Suchergebnisse

The seventh edition of this perennial favorite includes discussions of major initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals, changes in international politics and approaches to global terrorism following the US-led military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and updated throughout.

This note challenges Joseph H. Carens' assertion that no comprehensive liberal case has been made against open borders. The heart of a liberal case against open borders is the distinction between the equal moral standing of all people on the one hand, and the requirement to provide equal treatment on the other. The first does not necessarily imply the second. Border controls in rich countries can be justified by liberals on the grounds that they protect the most disadvantaged residents of those countries.

The ethics of immigration controls in the US are examined, & it is suggested that US outrage over immigration is morally questionable. There exists a deep belief that all people are equal, yet, paradoxically, immigration policy is used to maintain a privileged lifestyle at foreigners' expense, dividing the world into haves & have-nots. Five arguments in favor of immigration controls are analyzed & determined to be rationalizations; the argument that immigration controls protect the disadvantaged in the US is shown to have theoretical merit, although it is unclear if immigration does in fact harm the prospects of economically disadvantaged Americans. It is concluded that the validity of this argument & the moral right of foreigners to enter the US create an ethical dilemma that cannot be completely resolved, suggesting that compromise may be the best solution. The outline for such a compromise is presented. 16 References. J. Ferrari