Should or shouldn’t Australia open its borders to immigrants for work related purposes?

Australia should open its borders to immigrants for work related purposes. Doing so will enhance living standards for immigrants, domestic workers, and the overall the economy. Indeed, allowing foreign workers into the nation will enhance both non-material and material living standards (NMLS & MLS) for the nation. By providing these foreign individuals with the ability to work within Australia, the Australian government can improve the nation economically, increasing both efficiency and disposable incomes. Such enhancements assist the nation in achieving economic prosperity and can enhance one’s standard of living.

Australian borders should be opened to working immigrants, as doing so can increase efficiency and hence, living standards. By opening Australia’s borders, employers have extensive access to more labour resources, increasing levels of technical efficiency. Additionally, given that consumption (C) will increase, the level of Aggregate Demand (AD= C+I+G+X-M) also increases, urging employers to produce more goods and services to meet the increase in consumption and demand. Furthermore, as stated by Blau and Mackie there is “evidence that immigrants may increase the productivity of some natives”[1], further increasing levels of technical efficiency. This increase in productivity raises the level of real GDP within the nation; which ultimately leads to long-term economic growth. Certainly, immigration increases economic growth, making economic prosperity feasible – It has been recognised, that “foreign-born innovators and other kinds of workers become significant to long-run economic growth.”[2] Through this, both NMLS & MLS are enhanced. NMLS encompasses the intangible aspects of life which influence one’s well-being. By contrast, MLS describes one’s access to goods and services, and hence, influences one’s well-being. Immigration increases the supply of workers as previously stated, which has its own flow on effects on income and wages. This increase in the supply of labour workers lowers production costs, and therefore, lowers prices.[3]This in turn, heightens one’s MLS, as purchasing power has increased. To add to this point, foreign workers who migrate from a poor nation to a wealthier one[4], may instantly receive this boost in MLS, due to the difference in minimum wage. Additionally, NMLS also increases; however, this is debatable. For, an increase in production results in pollution and congestion, lowering NMLS through negative externalities. However, NMLS nevertheless increases for both native and foreign workers, who are happier due to their increase in MLS and disposable incomes. Ultimately, opening borders to skilled, employable immigrants, is beneficial for the economy, as it increases efficiency. This overall improves economic conditions, helping the economy in achieving economic prosperity. Increasing technical efficiency can lower prices in the economy and increase purchasing power, improving both NMLS and MLS for foreign and native workers.

However, this idea that immigration can improve economic conditions is frowned upon by many. They argue that immigration consists of economic consequences, more so than benefits[5]. Here, the opposition suggests that immigration is worse for the economy, however, this argument has been proven redundant on several accounts. For, “the economy as a whole often benefits”[6] from immigration, due to the increase in cheaper labour, a reduction in production costs, and due to an improvement in purchasing power (enhancing MLS and NMLS). Yet, this argument makes a plausible point, that immigration can result in “negative wage impacts”[7], heightening income inequality and limiting living standards. Blau and Mackie identify, that “beyond the [positive] impacts of immigration on total […] GDP, there may be effects on the distribution of income. […] If immigrants disproportionately increase the size of the lowest earnings quintiles, their addition to the population will raise overall inequality by any measure (such as a Gini index).”[8]This data has a strong correlation to poverty rates and therefore, it is implied, that immigration will limit the growth of both NMLS and MLS. However, David Card reveals that immigration only accounts for a small share (5%) of the wage inequality in the US, between the years 1980 and 2000.[9] Therefore, this belief does not account for the whole economy, and thus, borders should nonetheless be opened. It is worthwhile noting that this argument also involves the idea of lower living standards which arise from immigration. Some imply that despite an increase in income, NMLS may not increase as a result.  Indeed, many suggest that “increases in income do not necessarily […] [increase] happiness.”[10] There is skepticism concerning the belief that there is a correlation between happiness and income in face of immigration. This theory “has been challenged by a number of researchers”[11], and has been proven false, as immigration can improve happiness through an increase in wellbeing. Immigration has proven to “[enhance] well-being […] for migrants”[12]. Through this increase in wellbeing, comes an increase in life satisfaction and inevitably, happiness.[13]Therefore, despite immigration resulting in negative impacts, these effects are minor, and do not negatively impact the economy collectively. The argument that immigration can limit living standards through an increase in income inequality, and that a general rise in income does not equate to increased happiness, has been proven false. For an increase in immigration, will not limit living standards, but enhance them. Given that immigrations “remains a significant positive gain in absolute terms”[14] for the nation, the belief that migration could deteriorate the economy and or the nation’s standard of living, has evidently, been proven redundant.

