Robert Skidelsky (zgodovinar in znan po trilogiji biografije Johna M. Keynesa) je odprl izjemno dobro vprašanje o tem, koliko imigracije je preveč. Namreč, v osnovi nam tako teorija trgovine kot ekonomska teorija pravita, da sta tako prosta trgovina kot popolna mobilnost ljudi optimalni za domače prebivalstvo. Toda empirična dejstvba zadnjih let kažejo, da te trditve veljajo zgolj v posebnih pogojih zmernih sprememb. Če namreč domače gospodarstvo šokirate z veliko dozo liberalizacije, bodo redistribucijski učinki prek izgube delovnih mest in zelo počasnega prilagajanja gospodarstva odnesli večino koristi, ki nastanejo zaradi nižjih cen in večje učinkovitosti zaradi specializacije. In ta izguba delovnih mest in posledična mizerija, kot kažejo zadnje študije (Autor, Dorn & Hanson), prek niza psiholoških in socioloških interakcij lahko pripelje do povečanega populizma. Podobno je pri imigraciji, v zmernih dozah je zelo koristna, če pa državo šokirate z velikim pritokom (kulturno, versko itd.) raznolikih priseljencev, bo to – ob strahu pred izgubo delovnih mest, prepočasni asimilaciji in integraciji ter anksioznosti zaradi prevelike raznolikosti – močno poškodovalo domače socialno tkivo in sprožilo pri domačem prebivalstvu odpor, ki se bo nato sprevrgel v populizem.

Gre za tipičen primer kvantitete, ki preraste v novo kvaliteto. Če zbanaliziram, nekaj kar je koristno v zmernih količinah, vas v velikih dozah ubije. In s tem seveda pridemo do liberalnega paradoksa, kjer liberalci v želji po čim več liberalizma in odprtosti s totalno realizacijo svoje želje dejansko ubijejo objekt svoje želje, torej koristi povečanega liberalizma.

S tem se seveda lahko strinjate ali ne. Toda velja razmisliti o tem, kakšna je optimalna stopnja liberalizacije (tuje konkurence, domače deregulacije, privatizacije itd.) in pritoka tujerodnih priseljencev. Potrebne so premišljene politike regulacije “odprtosti”, kajti če to pustite trgu ali stihiji, imate resne težave na daljši rok.  Toda preden se razhudite, preberite Skidelskyjev komentar in si vzamite čas za razmislek. S tem namenom ga tudi objavljam.

David Goodhart, former editor of the journal Prospect, has argued the case for restriction from a social democratic perspective. Goodhart takes no position on whether cultural diversity is intrinsically or morally good or bad. He simply takes it for granted that most people prefer to live with their own kind, and that policymakers must attend to this preference. A laissez-faire attitude to the composition of a country’s population is as untenable as indifference to its size.

For Goodhart, the taproot of liberals’ hostility to migration controls is their individualist view of society. Failing to comprehend people’s attachment to settled communities, they label hostility to immigration irrational or racist.

Liberal over-optimism about the ease of integrating migrants stems from the same source: if society is no more than a collection of individuals, integration is a non-issue. Of course, says Goodhart, immigrants do not have to abandon their traditions completely, but “there is such a thing as society,” and if they make no effort to join it, native citizens will find it hard to consider them part of the “imagined community.”

A too-rapid inflow of immigrants weakens bonds of solidarity, and, in the long run, erodes the affective ties required to sustain the welfare state. “People will always favor their own families and communities,” Goodhart argues, and “it is the task of a realistic liberalism to strive for a definition of community that is wide enough to include people from many different backgrounds, without being so wide as to become meaningless.”

Economic and political liberals are bedfellows in championing unrestricted immigration. Economic liberals view national frontiers as irrational obstacles to the global integration of markets. Many political liberals regard nation-states and the loyalties they inspire as obstacles to the wider political integration of humanity. Both appeal to moral obligations that stretch far beyond nations’ cultural and physical boundaries.

At issue is the oldest debate in the social sciences. Can communities be created by politics and markets, or do they presuppose a prior sense of belonging?

It seems to me that anyone who thinks about such matters is bound to agree with Goodhart that citizenship, for most people, is something they are born into. Values are grown from a specific history and geography. If the make-up of a community is changed too fast, it cuts people adrift from their own history, rendering them rootless. Liberals’ anxiety not to appear racist hides these truths from them. An explosion of what is now called populism is the inevitable result.

The policy conclusion to be drawn is banal, but worth restating. A people’s tolerance for change and adaptation should not be strained beyond its limits, different though these will be in different countries. Specifically, immigration should not be pressed too far, because it will be sure to ignite hostility. Politicians who fail to “control the borders” do not deserve their people’s trust.

Vir: Robert Skidelsky, Project Syndicate