Immigration: PHIL 365

Immigration
PHIL 365
Week 9
November 3, 2021
PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 1 / 18

Further readings
Joseph Carens (1987). “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open
Borders”.
Joseph Carens (2013). The Ethics of Immigration
Lorna Finlayson (2020). ”If This Isn’t Racism, What Is? The Politics
of the Philosophy of Immigration”.
Chandran Kukathas (2020). Immigration and Freedom.
Wellman, Christopher (2008). ”Immigration and Freedom of
Association”.
David Miller (1995). “Immigration: The Case for Limits.”

Table of Contents
1 Immigration control: prevailing attitudes and defenses
2 Self-determination and the right to exclude
3 Fine & Ypi’s challenges to the right to exclude
4 Race and the right to exclude

Table of Contents

Immigration in Canada





Traditional arguments for immigration
1 Freedom of movement: immigration controls limit the freedom of mvt

of foreigners, which is a fundamental freedom and which is necessary
for equality of opportunity.


2 Economic efficiency: immigration controls limit the free mvt of labor,
which means there will be unmet demand and supply of labor in
various parts of the world.


2 Economic efficiency: immigration controls limit the free mvt of labor,
which means there will be unmet demand and supply of labor in
various parts of the world.
3 Humanitarian concerns: immigration control condemns millions of
people to abject poverty, misery, and sometimes death.

Traditional worries surrounding immigration
1 Integration: excessive immigration undermines social solidarity and

support for the welfare state.


2 Income inequality: higher labor mobility puts downward pressure on
the wages of native workers and increase corporate earnings in net
host countries.


host countries.
3 Job security: immigration increases unemployment among native
workers.


Alesina and Glaeser (2004): ethnic fractionalization cited as reason for
the US’s weaker welfare state
Lipset and Marks (2000) & Wilensky (2002): ethnic homogeneity was
historically important in building class mobilization
Mau and Burkhardt (2009): immigration negatively correlated with
concern over income inequality
host countries.
workers.


Semyonov and colleagues (2006): no effect of immigration on attitudes
to the welfare state in 2000.
Brady and Finnigan (2013): between 1996 & 2000, big increases in
immigration had no impact on welfare attitudes. This non-effect is
invariant to the ethnic makeup of immigrants.
host countries.
workers.


Table of Contents

Overall sketch of the argument
Liberal “nationalists:” just states have a right to exclude from their

territory individuals whom they do not wish to extend membership to.
This right derives from the fundamental right of the state’s citizens to
self-determination.


self-determination.
Citizens of a state, just like members of a golf club, have a right to decide
whether to admit new members, and under which terms.


self-determination.
Citizens of a state, just like members of a golf club, have a right to decide
whether to admit new members, and under which terms.
−→ Fundamental to self-determination is control over the “self.”

What justifies the collective right of self-determination?
1 Wellman (2008): just states have a protected right to freedom of

association, and the freedom to associate with whom one pleases
entails a right not to associate, i.e. a right to exclude.


Where does the right to freedom of association come from?


Where does the right to freedom of association come from?
Wellman: no clue, but it’s clear that this right exists. It’s clearly wrong
to annex another country through conquest, and countries manifestly
have a right to refuse to join international agreements and organisms.


2 Pevnik (2011): citizens of a state have a say over the composition of
the state because they have invested in it.

When labor is (1) beyond what is required, morally, that one do

for others; (2) produces some-thing which would not have existed
except for it; and (3) its product is something which others lose
nothing by being excluded from; then (4) it is not wrong for pro-
ducers to exclude othersfrom the possession, use, etc. of the fruits
of their labors...(Becker, qted in Pevnick 34,author’s emphasis).


2 Pevnik (2011): citizens of a state have a say over the composition of
the state because they have invested in it.
3 Miller (2005): just states have a duty to protect their distinct
national culture, a duty that is undermined by excessive immigration.

Table of Contents

Territory
What connects the right to self-determination with the right to control

who can come in and out and reside in a territory?

Territory

Democracy: it would be unjust to allow foreigners to take up
long-term residence in a state yet deny them a voice in the state.

Territory

−→ The only way for states to exert their right to control the “self”
without such injustice is for the state to exclude prospective members
altogether, i.e. control immigration.

Territory

−→ The only way for states to exert their right to control the “self”
without such injustice is for the state to exclude prospective members
altogether, i.e. control immigration.

Territory

Observation: this justification doesn’t support a right to exclude short-term

residents, or to control who comes in and out of a state’s territory.
If the state can’t exclude short-term residents, at which point can it
exclude a non-native resident?

Territory


−→ Well obviously when they overstay their welcome!

Territory


−→ You mean when they stay for longer than a short term? I.e. when
they’ve already been on the territory for a long term?

Territory


−→ But if they’ve stayed that long already, doesn’t the state have a duty to
grant them a voice in the state?

