(b) Restrictions could be justified on the grounds that the world is best organised
into states. This seems to be Mill’s position. But there is a further argument: it
is best if the welfare state incorporates a contributory principle, meaning that
some state (welfare) benefits are determined by prior contributions, such as
payments into an unemployment insurance scheme. This contrasts with a
principle whereby benefits are awarded on the basis of need. If immigrants come
from very poor countries then they gain from the need principle but lose on
the contributory principle. However, without a contributory principle people
are less likely to cooperate. In short, immigration might undermine the social
cohesion that is necessary to maintain a liberal society, especially if – as is often
the case – welfare payments, which include housing allocation and subsidies,
are based on need.
(c) While not endorsing an open borders policy a more liberal immigration policy
might be defended on utilitarian grounds (bear in mind that utilitarianism is
essentially an individualist theory; we discuss it in Chapter 8). If immigrants
raise national productivity then the average person benefits. In the longer term
a selective – skills-based – immigration policy might have a eugenic effect. This
is an argument hardly ever heard because eugenics has extremely negative
connotations and is usually associated with the far right. But if a nation selects
the most intelligent immigrants, and if intelligence is even slightly heritable,
then the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of a nation will rise.
(d) Against utilitarianism it might be argued that immigration lowers the position
of the worst-off in society and so conflicts with Rawls’s difference principle
(discussed in Chapter 4).The gene
If we focus on genes themselves – and not on the effects that genes have – then the
likely conclusion is that there should be, as Salter argues, a highly restrictive
immigration policy. That policy would be based strongly on jus sanguinisand skills-
based immigrants would be admitted only if their impact on the reproduction of
the genes of the indigenous population was positive. This would be the case if they
raised the carrying capacity of the country such that the indigenous population’s
reproduction was significantly increased. Interestingly, this argument, while strongly
associated with the far right must necessarily be anti-eugenic. If what matters is the
gene itself, and not what it does – such as elevating intelligence – then even those
genes that do not have beneficial effects should be preserved. It is curious that you
can have a multicultural, multiracial eugenicpolicy and a mono-cultural, mono-
racial (‘racialist’) anti-eugenicpolicy.Summary
For political theorists nationalist sentiment is problematic because it seems to resist
universalist concepts. While it is possible to talk about universal rights to national
self-determination and assert that all nations are equal, both the reality of276 Part 2 Classical ideologies