Favell, Adrian. "The Fourth Freedom: theories of migration and mobilities in ‘neo-liberal’ Europe". European Journal of Social Theory, Vol.17, No.3 (2014): 275-289.

Favell, Adrian. "The Fourth Freedom: theories of migration and mobilities in ‘neo-liberal’ Europe". European Journal of Social Theory, Vol.17, No.3 (2014): 275-289.

• The author claims that increased liberalization of labour markets through the reduction of barriers to international migration results in net gains for both immigrants and the receiving country. Moreover, the EU state with the most liberal migration policy -- the United Kingdom -- has experienced the greatest cultural and economic benefits compared to other EU member states with more restrictive labour markets and migration policies (276).
• Left-wing critics of labor migration in Europe increasing draw from a Marxist perspective, that liberalized labour markets exist only to serve the needs of capital in providing more cheap labour. This perspective emphasizes the benefits of liberalized migration for the wealthy contrasted with the depressed wages and continued exploitation of the working class. Instead, they increasingly advocate for tighter restrictions on migration to protect domestic workers from competition and facilitate rising wages and the strengthening of unions (277).
• Many of these critiques stem from broader critiques of neoliberalism, specifically against general trends of increased freedom of global capital, rising inequality, increased competition, and the increased financialization of the economy. The beneficiaries of these changes are a small group of corporate interests, allegedly in cohoots with uaccountable political systems like the EU or the WTO (279).
• Labour regimes are conceptualized as a divide between the neoliberal 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Anglo-American' model and the 'continental' model based on protected markets, strong welfare states, and Keynesian economics. Left-wingers in Europe are attempting to resist neoliberalism to preserve an imagine social democratic past (279-280).
• Those holding these positions should be honest about what a critique of neoliberalism actually entails, specifically a reassertion of nationalist economics which strike a decisive blow against European integration both economically and culturally. Being against neoliberalism means being for nationalism and against European integration (287-288).
• Liberal arguments in favour of liberalizing migration comes in several forms, either emphasizing the economic benefits of migration or the rights of individuals to live where they please. They support the 'freedom of movement' as a moral cause. While liberals recognize the issues of exploitation and discrimination against migrant workers, they believe that these problems can be solved by more open borders and less regulation over labor migration (277-278).
• Both liberals and left-wing critics agree that the contemporary migrant labour policy regime in the USA and Europe is deeply flawed, as it combines discriminatory rhetoric and measures against migrant workers while still encouraging and tolerating an exploitative informal economy dependent on cheap illegal immigration (278).
• The contemporary left-wing arguments against liberalization of migration are flawed by a misconception that European economies have been mainly self-contained with little migration, whereas migration is common and important in both contemporary and historical Europe. Cheap migrant labour remains essential to many suppossedly anti-neoliberal economies in the EU (280).
• The contemporary European migration regime, particularly in Britain, has become increasingly liberal with regards labour from other EU states. This is almost a perfect scenario, as the lack of restrictions or discrimination allows for demand-driven labour flows without exploitation (282).
• Liberalization of the migrant labour regime in the EU has resulted in the increased inclusion of the middle class in international trade, and exposed more of the population to different cultures, resulting in increased professional and social opportunities for most Europeans. Migration has also tied together Eastern and Western Europe, erasing previous cultural or political stigmas which continue to persist for North African migrants (283).
• Britain has done a much better job at both absorbing and integrating immigrants and benefiting economically from their presence than have more strictly social democratic countries like the Netherlands or Denmark, whose cultural supremistic integration policies and consistent labour restrictions have preventing migrant labour from being fully utilized and retained discrimination against immigrants. Totally unregulated immigration in Spain or Italy has also resulted in poor results, again demonstrate the need for UK-style liberal formal immigration (286-287).
• The political stance against increased economic liberalization, including increased liberalization of migration, in Europe has been concentrated towards a perceived democratic deficit in the EU. These group has promoted democracy as the bulwark against unaccountable market forces and attempted to limit the power of undemocratic EU structures to implemented economic liberalization, as demonstrated during the 2005 EU constitutional votes (284-285).
• The author claims that this line of reasoning fundamentally misunderstands the benefits of migration liberalization. Increasing democracy on this issue will allow nations to democratically restrict labour to their own economic detriment and undermine the free movement which has allowed the EU to actual develop trans-national cultural connections and erode legacies of racism and prejudice; benefits which will be undone by restriction on migration (284).
• Brexit is particularly reminiscent of a nationalist populism which underestimates the benefits of free movement of labour to the United Kingdom in particular. Great Britain has absorbed more Eastern European labour immigration than any other EU state to enormous economic benefit, while EU membership has benefited older Brits enjoying investment and retirement abroad (285-286).

(This piece was obviously written near the Brexit vote and follows an essential line of arguing that the EU has been great economically and socially and that rejecting it is just pure ignorance of these benefits. It argues that liberal migration is good for migrants and good for economic growth, not commenting on the effects on wages overall. It does make a good point about migration facilitating European identity and combating racism, although this has not been a perfect solution. It resists any reimaging of a united Europe without neoliberalism, created a dichotomy between European integration and anti-neoliberalism. It fails to comprehend that people like me would ever choose nationalism and economic sovereignty).