Territory


−→ But if they’ve stayed that long already, doesn’t the state have a duty to
grant them a voice in the state?
Unless something more is said, it’s not obvious that the right to exclude
really is consistent with the state’s obligation to grant membership to
long-term residents.

Territory

More seriously, let’s grant:

Territory


P1 There are some legitimate states (e.g. Canada, France, NZ,...)

Territory


P2 If a state is legitimate, then it is entitled to control some territory
whose residents it represents.

Territory


This does not entail legitimate states claim are entitled to control the
actual territories they claim for themselves.

Territory


∃xP(x) ̸=⇒ P(a)

Territory


Indeed, why should we believe that, considering the history of how
these territories were acquired?

Territory


Indeed, why should we believe that, considering the history of how
these territories were acquired?
−→ Principle of justice in transfer with a vengeance!

Competing interests
Humanitarian concerns and the interests of immigrants fleeing desperate

circumstances compete with the right of the state to control its territory.

Competing interests

This point is unlikely to move anyone who lacks strong humanitarian
impulses.

Competing interests

This point is unlikely to move anyone who lacks strong humanitarian
impulses.
e.g.: cry me a river, bleeding heart. Just because you badly want to
come into my home, and you will spend a very miserable sleeping
outside if I don’t let you in doesn’t mean I have a duty to let you in.
If I don’t wanna, tough luck. My house, my decision.

Who is the “self” in self-determination?
Observation: Immigrants and native residents are not natural kinds,

they’re largely conventional entities:


A baby born in Canada is a Canadian citizen, but a baby born in
Japan is not.



Japan is not.
A permanent resident of Canada who has lived in Canada for 3 out of
a 5-year period, speaks one official language, and does not illegally
evade taxes can become a citizen by passing a test, but to become a
naturalized Chinese citizen you need Chinese relatives.


Japan is not.
Under Theresa May, the UK counted international students as
immigrants.


Japan is not.
Under Theresa May, the UK counted international students as
immigrants.
Between 1971 and 1983, all British subjects had the right of abode,
and still today commonwealth citizens residing in the UK have the
right to vote in all elections.


If the legitimacy of a policy or act of exclusion by a self-determining

community depends sensitively on who is a member of that community,
there had better be a canonical way of identifying the members of the
community.

Suggestions:

Suggestions:
The community = the nation!

Suggestions:
But state boundaries don’t match national boundaries: most states
include multiple national groups, and nations are spread across states.

Suggestions:
But state boundaries don’t match national boundaries: most states
include multiple national groups, and nations are spread across states.
You can’t just mean “nation” in the legally fictitious sense of the
people who make up the members of a state.

Suggestions:
The community = the association of Lockean owners/investors!

Suggestions:
This overgenerates: foreign investors count, as do members of foreign
states that give aid.

Suggestions:
This overgenerates: foreign investors count, as do members of foreign
states that give aid.
This undergenerates: it excludes children and those who are net
beneficiaries of the state.

Suggestions:
The community = those subject to the state’s authority?

Suggestions:
The community = those subject to the state’s authority?
Again, this overgenerates: tons of people outside the state’s boundaries
are subject (long-term) to its authority, and indeed all short-term
residents are subject to the state’s authority.

Table of Contents

Racism and immigration control
Immigration has historically been racist:


White Australia policy 1901, Aliens Act 1905, Chinese Immigration
Act 1923,...


Act 1923,...
Indeed, immigration control was historically involved in the
construction of race.


Act 1923,...
Indeed, immigration control was historically involved in the
construction of race.
Takao Ozawa v. U.S (1922) & U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923)
helped establish the category of “asian” by ruling that Japanese and
Indians were ineligible for U.S. citizenship because they were not white.
The Johnson-Reed Act (1924) officialized the category of “Asian” as a
separate racial category, ineligible for citizenship.

Immigration has historically been racist, and much of it still is:


The U.K.’s two-tiered treatment of commonwealth citizens,
Immigration raids mostly targeting communities of color, Australia’s
asylum policy, the prevalence of jus sanguinis, the U.S.’s 2016-2020
“muslim ban,” immigration controls in developed countries are tighter
on African and Asian nations...

There’s reason to worry that immigration control can’t avoid being

inflected by race:


inflected by race:
Immigration control, so long as it is selective, necessarily involves
drawing distinctions between insiders and outsiders, between
“desirable” and “undesirable” outsiders, and between insiders who do
or do not “look” like outsiders.


inflected by race:
Immigration control, so long as it is selective, necessarily involves
drawing distinctions between insiders and outsiders, between
“desirable” and “undesirable” outsiders, and between insiders who do
or do not “look” like outsiders.
“The imperative to manage, control, and limit immigration,
particularly in liberal democracies, is partly the result of the political
pressure exerted by elements of the population that are wary of, if not
altogether hostile to, the movement of strangers into their midst.”
(Kukathas 2020, p. 109).

