An Ethical Case for the Expansion of Free Movement of People Policies : Why the American Countries Ought to Adopt a Free Movement of Peoples Policy

Abstract: In my paper I make a case for why more countries ought to adopt reciprocal free movement of people policies. Looking at the EU as an example of successful implementation of reciprocal free movement of people policies, I establish a model for such an agreement between countries. I consider the American countries as an example of a region that could benefit from adopting a reciprocal free movement of people policy. For the ethical basis of the argument I look at the eight principles for free and democratic peoples – focusing on the first, sixth, and eighth principles – John Rawls sets out in his book The Law of Peoples (1999). I use his principles as the groundwork for establishing the rights of citizens of a country, the obligations a government has to those people, and how nations ought to interact with one another. Rawls uses an Egalitarian framework for establishing the eight principles of justice. Further using Joseph Carens' analysis in "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders" (1987) in which he applies Rawls' theory of the Original Position to a global scale to argue for open borders. Carens argues for completely open borders and states there is rarely a justifiable reason to restrict movement. While Carens' argument is more radical than what I'm arguing, it serves as a good base for the ethical case to remove restrictions to movement. My argument recognizes reasons why nations might want to maintain a degree of control over who enters their country and recognizes the practical obstacles to a country embracing open borders. A regionally based freedom of movement policy allows countries to recognize its citizens' right and the rights of citizens of member states to move freely while maintaining a level of national sovereignty by being selective about the countries they enter into an agreement with. I used American countries as a case study – granted a case could be made for many other countries to have such an agreement – because they resemble Europe around the time of adopting Article 45 in the level of market integration, shared identity and history, and on-going political tensions surrounding issues of immigration. The conversation of immigration shifts to one of free movement under a free movement of people policy. Immigration grants a person the full status of citizens, whereas, free movement grants a person a range of rights as a legal resident while still maintaining citizenship in their country of origin.