The Case for Open Borders, John Washington, Haymarket, 2023
“We don’t act as we ought to act toward each other, we fail to act out of care and compassion toward each other not only because we fear the state but because the state has implanted its own fear into us: the fear of the other.” ( pg.177)
This is an excellent presentation of the argument for equality and basic humanity. The author turns the tables on the nationalist/racist rationales for discriminating against people on the basis of where they were born. He outlines and develops several key arguments. The author also gives case studies to back up his position.
Washington explains the extent of the crisis created by closed borders:
“In the last fifty years, sixty-three border walls have been built…and at least 2,250 immigration detention centers across the globe, sites of human warehousing and squalid misery. Meanwhile in 2023, the number of displaced people around the world neared 110 million… In 2022, the remains of nearly nine hundred migrants were found along the U.S.-Mexico border, the deadliest year on record. The same year while crossing the Mediterranean, at least 2062 migrants died.” (pg1)
Does Biden Have an Open Borders Policy?
“the current administration has, in just over 2 years deported over 4 million people from the country”
Despite the draconian border regime, conservatives claim that Biden has an “open border” policy! The author explains the absurdity of this claim:
“As of the Spring of 2023, the current administration has, in just over 2 years deported over 4 million people from the country. Successive administrations, Republican and Democrat alike, fund, arm, train and staff the agencies …blocking migrants’ entry and kicking others out of the country. Even migrants allowed in are forced to wade through a years and sometimes decades long bureaucratic and antagonistic gauntlet …for achieving legal status.” (pg. 6)
Washington explains that “the term ‘open borders’…has been drained of all basic meaning” by Republicans. (pg. 6)
What justification is there for this horrific human misery which the author calls a system of apartheid?
Arguments Against Open Borders
“Diluting American “blood”??
Some arguments of course are openly racist such as Trump’s appeals against diluting American “blood”. Even those rationales that claim not to be racist are still ultimately based on nationalism and racism. Immigration restriction says that fundamental human rights should be based on national origin. This kind of discrimination is legally outlawed among citizens. Many of those who would reject such bias aimed at citizens accept it against migrants.
Related arguments include historical considerations, supposed economic harm done by immigrants, crime committed by immigrants, and even ecological arguments.
The author takes each of these in turn.
Historical Hypocrisy
In terms of history, Washington notes that the nation states that anti-immigrants want to protect were themselves formed in violence and conquest. Especially in North and South America, they were formed by genocidal and near-genocidal settlement of Europeans, who “take as a given the idea of open borders: that for the British explorers the land was empty and no border could get in their way.”( pg.30) It is the height of hypocrisy to close the borders of states created by open borders. He follows this up with an examination of the history of U.S. immigration.
Immigrants and the Economy
Opponents of open borders argue that immigrants take jobs from American workers, especially the low paid. Washington cites study after study that refutes this premise. Immigration actually boosts the economy in general and creates more jobs. Marxist economist Michael Roberts has documented this recently:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/03/13/us-economy-saved-by-immigrants/
In fact, “Michael Clements, a leading immigration economist estimates that completely opening borders would double the global GDP..” (pg.82)
Cross-Border Solidarity
“Undocumented immigrants are forced to accept lower wages because they lack legal rights.”
Washington argues that just looking at the impact on GDP is not enough. He argues that:
“admission of more migrants…is ..a way to better protect worker and human rights and build cross-border solidarity.. we should be for open borders because it is good for people…Benefits include native wages and employment.” (68)
The argument that low wages for undocumented immigrants lowers the wages of low paid citizen workers has the logic backwards. Undocumented immigrants are forced to accept lower wages because they lack legal rights. The way to raise the wages of all is to open the borders and give full equal rights to all workers.
Equally important, Washington argues that we need to look at immigration on an international scale. Allowing open borders will allow the massive raising of wages for workers from the Global South. We should be concerned with the well-being of workers internationally, not just locally.
“migrants moving from Mexico to the U.S. increase their wages by a factor of two to six..”(pg. 74)
Imperialism
“We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.”