Sarah Fine’s Challenge
Whatever we think of the permissibility of immigration control generally,

racist immigration control is unjust. If you wish to defend the right of
states to exclude, your defense should have the resources to:


1 Recognize the injustice of racist immigration control.


2 Explain why it is unjust.


3 Prescribe how states – as they are ACTUALLY are, i.e. imperfect,
vulnerable to political pressure – can solve/avoid implementing racist
immigration policies.


3 Prescribe how states – as they are ACTUALLY are, i.e. imperfect,
vulnerable to political pressure – can solve/avoid implementing racist
immigration policies.
Fine: can you do it? I’m skeptical

Why is discrimination is a problem?
Wellman is torn: it’s not permissible to force racists to marry someone

outside their race. This would be an unconscionable violation of their
freedom of association. So why isn’t it an unconscionable violation of
states’ right to freedom of association to force them to admit immigrants
of a race the state dislikes?

Miller: immigrants’ rights to freedom of movement cannot be lightly

infringed. They are owed an acceptable explanation for their exclusion,
and “because you’re [race X]” is not an acceptable explanation.


(a) Race doesn’t connect with anything of significance to a liberal society.


(b) It’s insulting to be denied a valuable good on such grounds.


−→ implicitly concedes that if race were of significance to a liberal society,

then racial discrimination would be fine.


−→ implicitly concedes that if race were of significance to a liberal society,

then racial discrimination would be fine.
−→ this is besides the point. One can be insulted by being denied entry on
grounds other than race, and insult doesn’t remotely look like the
primary or relevant injury.

Wellman: liberal states are required to treat their own citizens equally –
without regard for race, sex, gender, religion, etc.

Were states today to try to select immigrants on grounds of eth-

nicity, as many states have done in the past, they would be seen to
violate the equal citizenship status of their existing ethnic minori-
ties. By giving preference to those of a particular ethnocultural
background, the state unavoidably declares that the culture in
question is superior, thereby undermining its attempts to treat all
cultures even-handedly in its domestic policy. (Miller 2008, p. 19)

Fine: ok, so racist discrimination is fine so long as the state is racially

homogeneous?/contains no members of the disrespected category?


−→ this doesn’t really seem to recover the intuitive data.


−→ this doesn’t really seem to recover the intuitive data.
−→ it’s also ripe for abuse given the arbitrary nature of racial
classifications.

Immigration: PHIL 365

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immigration: PHIL 365

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immigration

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 1 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 2 / 18

1 Immigration control: prevailing attitudes and defenses

2 Self-determination and the right to exclude

3 Fine & Ypi’s challenges to the right to exclude

4 Race and the right to exclude

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 3 / 18

1 Immigration control: prevailing attitudes and defenses

2 Self-determination and the right to exclude

3 Fine & Ypi’s challenges to the right to exclude

4 Race and the right to exclude

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 4 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 5 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 5 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 5 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 5 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 5 / 18

1 Freedom of movement: immigration controls limit the freedom of mvt

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 6 / 18

1 Freedom of movement: immigration controls limit the freedom of mvt

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 6 / 18

1 Freedom of movement: immigration controls limit the freedom of mvt

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 6 / 18

1 Integration: excessive immigration undermines social solidarity and

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 7 / 18

1 Integration: excessive immigration undermines social solidarity and

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 7 / 18

1 Integration: excessive immigration undermines social solidarity and

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 7 / 18

1 Integration: excessive immigration undermines social solidarity and

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 7 / 18

1 Integration: excessive immigration undermines social solidarity and

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 7 / 18

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 7 / 18

1 Immigration control: prevailing attitudes and defenses

2 Self-determination and the right to exclude

3 Fine & Ypi’s challenges to the right to exclude

4 Race and the right to exclude

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 8 / 18

Liberal “nationalists:” just states have a right to exclude from their

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 9 / 18

Liberal “nationalists:” just states have a right to exclude from their

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 9 / 18

Liberal “nationalists:” just states have a right to exclude from their

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 9 / 18

1 Wellman (2008): just states have a protected right to freedom of

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 10 / 18

1 Wellman (2008): just states have a protected right to freedom of

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 10 / 18

1 Wellman (2008): just states have a protected right to freedom of

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 10 / 18

1 Wellman (2008): just states have a protected right to freedom of

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 10 / 18

When labor is (1) beyond what is required, morally, that one do

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 10 / 18

1 Wellman (2008): just states have a protected right to freedom of

PHIL 365 (Week 9) Immigration November 3, 2021 10 / 18

1 Immigration control: prevailing attitudes and defenses

2 Self-determination and the right to exclude

3 Fine & Ypi’s challenges to the right to exclude

4 Race and the right to exclude