Contemporary Issues in Political Theory PDF

Preview

Summary

Contemporary Issues in Political TheoryWeek 1Lecture 1 – Migration & Borders – The Case for Open Borders “Borders have guards and the guards have guns” What is migration?o An immigrant is not a refugee (a refugee leaves their country due to a risk or fear of persecution). o An immigrant co...

Description

Contemporary Issues in Political Theory Week 1 Lecture 1 – Migration & Borders – The Case for Open Borders  

“Borders have guards and the guards have guns” What is migration? o o o o o



An immigrant is not a refugee (a refugee leaves their country due to a risk or fear of persecution). An immigrant comes to a new country for their own personal reasons (economic prosperity, new culture etc). An immigrant is not a tourist. An immigrant is not necessarily a citizen – you can migrate and apply for (& achieve) permanent residency without being a citizen. Immigrants – “Persons seeking permanent residence in another country because of some personal reason, and not because of persecution in their home country” (Benson)

Arguments for open borders: o

The Consequentialist Argument  

Consequentialism – ethical doctrine that states that what is important when making a decision is to base it upon the consequences of that decision. Migration policy should aim at maximising good consequences (ethical premise). 



Having open borders is the best way to maximize good consequences (empirical premise). 



o

Is maximising good consequences the only relevant ethical consideration? We may want to consider rights, the distribution of consequences, duties to fellow citizens etc.

Is this empirical premise correct? It depends on the consequences we consider in our consequentialist calculation – changing the consequences can change the result of the calculation. The answer may be different if we include values such as national identity.

Therefore, the government should have a policy of open borders (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Freedom of Movement  

A deontological argument, based on people’s fundamental and individual rights (in particular, the right to freedom of movement). People have a fundamental right to freedom of movement (ethical premise).



We must question the scope of this right. Free movement over the whole world may be a luxury rather than a right, even though some degree of

freedom of movement is required for a minimally good life and to secure many important goods.



Border controls infringe on people’s freedom of movement from one place to another (empirical premise).





o

Therefore, governments should have a policy of open borders (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Inequality 

Immigration policy should aim at reducing inequalities which are a product of brute luck (ethical premise – luck egalitarianism). 





This is very hard to refute, but what normative significance do we give to this fact?

Open borders will help to reduce the inequality which results from this brute luck (empirical premise).





If we are not egalitarians then we will dispute this premise. Even if we are egalitarians, we may not be luck egalitarians. We may be relational egalitarians, seeking equality in relations between people.

Being born into a rich or poor country is merely a matter of brute luck (ethical premise 2).



o

Even if borders do infringe on people’s freedom of movement, is there nothing which can trump this right? Eg. You do not have the right to move into someone’s house – property right > freedom of movement.

Will open borders reduce global inequality? It is the richer & more skilled who have the means to immigrate, which may result in a ‘brain drain’, which would in fact harm those left behind.

Therefore, governments should have a policy of open borders (normative conclusion).

The argument from the Original Position





John Rawls – we need unbiased and impartial rules/laws to govern ourselves. Rawls says that to determine laws, you should make laws as if you are in an ‘original position’, where you know empirical facts about the world but have no idea who you are going to be in society – your wealth, status, sexuality, race, talents etc. Migration policy should be determined in the Original Position and behind the Veil of Ignorance (ethical premise from Rawls).

 

If we are not Rawlsians, we may dispute this.

The Original Position should be applied globally, so people do not know which country they are born in/citizens of. (premise 2).





In the Original Position we would decide to guarantee a right to immigrate (empirical premise).



 o

Would the OP guarantee a right to immigrate? In our non-ideal world with large inequality it would seem so, but in a more ideal and egalitarian world, perhaps not.

Therefore, governments should have a policy of open borders (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Private Property Rights 

People have an absolute natural right to private property (ethical premise).







This seems correct, but if we weaken premise 1 then it may be overruled.

The state would therefore violate your right if it prevented you (through borders) from inviting people onto your private property (empirical premise). 



This is a very bold claim – do people have an ‘absolute’ right to property? This would mean there can be no interference from the state at all.

A right to private property includes an absolute right to choose who enters onto your property (premise 2).



o

Should the OP be applied globally? This depends on the extent to which we believe that we are in a global society and that justice should be global – Rawls himself did not apply the OP globally.

There can be a problem of ‘Lockean Doughnuts’. Also, property owners are free to transfer their property rights to the state. In this case, the state would legitimately be able to enforce borders.

Therefore, governments should have a policy of open borders (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Coercion 

People have a right to be free from harmful coercion (ethical premise).





This seems to be a strong premise. We normally agree that people shouldn’t be harmfully coerced. However, there are exceptions to this – governments use coercion all the time for a number of reasons. A variation of the argument through democratic inclusion.

Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive (empirical premise).

 

Is it the case that borders are actually harmful and coercive? To whom are they harmful? Is it simply peoples tastes being affected (eg. A desire for new culture) or their quality of life (economic opportunity etc.). Are borders coercive, or are they just preventive? Miller believes closed

borders are just preventive.



Therefore, the correct migration policy is one of open borders (normative conclusion).

Week 1 – Readings Carens, Joseph, ‘Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders’, The Review of Politics, 49:2 (1987), pp. 251–73.  

 

     

“Citizenship in Western liberal democracies is the modern equivalent of feudal privilege” p252 Popular opposition to immigration seems to be based around some sense of a collective property right (“It’s our country, we can do what we want)”, but theories based around property rights in fact stress them as individual rights. P. 252 “Nozick explicitly says that the land of a nation is not the collective property of its citizens.” P254 “Rawls’s use of the original position and the “veil of ignorance” depends upon a particular understanding of moral personality that is characteristic of modern democratic societies but may not be shared by other societies.” P356 Ideal theory – “where one takes into account both historical contingencies and the unjust actions of others” p.259 “if more immigration would hurt some citizens economically, that would count against a more open immigration policy in any utilitarian theory” p263 “the free mobility of capital and labor is essential to the maximization of overall economic gains” p263 Utilitarians do not agree on what should be considered in calculating utility (which interest/pleasures etc). p264 Only rational desires should count vs. all pleasures should count even if they are ‘unacceptable’. P264 Michael Walzer: o o

o o

o



Michael Walzer says that “Across a considerable range of the decisions that are made, states are simply free to take strangers in (or not).” Quoted on p. 265 “He thinks that questions of distributive justice should be addressed not from behind a “veil of ignorance” but from the perspective of membership in a political community in which people share a common culture and a common understanding about justice.” P. 266 “Walzer’s central claim is that exclusion is justified by the right of communities to self-determination”. P. 266 “If freedom of movement within the state is so important that it overrides the claims of local political communities, on what grounds can we restrict freedom of movement across states?” p. 267 Walzer’s ‘club’ analogy fails to acknowledge the division between the public and private spheres of life. Pp. 267-8.

Conclusion: o

“we have an obligation to open up our borders much more fully than we do now.” P. 270

Huemer, Michael, ‘Is there a Right to Immigrate?’, Social Theory and Practice, 36:3 (2010), pp. 429–61    



Huemer bases his argument not on established theories (like utilitarianism) but on ethical intuition. Pp. 430-431 “immigration restriction is a prima facie rights violation” p.431 (prima facie = accepted as correct until proven otherwise). “individuals have a prima facie, negative right not to be subjected to seriously harmful coercion.” P432 If the government refuses entry to an immigrant and as a result that immigrant is harmed (through not being able to obtain the things they need to avoid harm – starvation etc.) then this constitutes “serious violations of the rights of potential immigrants – specifically, the government violates their prima facie right not to be harmfully coerced.” P434 – is this active harm, allowing harm to happen, or just failing to benefit? Reasons to restrict immigration: o

Employment: 



o

The State’s Duty to its citizens 



o

The state has a duty to protect the interests of its own citizens, and not (or not to the same extent) the interest of foreign people. HOWEVER, “there are some obligations that any moral agent owes to other persons, merely in virtue of their status as persons.” P. 441 “one may not employ more harmful coercion than is necessary to achieve one’s goal.” P. 444

Priority for the least advantaged 





Immigrants make residents worse off (eg. 1980s – immigration reduced wages of native-born workers by 1-2%_ BUT economic benefit to employers & businesses outweighs this. Pp. 437-8 Huemer highlights the flaw in the economic argument – “The ethical principle would have to be that a person’s right to be free from extremely harmful coercion is sometimes held in abeyance simply by virtue of the fact that such coercion is necessary to protect third parties from modest economic disadvantage resulting from marketplace competition.” P439

State should priorities helping it poorest citizens before helping wealthier ones or poor foreign citizens, BUT “the state ought not to promote the interests of its least advantaged citizens by violating the rights of foreigners.” Pp. 444-5 “If, as [Michael] Blake believes, the justification for official coercion must derive from a hypothetical social contract among all parties subject to the state’s coercion, then foreigners must be included in this contract.” P. 446

See p. 458 for premises and conclusions Week 2

Lecture 2 – Migration & Borders – The Right to Exclude 

What is a right to exclude? o o o



A right to exclude is not the same as an argument for closed borders. Just because we have a right to do something, it does not mean that we ought to do it. The state has a right to choose whether it opens or closes its borders – it can choose not to exercise its right. It has no ‘duty’ to exclude.

