The essays in this book cover issues to do with open borders, admissions policies, refugee protection and the regulation of labor migration. The book also includes coverage of matters concerning integration, inclusion, and legalization. It goes on to explore human trafficking and smuggling and the immigrant detention. The book concludes with four topics that promise to move immigration ethics in new directions: philosophical objections to states giving preference to skilled laborers; the implications of gender and care ethics; the incorporation of the philosophy of race; and how the cognitive bias of methodological nationalism affects the discussion.
The essays in this book cover issues to do with open borders, admissions policies, refugee protection and the regulation of labor migration. The book also includes coverage of matters concerning integration, inclusion, and legalization. It goes on to explore human trafficking and smuggling and the immigrant detention. The book concludes with four topics that promise to move immigration ethics in new directions: philosophical objections to states giving preference to skilled laborers; the implications of gender and care ethics; the incorporation of the philosophy of race; and how the cognitive bias of methodological nationalism affects the discussion.
The Ethics and Politics of Immigration: Core Issues and Emerging Trends
284
The Ethics and Politics of Immigration: Core Issues and Emerging Trends
284eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
The essays in this book cover issues to do with open borders, admissions policies, refugee protection and the regulation of labor migration. The book also includes coverage of matters concerning integration, inclusion, and legalization. It goes on to explore human trafficking and smuggling and the immigrant detention. The book concludes with four topics that promise to move immigration ethics in new directions: philosophical objections to states giving preference to skilled laborers; the implications of gender and care ethics; the incorporation of the philosophy of race; and how the cognitive bias of methodological nationalism affects the discussion.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781783486144 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Dutton Penguin Group USA |
| Publication date: | 10/03/2016 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 284 |
| File size: | 910 KB |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Contributors: Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy and Public Affairs, University of Washington, USA; Speranta Dumitru, Associate Professor of Political Science, Université de Paris Descartes, France; Patti Lenard, Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, Canada;
Iseult Honohan, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Ireland; Adam Hosein, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA; Matthew Lister, Graduate Student, Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania, USA; Jose Jorge Mendoza, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Worcester State University, USA; Valeria Ottonelli, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Università di Genova, Italy; Amy Reed-Sandoval, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas, USA; Stephanie J. Silverman, Research Fellow, University of Toronto, Canada; Tiziana Torresi, Lecturer in Politics, University of Adelaide, Australia; Caleb Yong, Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science, McGill University, Canada
Alex Sager is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and University Studies at Portland State University. His articles on the political philosophy of migration have appeared in journals including Political Studies, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Global Justice: Theory, Practice, and Rhetoric, and in various edited collections
Read an Excerpt
The Ethics and Politics of Immigration
Core Issues and Emerging Trends
By Alex Sager
Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd.
Copyright © 2016 Alex SagerAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-78348-614-4
CHAPTER 1
An Introduction to the Ethics of Migration
Alex Sager
On 2 September 2015, the drowned body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi briefly galvanized discussion around refugee flows. Kurdi's family had fled their home to escape the Syrian civil war, finding temporary refuge in Turkey before attempting to reach Greece with the hope of eventually joining family in Vancouver, Canada. Though Turkey opened its borders to Syrian refugees, it only gave refugee status to those with passports. Since the Syrian government had denied passports to much of its Kurdish population, the Kurdi family found itself living irregularly in Turkey, unable to obtain exit visas. Alan's aunt in Canada, Tima Kurdi, had tried to sponsor the family, but failed due to financial constraints, the family's lack of formal refugee status, and the red tape of the Canadian immigration system.
According to the International Organization for Migration, 3,771 migrants drowned in the Mediterranean in 2015. Thousands more children have perished in the Syrian civil war and well more than a million survive as refugees. In response, European governments have fortified their borders against migration flows and signed an agreement to detain refugees in Greece to return them to Turkey. Though Europeans have repeatedly labelled the approximately million people who have crossed the Mediterranean to seek asylum in Europe the 'European migration crisis', far more refugees subsist in Turkey (2.6 million), Lebanon (1 million), Jordan (630,000), Iraq (245,000), and Egypt (117,000).'
