global justice: immigration

Question 1

immigration - the basics

Answer 1

a surge!
increasingly (we believe) there are immigrants everywhere
BUT our beliefs exceed the reality
either way, we’re not happy about it (and we tend to be racist and a bit trashy)

essential question = “[What are the conditions under which] immigrants ought to be, or can be, allowed in … On what moral grounds, if any, can a state legitimately refuse entrance on its territory to potential immigrants?”
= do states have a right to close their borders, and based on what principles?

i.e. does the state have the right to exclude?

= actually two discrete issues:

1. do people have the right to move freely between states?
2. do people have the right to settle, and become members of states?

“There are two ways of framing the question of immigration. We can think of it as the FREEDOM TO MOVE ACROSS BORDERS, in which case our question becomes that of the kind of restrictions, if any, which we can and, according to some authors, should, impose on it. Or we can think of it as pertaining to THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GOOD OF MEMBERSHIP , in which case our question becomes that of the principles to which its distribution can and should be subjected”

BASIC QUESTION = DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE

Question 2

immigration: liberal egalitarianism 1 - Rawls

Answer 2

explicitly didn’t deal with question of immigration: his was a closed society

but freedom of movement is part of the liberty principle in theory of justice = THIS SUPPORTS RELATIVELY OPEN BORDERS

on the grounds:

• liberty principle is prior to the difference principle (freedom of movement can only be restricted based on liberty itself)
  !!liberty is prior!
• this means that while we could not justify the intake of immigrants on economic grounds, we could do so on the grounds of liberty (i.e. we could refuse to take immigrants in who might themselves pose a challenge to liberalism?)
• but if instead immigration were not about MOVEMENT but about MEMBERSHIP then it could be justified/rejected based on difference principle (i.e. we could discuss whether immigration helps the worst off, which contemporary eco analysis suggest it does)

so Rawlsian borders would be open if:

1. immigration doesn’t pose a threat to liberty
2. it benefits the worst off

(how to use liberty to restrict borders: immigrants challenge liberalism at home -> use liberty principle to close borders)
(if it is about citizenship/membership -> it matters if immigrants help the worst off, most econ suggests they do)

Question 3

immigration: egalitarianism liberalism 2 - spotlight Carens

Answer 3

(aliens and citizens, the case for open borders)

)sight alteration on the question: should states have the right to police their own borders?)

• “what justifies the use of force against (migrants)? (they are ordinary, peaceful people, seeking only the opportunity to build decent, secure lives for themselves and their families)
• on what moral grounds can these sorts of people be kept out?”

his basic argument =

1. if we start with the basic liberal premise of the “equal moral worth of individuals” and that “individuals are prior to community” (found in Rawls, Nozich etc.) = (liberalism 101)
2. these foundations “provide little basis for drawing fundamental distinctions between citizens and aliens who seek to become citizens”
3. this supports A STRONG OPEN BORDERS THESIS

liberalism generates a strong open border thesis bc liberalism is universal, boundaries are arbitrary

can there be any restriction?

• yes: “a public order restriction”
  i.e. a minimal amount of restriction of immigration is necessary to preserve order, and therefore create conditions for liberty. But this pales in comparison to the number of people that would be allowed in
  -

= says there are some conditions that generate a closed border defense even though liberal egalitarianism in general supports open borders quite strongly

Question 4

Spotlight: Abizadeh

Answer 4

(Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders)

another approach to the question: can a state control its border UNILATERALLY? (on its own)

Abizadeh argues states can’t -> he asks:

• to whom must border control (coercion) be justified?
• not just to insiders, but also outsiders
• coercion needs to be justified not only to own citizens, borders affect people on both sides (all-affected principle) -> everyone deserves a justification

why: A version of the “all-affected” principle, since borders affect people on both sides of the line, they must be justified to both insiders and outsiders:

• “[I argue that democratic theory] rejects the unilateral right to close borders … The regime of boundary control must consequently be democratically justified to foreigners as well as to citizens”

he concludes that borders must themselves be mutually run, such that they take into account the wills of non-members as well as citizens (everyone who is coerced)

