Would open immigration end sex trafficking, and would you support it?

[Himalaya]

Would freedom of immigration go a long way towards ending human trafficking and sex trafficking in particular?

If it was easier for people to immigrate to wherever they wanted this would close off the flow of people for traffickers to exploit, and if anyone could leave a trafficked situation without worrying about being deported, not being protected, not being able to work legally etc.. this this would reduce the hold that traffickers hold over them.

There are good economic and social justice arguments for freedom of immigration too. Would you support open immigration to the UK, and accross the EU?

The economic arguments for freedom of immigration are based on the theory that it would ensure the most efficient deployment of labour, but this would only work in the absence of a welfare system, so no, I wouldn't support it.

But the cost of immigration is prohibitive for many people, which is why you get situations of people working for free to pay off their 'debt' to the traffickers. And fears for personal/family safety are also huge issues for trafficked people. Freedom of immigration would do little to solve these problems. Additionally, there is evidence that the estimated numbers of trafficked people has been exaggerated. Of course, trafficking is terrible, but i feel that organising immigration policy around ending it is barking up the wrong tree.

Nolita,

But isn't the cost of immigration prohibitive in large part because it is illegal? Open migration would mean that people could pay Easyjet rates rather than trafficker rates, could get bank accounts, legitimate jobs, legal tenancies etc...and could get legitimate loans for migration expenses rather than enter into bonded labour arrangements.

Interesting link about estimated trafficking numbers. I agree at any size of course that trafficking is not the only issue and should not drive immigration policy, but as I said the economic and social justice arguments are also strong.

Preventing freedom of movement (as in the medieval & Elizabethan poor laws) seems like a fundamental injustice based on the accident of where you happen to be born.

Why are the economic arguments strong, given my comment above?

i.e. that free migration only works when there is as close to a free market economy as you can get

i.e. no distortions from benefits, wage controls, etc.

Insert1x50p - I agree, that is the big challenge...how do you create labour laws, welfare systems and regulations that deliver against poverty in a globalised world. Capital and goods are already much freer to move around than people. Maintaining restrictions on people moving does not seem like a good or fair solution to me, given how much individuals benefit from immigration (and how much they are willing to risk to do it).

But as you say our current system of benefits and wage controls only works because it is able to keep the majority of people out. Those lucky enough to have been born inside the privileged national cordon can command higher wages, and benefits than those outside simply by an accident of birth.

It hasn't stopped trafficking of women from poor EU countries so I don't think it would make a difference. It would be cheaper to emigrate if it was legal but would still be prohibitively expensive for the majority so the "I'll get you a job in my brother's restaurant" method of getting women into brothels would still be there.

Unless it were adopted globally, it would not solve the problem; rather it would displace it.

Also, if the demand for traded sex continued, there would still be those who sought to control the supply of women and I suspect trafficking would continue much along the lines it often does now: woman duped into thinking she's arriving for a reputable job, then beaten/drugged into prostitution and kept semi-prisoner.

(BTW: if there were total freedom of movement globally, would that mean the end of the nation state?)

X-post with hazelnut.

hazelnut - I think there are still immigration restrictions on people from the poor/new/eastern EU countries - there isn't total freedom of movement.

meditrina - I don't think it would mean the end of the nation state, but it would mean a new way of thinking about the nation state - less ethnic, more consensual.

It would be the end of the nation state though, because it makes law enforcement/ tax enforcement etc difficult/close to impossible.

The state has to be responsible to someone and in turn must be able to levy taxes to fund itself. With total free movement of population that becomes much harder.

Local councils manage it though, don't they - taxation and representation - based on residence?

And law enforcement and tax enforcement are not linked to citizenship - you don't have to be a citizen to be obliged to follow the laws, or to pay tax on income earned in a country.