Why Even Close The Door Analysis

Why Even Close the Door?

This section will introduce ideas around the politics of migration and open borders, in order to lead us into my critical analysis of migration, the brain drain, and what policies can be created for the best possible outcome. As previously mentioned, brain drain is the only possible clause to which immigration can be restricted. However, only if it causes deleterious effects to the poor nation is it acceptable as a restrictive cause. Nevertheless, restrictive immigration goes against fundamental basic human liberties in which a person has the right to leave one country and go to another. I return to develop the libertarian aspects that advocate for open borders based on Carens understanding of Nozick’s work. Nozick

Discrimination can be made possible when it comes to how a person desires to have their private property accessed because “[…] individuals may do what they like with their own personal property [,t]hey may exclude whomever they want from land they own” (Carens 254). This becomes an egalitarian problem in a situation where for example numerous black immigrants freely move to rural areas of America where racism is still an issue and struggle to find jobs, houses, schools, and so on since the racists can do as they please with their individual private property and decide to refuse to sell them houses, offer them jobs, and allow their children to attend their schools. Nozickean libertarianism would not advocate for the state to step in to end the injustice since the state has no claim to the racist American’s private property and can only step in to protect the individual private property of the black immigrants if it were to come under such attack. This means the state can only step in when the individual private property of the black immigrant is assaulted in an adverse manner and not for any sort of unfavourable social

Since the countries that receive foreign aid are usually underdeveloped countries that lack solid government systems there can be the issue of local corruption. Developed states tend to use this excuse as a reason not to provide the aid that should be given to the global poor, but it is not the rich states place to comment or deal with local corruption because as we saw in the relatively widespread failure of structural adjustment programs on the African continent, when the West intervenes in the economies of sovereign states they tend to cause more damage than repair in the long run. Aid should be sent no questions asked in the same way that China is now investing in countries all over Africa. If foreign aid wants to by-pass the hands of local corruption then they should send people to directly use the aid for state development. The developed part of the world could also support change in global institutions, which favour poor countries. Even if it is not ‘feasible’ or ‘possible,’ there should still be a move towards a more egalitarian model because rich states were able to develop at a time when there restrictive global institutional practices did not exist and in contrast the Global South is struggling to develop not only in a shorter time frame but under a vastly different economic and