Alan's death touches on many of the moral questions surrounding migration raised by the authors of this collection. What do individuals, states, and the international community owe to people fleeing violence and persecution? How should the burdens of protection for today's 19.5 million refugees be distributed? Indeed, should we accept the common understanding of 'refugee'? Under article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is described as someone with 'a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country'. Or should we extend the definition to anyone in dire need or who suffers human rights violations?
Moving away from questions of defining refugees, measures such as carrier sanctions prevent people from boarding an airplane without a visa, forcing people like Alan's family seeking asylum to resort to smugglers. How should we view smuggling — an act that is often criminalized and conflated with human trafficking? Are measures to prevent and regulate unauthorized migration such as deportations and detention morally defensible?
More radically, is it possible to morally justify border controls at all? As authors such as Joseph Carens and Ayelet Shachar have pointed out, border controls in the contemporary state system instantiate something analogous to the birthright privilege of the feudal system: since most of the world's population is deprived of legal means to immigrate in search of better wages and opportunities, where one is born largely determines one's life chances (Carens 1987; Shachar 2009). What moral grounds — if any — do citizens of wealthy states have for using force to prevent people from poorer regions working and settling in their territories?
If we reject the idea that states should open their borders not only to refugees, but to migrants more generally, how do we design a just immigration system? How can we distinguish between presumably unjust reasons for discrimination such as racial prejudice from possibly just reasons such as the admitted immigrant possessing valuable skills? Should citizens have a right for family members to join them that takes priority over other (often poorer) people who wish to migrate? When reflecting on the justice of migration policy, do we need to take into account the effects in sending states such as the fear that out-migration leaves vulnerable regions without skilled professionals? How should we assess temporary labour migration programs which are often proclaimed to be a feasible alternative to utopian proposals for open borders, promising 'win-win-win' solutions that benefit migrants as well as sending and receiving states? What about temporary labour programs that attract primarily women from abroad to perform care work? Once immigrants and refugees settle, how should they be integrated into the rest of society? Also, how should states treat people within their borders who lack legal status? Does justice require creating mechanisms that allow them to regularize their status?
The purpose of this collection is to orient ethical reflection and to propose and to defend positions on these sorts of questions. An estimated 232 million people live outside of the country of their birth; around 740 million people have migrated internally (International Organization for Migration 2015) . The history of humanity is a history of mobility, but political philosophy has often operated under the assumption of stasis in which migration is ignored or treated as pathological and exceptional. This is unfortunate as any normative theory that attempts to provide guidance for today's world needs to take migration into account. Migration is fundamental to debates on nationalism, multiculturalism, and citizenship. It is also a key component of debates on state sovereignty, transnationalism, and movements towards global governance. The economic benefits of migration (Clemens 2011) and the fact that migration accompanies economic development make it a central part of any robust theory of distributive justice (de Haas 2012). Migration not only has enormous human costs and consequences, it is a constitutive part of many of the processes that sustain and transform our social, political, and economic institutions.
FOUNDATIONAL WORK ON THE ETHICS OF MIGRATION
Unlike many topics in contemporary political philosophy where there are clear historical precedents to draw on (though always at the risk of anachronism) the ethical debates over migration in contemporary political philosophy have few direct parallels. Nonetheless, a brief survey of historical debates helps to orient our thought.
The European discovery and colonialization of the New World towards the end of the fifteenth century led to debates about European migration, commerce, and settlement. Even theologians such as Bartolomé de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria who were highly critical of Spanish colonial practices supported the right to immigrate. In On the American Indians (1532) (Question 3, Article 1), Vitoria concludes that 'Spaniards have the right to travel and dwell in those countries, so long as they do no harm to the barbarians, and cannot be prevented by them from doing so' (Vitoria 1991, 278). He gives fourteen proofs, drawing on the law of nations (ius gentium) (which he views as either part of or derived from natural law) and on Scripture. He states that it would be unlawful for the French and Spaniards to prevent each other from travelling in or living in each other's territories as long as it caused no harm and extends the analogy to the Americas. He also notes that 'Amongst all nations it is considered inhuman to treat strangers and travelers badly without some special cause, humane and dutiful to behave hospitably to strangers' (Vitoria 1991, 278).
