Day 7 - O'Keefe - The Right to Migrate

Day 7 – O’Keefe – “the right to migrate”

Mr. Parrott, your friends often refer contemptuously to “open borders.”  I understand that the phrase gives you and/or your friends hives, but I don’t really understand the bitter complaint.  The phrase is emotional for many folks on your side, but I honestly do not know why.  Please explain.

Generally, the phrase is used to refer to a border without any restrictions or limits on movement.  The border between Maryland and Pennsylvania is an open border; most European countries have open borders once you have entered the EU.  By contrast, the longest international border between two countries, the U.S.-Canadian border, is controlled, not open.  I think the Mexican border should be like the Canadian border.  I am honestly baffled when I’m accused of supporting open borders.  There is clearly something here that I am missing.  I wish you would engage, and explain.

I think – I guess in the dark – that this disagreement is about the status of the individual at the border, so I’ll explain my view.

I hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.  Since these rights are from the hand of God, not the generosity of the state, you don’t have to be an American citizen to have these rights.  I hold further that the inalienable rights include the “pursuit of happiness,” which – here’s the disagreement, perhaps – includes a right to pursue better economic conditions, by migration if necessary.  With the Catholic Church, among others, I believe that there is a God-given right to migrate.  So the individual at the border requesting permission to enter is not begging for a handout; he/she has God-given rights.  This right is clear in the Bible; but like the Founders of this great country, I hold this truth to be self-evident, independent of Biblical support or Catholic teaching.

Logically, the right to migrate refers to both emigration and immigration.  For example, it includes the right of North Korean citizens to emigrate, a right that their government violates.  I don’t think we disagree about that.  But further, the right to migrate is gutted if it doesn’t include the right to immigrate. 

That doesn’t mean that a host country has to accept every comer passively.  But it does mean that it is deeply wrong and completely indefensible to write a law excluding immigrants without a clear justification for the law.  We are stewards of the land, not owners, and the owner – the Creator – has made clear that we should welcome immigrants, generally speaking.  And it seems obvious to me that a right to migrate is a silly thing, a meaningless concept, if huge and wealthy nations with lots of empty space and available jobs can exclude immigrants without rational explanation. 

The right to migrate is a limited right – like property rights, unlike the right to life.  That is, the details are negotiable.  But it’s a right.

Mr. Parrott, are we in agreement so far?