Immigration and Equal Ownership of the Earth

Abstract

This article considers two models for egalitarian ownership of the earth’s resources to assess their implications regarding immigratin policy. The first is equal division, under which each person would be granted an equal share of the value of the earth’s natural resources. The second is collective ownership, under which every person would have the right to use the earth’s natural resources, but not the right to exclude others from them. While these models and their associated ideas have a long history within western political thought, this article will examine them as they are presented by two sets of contemporary theorists: Hillel Steiner, who defends equal division, and Michael Blake and Mathias Risse, who defend common ownership. In the case, the article does three things. First, it sets out the model in question, along with its implications for immigration policy. Second, it defends each model against objections from those defending immigration restrictions. Third, it contends that the models do not go far enough in their opposition to immigration restrictions. More specifically, the article argues that both the equal division and the common ownership models, as presented by their proponents, fail to respect the claims of people whose interest in the land is not primarily economic. If the land belongs to everyone equally, then people should not be prevented from accessing it in order to pursue migratory goals such as family reunification, career development and education. The article concludes with a proposal for combining equal division with common ownership. Under this combined model, people would be free to migrate as they please.