Some people oppose immigration because they say that immigrants are willing to work for lower wages and therefore they push wages down. Let’s suppose that it’s true that immigration makes some workers slightly worse off, and ask the questions: Does this justify the use of harmful coercion against these potential migrants? Does it justify the violation of their prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion?
To help answer these questions, consider the scenario of Bob’s job, another scenario which appears in Michael Huemer’s essay Is there a right to immigrate?
I am being considered for a particular job, for which I know that Bob is the only other candidate. I also know that Bob is willing to work for a lower salary than the salary that I could obtain if I were the only candidate. On the day Bob is scheduled to have his job interview, I accost him and physically restrain him from going to the interview.
Needless to say, Bob doesn’t get the job. Imagine that I try to justify my action by saying that I had to prevent Bob from getting the job so that I wouldn’t have to accept a slightly lower salary due to the job competition. This is clearly not a valid justification for my use of harmful coercion against Bob.
The scenario of Bob’s job shows that preventing the slight lowering of some wages does not justify the forcible exclusion of potential immigrants from the country and hence from the job market. It does not justify violating their right to be free from harmful coercion.
Questions
- Does my not wanting a slightly lower wage justify my preventing Bob from attending the job interview, and thus harming Bob?
- Does our not wanting some wages to be slightly lower justify our forcibly preventing potential immigrants from competing in the job market, and thus harming them?