Selecting Immigrants by Skill and Global Inequality

Governments in the Global North are increasingly trying to attract the “best and brightest” immigrants (Kapur and McHale 2005; Boeri 2012). These highly skilled immigrants can bring the human capital that states need for economic development, especially in knowledge-based industries such as health and information technology (Triadafilopoulos 2013a; Czaika and Parsons 2017). The aging populations in almost all of these receiving countries make skill-selective immigration policy all the more important (Chand and Tung 2014). Not only are highly skilled immigrants wanted, but they are also arguably welcome, or at least more welcome than so-called “low skilled” migrants (Weiss 2005; Scott 2006; Föbker et al. 2016).1 Highly skilled immigrants are thought to have the social capital that allows them to easily integrate into the new community. Skill-selective immigration policies were introduced in the 1960s not only to meet economic needs but also to move away from the overt racial and ethnic selection of past immigration policies (Joppke 2005; Triadafilopoulos 2013b; Boeri 2012; Boucher 2019; Ellerman 2019). Skill has long been seen as neutral and non-discriminatory grounds for selecting among would-be immigrants.2 However, there is a worry that these policies, while “designed to reduce racial bias,” might “reproduce this bias in more subtle ways” (Gest 2018; Van Goozen 2021).3 While it is true that skill-selective immigration policy does not directly exclude would-be immigrants on the basis of race or ethnicity, it might indirectly do so through selection criteria, such as the higher education requirement, that are more difficult to meet for those from low- and middle-income countries, many of which are in the Global South. In this way, skill-selective immigration policy may still be discriminatory but in less obvious ways (Lim 2023). Skill-selective immigration policy disadvantages those from low- and lower-middle-income countries with less developed education and economic systems. However, it might seem that this only matters if we hold the view that people from different countries should have the same chances to acquire desirable positions. This is a highly contest claim in the philosophical literature. If we reject the view that there should be equal opportunities at the global level, then it does not seem morally problematic that those from low- and middle-income countries have much fewer opportunities to immigrate than those from wealthy countries. In this paper, I argue that skill-selective immigration policy unfairly disadvantages those from low- and middle-income countries, regardless of whether we endorse global equality of opportunity.4 I defend two claims. The first is that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair as those from low- and lower-middle-income countries are less likely to have the skills required. In other words, skill-selective immigration policy is unfair because of inequality of opportunity between states. Second, skill-selective immigration policy is unfair because it exacerbates inequality of opportunity within low- and lower-middle-income states. While the first argument hinges on a global principle of equal opportunity, the second argument does not. Thus, even if equality of opportunity applies only within states, it is nevertheless morally problematic that skill-selective immigration policy disadvantages those from low- and lower-middle-income countries. These policies then have not wholly shed the racial and ethnic discrimination of past immigration policies. The paper proceeds as follows. In the first section, I argue that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair because of inequality of opportunity between states. In the second section, I address the objection that inequality to do with any goods as specific as skill-based visas does not matter very much. In the third section, I argue that even if we reject the claim that equality of opportunity applies between states, inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income states makes skill-selective immigration policy unfair. In the fourth section, I further explain my claim that skill-selective immigration policy exacerbates inequality of opportunity within these countries. In the fifth section, I respond to two objections. Before I proceed, it is important to briefly explain the nature of skill-selective immigration policy. We can distinguish between two kinds of skill-selective immigration policies: “immigrant driven” and “employer driven” (Bertoli et al. 2009; Chaloff and Lemaitre 2009). Under an “employer driven” system, such as the US H1B visa system or the UK Tier 2 system, would-be immigrants must have a job offer to be eligible for admission. Under an “immigrant driven” system, such as those of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Denmark, would-be immigrants can apply even without a job offer as they are assessed on the basis of other criteria. The criterion that I focus on is education, which is heavily weighted in many of these “immigrant driven” systems (Facchini and Lodigiani 2014). In Australia and New Zealand, for example, education level awards the highest number of points, after age. In Canada, it is the second most important factor after language proficiency. Education is also an important criterion in more “employer driven” systems. For example, an applicant for the UK skilled worker visa with a job offer that does not meet the minimum salary requirement may still be eligible if they hold a PhD in a STEM subject relevant to the job (GOV.UK 2020). In the United States, the main skill-selective immigration policy is the H1B visa category, which in addition to a job offer requires a bachelor's degree (Facchini and Lodigiani 2014). Education is therefore a criterion that is common in both “immigrant driven” and “employer driven” skill-selective policy and, as I argue, one that raises significant issues of fairness. My first claim is that inequality of opportunity between states makes skill-selective immigration policy unfair. Those from low- and lower-middle-income countries are less likely to have the skills required for a skill-based visa. It is unfair for one's chances to immigrate through this route to depend on the contingencies of birth in the same way that it is unfair, as many political theorists have argued, for one's chances to acquire other desirable positions to depend on the contingencies of birth. Thus, this argument hinges on a global principle of equal opportunity, but the second argument I later defend shows that the ways in which skill-selective immigration policy disadvantages those from low- and lower-middle-income countries matters even if we reject this principle. I follow Rawls in defining equality of opportunity in the following way: “background social conditions