> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.nationalism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.nationalism.io/basic-rights-for-migrants.md). # Basic rights for migrants Countries can sometimes benefit from migration to support different sectors of their economy, which could be due to labor shortages, skill gaps or demographic pressures. In addition, or as an alternative, a nation might just have historical relationships with or a collective preference to invite migrants from certain groups. Some of the common legal pathways for migrants to live and work in another country include residence permits, work visas or permits and freedom-of-movement arrangements between certain states. This article will focus on basic rights a migrant is likely to need to live a productive and fulfilling life within another nation. An immigration system that wants to attract skilled migrants and that wants to treat people fairly will benefit from considering what rights migrants receive and how those rights impact their day to day experience of living in that society. This article is mainly focused on lawfully admitted temporary and long-term migrants, especially labour migrants. ## Minimum rights floor Some rights should apply to all people within a state’s jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship or level of fiscal contribution. These could include protection from violence, access to police and courts, emergency medical care, due process, protection from forced labour, basic workplace protections, protection from arbitrary detention and the ability to report crimes or exploitation without being denied basic legal protection. These rights protect migrants, but they also protect the host society by supporting public order, public health and rule of law. ## **Equal treatment vs equal access and effective benefit** Equal treatment means migrants would be subject to the same rules, prices, procedures and conditions when using services and public infrastructure. It focuses on formal equality where everyone is treated the same. Equal treatment can result in more of the burdens being placed onto the migrant to handle the differences that might exist. For instance, if the migrant struggled with the national language it could be their responsibility to improve their understanding or to find a service elsewhere that can help with translations. Equal access and effective benefit means migrants should not only be allowed to use services, but should be able to use them successfully and receive their practical benefit. It focuses on substantive equality so that people have the same real ability to use and benefit from public services and infrastructure. Some people may need different support, conditions or pricing to achieve genuinely comparable usage and results. Equal access and effective benefit rights can sometimes result in placing the burden of providing this service onto the state. The state may offer accommodations so that migrants can use the service meaningfully and receive a reasonably comparable benefit in practice. A migrant and a citizen both receiving the same process, final report and pricing for an MRI scan would be equal treatment. If the migrant also receives translation, understandable information and follow-up support so the service is comparatively usable, that would be equal access and effective benefit. A state could decide that equal treatment is a sufficient basic right to guarantee formal equality. Other legal systems may also decide to provide some other accommodations to make certain services more usable in practice. Equal access and effective benefit are rights that a nation might provide to migrants if it has the capacity and willingness to offer them. In some cases countries may have an obligation to provide such rights. ## **Reciprocal equal treatment** Equal treatment rights for migrants are not necessarily fair because treating migrants exactly like citizens can give them access to services at prices that are heavily subsidised by the taxpayers of that country. Concerns can arise about fiscal sustainability where newly arrived residents gain access to heavily subsidised services before they have made substantial contributions through taxes, fees, insurance, or longer-term participation in the economy. This can create concerns about free-riding or fiscal imbalance if eligibility for subsidised services is not aligned with sufficient fiscal contribution. The host nation may end up bearing the cost without having received a corresponding contribution. In addition, low prices or broad eligibility can increase demand, which may create fiscal or capacity pressures if the service is highly subsidised. One possible refinement of basic equal treatment is a model of reciprocal equal treatment. With reciprocal equal treatment the burden of contribution would be more fairly distributed across all of the people that use those services. Migrants could be expected to contribute toward many services through taxes, insurance, fees, or direct payments, although some services may still be funded collectively if they help to protect broader public interests. Other forms of contribution that can be taken into account is the economic value that a migrant could be providing by filling a role no one else could. If this is the case it may justify a reduction in the expected fiscal contribution required to use certain services. ## **Capacity-constrained reciprocal equal treatment** Even reciprocal equal treatment may still not be fully fair. Migrants could be contributing on comparable terms, but fairness is not only about contribution but also about public service capacity. Differences in pricing and subsidy between countries may influence demand for some services, particularly where movement is relatively easy and migrants are able to compare systems directly. This could increase demand beyond what the national system can sustain, potentially leading to reduced availability for citizens and established residents. Public services can of course become capacity-constrained for many other reasons such as policy changes, workforce shortages, underinvestment and demographic change. Reciprocal equal treatment can remain formally fair while still producing unsustainable pressure on shared infrastructure. One possible policy response is a model of capacity-constrained reciprocal equal treatment. Reciprocal rights are still adopted but they might also be limited by what the national system can provide sustainably and without crowding out the existing residents. Under a capacity-constrained reciprocal equal treatment approach the eligibility, availability, pricing or contribution requirements for migrants to access certain services might need to be adjusted to handle sustained periods when capacity is constrained. These changes could act as a deterrent for non-essential usage of public services and infrastructure. This type of solution might be required if the service is at capacity and a decision must be made on who will be prioritised. These changes would need to be tested for administrative feasibility and for possible harms, including the extent to which it discourages necessary service use. ## **Equal opportunity in non-security-sensitive positions** Some jobs are high trust positions that are more security sensitive for the nation. Employees may be given access to sensitive information or have certain powers and control over important decisions, systems or pieces of infrastructure that are in the nation’s interest to protect. It is common for national security-sensitive roles to be restricted by citizenship, residency or other clearance based requirements. Equal access to these roles could be problematic due to the potential security and safety risks that are involved. Instead, a more realistic baseline is fair access, subject to immigration status, to non-security-sensitive employment that enables migrants to earn a living