migration Flashcards
(13 cards)
FT- what is your conclusion?
As stated, it is not useful to think of people as having rights to land, only claims as it is very difficult to deduce practical resolution.
It follows that no country has the ‘right’ to refuse immigration. However, evaluating the practical implications of this: the brain drain, overpopulation etc..
I argue full open borders is not the most practical empirical solution.
In the short term, we should allow limited immigration assessed by who’s claim is the strongest - those needed emergency life or death support with the largest claim- as supposed to enabling high skilled migration.
In the long term, there needs to be a focus of redistribution - this is more in line with egalitarianism - providing long term equality for all by propping up poorer countries rather than enabling the wealthy and skilled to leave. This arguably also provides the best overall consequences. So the main arguments for open borders are undermined by a better and more practical solution.
what is the argument for the freedom of association?
Wellman’s argument for closed borders.
1 - individuals and states have the right to self determination
2- the right to self determination includes the freedom we have to associate
3- the freedom to associate also includes the right to dissociate
-
c- so, just as we have the right to get married or stay single, choose our friends etc.. states have the right to implement and maintain absolute sovereignty.
the idea is that citizens can then pass down their right to their children
what is pevnick’s criticism of freedom of association?
1- to freely associate involves voluntary participation
2-citizens’ membership to states are usually non-voluntary
3(1+2)- it is unconvincing to say that citizens freely associate.
c- an argument for state rights based on freedom of association is therefore unconvincing (the collective right to dissociate is not a convincing argument as we do not freely collectively associate)
as articulated clearly here - the leap form 1-2 is invalid
1- a minimal amount of citizens freely associate and have the right to do so
2- as a state, we should have the right to freely associate/dissociate
c - we should have the right to closed borders.
the jump from 1-2 is invalid.
Why is Pevnick’s argument more convincing?
-Pevnick offers an alternative based on voluntary participation
what is the argument from associative ownership
Pevnick
Given citizenry membership of states are usually non-voluntary, citizens must be said to have rights over something else. Pevnick argues that citizens of states have the right to ownership over their collective accomplishments e.g. political insitutions.
the right over ownership of these accomplishments compromise a ‘passed on’ right to self-determination over these institutions.
this includes the right to exclude others from access.
However, Pevnick acknowledges that rights of associative ownership are outweighed by claims of people to immigrate who are in desperate need.
- this is therefore a more convincing argument.
what are wellman and pevnick’s arguments called?
what do they share in common?
argument for freedom of association
argument for associative ownership
both based on the right to self determination
what are the replies to Pevnick’s argument for associative ownership? convincing?
FINE - raises question on membership
- those internal who cannot contribute would not qualify for membership e.g. carers, the disabled, children
- those external that have contributed would qualify e.g. financial aid
ALEX SAGER - not clear about the term ‘collective ownership’ - do some people own more than others or do we all own the same? can we pass down right to non-members?
FINE - Pevnick’s argument is formed from the assumption that the world is up for claim, has been claimed, so our present rights are justified by collective associative history. However, if we adapt the mindset that the earth is owned by all, not one person having more rights than others along egalitarian lines, this has very different implications for the rights of immigrants and state’s rights to exclude.
this leads onto a potential argument for open borders. essay lead on here!
what are the two open border arguments that will be considered?
egalitarianism
consequentialism
what is the argument from consequentialism?
1 - consequentialism argues that we have a moral duty to maximise the best consequences for the largest number.
2-opening borders would maximise opportunity for those lacking opportunity in their own country e.g. fleeing warzones, coming over for better work or just the weather.
it would also maximise economic gain in the world witht he economist recently claiming that it would increase the world’s capital by 78 trillion
3- open borders would maximise the best consequences for the largest number
C- we should address our moral duty and open borders
what is the argument from egalitarianism?
1 - we are all equal and have a moral right to equal opportunities.
2- wealthier countries provide more opportunities than poorer countries e.g. jobs, freedom from persecution etc..
c- in line with egalitarian principles, we should have open borders to combat the inherant disadvantage people are born into.
Controversial support - Aisha Dodwell - “borders are a form of global apartheid”. people are born into economic disadvantage and prohibiting them from moving is arguably a form of oppression.
what is the closed border solution / reply to both arguments for open borders?
both arguments are unconvincing when you consider a better alternative.
- Wellman ‘exporting justice’ as an alternative to open borders.
- in terms of egalitarianism - this provides a better long term solution for equality as it will lead to those being born into countries with opportunity.
- in terms of consequentialism - long term positive consequences would be created - avoiding the brain drain with a more even distribution of wealth (of more consequential importance that pure economical gains which would only happen in certain areas)
what are the main 2 problems with open borders?
the brain drain - high skilled/wealthy migration leads to the widening of the rich/poor divide.
no protection
so, closed borders with redistributive justice conclusion? why not?
i argue none of us have an intrinsic right to land. we only have claims. with this being said, no state has the explicit right to refuse immigration and immigrants do not have the right to move.
It is more helpful to the problem of migration to assess claim. this avoids a potential deadlock e.g. in the prominent construction industry debate - potential immigrants have the ‘right’ to come here for a better life and British workers have the right to not be undercut by immigrants willing to work for lower wage. talking of ‘rights’ only fuels conflict.
claim-> more practical resolutions. e.g. those fearing for their life have greater claim to move.
I propose that both things should happen - short term small scale emergency freedom of movement as it is immoral to not allow movement in this instance.
but excessive investment needs to be made into long term redistribution otherwise the gap between the rich and poor will only get wider.