are such that each citizen, regardless of class or origin, should have the same chance of attaining a favoured social position, given the same talents and willingness to try” (Rawls 1999, 115). These favored social positions could include well-paid careers or places at to a with equality of opportunity is one people with the same and willingness to it have the same chances to these favored positions. For example, a from a should have the same chance to higher education as a is but is from a We opportunities within a but opportunities between should it matter a does not have the same opportunities a common to this is that we should global equality of opportunity for the same we equality of opportunity within a 2005; We equality of opportunity within a for of fairness. It unfair for people to have opportunities because of class or which are which people have of birth is also which one has It should therefore be as unfair that people have opportunities because of they to be 115). we can that equality of opportunity requires that equal and have equal opportunities to the positions in My first claim is that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair as those from low- and lower-middle-income countries are less likely to have the skills required because of the they is in very global education the countries people have the to and North of can to of while at the same in countries with the to education can only 2019). this inequality in of education, the education criterion of many skill-selective immigration policies be much less for would-be immigrants from low- and lower-middle-income countries. that that in North and for only of the and more than of education that any immigration system on and education the populations of are as a Skill-selective immigration policy global equality of opportunity as of equal and have opportunities to acquire these skill-based which I later argue are positions. are two to this The first is that I in the of selection I the more of whether states have a to In states I that states do in a to I therefore do not the global equality of opportunity to immigration more While theorists have that states do not have a to exclude because is a morally have whether global equality of opportunity For it might be the wealthy be to to move in a of In any I these issues as my is not to a to exclude but to this is in Second, my claim that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair because of global does not that the policy should be may be to it in For skill-selective immigration policy not the of inequality of to education, and it very likely not the However, this does not that skill-selective immigration policy should not be are different ways to the that I states can in skill-selective immigration policy in ways that of these Boucher different skill-selective immigration policy to that is has important for the and of these policies. For example, Boucher that skill-selective immigration policies with a such as the United Tier 2 system, and in This can also be so-called “low immigration which do not a higher education This of immigration route does not have the of skill-selective immigration policy that global equality of is in many my argument can to the view those in many that is In addition to arguably these immigration can also for the of skill-selective immigration policy. This is not the to do with the between states but as I later the within states. Thus, there are different ways that states can address the of skill-selective immigration policy that of the policy My first claim is that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair as it global equality of of equal and have opportunities to acquire skill-based visas because of they to be However, for this inequality to skill-based visas have to be It not be morally for there to be an inequality of opportunity to acquire is not In this section, I further explain this matters and defend the claim that skill-based visas are in this more we can with the to a with global equality of in be as likely as the of a at a to the of the to it is unfair that the in does not have the same opportunities as the of the equality of which opportunities If it is the opportunity to a this does not seem to matter very especially if the from has the chance to a in or that such a of global equality of opportunity not only that we do not but is also have to be of to and to so that can have the same chance to a that a of global equality of opportunity can also opportunities that are not not on equality of opportunity for specific positions such as in but on more such as to even does not opportunities that are education, for example, different in different can we whether a in has or opportunities than a in In other words, a focus for example, to education not opportunities as people in different countries different kinds and of Thus, there is a worry that both a and a of inequality of opportunity do not I the first argument on skill-based visas it not matter that those from low- and lower-middle-income countries are much less likely to acquire these These visas not be opportunities if in of a a for example, focus on the opportunity to acquire skill-based visa in the example, it is not that inequality of these kinds of opportunities is morally might argue that it is not morally problematic that a would-be does not have an opportunity to acquire the skill-based visa for a if they have the opportunity to acquire the visas for many other countries. as in the example, this inequality very For example, it in all countries to all the that are required the skill-based visas and the same opportunities to the required of a a is in the of skill-selective immigration policy. The relevant opportunity is the opportunity to acquire but not all skill-based one might argue that this is not a a but that education is very in but in If the United a to then there be an inequality of opportunity between and but not one of any This is because the opportunity to acquire this visa is not the to at least skill-based visas is arguably in This is for two there is a that would-be immigrants must have they can move to and states are increasingly on a for highly skilled explain each in The first is The to one's of in The of that has the to any even This does not that would-be immigrants must be to each and there is to a specific that is it does that would-be immigrants must be to and in move to countries in the Global North are increasingly highly skilled has been a in the of skill-selective immigration policies. In of countries a policy to the immigration of highly skilled to in 2017). In the number of migrants to which is higher than the et al. 2014). number of countries are skill-selective immigration such as the and the Parsons et al. we in the of then the two or so might be as an of this the on states aging the higher for human all