Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
42 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: The problems of philosophy
In: Citizenship studies, Band 24, Heft 3, S. 355-370
ISSN: 1469-3593
In: Constellations: an international journal of critical and democratic theory, Band 25, Heft 2, S. 308-310
ISSN: 1467-8675
In: Political theory: an international journal of political philosophy, Band 46, Heft 2, S. 318-322
ISSN: 1552-7476
In: Critical review of international social and political philosophy: CRISPP, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 31-48
ISSN: 1743-8772
In: Critical review of international social and political philosophy: CRISPP, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 31-48
ISSN: 1369-8230
In: Irish political studies: yearbook of the Political Studies Association of Ireland, Band 26, Heft 4, S. 545-561
ISSN: 1743-9078
In: Hard Questions for Democracy, R Chari (ed.) (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012)
SSRN
In: Critical Review of International Political Philosophy 17 (1) 2014, 31-48; DOI:10.1080/13698230.2013.851482]
SSRN
Research for the EUDO Citizenship Observatory Comparative Analyses has been jointly supported by the European Commission grant agreement JLS/2007/IP/CA/009 EUCITAC and by the British Academy Research Project CITMODES (both projects co-directed by the European University Institute and the University of Edinburgh).
BASE
In: Journal of ethnic and migration studies: JEMS, Band 36, Heft 5, S. 811-827
ISSN: 1469-9451
In: Journal of ethnic and migration studies: JEMS, Band 36, Heft 5, S. 811-828
ISSN: 1369-183X
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 371-374
ISSN: 1476-9336
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 57, Heft 4, S. 768-787
ISSN: 1467-9248
A high proportion of legal immigration is based on family reunification. On one view, this is based on a partialist preference towards citizens, and the universally grounded claims of refugees should be given at least equal consideration. This article focuses on reconsidering the justification for considering family reunification a particularly important criterion for admission and residence, without attempting to establish how exactly family and refugee claims should be balanced. It first considers arguments for and against giving substantial weight in migration to family members with respect to citizens and denizens, the state and incomers. These include, on the one hand, the intrinsic value of and right to family life, the possibility of integration and the agent-specific nature of the obligations involved, and, on the other, the anachronistic nature of the family claim, the extent to which migration is voluntary, the contemporary prevalence of transnational family relationships, the inheritance of privilege and the multiplier effect of family reunification. It next considers the justification for discriminating among family applicants in order to reduce family migration numbers by restricting admission to the immediate nuclear family, and examines whether this represents unwarranted cultural discrimination or runs counter to the fundamental reasons for respecting family life. It is argued that family reunification is best justified in terms not of a partialist preference towards fellow citizens, but of a universal obligation to allow those subject to the state's authority to maintain intimate relationships that entail agent-specific obligations of care. This justifies very substantial consideration for at least certain kinds of family reunification. If, in order to meet other claims, we should discriminate among family members, priority should attach to family relationships of care at 'critical times', rather than to nuclear family membership per se.