![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldA few economists, and not a few other people, believe that if we're to have a successful globalized economy, we'll need to have the unhindered movement of people across national borders. As I understand it, the thinking is that free trade in capital and free trade in material goods will only take an economy so far, that in order to achieve the most economically rational global economy possible we'll have to make it possible for poor people, or underemployed and unemployed people, or members of any number of relatively deprived socioeconomic groups, the chance to leave their homes and find work elsewhere. A few people even say that such a migration regime is necessary from the point of view of natural justice.
It goes without saying that other people disagree with this. National governments' first priority, in this view, is to their own citizens, and to protect their economic welfare, especially against migrants who would like depress wages somewhat and create a certain measure of economic problems. Zones marked by the free movement of people across national borders do exist, the European Union's Schengen Zone being a prime example, but that zone exists only because living standards in the zone's member states are roughly equal. Large numbers of economic migrants, such as those left Poland and the Baltic States in the 2004-2008 period, did make different national governments wary of the zone: its frontiers could only expand so far.
So, what do you think? Do you favour unhindered migration or regulated migration across frontiers? Please, discuss.
It goes without saying that other people disagree with this. National governments' first priority, in this view, is to their own citizens, and to protect their economic welfare, especially against migrants who would like depress wages somewhat and create a certain measure of economic problems. Zones marked by the free movement of people across national borders do exist, the European Union's Schengen Zone being a prime example, but that zone exists only because living standards in the zone's member states are roughly equal. Large numbers of economic migrants, such as those left Poland and the Baltic States in the 2004-2008 period, did make different national governments wary of the zone: its frontiers could only expand so far.
So, what do you think? Do you favour unhindered migration or regulated migration across frontiers? Please, discuss.
