The free movement of people

With the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Warsaw Pact, emigration control effectively ended in all but one or two of the world’s 191 UN-recognised states. By contrast, immigration control has been strengthened everywhere in response both to security concerns arising from the terrorist outrages of recent years and to public concern about the level of immigration. In the wake of 9/11, 11M and 7/7 (the atrocities in New York, Madrid and London), the ethical case for the free migration of people has been effectively silenced and restrictionist policies have become near universal. ² But how effective are such measures? Increased global mobility, regional free movement zones, dual citizenship, the growth of student and tourist mobility, the demographic and economic needs of rich countries, weak state structures in some developing countries and irregular migration (to name just the major factors) have made it more difficult to police national frontiers. How these contradictory pressures will be resolved remains uncertain. In this contribution I focus on the theoretical, ethical and rhetorical basis for state regulation of the flows of people. Precisely because the case for control seems self-evident, it is timely to review the arguments made for the free movement of people, their own self-limiting conditions and the extent to which the contemporary political pressures for further restrictions can be justified by reference to general concepts of social justice and the public good.