Moreover, the government should open its borders to working migrants, as doing so results in the most happiness. Indeed, through the adoption of a utilitarian lens, the obvious decision which should be made, would be to open Australia’s borders.  James Hudson prompts that there shouldn’t be immigration restrictions, further underlining that nations’ borders should be opened, as “global utilitarianism is opposed to immigration restriction.”[15]Furthermore, John Roemer explains how “the movement of [labour] has, in principle, an important effect on the international distribution of income”[16], and thus, happiness levels. Given the want to “maximize […] income […] utilitarians would desire even more immigration than occurs with open borders.”[17] Concluding, that “the utilitarian, who seeks to maximize average global income, would proceed [to] advocate [for] open borders.[18]” Here, it is clear, that opening borders is desirable from a utilitarian point of view, as doing so results in the most happiness and improvement in living standards. This happiness arises due to the increase in MLS (achievable through an increase income) and NMLS (where happiness is an intangible benefit which influences well-being). These enhancements become feasible when the nation’s borders are opened. In addition to this, it has been proven through that research, that immigrants are happier because of open borders. In the 2018 ‘World Happiness Report’, it is uncovered that “on average, [immigrants] have become 9% happier following migration.”[19]Given this, Australia’s borders should be opened to working migrants, as doing so can enhance their well-being and therefore, standard of living. Utilitarians support this notion, suggesting that this option accumulates the most contentment; for the other option of closing borders would result in less satisfaction and limit the enhancement of living standards. Thus, Australian borders should be opened to foreign workers as doing do results in the most pleasure, improving both NMLS and MLS.

Furthermore, morally speaking, Australia should open it borders to migrants (despite whether they are working), as it is the most ethical option to choose. Indeed, freedom of movement is a human right, and states should not let their nationalism get in the way of ethics. This concept is supported by Timothy King, who speaks on The Principle of Utility. A utilitarian principle which “says nothing about nations or citizenship; “everyone,” not “every citizen of my country,” is “to count as one and none as more than one.”[20]Here, he emphasises that people ought to be treated equally, in spite of which nation they reside in. Moreover, the Australian government should consider the advantages of behaving in an ethical manner. This is for, the “benefit from freedom of movement […] is that the population as a whole will benefit.”[21] This will occur due to the enhancement of living standards, as explored in the previous arguments. Nevertheless, the government should implement an open policy, “as […] people have rights to freedom of movement and freedom of association”[22]. Therefore, states should not restrict and revoke these rights through immigration restrictions. To add to this point, allowing individuals to exercise their human rights, works to create harmony, happiness, and equality, increasing NMLS. However, as Adam Hosein argues, borders should be open as it works towards “political equality”[23]. Indeed, Hosein persists, and suggests that “freedoms are protected for reasons that go beyond the importance of individual autonomy [; such as freedom of speech, which many are quick to defend,] and I will argue that the same is true [for] freedom of movement.” Indeed, much like other freedoms which people are obligated to, immigrants are also owed a freedom to movement and migration. Therefore, borders should be opened to working and non-working immigrants, as they have the right to move and migrate to another nation. The Australian government should open their borders, as this act is moral, ethical, and improves the nation through an increase in equality and NMLS (happiness).

As a result, the Australian government should open their borders, and allow immigrants to work within the nation, as it enhances the standard of living for them, and domestic citizens. Overall, given the prospect of greater happiness, efficiency, and disposable income(s). As well as an improvement in both MLS and NMLS, the Australian government should thus, open its borders to foreign workers.

[1] Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher. “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (2017): p.284.

