Sacrificing Individuals for Symbolism

Seems bad

A recent post at the Blog of the APA argues that we have “relational egalitarian” reasons to oppose allowing outsiders to pay for citizenship in desirable countries:

Allowing states at the top of the global passport hierarchy, like Singapore, to sell citizenship would merely reinforce the existing global hierarchy. Quite plausibly, if states sold citizenship, many individuals would like to purchase citizenship from certain states and not others. Individuals would want Singaporean citizenship but not that of a state lower in the hierarchy. This would serve to reinforce status hierarchies that exist across borders, which prevent us from relating as equals.

Or, to sharpen slightly: “I’m going to show my great respect for those born into geographic disadvantage by removing opportunities by which they might move to a preferable locale. Now, with them trapped and unable to act on any desire to be in a place as nice as mine, there can be no doubt that we are all equal!”

Why do so many academics think like this? (I don’t mean to pick on this author in particular; it seems a very common style of argument.) I find it troubling, and wish more academics would focus on concrete harms and benefits over abstract symbolic notions like “reinforcing” status hierarchy.