Suchergebnisse

International audience ; This paper argues that by overestimating the importance of citizenship rights, the ethics of immigration turns away from the more serious problem of closed borders. Precisely, this contribution is a threefold critique of Carens' idea that "justice requires that democratic states grant citizenship at birth to the descendants of settled immigrants" (Carens, 2013: 20). Firstly, I argue that by making 'justice' dependent on states and their attributes (birthright citizenship), this idea strengthens methodological nationalism which views humanity as naturally divided into bounded nation-states. Secondly, I analyze its justification and argue that grounding (citizenship) rights on the existence of social connections is logically and morally problematic. Thirdly, I analyze its scope (granting rights to the descendants of the 'settled') and its method of implementation (granting citizenship rights automatically 'at birth'). While from a less sedentarist perspective, no one can be considered 'settled' in advance, I will express some doubts that granting citizenship rights is always automatically a way to extend people's rights. All in all, I argue that by its justification, scope and method of implementation, this idea moves us away from, rather than gets us closer to, an open-borders world.

International audience ; This paper argues that by overestimating the importance of citizenship rights, the ethics of immigration turns away from the more serious problem of closed borders. Precisely, this contribution is a threefold critique of Carens' idea that "justice requires that democratic states grant citizenship at birth to the descendants of settled immigrants" (Carens, 2013: 20). Firstly, I argue that by making 'justice' dependent on states and their attributes (birthright citizenship), this idea strengthens methodological nationalism which views humanity as naturally divided into bounded nation-states. Secondly, I analyze its justification and argue that grounding (citizenship) rights on the existence of social connections is logically and morally problematic. Thirdly, I analyze its scope (granting rights to the descendants of the 'settled') and its method of implementation (granting citizenship rights automatically 'at birth'). While from a less sedentarist perspective, no one can be considered 'settled' in advance, I will express some doubts that granting citizenship rights is always automatically a way to extend people's rights. All in all, I argue that by its justification, scope and method of implementation, this idea moves us away from, rather than gets us closer to, an open-borders world.

International audience ; This paper argues that by overestimating the importance of citizenship rights, the ethics of immigration turns away from the more serious problem of closed borders. Precisely, this contribution is a threefold critique of Carens' idea that "justice requires that democratic states grant citizenship at birth to the descendants of settled immigrants" (Carens, 2013: 20). Firstly, I argue that by making 'justice' dependent on states and their attributes (birthright citizenship), this idea strengthens methodological nationalism which views humanity as naturally divided into bounded nation-states. Secondly, I analyze its justification and argue that grounding (citizenship) rights on the existence of social connections is logically and morally problematic. Thirdly, I analyze its scope (granting rights to the descendants of the 'settled') and its method of implementation (granting citizenship rights automatically 'at birth'). While from a less sedentarist perspective, no one can be considered 'settled' in advance, I will express some doubts that granting citizenship rights is always automatically a way to extend people's rights. All in all, I argue that by its justification, scope and method of implementation, this idea moves us away from, rather than gets us closer to, an open-borders world.

Draws upon Robert Nozick's view of property rights, John Rawls' theory of justice, & the utilitarian commitment to respect moral equality to challenge the belief that the right to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty & often politically necessary. In spite of major disagreements in other areas, it is argued that all three theories lead to the conclusion that there is little justification for restricting immigration. The argument for open borders is said to be strongest in relation to people migrating from third world countries to those of the first world. Communitarian objections to open borders, especially those of Michael Walzer, are considered & refuted. It is concluded that current restrictions on immigration in Western democracies protect unjust privilege & therefore are not justifiable. Striving to achieve open borders/free migration is a reaffirmation of the idea of communal character & its obligation to principles of justice. J. Lindroth

Draws upon Robert Nozick's view of property rights, John Rawls' theory of justice, & the utilitarian commitment to respect moral equality to challenge the belief that the right to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty & often politically necessary. In spite of major disagreements in other areas, it is argued that all three theories lead to the conclusion that there is little justification for restricting immigration. The argument for open borders is said to be strongest in relation to people migrating from third world countries to those of the first world. Communitarian objections to open borders, especially those of Michael Walzer, are considered & refuted. It is concluded that current restrictions on immigration in Western democracies protect unjust privilege & therefore are not justifiable. Striving to achieve open borders/free migration is a reaffirmation of the idea of communal character & its obligation to principles of justice. J. Lindroth