[2] Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher. “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration” p.285

[3] This point is encapsulated within the following, and supports my idea that prices reduce as a result of more labour (achievable through immigration): Baghdadi, Leila, and Marion Jansen. “The Effects of Temporary Immigration on Prices of Non Traded Goods and Services.” Journal of Economic Integration 25, no. 4 (2010): p.755

[4] I grasped this idea from the following: Bartram, David. “International Migration, Open Borders Debates, and Happiness.” International Studies Review 12, no. 3 (2010): 339–61. This point is evident throughout the article.

[5] I grasped this idea from the following: Wellman, Christopher H., “Immigration”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, October 21, 2019. Specifically, within the ‘Argument for Closed Borders, 1.2 Sustaining the Economy’ subsection.

[6] Wellman, Christopher H., “Immigration”, a quote accumulated from the ‘Argument for Closed Borders, 1.2 Sustaining the Economy’ subsection.

[7] Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher. “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration” p.218

[8] Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher. “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration” p.285

[9] Card, David. “Immigration and inequality.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 99, no. 2 (2009): p.3. This sentence however, has been paraphrased from Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher. “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration” p.285

[10] Bartram, David. “International Migration, Open Borders Debates, and Happiness.” International Studies Review 12, no. 3 (2010): p.347

[11] Bartram, David. “International Migration, Open Borders Debates, and Happiness” p.346

[12] Bartram, David. “International Migration, Open Borders Debates, and Happiness” p.341

[13] An idea within: Ledsom, Alex.,“New Study Shows That More Money Buys More Happiness, Even For The Rich”, Forbes, February 7, 2021.

[14] Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher. “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration” p.283

[15] Hudson, James L. “The Philosophy of Immigration.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies 8, no.1 (1986): p.52

[16] Roemer, John E. “The Global Welfare Economics of Immigration.” Social Choice and Welfare 27, no. 2 (2006): p.311

[17] Roemer, John E. “The Global Welfare Economics of Immigration” p.313

[18] Roemer, John E. “The Global Welfare Economics of Immigration” p.325

[19] Quoted from the following, which references the 2018 World Happiness Report: Esipova, Neli., Ray, Julie., “Are Migrants Happier After They Move?”, Gallup, March 20, 2018.

[20] Discovered in Hudson, James L. “The Philosophy of Immigration” p.52; who references Kind, Timothy., “Immigration from Developing Countries: Some Philosophical Issues.” Ethics 93, (1983): 525-36

[21] Hudson, James L. “The Philosophy of Immigration” p.53

[22] Hudson, James L. “The Philosophy of Immigration” p.53

[23] Hosein, Adam. “Immigration and Freedom of Movement.” Ethics & Global Politics 6, no.1 (2013): p.31

Reference List:

Bartram, David. “International Migration, Open Borders Debates, and Happiness.” International Studies Review 12, no. 3 (2010): 339–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40931112.

Blau, Francine D., and Mackie, Christopher., “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (2017): 279-301. https://doi.org/10.17226/23550.

Baghdadi, Leila, and Marion Jansen., “The Effects of Temporary Immigration on Prices of Non Traded Goods and Services.” Journal of Economic Integration 25, no. 4 (2010): 754–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23000958.

Card, David., “Immigration and inequality.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 99, no. 2 (2009): 1-21. DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.2.1

Esipova, Neli., Ray, Julie., “Are Migrants Happier After They Move?”, Gallup, March 20, 2018, Are Migrants Happier After They Move? (gallup.com)

Hosein, Adam. “Immigration and Freedom of Movement.” Ethics & Global Politics 6, no.1 (2013): 25-37. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v6i1.18188

Hudson, James L., “The Philosophy of Immigration.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies 8, no.1 (1986): 51-60. James L. Hudson the Philosophy of Immigration - [PDF Document] (fdocuments.net)

Ledsom, Alex., “New Study Shows That More Money Buys More Happiness, Even For The Rich”, Forbes, February 7, 2021, New Study Shows That More Money Buys More Happiness, Even For The Rich (forbes.com)

Roemer, John E., “The Global Welfare Economics of Immigration.” Social Choice and Welfare 27, no. 2 (2006): 311–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41106780.

Wellman, Christopher H., “Immigration”, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, October 21, 2019, Immigration (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)