Lecture 11: Global Justice III (Immigration) Flashcards
(7 cards)
Immigration and Liberal Egalitarianism (Rawls’ Perspective)
Rawls’ Position:
Closed Society: Rawls’ theory assumes a society with closed borders.
Freedom of Movement: Part of the Liberty Principle, suggesting support for open borders.
Grounds for Open Borders:
Liberty Principle Priority:
Freedom of movement can only be restricted if it threatens liberty itself.
Example: States could reject immigrants who actively challenge liberal values.
Membership and the Difference Principle:
If immigration is viewed as a question of membership, it can be evaluated by whether it benefits the worst-off in society.
Economic research suggests immigration generally helps disadvantaged groups.
Conclusion: Under Rawls’ framework, borders should remain open if:
✅ Immigrants do not threaten liberty.
✅ Immigration benefits the worst-off in society.
Carens’ Argument for Open Borders
Should states have the right to police their own borders?
Carens’ Position:
Central Question: What justifies the use of force against peaceful migrants seeking better lives?
Moral Foundation: Based on the equal moral worth of individuals and the idea that individuals are prior to community (Rawls, Nozick).
Key Arguments:
Equal Moral Worth: Liberalism’s focus on individual rights offers little justification for distinguishing between citizens and migrants.
Minimal Restrictions: Restrictions should only exist to maintain public order — a limited measure to ensure societal stability.
Conclusion:
✅ Liberal principles strongly support open borders.
✅ Only minimal restrictions for public order are justifiable, meaning most people seeking entry should be allowed in.
Abizadeh’s Argument Against Unilateral Border Control
Key Question: Can a state control its borders unilaterally?
Abizadeh’s Position:
No, states cannot justify unilateral control over their borders.
Core Argument:
Democratic Justification: Since border control exerts coercion that affects both insiders and outsiders, it must be justified to both groups.
The “All-Affected” Principle: Those affected by a policy (in this case, border control) must have a say in its justification.
Conclusion:
✅ Border policies must be democratically justified to foreigners as well as citizens.
✅ Borders should ideally be mutually controlled, ensuring they reflect the interests of everyone coerced by their enforcement.
Sufficiency Theory and Immigration
Key Idea: A sufficiency-based view justifies immigration based on addressing neediness rather than securing freedom.
Core Arguments for Open Borders:
Necessity: Immigration is required to help individuals achieve sufficient resources to develop their human capabilities.
Conditional Access: Open borders are justified — but only for those below the sufficiency threshold.
This paradoxically supports partially closed borders since wealthier immigrants may not require entry on these grounds.
Key Argument Against:
Economic Concern: Immigration may harm a country’s own neediest citizens (though this claim is often empirically questionable).
Communitarianism and Immigration
Core Idea: Communitarianism emphasizes the importance of preserving a society’s cultural identity, which requires closed or controlled borders.
Michael Walzer’s View:
Walzer argues that cultural distinctiveness depends on closure; without some form of exclusion, cultures cannot remain stable or distinct.
If cultural uniqueness is seen as valuable, maintaining controlled borders becomes necessary.
Criticisms of this View:
Exclusion Based on Race: What if a state justifies closure using racial rather than cultural grounds?
Defining Culture: Who decides what constitutes a legitimate culture, and where do we draw the line between culture and race?
Cultural Fluidity: Cultures are not static; they evolve and borrow from one another, making strict boundaries problematic.
Conclusion: Many communitarians attempt to balance liberal principles (which emphasize universal human rights) with their argument for controlled borders as a means of cultural preservation.
Spotlight: David Miller on Immigration
Key Question:
Do basic human rights include the right to cross national borders and live wherever one chooses?
Do states have the right to exclude migrants?
Three Common Defenses of the Right to Migrate (which Miller critiques):
Freedom of Movement: Some argue that people have a right to move freely, including across national borders.
The Right to Exit: People should have the right to leave their own state — but Miller argues this doesn’t automatically create a right to enter another.
Rights of Free Association: Immigration restrictions may violate individuals’ rights to associate freely across borders.
Miller’s Argument:
No Universal Right to Immigrate: While people have rights to movement and association, these do not inherently include a right to migrate freely.
State Sovereignty Matters: States have a legitimate right to control their borders to preserve self-determination.
Priority to Citizens: While states must respect migrants’ rights, the well-being and self-determination of existing citizens should take precedence.
Conclusion: Miller accepts that would-be immigrants’ claims deserve recognition, but they need not carry the same weight as the rights of current citizens.
Immigration: Libertarianism
Key Points:
Libertarians Generally Support Open Borders:
Their emphasis on individual rights and minimal government aligns with open immigration policies.
Open borders align with principles of free trade and unrestricted movement.
Exception:
Hillel Steiner’s Argument:
Steiner suggests that states can exclude migrants by drawing an analogy to private property (e.g., owners of summer cottages can exclude guests).
This implies that a state, like a property owner, has the right to deny entry.
Criticism (by Fabre):
Fabre rejects Steiner’s argument, arguing that it falsely equates ownership with sovereignty — a state’s control over territory isn’t the same as individual property rights.
Additionally, Fabre points out that:
If land wasn’t acquired through just means, then open borders may actually be more justified.
Even under libertarian principles, there’s no solid reason to prevent labor migration or long-term visits.
Conclusion: While libertarianism often aligns with open borders, property-based arguments like Steiner’s face serious criticism for oversimplifying the relationship between land ownership and state sovereignty.