These debates continued through the seventeenth to nineteen centuries. More than two hundred years later, Diderot in his Histoire des Deux Indes (1770) allows for colonization of unoccupied territory and partially occupied territory (if all of the territory is not necessary for survival), but only for settlers who live peaceably alongside the natives — something he did not believe occurred in European colonization (Muthu 2003, 74-76). In Perpetual Peace, Kant argues for a right to hospitality which gives foreigners a right to visit and to not be treated with hostility as long as they behave peaceably. This right to visit provides the conditions necessary to seek commerce, but does not give visitors a right to become guests — i.e., to become at least temporary members of a household (Kant 1999) . Visitors can be turned away as long as it does not lead to their destruction. In contrast, John Stuart Mill provided an unabashedly imperialist apology for colonialism on behalf of what he deemed the 'collective economical interests of the human race' (Mill 1907, V 11.50, cited in Bell 2009, 43) (though he placed particular emphasis on the benefits for the British working class) and for its civilizing effect on native 'savages' (Mehta 1999).
In these debates, the question was about the moral legitimacy of European commerce and settlement with no consideration of the possibility of migration from these colonies to Europe. Not until Sidgwick in the Elements of Politics (1897), do we arrive at a position that has some resonance with contemporary (in this case restrictionist) positions on migration. He bases migration on a principle of mutual non-interference between states that permits them to exercise broad discretion over emigration and immigration policy:
But on the principle that limits strict duty to noninterference, it must be competent for a State to prohibit this infusion [of immigrants in its territory] totally or partially: and if (as is the common view) we regard its rights over its territory as only limited by the duty of avoiding mischief to other States — according to the analogy of private rights of property — it must be competent for it to exclude inhabitants of other States altogether from its territory, without violation of duty. (247)
Sidgwick also argues that since states have no obligation to admit foreigners, it may impose 'any conditions on entrance or any tolls on transit, and subjecting them to any legal restrictions or disabilities that it may deem expedient' (248). He further asserts that 'as [the state] may legitimately exclude them altogether, it must have a right to treat them in any way it thinks fit, after due warning given and due time allowed for withdrawal' (248).
Contemporary political philosophers largely turned away from examining migration as an ethical topic after the collapse of imperialist empires and their colonies during the first half of the twentieth century. Many political philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition have laboured under the shadow of John Rawls's Theory of Justice (Rawls 1999) that analysed justice against the background assumption of a closed society in which people enter by birth and exit by death. Rawls sought a conception of justice removed from any particular society or culture, instead employing an abstract conception of the person to defend general principles of justice that obliterated the characteristics of any actual population. As a result, the discipline largely operated under a sedentary bias with a methodological and a normative aspect. Methodologically, mobility was largely excluded from accounts of justice. Normatively, migration was considered to be abnormal or pathological, a response to exceptional circumstances. Attention to multiculturalism (Kymlicka 1995) and to nationalism (Miller 1995) in the late 1980s and 1990s raised awareness that populations are not homogenous, but even this literature tended to treat national and cultural minorities as stationary communities within the bounds of nation states (Sager 2014a).
