religion (Bull, 1977). As such, recognising each state as sovereign, with the ability to control its own territory and borders, has been essential in shaping each state as a powerful political unit in International Relations. Sovereignty, therefore, constitutes a gage for power and national security where supreme authority is territorially based. In which case, a failure to protect its territory and borders could be detrimental to national security, the economy, local culture, and the sovereign ruler itself.
Although the concept of sovereignty has evolved over the past centuries from more authoritarian regimes in the form of communism to democratic nationalist states, the idea of keeping a nation’s borders from intruders remains central for national protection and international independence. In practice, a nation with tight border policies gives itself absolute control over its security and national prosperity. This view of borders is reinforced by the legitimate need for nation-states to protect their borders in the face of terrorism as seen in the UK’s Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act (UK Parliament, 2017). The need for border protection was also necessary following the September 11 attacks in the USA which were a precedent to the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (US Congress 2001). These legitimate actions for border protection put in jeopardy the essence of globalisation and the free movement of people.
In this perspective, a more critical assessment of sovereignty in developing countries could be necessary as this could be key to unleashing national prosperity and security in a more sustainable manner as seen in the Northern hemisphere. For instance, most African countries claiming to be sovereign still have porous borders and often lack tough entry requirements (Okunade and Ogunnubi, 2019).
Takeaway
The idealistic view for borders to be open for all is grounded on the principle of equal rights as outlined by the UN Charter. This stance on border policy could be a source of national economic prosperity in times of labour shortages as seen with some countries in the northern hemisphere struggling with a growing aging population. Hence, having a global open border policy is not utterly a humanitarian duty in the face of growing immigration via dangerous routes but it can also represent a global advantage for economic prosperity in the medium to long term as illustrated in the national immigration policy of Singapore.
However, open borders also mean less control over national security which is a threat to the security of nation-states. This is made apparent by the operations of terrorist networks which trigger a more nationalistic sentiment as expressed in the USA Patriot Act of 2001 for example. The idea of open borders and its impact on economic prosperity remains heavily debated as libertarian economists and hyper-globalists continue to make strong cases against realist theorists who swear by the need for sovereignty to safeguard nation-states.
Research Paper submitted to the School of Politics and International Relations of QMUL, 2022.
