«Right to Emigrate or Right to Immigrate?»

Introduction by Gerhard Schwarz

I would like to extend a special welcome to today’s speakers, Dr. Madeleine Sumption from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, and Professor Reiner Eichenberger from the University of Fribourg. What both speakers have in common, despite the scientific foundation of their work, is their significant media presence. Dr. Sumption’s work has been noted by the BBC, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. According to the economist rankings of the FAZ and NZZ, Professor Eichenberger was ranked as the second most influential economist in Switzerland over the past two years. Detailed biographies can be found on your seats.

A special greeting and thanks go to the Georg and Bertha Schwyzer-Winiker Foundation, Zurich, and their representatives present today, Conrad Schwyzer and Martin Schwyzer. The foundation generously supported today’s event, making it possible in the first place. My heartfelt thanks.

Out of all the 46 conferences we have organized, today’s event has seen the highest demand by far. We had to turn away more than 70 people who registered due to lack of space. My hypothesis for this gratifying boom is that while it may have something to do with the brand of the Progress Foundation and the names of the speakers, the great interest is primarily attributable to the topic.

“Free movement of people – a manifestation of freedom?” This question – and it is a question, not a statement – picks up on a political discussion that has spread like wildfire across almost all of Europe and underlies numerous political upheavals and trends. When we think about the migration from Africa to Europe, which is already more underway than we in Switzerland might be aware of, it becomes clear that this is a question of destiny. And it has long been a particularly pressing issue for us liberals. I see three main sub-questions here.

1. Is there, in addition to the undeniable human right to free emigration, such a thing as an inalienable right to free immigration? This is not about the temporary admission of refugees who are in immediate danger of life and limb – this should be a humanitarian self-evident in so far as possible. Rather, it refers to permanent immigration: The EU has intellectually misled us with its four freedoms and the political dogma that free movement of people is on the same level as the freedoms of goods, capital, and services, and is inseparably linked to them. However, even the EU only adheres to this dogma within its own integration area. At its external borders, it acts as all states have done today and in the past, at least de jure or de facto – it limits and controls immigration or at least attempts to do so.
2. This leads to the second question: How can this controlled openness be best and most freedom-compatible organized? There are countless methods in theory and practice to ensure that not just anyone can immigrate into a country, thus limiting the number of immigrants, often selecting them based on some qualitative criteria and potentially considering their ability to integrate. The incomplete list includes tests, general ones or language proficiency tests, point systems, geographical allocations, first-come, first-served policies, occupational quotas, immigration for employment, family reunification, explicit or de facto entry fees, and even lotteries. Liberals are most sympathetic to price solutions and possibly lotteries.
3. Of course, we must also ask about the benefits, although this does not change the answer to the normative question of whether there is a right to free immigration or, on the contrary, a right to control or even reject immigration. It is a truism that migrants benefit; otherwise, they would hardly leave their country of origin. It is also undeniable that a country like Switzerland, in particular, benefits enormously from controlled openness, not just economically, but also scientifically and culturally. There is also much to suggest that, especially in the long term, all residents benefit from openness. But it is also clear that these advantages are hardly evenly distributed across people and geography, and that there are indeed losers of immigration. Any political handling of migration must take this fact into account.

I hope, like you, to get some answers to some of these questions, certainly not all of them, in the next hour, but above all to receive inspiration and food for thought.