In saying “the rich, not the immigrants are the problem” Washington notes that the wage gap between the Global North and South is caused in large part by imperialism which extracts profits for the rich. (pg. 72)
In spite of Trump’s rhetoric, every study has shown that immigrants are less likely to commit interpersonal crime than native born U.S. citizens. On Trump’s logic, it is U.S. citizens that should be deported!
Washington also explains that borders are arbitrary and have shifted wildly over the last few centuries. This gives rise to the common saying among Latino/as and Native Americans, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.”
Immigrant Rights and Ecology
“Wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border is having ‘disastrous consequences on vulnerable wildlife’”
Another anti-immigrant argument is a reactionary version of environmentalism. Earth First in the past has argued for immigration restriction on the basis that immigrants will hurt the American environment. Immigrant bashers tried to take over the Sierra Club on this basis as well. This is of course nationalist and exclusivist. Why should anyone with a humanitarian sense favor environmental destruction in Mexico over environmental destruction in the U.S.?
Of course, the argument in general is wrong. The problem is not population. ( see Too Many People https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/386-too-many-people) but the social and economic system those people live under. Racist/nationalist divisions of people promoted by border controls get in the way of people fighting together for ecological transformation against those who are willing to continue destroying the planet to continue profiting from fossil fuels.
Another counter-argument against ecological racism is diversion of resources:
“…seven countries. responsible for 48% of the world’s historic greenhouse gas emissions ‘collectively spent at least twice as much on border and immigration enforcement ( more than $ 33.1 billion ) as on climate change( $14.4 billion) between 2013 and 2018 ‘.”( pg.125)
“Wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border is having ‘disastrous consequences on vulnerable wildlife’”(pg133)
Washington lays out other ecological arguments for open borders and explains that the U.S. could safely contain many more people than live here now. (“The U.S. could quadruple its population and still be less dense than France.”( pg. 163)
How Do We Get There?
“Open borders, in short, cannot be an isolated policy move. They must be part of a more profound readjustment of global politics that includes the abolition of the inequality regime set in place by post-colonial capitalism”
Near the end of the book, the author asks “How Do We Get There?”
He toys with the option of revolution:
“ ..revolution, a usurpation of power by the masses and an unlocking of the gates — -not a bad option”( pg. 143)
Washington backs this up by acknowledging the connection of immigration to other issues:
“Open borders, in short, cannot be an isolated policy move. They must be part of a more profound readjustment of global politics that includes the abolition of the inequality regime set in place by post-colonial capitalism.” (pg. 166)
The author’s insight here is very important. Capitalism requires nation states which in turn need control of borders for their own power. The ruling class needs to divide workers on race, gender, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation and citizenship lines. It needs to claim to give spurious benefits to citizens to divide them from immigrants. Though there have been various specific immigration regimes in the last century and more, they have all had these features in common.
Creating open borders will require smashing the nation-state system and the capitalist economy it is based on.
Unfortunately, the author backs off from this crucial insight, saying “more likely however is that we’ll get to open borders in legal steps.” (pg. 143)
Washington is on point in arguing for reforms in the immigration system on the way to open borders. Resistance to deportation, incarceration, family separation etc. are all important aspects of the struggle.
However, unless these fights are integrated into a movement for revolutionary transformation, we will never get to open borders. A statement from Harsha Walia (pg. 166) captures this well:
“no-border politics ,.. necessarily is part of a larger project and vision of eradicating those relations of dominance. ..about eradicating capitalism such that the division between the so-called North and South effectively collapses.”
With the Democrats going along with the repressive Senate Republican border bill that Biden bragged about in his 2024 State of the Union, this issue has never been timelier!
Though Washington is ambivalent on the necessity of revolution and abolition of capitalism, his analysis of the need for open borders will be a tremendous help for everyone organizing on this issue! All immigrant rights activists should read it and encourage others to as well, especially those on the fence on whether to advocate open borders!