When philosophers did turn to questions of migration, they largely concerned admissions: under what circumstances and according to what criteria are states or communities entitled to refuse outsiders membership? A seismic shift in these debates from previous centuries is that today they largely focus on people from the Global South seeking entry to Europe and other wealthy, Western democracies. The two most influential texts on recent debates concerning immigration admissions have arguably been Michael Walzer's chapter on membership in Spheres of Justice (1983) and Joseph Carens's 'Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders' (1987). Walzer raised the question of how communities ought to decide membership. Though Walzer's discussion of membership is subtle and thoughtful, addressing the plight of refugees and the treatment of Turkish guest workers in Germany (who at the time were denied citizenship), he starkly insists that each community should enjoy wide discretion on how it understands membership and when it chooses to extend it to others:
Admissions and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be communities of character, historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. (Walzer 1983, 62)
In contrast, Joseph Carens argued that once we abandon the assumption that justice applies only to members of a closed community, it becomes surprisingly difficult to justify border controls. In 'Aliens and Citizens', he analysed the ethics of border controls from three major perspectives in political philosophy: Rawls's liberal egalitarianism, libertarianism, and utilitarianism (1989). Each theory plausibly supports open — or at least much more — open borders.
Much of the discussion following Walzer and Carens's articles concerned the grounds — if any — for restricting migration. Do communities have a right to self-determination or to freedom of association that trumps potential immigrants' claim to move freely and to join them (Wellman 2008)? Does the right to preserve or to slow cultural change justify limiting migration? Can we construct an account of property rights that supports exclusion (Pevnik 2011) ? Might considerations of distributive justice support immigration restrictions (Higgins 2013; Pogge 2006)?
In many respects, these early debates culminated with Philip Cole's wide-ranging and searching Philosophies of Exclusion (2000). Cole surveyed much of the work on the ethics of migration up to the turn of the millennium and pointed to the difficulty for liberal theorists in maintaining consistency between how liberal states treat their own citizens and how they treat non-citizens outside of the territory. In particular, liberal states remain committed to a strong right to emigrate, a position that is hard to square with their insistence that foreigners do not have a similar right to immigrate 1 Leaving aside the concern that emigration requires at least one state to which one can immigrate, the illiberal treatment of non-citizens by insisting on the right to exclude migrants is hard to square with the moral equality of persons. The sorts of reasons one might have for a right to emigration are often the same sorts of reasons that would justify a right to immigration.
Ways Forward
In the new millennium, scholars working on normative issues in migration have continued to explore the topics discussed earlier. They have also begun to expand ethical investigation into new territory by increasingly engaging work in the social sciences and by turning to critical philosophies that add complexity and take established debates in new directions.
Much of the writing on migration and inequality has occurred within what Iris Young called the 'distributive paradigm' (Young 2011), imagining abstract, impoverished migrants from the Global South clambering for admission into affluent Western states. Though careful reflection on the permissible grounds for admission and exclusion is valuable, much of this reflection takes place at a level of abstraction that is difficult to connect with a world in which hierarchy, domination, and subordination are enforced along gender and racial lines and which still bears the scars of colonialism and imperialism. Moreover, relatively little has been written on the ethics of particular policies and practices such as deportation and detention that often involve questionable techniques such as racial profiling and a level of violence that strike many people as disproportionate to the policy goals (e.g., assessing the validity of claims to asylum) and misconduct of unauthorized migrants (e.g., overstaying a visa).
Feminist scholars and critical race theorists have exposed the systematic exclusion or marginalization of women (Pateman 1988) and non-whites (Mills 1997) in much of the discipline and the political philosophy and theory of migration is no exception. Though sociologists and anthropologists have been studying the migration of women to engage in care work (e.g., as live-in caretakers or sex workers), for decades, philosophers and political theorists have yet to fully engage these debates. How should we reflect on what has been dubbed 'the feminization of migration'? Should it be primarily conceived within a context of patriarchal domination in which women move within gender hierarchies in sending states to similar hierarchies in feminized professions abroad? Do structural pressures that influence women's choice to migrate ultimately harm them, wrenching them from their families to perform demanding and sometimes demeaning labour? Or does it often liberate them, opening economic opportunities that would otherwise be closed and allowing independence?
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Ethics and Politics of Immigration by Alex Sager. Copyright © 2016 Alex Sager. Excerpted by permission of Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.