and support themselves. These rights would help with making the country an attractive place for migrants to live and work. ## **Basic migrant rights** The following basic list of migrant rights can be adopted as capacity-constrained reciprocal equal treatment rights. These are some of the most essential things that migrants should have access to when they live in another country. **Essential public services** Migrants might need to access a number of public services to live and work in another nation. Some of the more common services can include identity, immigration, health, education, justice and safety, employment, business and tax administration, transport, consumer protection, family, disability and aging support and emergency related services. There could be instances where it makes sense that there is no prerequisite to contribute financially to the nation before a migrant can use certain services. This would mean it is a form of non-reciprocal usage. Public services might be provided for free for anyone to use as the potential cost and likelihood of harm to the wider public is greater than the cost to provide the service. Examples include providing certain health screening tests that could help with preventing outbreaks of certain diseases however similar arguments can also apply to emergency services, policing, labour-rights enforcement and court access. In these cases underuse can sometimes lead to wider harms. **Essential public infrastructure** Public infrastructure that every person might need access to can include water and sewage systems, electricity, transportation networks, waste collection and disposal, communication networks, public spaces and government buildings. **Housing rentals** Migrants benefit from fair access to rental housing, although their eligibility will usually depend on immigration status, documentation requirements and any housing laws. **Goods and services** In most ordinary consumer markets, migrants should generally be able to buy the same goods and services as others, subject to the same general legal restrictions. Buying goods and services is commonly reciprocal as people need to pay for goods or services. Goods and services can be capacity constrained but in most cases it would not make sense to treat migrants differently than citizens. If a business was low on stock for certain products it could be unfair and administratively impractical to suddenly prevent migrants from being able to purchase those products due to stock constraints. ## **Non-essential migrant rights** Migrants do not require equal treatment rights to access or use every public service or piece of infrastructure that might exist. **Housing ownership** Migrants need to have access to housing to live in the country. But access doesn’t mean they need to own those properties. Some countries might decide to restrict resident migrants from home ownership. A nation might want to prioritise home ownership to the nation’s citizens rather than creating an environment where migrants or external groups can buy properties. One reason this might be a sensible policy is due to a limited amount of supply that needs to handle the demand from citizens who are looking to become home owners. If the supply of housing is not a big issue for the country migrants could potentially be given equal rights to purchase a property as a primary residence or even the ability to buy multiple properties across the country. Migrant home ownership could have a number of positives such as increased social stability and long term fiscal contributions due being more anchored to the local economy. **Welfare** Nations can restrict or prevent migrants from being able to access forms of welfare. If migrants are given welfare benefits such as social housing or income support it could create an environment that enables free-riding and non-reciprocal outcomes. The welfare system can become increasingly unsustainable if a growing number of migrants are able to take out more from the welfare system than what they have contributed through taxes, fees or other forms of participation in the system. Welfare services could still be provided if the arrangement with the migrant is reciprocal. The migrant may have already made a certain amount of tax contributions into the country and after that point they could claim for support up until a limit that is based on their historical contributions. This type of approach would at least prevent the problems of free-riding from emerging. Other countries may decide to provide emergency based protections using welfare to minimise hardship and exploitation risks. **Non-essential public services** States may choose not to extend equal access to every public service that is available. For example, it might not be essential for them to access home relocation, emigration support or international rescue based services. These types of services might just be reserved for citizens of the country. **Non-essential public and private infrastructure** States may choose not to extend equal access to all forms of public infrastructure that could be used. Some public facilities could be tied to citizen-specific political rights or nationality processes and may therefore be limited to citizens or other eligible groups. In addition, some forms of infrastructure could be privately owned and they might not be expected to provide equal access either. It might not be essential for migrants to access some cultural or religious buildings, ceremonial venues, voting stations, election offices, political facilities, nationality documentation offices or military areas and buildings. A nation could optionally decide to give equal access to some of these forms of public infrastructure even when migrants do not need to access them. ## Relevance to nationalism Migration can be useful in periods where there are labour shortages however migrants may not necessarily be given a path to citizenship in these countries. If migrants are invited into the country for a period of time they should still be able to live a productive and fulfilling life. To achieve this outcome there is a need for clarity about the rights they should receive. The most basic rights that can help to fulfil this objective are providing them with capacity-constrained reciprocal equal treatment rights for using any essential services and infrastructure. Another compelling basic right for migrants is equal opportunity rights for non-security-sensitive positions. Beyond these basic rights it is a choice for the nation’s population and their government to decide what other non-essential services and infrastructure that they want to let migrants access. Nations may also want to provide a better service and offer equal access and effective benefit rights. If these services can be designed with clear contribution and eligibility rules, they could improve migrant inclusion whilst also reducing concerns about unfair fiscal burdens. Equal access and effective benefit rights are desirable for migrants however their adoption can also introduce the possibility of capacity constraints and free-riding. These can create situations where shared infrastructure is overstretched or where some migrants receive more in publicly funded support than they contribute over a given period. What makes sense in these situations will often come down to available infrastructure and capacity, the costs involved and whether there is sufficient public support to provide those services. A reasonable migrant-rights framework should distinguish between basic human protections, work-related rights, contribution-based benefits, status-based entitlements and citizen-only political rights. Migrants invited to live and work in a country should be protected from exploitation and able to live lawfully and productively, but a state may still reserve certain political, welfare, property and security-sensitive rights for citizens or long-term contributors.