Arguments for a Right to Exclude: o

The Consequentialist Argument   

o

Migration policy should aim at maximising good consequences (ethical premise) Open borders would fail to maximise good consequences compared to restricted borders (empirical premise). Therefore, the correct migration policy is one of closed borders (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Freedom of Association



Citizens of a state have a strong interest in who becomes a member of their political community (ethical premise).





This grounds a prima facie right of freedom of association which allows them to determine whom (if anyone) joins their political community (premise 2).

 

o

This depends on premise 1. A strong interest would ground a prima facie right.

There are no other factors which outweigh the prima facie right to freedom of association (empirical premise).





What is the strength of this interest? I will never meet or interact with most of the people in my political community, as it is very large. However, members of a community do get a say over the rules of the community, so you do have an interest.

This right is conditional on it not significantly effecting others’ interests. Which of these rights outweigh each other? Freedom of association is an extremely strong right, and seems to trump a lot of other considerations, but is this individual right as strong at a community level?

Therefore, the state must have a right to exclude migrants (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Self-Determination



State has a right to self-determination, which includes being able to make a wide range of policy choices (ethical premise).





Migration can effect a range of essential services which states have control over (housing, hospitals, schools etc.) (empirical premise).

 

o

There is a debate about this premise as it is a question of what we owe to non-citizen residents. There is also debate about which kinds of services are owed to them.

Therefore, the state must have a right to exclude immigrants (normative conclusion).

The Argument from Public Culture 

Citizens of a state have an interest in maintaining control over the culture of their state (ethical premise). 



  

This depends on empirical facts about the world. Only high immigration levels may affect public culture, and there are other ways to protect and promote it. This premise also relies on the claim that public culture is vastly different in the immigrants’ home countries and their host countries. What if we live in a multicultural society? What does it mean empirically to protect public culture?

The interest of public culture outweigh the interests of immigrants (empirical premise). 



How strong is this interest? Should culture be controlled? People identify themselves based around their culture.

Significant migration can impact on a state’s culture, which can only be offset by immigration controls (empirical premise, with two empirical claims). 

o

Seems empirically plausible that migrants have some effect on essential services, although there is debate about the magnitude of these affects.

States should not exclude migrants from accessing essential services (ethical premise). 



Self-determination does seem to require a range of policies, but does his have to include migration policy? Perhaps a state can be fully selfdetermining even without having control over migration policy.

This seems to depend on the circumstances of the perspective immigrants. If they are well-off then maybe the interest in public culture trumps their rights, but if they are not well-off then maybe not.

Therefore, the state has the right to exclude migrants (normative conclusion).

The Argument from National partiality 

States have a right (or perhaps a duty) to prioritise the interests of the worst off in their country over the interest of non-citizens (ethical premise).

 



Significant migration can negatively impact on the interests of the worst off in a state (empirical premise). 



Do states have such a right? It seems plausible that the state should be concerned with the worst off. However, should this be the worst off in the state, or the worst off globally? If a state can be partial to its own citizens, then how much extra weight should it give them? How much weight it justifiable? If the interest of migrants are strong then they may still outweigh those of citizens. What if a state is justifies in giving 2x the weight to its own citizens, but potential migrants are 3x as needy?

This is empirically disputable. Does the increased supply of labour really negatively affect economic prosperity? If you reduce labour costs, prices will be reduced, and low prices benefit the worst-off more than they do the well-off.

Therefore, the state has a right to exclude immigrants (normative conclusion).

Week 2 – Readings Miller, David, Strangers in Our Midst, chapter 4 – ‘Closed Borders’, pp. 57-75  



 



  

“policies that involve selecting some migrants and excluding others are legitimate” p57 “States are sovereign, it is said: they have an absolute right to decide what goes on within the territories that they legitimately control, and supervising border crossing is simply one aspect of this.” P. 58 – is it? The above statement assumes that state sovereignty is the best form of government, and also that it is fine to extend arguments based around a sovereign state’s authority over its citizens to people who are not yet citizens of its state. P. 58 Territorial approach suggests that having power over specific territory necessarily implies control over who can and cannot enter that territory. P. 58 Miller asserts that there are three conditions to be met for “a state rightfully to claim jurisdiction over a territory”: “maintain social order and protect the human rights of the inhabitants to a sufficiently high degree”, “state must represent the inhabitants of the territory”, and that “people whom the state represents should themselves have the right to occupy the territory in question”. Pp. 59-60. “territorial jurisdiction”, “the right to control and use the resources that the territory contains” and “the right to control the movement of goods and people across its borders” are bundled together into “territorial rights”, but “there is no logical necessity why the three rights must be held together by a single institution.” Pp. 60-61 It is not morally permissible to withhold from immigrants human rights once they are within a state eg. An immigrant injured in a road accident must not be denied medical attention. P. 61 “the argument about jurisdiction needs to be complemented by an argument about selfde...