a for highly skilled 2012). are therefore on a for highly skilled which are as those with This the of skill-selective immigration policy from the one of UK visas for These visas for are not opportunities as they are in this example, different countries. However, with skill-selective immigration the to is is a in skill-based visas are increasingly the immigration Thus, skill-based visas are it is unfair that these visas are much less for those from low- and lower-middle-income countries. The argument in the two hinges on a global principle of equal I on a view the of global inequality of opportunity and that it to skill-selective immigration policy. However, of global reject the view that equality of opportunity applies at the global I for example, that global equality of opportunity as an because of different have to different for global global equality of opportunity, does not to the global that there is a specific that grounds of and that this is at the global For this is and for and it is social My argument not be to of global equality of If global inequality of opportunity is not then is global inequality of opportunity to acquire skill-based In I argue that even if equality of opportunity only applies within states, inequality of opportunity within low- and lower-middle-income states a for skill-selective immigration policy. The is that skill-selective immigration policy unfairly disadvantages those from these countries, even if equality of opportunity does not apply between states. I argue that of global equality of opportunity should be with inequality of opportunity within states other than and that this does not one to a global principle of equality of I with the first of this one might argue that of global equality of opportunity should not be with inequality of opportunity within states other than I a common view is that equality of opportunity, and other of do not apply between states because the among is in a morally relevant and this is at the global It is not a of this view be to equality of opportunity in other countries as this is not with those in other countries. My claim is that if states equality of opportunity for the of the among they should also this is for other countries for the same this that states should not other of equality of opportunity within an that I that I have to my them at of of the nature of the that as an I to any of my to at of that this at very to This of If I that I have these to my because of the nature of the then I should that have the same for the same it of to then of this there is very to of a global principle of equality of opportunity should also that equality of opportunity is in other states for the same equality of opportunity is in one's It is therefore to other of equality of countries that have of equality of We might of of that do not to with Rawls that these should be and should not have the of on However, this is with the claim that these should not be in of equality of opportunity, should they to I equality of opportunity is a morally but not a morally required of other states. this does not my we can to the of the My the does not depend on whether for one's is seen as morally required or morally If the that they have to because of the nature of the then it is only for them to from in these to regardless of whether these are thought to be morally required or only morally Thus, my claim that states should not other of equality of opportunity does not depend on whether equality of opportunity is a morally required or a morally this to my second for equality of opportunity within other states does not a for global equality of For example, it to the of equal opportunities to within without any view on whether should have the same opportunities as in to skill-selective immigration policies. My claim is that these policies unfairly those from low- and middle-income countries, even if we reject the view that equality of opportunity applies between states. This is because skill-selective immigration policies inequality of opportunity within these states. focus on the education criterion of skill-selective immigration policies. is in low- and middle-income countries. the with the highest of are and also the of all between the of and are of in and the developed have a is inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries as it is the wealthy these that from that countries, a from a is less likely to than a from a et al. For example, in of the of the very et al. is even inequality after a of countries, the have less than of the chances of to higher et al. My claim is that even if we do not that equality of opportunity applies between states, inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries a for skill-selective immigration we have there are very between the of the wealthy and the in these countries. Skill-selective immigration with education be only for the wealthy in these countries. I argue, this that skill-selective immigration policy exacerbates inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries. These policies offer skill-based visas to the wealthy and opportunities within the In this section, I explain the claim that skill-selective immigration policy exacerbates inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries. I argue that this for two further opportunities are to an these opportunities are among the most I explain each in the first the following might argue that it is not obvious that a policy that opportunities for can be to inequality of For example, that there is only one in a and that this only those an that of an and only of those are to the that there is a new with the same policy. are to one of the and the of the are not the of this new or reduce inequality of opportunity It The new is after all opportunities to not have even while an opportunity between these and the are not a is also opportunities to immigrate through skill-selective immigration policy. should it be to inequality of is an important between the and the of skill-selective immigration policy. In the example, opportunities are to a of In the immigration more opportunities to the same of a of the that are the most in as they much more opportunities than the of that a with an requirement of an those the be eligible for the new for which are for the most desirable a have even more the opportunity to and for these In this it that the is inequality of opportunity because the most is receiving even more This is different from the opportunities were for more than the inequality of opportunity is opportunities are for the of people the most and this is the with skill-selective immigration policy. It is true that migrants may further opportunities in the receiving states, but there is that these opportunities to those in the states. The of inequality of opportunity in states therefore be in this The second skill-selective