June 4, 2013
Re: “Open Borders and the Tragedy of the Open Access Commons” (H. Daly, Pop!ulation Press, Spring 2013): Daly's literary reefs and shoals(e.g., “dissipative structures,” “entropic throughput,” “neoclassical economists,” “atomistic individualism,” “cost internalization,” and “atomistic cosmopolitan”) demand careful navigation by the reader. But the most treacherous passages exist in the author's views:
1.“Population stabilization (of the US)... requires immigration limits...” (H.Daly). Not so. Immigration limits are not the sine qua non for population stabilization. Proven population stabilizers include empowerment of women, enlightened governmental policy, universal affordable education, and accessible family health clinics. Immigration limits are of no value in stabilizing population (see #2 and #3 below). Limits don't work and they address the wrong issue.
2. “Every country...has a policy of limiting immigration.” (H. Daly). And those same countries find such policies to be impotent. Limiting migration of humans is as successful as limiting migration of Canada geese or butterflies. Even in heavily guarded areas (e.g., Organ Pipe NP), borders remain porous where upward mobility drives migration. Despite wringing our hands, people will migrate where inequity exists. Daly should cite examples(with cost per thwarted migration) where long-term control of inequity-driven, peacetime land/land migrations have been successful.
3. “...policy of open borders...invites the tragedy of the open access commons.” (H. Daly). Both this quote and the title of Daly's article paraphrase “The Tragedy of the Commons,” by Garrett Hardin. Ironically, Hardin's popular paper does not once allude to immigration or to open borders. Rather, it emphasizes the danger of global overpopulation. According to Hardin, “A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.” Nativism is a seductive reaction to global overpopulation (i.e., Betty finds her bit of heaven, then slams the door on others). But nativism is inherently inequitable, and has become illusional as world population continues to grow beyond sustainability.
4. In opposing illegal immigration, Daly states that “The US is a ...country of law.” Each frustrated migration secures the misery of a family, and is therefore unjust and immoral. Anti-immigration laws assure misery, and so are unjust. Ample precedents exist for overturning or even thwarting such unjust laws. Everyone should have a right to equity, fairness, and justice. Access to potable water, adequate shelter, proper diet, medical care, healthy air, livelihood, and education are dictated by The Golden Rule. True, migration tends to redistribute wealth, and this in turn tends to discomfit the wealthy. But who among us is in a position to say that another family should not better its lot? Magnanimously, Daly writes, ”Immigrants are people....” This truism, not always popular in U.S. history, will certainly come as a relief to immigrants everywhere. As a sincere affirmation, it is a worthy guide for our acceptance of migrants. Our present ambivalence over immigration is due to a conflict between our desire to do what is right and our fear of change.
5. Consistency would require Daly to be as energetic in demanding limits to regional migration as to international migration. Each can lead to increased unit consumption. Just as we tolerate migration between Denver and Austin, we should tolerate inequity-driven migration between all cities, regions, and countries. In the same spirit, consistency requires that if we decry fecundity of immigrants, we should denounce policies of domestic governments, corporations, religions, and cultures which
pressure for large families.
Conclusions: World overpopulation, not migration, is the planet's overarching problem. For too long, we have attempted regional solutions to global population problems. Achieving national sustainability on the backs of those outside our national borders is neither moral nor possible. We must keep our eye on Earth's ability to support life, not solely on a particular region's ability to support life. The path to sustainability lies in lowering world population and reducing individual impacts. Lower world population will follow from women's empowerment, accessible reproductive health, voluntary family planning, and universal education. Individual impacts of migrants and natives will come through conservation, technology, energy tax policy, and education.
The Earth is our commons. We are globally interdependent for resources including air, food, and water. We live in an era of a global economy, World Bank, World Court, United Nations, EU, trade pacts, global climate change, and global pollution. For the well-being of all in a crowded world, sovereign interests must increasingly yield priority to global interests. “Local sustainability” has become an oxymoron.
Certainly, we must reduce the misery that migration generates, and the migration that misery generates. We can work across borders to reduce the inequity that drives most migrations. We have been the boss hog at the trough for too long...it is time to share.
Evan Jones, Director
Whoa Nellie Foundation,
http://www.whoanellie.us
revwin@yahoo.com
916 442 2661
N.B.: Daly incorrectly claims that most U.S. population growth is due to net immigration. The statement is alarmist in that even if native birth rates dropped to below net immigration rates (perhaps by 2027-37, according to US Census Bureau), this event would not imply that immigration will result in net population growth. People die, emigrate, and most importantly, decide to have fewer babies.