The Freedom of Movement

 

The duck and the goose do not care about borders. When winter comes, they migrate across international boundaries. If they don't, they may die in the severity of harsh northern winters. They must have the freedom of movement. 

Why did humans move out of Africa and settle the globe? 

Curiosity? Perhaps to a degree.

Opportunity and necessity? More likely.

Not to mention the theological imperative -- if you follow the Bible -- that man shall fill the earth and subdue it as his ministry and obligation to care for it.

In many respects, people are no different than migratory birds. When famine, drought, wars, crime, poverty, and other extremes affect livelihoods and survival, people do as the birds do and flock to hospitable and prosperous lands. Humans have been doing this for their entire existence. When the watering hole dries up, you move to find new water sources. 

The United Nations, in their Declaration of Human Rights recognizes this natural pattern of migration as a freedom of movement, noting that

• "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
• "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

This philosophy is in harmony with the Enlightenment's emphasis on liberty and natural rights. John Locke, whose philosophy was perhaps the most influential in developing American polity, spoke of perfect freedom, saying:

 “To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” (Second Treatise on Government, 1689).

The state of perfect freedom is simply the state of existence without being hampered by external controls. This includes all natural dispositions, including the freedom of movement, because it is basic to nature. Now, when groups of free people assemble into organized communities and nation-states, laws must be established to ensure that one person's exercise of perfect or natural or inalienable freedoms don't obstruct another person's exercise of the same. As James Madison said in Federalist Paper # 51 (1788), "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Government and laws exist primarily to secure liberty by controlling human ambition and violence against one another through the exercise of properly channeled ambition and the necessary potential for violence to quell conflict. In other words, government exists to secure a platform for liberty by controlling its constituents from violating each other's essential rights.  

To achieve the security of liberty, some rights must be voluntarily surrendered. For example, within the realm of free movement, a person cannot just walk into another person's home and declare it theirs. They must surrender the absolute exercise of that freedom to maintain the essence of that freedom. The same with free speech and the now tired illustration of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Limits actually preserve the greater magnitude of freedom through the acknowledgment of mutuality. Nonetheless, inalienable or natural rights must remain generally intact within a liberal society. 

So how is the United States doing on the freedom of movement? 

Considering our immigration crises... Yes, I put that in plural, because it seems to be one thing after another. But, considering immigration, I think we often fail. The conservative take is that borders must be controlled severely to ensure the safety of the nation. There is truth in this. We must police the borders against real and active threats. Unfortunately, people attempting to exercise their essential liberty and freedom of movement... People who want to come and participate in our nation's economy and life, for their betterment and potentially ours, are often barred by law from entering. The rallying cry on the Right is that folks just need to get in line and do it properly. And, refugees, asylum seekers, and economic migrants are unfortunately lumped into the security risk category.  

Sadly, most of the well intentioned conservatives who decry illegal immigration don't understand immigration law in the States. There is no line. Most migrants cannot enter legally unless they have immediate family in America to sponsor them or display an essential skill needed in America. The vast majority, who often leave their home countries because of severe circumstances are turned away. Caught between a rock and a hard place... A place of desperation, they cross illegally as the better choice. This means that because we close the doors, people turn to illegal crossings... We made our own problem rather than dealing with people compassionately and humanely. We are not considering the basic human right of movement. Instead we throw out tired tropes that have been argued since the nineteenth century, applied to Catholics, Irish, and Asians... And now predominately Latinos. 

Numerous economists have tried to dispel the myths and half-truths of immigrant drain on our economy and resources. And statistics clearly show that the vast majority are not maliciously criminal. Home grown criminals are substantially more concerning. We have created many straw men as rationales for rigid border control.

Most recently, President Donald Trump's "Stay in Mexico" policy has been challenged by the Biden administration. This rule was largely applied against refugees/asylees.  The 1951 Refugee Convention, of which the United States entered into the 1967 amended protocols of, is a multilateral treaty and therefore international law. It holds that the nation in which an asylee or refugee seeks safety must maintain that person's safety even while determining the legitimacy of their claims. The mandate to keep these folks in Mexico is actually a violation of international law. And according to the U.S. Constitution, treaties must be treated as law. Therefore, President Trump broke the law in exercising his the "Stay in Mexico" policy, which was built upon his perception of America being a law and order society in enforcing immigration policy. 

So then, returning to basic liberty. If America is the land of liberty, we are failing in this regard because of overly rationalized fear. These fears were original couched in racist bigotry. Our first substantial immigration laws, like the Page Act of 1875 (limiting undesirables like Asian workers), the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the  Johnson Reed Act of 1924 (setting quotas on certain nations based on race/ethnicity and banning Asians nearly outright) failed to consider that earlier naturalization acts actually exercised essentially open borders, such as the 1802 Naturalization Act that required aliens to live in America for fourteen years to prove their efficacy as potential permanent residents and/or citizens. Our whole system of today is descended on bigotry and the fear of others and does not address precedent for the freedom of movement -- an arguably natural and inalienable liberty.