immigration policy exacerbates inequality of opportunity within the is that these opportunities are among the most desirable an might argue that skill-selective immigration policy does not inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries on the grounds that this has on the states. is a of that has been the so-called and The most is the or et al. et al. The is that the of those do not in the to further Thus, the of skilled may human capital in the have been For example, skilled migrants may to countries and bring with them new skills that to important industries et al. and and may political and et al. Skill-selective immigration policy can therefore have different on the of these might to opportunities for those in the For example, it is as a of the those from have a higher level of education and more in with other those do new opportunities for those through political and might therefore argue that skill-selective immigration policy does not inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries as it does in opportunities to the that do However, it is morally problematic that the most opportunities to the in an a job in to it is because the to immigrate is than the to in the In this the to immigrate is the more desirable policy that in the in receiving more of the most desirable opportunities is one that exacerbates inequality of that in a it is only the wealthy are to for to the of The wealthy in because in are for more that this two new and in and are even more desirable than in only wealthy for these to The wealthy therefore move from the to the and in the for the the new and indirectly the to in the this does not seem wholly it does seem that the wealthy to the most desirable while the the In the immigration the that skill-selective immigration policy does inequality of opportunity even if it opportunities for more than the as long as the to the most desirable the immigration we do it is morally problematic for the desirable opportunities to or to the in We to this for example, discrimination and while in desirable opportunities do to we do not this can be My claim is that the same should be true of skill-selective immigration policy. my second skill-selective immigration policy exacerbates inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries for two it opportunities for the and these opportunities are among the most desirable This argument is from my first which on global inequality of It might that the second argument also not but global equality of Skill-selective immigration policy opportunities that and not within the so it could be that this second argument is global equality of opportunity as the first argument on inequality of opportunity between those from countries and those from low- and middle-income countries. The second on the inequality of opportunity between be have the opportunity to acquire skill-based and of the same do not. The opportunities might be but this is nevertheless an inequality between and not between those in different countries. In I two to the argument that skill-selective immigration policy unfairly disadvantages those from low- and middle-income countries inequality of opportunity within these countries. one might argue that it is not morally problematic if a exacerbates inequality of opportunity that it is not This can be as skill-selective immigration is new opportunities for of If the of this is that inequality of opportunity in that is the of to For example, this can be in not be it for to equality of If more in education, then not be inequality of opportunity because there be inequality of opportunity to an argument to the one I make and raises such an that in the to to those have from an social system and to those have been that this may be especially morally problematic in is one in which the immigrants has been if is even the of the policy and of The is that it may not be morally problematic for a to inequality of opportunity that it is not However, even if a is or wholly for inequality of opportunity in it be unfair for or to this the following that a has inequality of opportunity because of the of the The has and the that there are at that an a new for in this if we that there are in because of the example, because of to these does seem to be unfair. The exacerbates inequality of opportunity more opportunities to the that is even if the of low- and lower-middle-income states are wholly for inequality of opportunity in it still be unfair for other states to this I as my but with as I into It is that I for at it is not that I have any to as my it may do not have the skills required to do the If this is if has a to as my my do not include a on skills into in a a which true even the are the of have a many that are but it is not to that a to into a is one of a may have to the ways in which it is inequality of opportunity in countries but that need not be through This is the because I need not on the the However, is not very one be the that I my in such a way that it on this that this has a that I I on I have a to my more so that I on this This is more to the of skill-selective immigration policy. are the global inequality of opportunity, and this that states have a to they are that is states inequality of opportunity through immigration policies, these policies need to be Skill-selective immigration policies, with other kinds of selection policies, were introduced in the 1960s to the racial and ethnic discrimination of past policies. true that skill-selective immigration policies do not would-be immigrants on the basis of race or However, the that are these policies to among would-be immigrants not only would-be immigrants from low- and middle-income countries, many of which are in the Global but also those in these countries. Thus, while skill-selective immigration policies may not directly those from the Global in the ways that policies these policies nevertheless do unfairly these but in more and this to depend on whether we opportunities should be equal at the global level in the first I that skill-selective immigration policy disadvantages those from the Global regardless of on the of the principle of equal I two I that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair as people from low- and middle-income countries are less likely to meet the criteria. Second, I that skill-selective immigration policy is unfair because it exacerbates inequality of opportunity within low- and middle-income countries. While the first argument on a global principle of equal opportunity, the second one does not. Thus, the that skill-selective immigration policy disadvantages those from the Global is a and one that that countries in the Global North need to do more to from the racial and ethnic discrimination of past selection policies. of this paper were at the the on and and the and at I also to and two at the of for The of