Is Japan prepared for an ethnically diverse society? The volume examines the past and future trajectory of Japan's immigration and integration policies and related institutions, taking a cross-disciplinary approach in social sciences. The authors highlight critical issues and challenges that the nation is facing as a result of the government's inarticulate migrant-acceptance policy, e.g. in the fields of deportation, refugee policy, multicultural education and disaster protection. How can the situation be improved? The book investigates the changes and initiatives needed to build a resilient policy regime for a liberal, pluralistic, and inclusive Japan. Ist Japan auf eine multikulturelle Gesellschaft vorbereitet? Der Band untersucht die Entwicklung der japanischen Einwanderungs- und Integrationspolitik sowie der damit verbundenen Institutionen und verfolgt dabei einen disziplinübergreifenden sozialwissenschaftlichen Ansatz. Die Autor*innen beleuchten kritische Fragen und Herausforderungen, mit denen das Land aufgrund der unartikulierten Politik der der Akzeptanz von Migration seitens der Regierung konfrontiert ist, z. B. in den Bereichen Flüchtlingspolitik, multikulturelle Bildung und Katastrophenschutz. Wie kann die Situation verbessert werden? Das Buch untersucht Veränderungen und Initiativen, die notwendig sind, um ein widerstandsfähiges politisches System für ein liberales, pluralistisches und integratives Japan zu schaffen.

Every day, large numbers of people cross borders that separate one political jurisdiction from another. Most do so legally, though many break the law in changing jurisdictions. Many more do not cross borders, because they dare not break the law or cannot cross undetected-sometimes because they are denied permission to leave one jurisdiction, and other times because they are prohibited from entering another. Some cross borders fully aware that they are leaving one defined space and entering another, while others have no idea that anything has changed or that the imaginary lines that define distinct regions exist even in the imagination. Borders-political boundaries-are such variable things that encounters with them can be very different experiences. Entering Luxemburg from Belgium is almost always a nonevent. Entering the United States from Mexico can be very eventful. The purpose of this essay to ask why this is so, and whether it must be so. Why must some borders be so difficult to cross? Why can't the move from Mexico to the United States always be as easy as moving from Belgium to Luxemburg? Why should some people be able to move so freely and others not? Another way to put this is to ask: Why can't all borders be open? The point of this essay is to address this question, both as a conceptual question and as a theoretical-normative-question. Its concern is the movement of people-not of goods or money-across political boundaries. In the end, it tries to offer a defense of open borders. But any such defense must rest on some account of what "open borders" means, and how such a thing is possible. Thus the aim of the essay is to offer an account of the theory and practice of open borders.

MANY POOR AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE WISH TO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN IN THE THIRD WORLD TO COME TO AFFLUENT WESTERN SOCIETIES. THIS ESSAY ARGUES THAT THERE IS LITTLE JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING THEM OUT. THE ESSAY DRAWS ON THREE CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO POLITICAL THEORY - THE RAWLSIAN, THE NOZICKEAN, AND THE UTILITARIAN - TO CONSTRUCT ARGUMENTS FOR OPEN BORDERS. THE FACT THAT ALL THREE THEORIES CONVERGE UPON THE SAME RESULTS ON THIS ISSUE, DESPITE THEIR SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS ON OTHERS, STRENGTHENS THE CASE FOR OPEN BORDERS AND REVEALS ITS ROOTS IN OUR DEEP COMMITMENT TO RESPECT ALL HUMAN BEINGS AS FREE AND EQUAL MORAL PERSONS. THE FINAL PART OF THE ESSAY CONSIDERS COMMUNITARIAN OBJECTIONS TO THIS CONCLUSION, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF MICHAEL WALZER.

Many poor and oppressed people wish to leave their countries of origin in the third world to come to affluent Western societies. This essay argues that there is little justification for keeping them out. The essay draws on three contemporary approaches to political theory — the Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian — to construct arguments for open borders. The fact that all three theories converge upon the same results on this issue, despite their significant disagreements on others, strengthens the case for open borders and reveals its roots in our deep commitment to respect all human beings as free and equal moral persons. The final part of the essay considers communitarian objections to this conclusion, especially those of Michael Walzer.