1. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Introduction
Some of the central questions in the debate:
Do wealthy nation-states have an obligation to adopt an open immigration policy?
If not, what explains their right to embrace a closed immigration policy?
If the U.S. had the right to embrace a closed policy, how would that affect its obligations to alleviate worldwide poverty and oppression?
Even if a wealthy country is not obligated to adopt an open policy, is it still obligated to allow political refugees and stateless persons to seek citizenship?
Which criteria of selection are morally justified in determining who may or may not immigrate to a country?
© Oxford University Press

2. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Introduction
Empirical issues:
Economic: Impact on job competition, wages, etc.
Distribution: Impact on benefits and services provided to citizens (e.g., health care)
Cultural: Affect on traditions, language, etc.
Security: Terrorism, crime, etc.
Political stability: Affect on commitments to freedom of speech, etc.
© Oxford University Press

3. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Introduction
Theory meets practice:
(Moral) Cosmopolitanism: Favors open borders because of an obligation to help others in dire need.
Egalitarian version (Carens)
Libertarian version
Anti-cosmopolitanism (Macedo and Wellman): There is an obligation to help others in dire need, but this is outweighed by other moral considerations.
© Oxford University Press

4. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Stephen Macedo, “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy”
Macedo's “civic view” on immigration:
Wealthy states do have obligations to help alleviate the world's disadvantaged (cosmopolitan obligations).
However, states also have special obligations to their poorest citizens (civic obligations).
These obligations generally outweigh obligations to noncitizens.
© Oxford University Press

5. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Stephen Macedo, “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy”
Why believe states have special obligations to their poorest citizens?
“It is as members or co-participants in self- governing political communities that we have special obligations to our fellow members.”
These special obligations are obligations of distributive justice (see Macedo's discussion of Rawls).
© Oxford University Press

6. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Stephen Macedo, “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy”
Three different approaches to the immigration problem:
1. Try to limit legal migration and stop illegal immigration.
2. Decrease demand for migrant workers.
3. Accept and regularize the flow of migrant labor.
© Oxford University Press

7. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Joseph H. Carens, “Migration and Morality”
Liberal egalitarians value:
Human freedoms: Our freedom to pursue our own projects, insofar as doing so does not interfere with others' freedom to do the same.
Equal opportunity: Access to social opportunities should be determined by your talents and capacities -- not limited by class, race, etc.
Keeping actual inequalities as small as possible.
© Oxford University Press

8. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Joseph H. Carens, “Migration and Morality”
Freedom of movement (FoM) is closely connected to liberal egalitarian values because:
The right to go where you want (i.e., freedom of movement) is itself an important freedom.
FoM is essential for equality of opportunity.
FoM would contribute to a reduction in actual political, social and economic inequalities.
© Oxford University Press

9. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Joseph H. Carens, “Migration and Morality”
An argument for FoM across nations:
We have sub-national freedom of movement (e.g., if you are an Arizona resident, you are free to move to California).
Carens argues that “if you take seriously the freedom and equality of all individuals” and you treat sub-national freedom of movement as “a moral imperative,” then you should treat freedom of movement across national borders similarly.
© Oxford University Press

10. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Joseph H. Carens, “Migration and Morality”
Some objections that Carens discusses:
The “backlash argument”: opening borders could damage the sense of community needed for a healthy liberal democratic society.
The “brain drain” hypothesis.
The “epiphenomenal” argument.
© Oxford University Press

11. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Christopher Heath Wellman, “Immigration and Freedom of Association”
Main argument:
Like individual people, legitimate nation-states have the right to freedom of association.
The right to freedom of association includes the right to not associate.
Therefore, “every legitimate state has the right to close its doors to all potential immigrants.”
© Oxford University Press

12. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Christopher Heath Wellman, “Immigration and Freedom of Association”
What is freedom of association?
Examples with marriage and religion (right of individuals):
This freedom is limited: You have no right to marry someone against their will!
Freedom of association for groups:
A club (or other collective association) has the right to choose who to include as a member.
Similarly, a club can choose who not to include.
Wellman uses this point to argue that states have the right to exclude potential immigrants.
© Oxford University Press

13. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Christopher Heath Wellman, “Immigration and Freedom of Association”
Some objections that Wellman responds to:
Egalitarian case for open borders:
“Given that one's country of birth is a function of brute luck, it seems grossly unfair that one's place of birth would so profoundly affect one's life prospects.”
Therefore, “Political borders must be opened, so that no one is denied access to the benefits of wealthy societies.”
Libertarian case for open borders:
First type: Focuses on rights to private property.
Second type: Focuses on rights to free movement.
© Oxford University Press

14. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Sarah Fine, “Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer”
Fine's article is a direct reply to Wellman's.
She first isolates “two debatable claims” that she believes Wellman's argument depends on.
“The state has a right to freedom of association, which is a component of its right to self-determination.”
“The state's freedom of association includes a right to exclude would-be immigrants.”
After raising doubts about these two claims, Fine goes on to raise detailed “internal” objections to Wellman's argument.
© Oxford University Press

15. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Sarah Fine, “Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer”
The three objections:
1. Objection from harm to others: Wellman would agree that the right to self-determination is limited to cases where exercising the right does not harm others. Fine argues that Wellman doesn't fully appreciate how closing borders would harm others.
2. Objection from the distinctiveness of the state: The collective of a nation's citizens constitutes neither an intimate (e.g., marriage) nor an expressive (e.g., religion) association.
© Oxford University Press

16. Chapter 7: The Ethics of Immigration
Sarah Fine, “Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer”
The three objections (cont’d):
3. Absence of a justification for the state's territorial rights: Wellman's argument only applies to membership in the political community, but there is a difference between membership in a community and permission to enter territory.
© Oxford University Press