Question 5

immigration: liberal egalitarianism - sufficiency

Answer 5

sufficiency - or capabilities-based view

sufficiency theorists might stipulate that letting in immigrants…

1. is necessary in order to give them sufficient resources on which to live (and dev the full range of their human capabilities)
2. thus open borders are justified in order to achieve that sufficiency
3. but this has the parodixical effect of JUSTIFYING PARTIALLY CLOSED BORDERS, since you would only have to let in immigrants below the sufficiency threshold

= WEAK OPEN BORDERS DEFENSE: if all states had sufficient resources (so less (extreme) global poverty), you can close borders
- it uses a different principle

after this he ddidn’t say

most importantly, sufficiency theories offer a diff kind of argument for open borders:

• not due to securing freedom, but on the basis of ameliorating neediness

so what is the main argument against the needs-based or sufficiency-based argument for open borders?

• economic. taking in immigrants will hurt our own neediest (NOTE: this is empirically dubious)

Question 6

immigration: communitarianism

Answer 6

central insight = that we need closed borders to keep society/culture intact

for example, Michael Walzer:

• “The distinctiveness of cultures and groups depends upon closure and, without it, cannot be conceived as a stable feature of human life. If this distinctiveness is a value, as most people … seem to believe, then closure must be permitted somewhere”

question: but is this argument persuasive?

• What if a state defines itself based on racial exclusion (rather than, say, culture)?
• And who decides what a “culture” is, and are cultures so easily distinguishable from races anyway?
• Who is to say when culture is legitimate, and on what grounds?

-> Answer: many communitarians seek a way to mix liberal (universalist) principles with communitarian justifications for closed borders. -> e.g. Miller

Question 7

spotlight: Miller

Answer 7

(national responsibility and global justice)

Miller phrases the question differently again - this time with regards to human rights:

• “[Do] basic human rights include the right to cross national borders and live in a territory of one’s own choosing[?] … [Do States] have the right to exclude those who wanted to come in?”

he finds 3 defenses of the right to migrate

1. freedom of movement, incl. the “freedom to move into, a take up residence in, states other than one’s state of current citizenship”
2. the right to exit a state
3. rights of free association - i.e. that “immigration restrictions violate the rights of those on either side of the boundary to associate (work, live, etc.) freely with one another

but he argues there is NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE and states control their own borders (DUE TO SELF-DETERMINATION)

1. sovereignty necessitates control over borders - but this is not an absolute authority, it is subject to human rights
2. the rights and priorities of existing citizens should outweigh those of migrants, by dint of self-determination:

• “I [argue] in favour of recognizing special obligations to one’s compatriots. It follows from this that although the claims of would-be immigrants must be recognized, they do not have to be counted in the same ways as the interests of those who are already citizens, including their interests in self-determination” (Miller 2007: 223).
• this is position 2 we talked about earlier (last lecture)

Question 8

immigration: libertarianism

Answer 8

in most cases libertarians support open borders and free trade

• following upon their defense of strong rights protections and minimal gov

BUT this is not always true

Hilel Steiner argues that a state is allowed to exclude… based on analogy to private property (in this case summer cottages)

is this persuasive?

• This libertarian argument assumes that ownership is the same thing as sovereign
• this position was designed to legitimate closed borders… but if land was not actually transferred justly, this would seem to legitimate open borders
• moreover, even if transfers were just, libertarian principles don’t prevent labor migration, or permanent visits

(property is in analogue with territory)
free trade, open border philosophy

Question 9

immigration: addendum

Answer 9

1. if you do take in migrants, should you also grant them participation/membership rights?
   - Note: this brings us back to the discussion of multiculturalism (if it is about membership rather than movement)
   - diff in claims about freedom of movement and freedom of membership -> pick what is important to you
2. should we consider letting in immigrants as a form of compensation for past (usually colonial) harms?
   - note: this is the problem of reparative justice (a temporal scope claim)
3. who should take in migrants?
   - note: one answer is to say there should be a quote of immigrants per year, and that states can trade the taking in of migrants for economic gain. but there are concerns about allowing states to buy their way out of liberal principles