Consider this modified version of the Starving Marvin scenario, found in Michael Huemer’s essay Is there a right to immigrate?:
As before, Marvin plans to walk to the local marketplace to obtain life-sustaining food. Due to his economic circumstances, Marvin will have to buy the cheapest bread available at the market. Sam’s daughter, however, also plans to go to the market, slightly later in the day, to buy some of this same bread. This bread is often in short supply, so that the vendor may run out after Marvin’s purchase. Sam’s daughter could buy more expensive bread, but she would prefer not to. Knowing all this, Sam fears that if Marvin is allowed to go to the market, his daughter will be forced to pay a slightly higher price for bread than she would like. To prevent this from happening, he accosts Marvin on the road and physically restrains him from traveling to the market.
Is this use of physical force against Marvin justified? Imagine that Sam attempts to justify his use of force by saying that it was necessary to protect his daughter from economic disadvantage. Sam believes that his action is justified because his daughter’s interest in saving money outweighs Marvin’s right to be free from harmful coercion. But Sam’s justification is not valid—preventing his daughter from suffering slight economic disadvantage does not justify his use of physical force to severely harm Marvin.
The justification that Sam attempts to make is similar to the economic argument for restricting immigration, which holds that we are justified in using force to prevent potential immigrants from reaching the US (or another destination country) because some Americans (or some citizens of this other destination country) would suffer from slight economic disadvantage through competition. People that support the economic argument for restricting immigration seem to be arguing that protecting some destination-country citizens from slight economic disadvantage through market competition justifies the extremely harmful use of force against potential immigrants. The scenario of Marvin’s bread shows that this violation of rights is certainly not justified.
Question
- Does Sam’s daughter’s interest in saving a small amount of money outweigh Marvin’s right to be free from severely harmful coercion?
- Do the interests of destination-country citizens in avoiding slight economic disadvantage outweigh the rights of potential immigrants to be free from severely harmful coercion?
15. A government’s special duties to its citizens don’t justify immigration restrictions