Marvin is in desperate need of food. Perhaps someone has stolen his food, or perhaps a natural disaster destroyed his crops; whatever the reason, Marvin is in danger of starvation. Fortunately, he has a plan to remedy the problem: he will walk to the local marketplace, where he will buy bread. Assume that in the absence of outside interference, this plan would succeed: the marketplace is open, and there are people there who are willing to trade food to Marvin in exchange for something he has. Another individual, Sam, is aware of all this and is watching Marvin. For some reason, Sam decides to detain Marvin on his way to the marketplace, forcibly preventing him from reaching it. As a result, Marvin returns home empty-handed, where he dies of starvation.
This is the Starving Marvin scenario, introduced by Michael Huemer in his essay Is there a right to immigrate? Huemer wants us to think about Sam’s action. Was it wrong? Did it violate Marvin’s rights?
Huemer argues that the answer to both of these questions is yes. Sam’s action was wrong, and it did violate Marvin’s rights. That is because we have a right to be free from harmful coercion. Sam’s action was coercive because it involved the use of physical force, or the threat of it, against Marvin. And Sam’s action was certainly harmful to Marvin. In fact, as Huemer points out, if Marvin’s death was reasonably foreseeable, then Sam’s action was an act of murder.
The right to be free from harmful coercion is a prima facie right. A prima facie right is a right that is not absolute; it can be overridden by other concerns. For example, if Marvin had attacked Sam, or threatened to attack people in the market, then Sam’s preventing Marvin from reaching the market—an act of harmful coercion—may have been justified. But in the Starving Marvin scenario we aren’t dealing with any special circumstances like this. Marvin is not dangerous; he is hungry, but peaceful. Under these normal circumstances, Sam is not justified in violating Marvin’s rights, and his action is wrong.
We need to be clear about what Sam does in the Starving Marvin scenario, and what he doesn’t do. In particular, it is not the case that Sam merely stands by the side of the road and fails to help Marvin, say, by refusing to give him food. If that were the case then we could say that Sam allows Marvin to be harmed, but that Sam himself doesn’t harm Marvin. But that is not what Sam does in the Starving Marvin scenario. In the scenario, Sam actively prevents Marvin from reaching the marketplace and getting food. Sam actively harms Marvin.
It’s also important to note that Sam’s action would be wrong even if Marvin didn’t die from starvation after returning home. Imagine if Marvin suffered from malnutrition instead. Sam’s action would still involve the use or the threat of physical force, and it would still harm Marvin. So Sam’s action would still be wrong. It would still be a prima facie rights violation.
How does all of this relate to immigration policy? The role of Marvin is played by potential immigrants who want to escape from oppression or economic hardship. The marketplace is the rich country that is the destination: if the immigrants were allowed to reach this destination, they would succeed in meeting their needs. The role of Sam is played by the government of the rich destination country. (Huemer wrote the Starving Marvin scenario with the US as the destination country and the US government as Sam. To keep things simple, we’ll concentrate, like Huemer, on the case of the US.)
Just as Sam uses physical force, or the threat of it, to prevent Marvin from reaching the marketplace, the US government uses physical force, or the threat of it, to prevent potential immigrants from reaching the US. Borders and entry points are patrolled by armed guards who physically prevent unauthorized entry. And just as Sam’s preventing Marvin from reaching the marketplace is harmful to Marvin, the US government’s exclusion of potential immigrants from the US is harmful to those people.
The actions of the US government are closer to the case in which Sam uses physical force, or the threat of it, to prevent Marvin from reaching the marketplace than to the case in which Sam merely stands by the side of the road and refuses to give Marvin food. The problem here is not that the US government just stands by and fails to give enough development assistance to poorer countries (though of course many argue that it does in fact fail to give enough development assistance). The problem is that the US government uses physical force, or the threat of it, to prevent many inhabitants of poorer countries from taking a course of action that would allow them to drastically improve their lives.
Questions
- Why is Sam’s preventing Marvin from reaching the marketplace wrong? What right of Marvin’s does it violate?
- The US government is right to prevent potential immigrants from reaching the US only if there are special circumstances which justify the use or threat of physical force against these immigrants. Do you think any special circumstances apply in the vast majority of cases, where potential immigrants are peaceful and simply want to improve their lives and the lives of their families?