Comments from Reviewers

Comments from Reviewers on The Right To Migrate, by Paul VanRaden Dr. Robert H. Miller provided detailed comments to me in 1996. In 2025 I added his comments below as an example of discussions we had on migration long ago. Advance copies of The Right To Migrate were also sent in 1996 to about 30 scholars all over the world. Here are some of the comments received from them. “I was very glad to hear of your book being out at last.” Dr. Jeong Koo Lee, Kangwon National University, South Korea “I have finished ... The Right To Migrate. Very good thinking, Paul” Dr. Luiz Fries, GenSys Consultores Associados, Brazil “I read through your book ... then I understand your mind deeply.” Dr. Sompop Kassumma, Ministry of Agriculture, Thailand “I have been reading and reading your book further and further ... and now I am completely amazed at your inner thought and feelings.” Dr. Fazlul Bhuiyan, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh “Many thanks for the book, I read several parts and found it well written and quite unique.” Dr. Georgios Banos, Aristotle University, Greece “Thank you for your mail and comforting news about your book. The world will be great without so much fuss about visas.” Dr. Victor Olori, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom “GREAT Poetry!!!!” Miriam McKenna, University of Southern California, United States Contents of The Right To Migrate Return to Solutions To World Problems

Reviewer comments

From: Dr. Robert H. Miller

March 26, 1996

Paul:

Here are my comments on your treatise:

As I understand it, your main point is that persons who are citizens of one country ought to be able to emigrate at will to any other country. Additionally, resource rich countries should in particular permit unlimited emigration from countries whose population is large compared to their resources.

I am in favor of liberal emigration policies: my wife is an emigrant and I am sure glad she was allowed to come. She did it by the usual approach: she had a “sponsor” and the offer of a job.

I find the paper to be a bit disjointed. My opinion is that the case would be better presented by first equating emigration limits to the territorial behavior of birds and animals. I consider that the exclusion of immigrants by a country is a joint manifestation of the territorial instinct in the human race. In other words, this behavior or way in which immigration is restricted is in our genes, just as it must be in birds and animals.

I believe that by starting in this way, you can then introduce your arguments for unlimited immigration, as an ultimate or utopian condition which mankind should strive to achieve, i.e., to overcome a genetic disposition to stake out and defend a particular territory.

I know very little about animal behavior, but it seems to me that territorial behavior is aimed at maximizing an individual or a group of individuals’ chances to pass on their genes to the next generation. Primarily territorial behavior is for the possession of a certain food supply, not so much for the benefit of parents as for increasing the survival rate of offspring. There is a secondary purpose to defend the nesting site, regardless of whether young are already in the nest. As an example, you probably have seen films of Antarctic penguins taking possession of a tiny area of rock or snow for their nest, though surrounded by scores of other penguins doing the same thing.

The latter type of behavior is usually a maternal instinct and is probably modulated by hormonal secretion patterns.

Conflicts over territorial behavior related to a local food supply are primarily among animals or groups of animals of the same species, a closer match to what you are arguing. Territorial behavior relating to nesting/birth areas is more likely to be expressed toward individuals of different species and really has little to do with your discussion of immigration.

One can accept and respect the value of territorial behavior among wild animals, but mankind we hold to higher standards. Nevertheless, most of the organized bloodshed in the world is and always has been about territory: one side trying to hold onto land it already “owns” and the other trying to take it from them. In my opinion the three great conflicts going on today are precisely of this nature: Northern Ireland, Palestine, and the former Yugoslavia. Even little Chechnya is an example, although it could be considered more of a Civil War. Actually, the mainly muslim population would like to be a completely separate entity although surrounded by Russian territory.

As you have discussed, our own country came into being during the long process of dispossessing the Native Americans, by slaughter or by herding them into small reserves where they could be watched over and more easily manipulated. Indian leaders such as Geronimo, Crazy Horse, and Sitting Bull knew what fate the European immigrants had planned for them and struggled valiantly but ultimately in vain. In this case the new immigrants coming into the country wanted to and did basically take all the land from the existing hosts/citizens.

And so in turn the new “owners” of the territory began to look at the arriving immigrants with more suspicious eyes (lest some group do to them what they had done to the Native Americans). Actually, even during the 1800’s and early 1900’s, the United States was one of the most liberal in the world regarding the number of immigrants who were allowed in and “welcomed” in some meaning of the word. I haven’t studied the history, but I would suppose the primary reason to exclude individuals was based on results of physical exams which could uncover carriers of various serious diseases. (Actually, around 1900 this process failed in spectacular fashion, as the first Irish immigrant cook “Typhoid Mary” did manage to get through the controls.)

Many (myself included) believe that the acceptance of immigrants has made this country what it is (the “Melting Pot”). No need to recite the gradual tightening of legal restrictions as to who would be permitted into the country and in what numbers relative to their nation of origin (although the Chinese always had a hard time getting in). The raging of demagogues like Pat Buchanan (scion of Irish immigrants) has brought the discussion of immigration policy to a vitriolic stage. It is even discussed to restrict availability of government services to naturalized citizens. Children of immigrants illegally here are threatened to be excluded from the schools.

Although counting myself as a liberal in this matter, I cannot support a policy of acceptance of all with no examination of who they are and their reasons for coming here. Specifically, I want to see continued the policy to check backgrounds to identify and exclude terrorists (remember the World Trade Center?) [referring to the 1993 bombing.] We have enough home-grown lunatics (remember the Oklahoma City Federal Building?).

A few nits to pick: [Bob then listed 3 minor typos he had found, which I corrected. After reading Bob’s review in 1996 I added a full page on Territory to Chapter 2 – The Need to Migrate.]