Centrist Immigration Stance Driven by "Impassioned Permissibility," Not Pro-Migration Agenda

A nuanced perspective on centrist political views regarding immigration suggests that their approach is less about actively advocating for unlimited migration and more about a fundamental reluctance to enforce rules, hierarchies, or categories at an abstract level. This sentiment, described as "impassioned permissibility," positions the non-enforcement of boundaries as a "highest order value."

As stated by CJ in a recent tweet, "> I don’t even think it’s being pro unlimited migration that drives much of the real pro migration sentiment in the centre of politics. It’s something closer to “impassioned permissibility” where the only thing they care about is not enforcing rules / hierarchies / categories at an abstract level. Not enforcing a boundary on another is THE highest order value. They don’t actively want bad things to happen, they just don’t want to push back against a liberalisation of a category even more." This viewpoint implies that centrists are not necessarily seeking negative outcomes but are hesitant to actively intervene against the liberalization of existing categories or boundaries.

This philosophical stance aligns with broader discussions in political theory concerning state sovereignty and individual liberties. Academic discourse often explores arguments for and against open borders, touching on concepts such as freedom of movement, the state's right to self-determination, and the moral implications of restricting entry. While some arguments for open borders emphasize cosmopolitan egalitarianism or human rights, the "impassioned permissibility" described suggests a different underlying motivation rooted in a philosophical aversion to state-imposed restrictions.

Centrist leaders in both the U.S. and Europe frequently navigate a complex political landscape on immigration, attempting to balance calls for stricter enforcement with humanitarian concerns. This balancing act often leads to policies that are perceived as less decisive on border control. For instance, recent actions by the Biden administration to both reduce asylum seekers and protect some undocumented immigrants illustrate this tension.

The political implications of this centrist approach are significant, as public opinion often demands clear stances on immigration. While the desire to avoid "harsh rhetoric and radical measures" is a common centrist strategy, it can be misinterpreted as a lack of commitment to border security. This dynamic is evident in the rise of far-right parties in Europe, which capitalize on fears of uncontrolled migration by offering more definitive, albeit often extreme, solutions. The challenge for centrists remains in articulating a coherent and actionable policy that addresses public concerns while adhering to their underlying philosophical principles of non-interference.