One of the most contentious issues facing developed countries today, as we have seen, is the diversity of their population. Many developed nations already have ethnically diverse populations. Many will get more diverse because of fast growing minority groups, as well as inflows of immigrants and refugees. There are costs associated with diversity. These include the burden of absorbing poor immigrants initially, which falls disproportionately on poorer domestic communities, and the lower mutual empathy between communities once the nation becomes more diverse, which leads to less support for a national safety net. Ethnically homogenous countries also fear a loss of their cultural heritage. Nevertheless, for most of the countries, there is turn back. Even if they stop most immigration, they will get more diverse unless they choose to become authoritarian and illiberal towards their minority and immigrant populations,thus imperiling their liberal democratic ethos. Moreover there are enormous benefits to diversity, as we will see. How do countries reconcile the prospect of increasing national diversity with the majority group’s genuine fear of being swamped, of losing cultural coherence and community? One way is through inclusive localism. For some populists nationalists, immigration is their key worry. For others, it is existing minorities. For many, it is both. Let us focus on immigration issues for now, though much of what follows pertains to the minorities also – after all, today’s immigrant is tomorrow’s minority – and the terms be often be used together.
The life chances for a citizen of the United States are vastly different from the life chances of a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Citizens benefits from national borders. Borders protects the rents citizens get from the country’s wealth, institutions and power. In effect, the nations are the last of the guilds. By restricting decision making largely to those living in the demarcated lands, borders give the citizens a sense of self-determination and political control over their lives and an ability to protect their cultural traditions. By only allowing people in who share something in common, such as values or empathy that allow collective national efforts and engender ethnicity that allows the country create support structures such as public schools, safety nets, and disaster relief. Therefore, while borders get in the way of productive efficiency, they may be necessary for the structure that help citizens manage manage modern life. It would be nice to move toward one borderless world- where we feel empathy for one another as citizens of the world.
Whether the lottery of birth that distributes citizenship should be a right for those who have paid their dues such as fighting in wars, or a gift to be bestowed by the citizenry who obtain their rights merely by birth. Taking the desire of citizens to control entry as legitimate, what factors should determine it? This is probably the question that most of the major authorities don’t want to answers or get into.
chandel's finance blog 