Immigration and Equal Ownership of the Earth

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Author: Kieran Oberman
• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12151

Immigration and Equal Ownership

of the Earth

KIERAN OBERMAN*

Abstract. A number of philosophers argue that the earth’s resources belong to every-

one equally. Suppose this is true. Does this entail that people have a right to migrate

across borders? This article considers two models of egalitarian ownership and

assesses their implications for immigration policy. The first is Equal Division, under

which each person is granted an equal share of the value of the earth’s natural

resources. The second is Common Ownership, under which every person has 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 philosophers: Hillel Steiner, who defends Equal Division,

and Michael Blake and Mathias Risse, who defend Common Ownership. In the case

of each model, the article does three things. First, it considers the implications of the

model for immigration policy. Second, it defends the model against objections from

those defending immigration restrictions. Third, it contends that the model does not

go far enough in its opposition to immigration restrictions. More specifically, the

article argues that both Equal Division and Common Ownership, as presented by

their proponents, fail to respect the claims of people whose interest in the land is not

primarily economic. If the earth belongs toeveryone equally, then people should not

be prevented from pursuing important migratory goals such as family reunification,

career development and education. The article concludes with a proposal for com-

bining Equal Division with Common Ownership. Under this combined model, peo-

ple would be free to migrate across international borders.

Who owns the earth’s natural resources? One plausible answer to this question is

“everyone.” After all, no one is responsible for creating natural resources. We all

just happened to have been born into a world in which these resources exist. In

cases in which no one seems to have any stronger claim to a resource than any

other, it seems intuitive that it should be shared equally. The idea of equal owner-

ship of the earth’s natural resources may be morally intuitive, but it also has radical

implications. This article traces the implications of natural resource egalitarianism

* This article was presentedto the Normative Theory of Immigration Skype Group,from which

I received excellentcomments. I am very grateful to the participants. I am also grateful to George

Pavlakosand Axel Gosseries for their encouragement and support.

V

C2016 The Author. Ratio Juris V

C2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Ratio Juris. Vol. 30 No. 2 June 2017 (144–157)