Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Social-scientific and moral questions about immigration

-What is best for us?, with the presumption on immigration policies justifiable to those who live in country.
-Political theorist Chandran Kukathas, Modern states are like clubs that are reluctant to accept new members unless they can
be assured that they have more to gain by admitting people than they have by keeping them out. All about advantages can
the state gained from immigration.
- What is beneficial for one segment may not be for others
- George Borjas view on immigration.
- Immigration may benefit some American but at the same time, it is at the expense of others.
- it creates a situation of Winner and Loser, especially in labor market
- Law of regulating immigration raise social science questions welfare system,
-moral question: how can we define borders.
- Something related to Immigration constraint, discretionary immigration and also illegal immigration

Immigration: ideal vs non-ideal theory


-Immigration generates considerable challenges proposed change is plausible only if other also change
-Example on immigrants will lower the low-income worker, they try to condemn on the social policy measure on securing the
wage
-He thinks that immigration under conditions of ideal theory if he can assume that in other regards the world as it should be as
far as justice is concerned.
-IDEAL THEORY: THE WORLD CONSISTS OF A MULTITUTDE OF STATES IN WHICH EVERYBODY HAS A MINIMUM OF PROVISIONS TO
LIVE A DECENT LIFE.
- In real life, we should consider it with non-ideal theory with
-NON-IDEAL SITUATION: CLOSED BORDER AND OPEN BORDER, ADDITONAL CHANGES ARE NEEDED IF SUCH POLICIES WERE TO
BE IMPLEMENTED.
- Collective responsibility of the global order to make sure all people can meet basic needs
Immigration is a way to improve the situation of the poor
Remittance when the poor immigrate
- Immigration causing brain-drain (Losing talented citizens from origin), NEGATIVE POINT
- Brain-drain can motivate a country development to acquire skill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case for close borders


- One prominent stance on immigration by political theorist Michael Walzer
-Communities have claim to territory to develop their character, not just any number of people can occupy any amount of
space Meaning of membership
-A country that defines its identity in terms of ethnicity should permit immigration by those who share their ethnicity all
about spiritual
-David Miller offers discussions of immigration constraint. First, he rejects reasons for open border.
1. An appeal to a plain right to free movement
2. A presumed right to exit requires a right to enter other countries.
3. International distributive justice
~ There is remedial right to move somewhere else temporarily to avoid starvation basic need
Second, having right to exit not equal to have unlimited right to enter. UDHR article 13 and 14
Third, international distributive of justice is just about equality of opportunity.
prefers to help improve condition where ppl already live rather than share context of valuing goods
TWO positive reasons for limiting immigration
1. Immigration can change the shared public culture
2. Its size can affect the quality of life and preservation of the natural environment
Argument by Christopher Wellman(presumption of self-determination people)
1. A right to self-determination entitles countries to associate with others.
2. Significance of freedom of association to peoples lives, immigrants want to shape their countries for the best good for
countries
3. Weight of responsibility entailed by shared membership. They have special responsibilities to share in such relationship

Proportionate use: Collective ownership of the earth and immigration


- help to access the significance of freedom of association
- Example of the US to explain collective ownership, we can expel all immigrants out if there is a disease which reduce the
number of americans till 3 of them.
- Disadvantage to use freedom of association: Entirely ignore how much space is occupied
-Indicator to show is there any overusing of resources immigration policies/ quotas
- A measure to evaluate a regions overall usefulness for human activities
-Vs is the value of the collectively owned resources on Ss territory. It includes biophysical conditions like climate and location on
the globe.
- Vs/Ps: per-capita use rate of commonly owned resources
- Vs/Ps also consisting non-circulating resources like unmined mineral take into account on how those stocks can turn into flow
of resources instead of current flow
-UNDERUSED: Vs/Ps > Average; OVERUSED: Vs/Ps< Average
- If a country is not underusing, other can expected to accept its immigration policies.
- Immigration is permissible when all states are having similar Vs/Ps

Can we measure proportionate use?


- Question on measuring the amount usage of resources meaningfully.
- They are Fluctuated by human activities,
- What to be include or exclude in measuring our resources
-Netherland can turn into prime land. Debate on why Netherland become prime land due the high usefulness of region rather
than human ingenuity
- Netherland is in high population, products of ingenuity may be a factor
- Debate between outsider and the Dutch on outsider are not allow to get their resources because they are achieved by
predecessor
-Two sources of doubt: 1. Accomplishment was made by the interaction (no matter others
are voluntary or not) with others.
2. Their acts cannot generate claims that resonate through the ages to the
benefit of relatively few. Example on the first comer might legitimately
claim the land but they cannot entitle their offspring to exclude others

- common resources : Resource improved by technology which is readily available.


- on dutch case, their polder-diks can become prime land because of commonly available technology or any other
ideas/practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Elaboration on proportionate use
- Would-be immigrants wish to enter other countries because of economic opportunities
- writers view on collective ownership: THE EARTH MUST BE SHARED AMONG ALL HUMAN BEINGS AND MUST BE SHARED
FAIRLY.
- Immigration no longer arise if once basic needs are taken care and ppl are distributed with resources or spaces
- Have raise opinions or reason why countries may have to choose immigrants
reason on proportionate use
choose young ppl for a country with demographic problem
choose ppl who share of its culture in a homogenous culture country
STRIKE A BALANCE, proportionate use, avoid underusing
- Two worries
1. It set perverse incentives, the problem of underusing can be solved by increasing the population.
explain: impact on perverse incentives is minimal
2. Immigration exacerbate the environmental burden
explain: sustainable development must come along with suitable immigration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case for open border


1.

Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism:
(should not give different treatments to ppl of different races , sexes etc. becoz these features are not related to morality)
Everyone should be put under the same scope for moral consideration
e.g. The Dutch did not do anything to have a better life than others > it just happened, Dutch are just luckier than others

(*Clarification of terms:
Membership in a state:
- IS morally arbitrary (like race, sex, ethnicity) i.e. it is not due to any moral reasons (We did not do anything to be born in a
certain state)
- IS NOT morally irrelevant i.e. membership in a state implies moral obligations to follow in order to be a member)
2.

Libertarianism
Freedom and Humanity
Though liberals suggest that the insiders interests should be protected, but border control is actually harmful to both the
insiders and the excluded outsiders interests
e.g. Suppose a farmer from the United States wanted to hire workers from Mexico. The government would have no right to
prohibit him from doing this. To prevent the Mexicans from coming would violate the rights of both the American farmer and the
Mexican workers to engage in voluntary transactions. (Carens 1987: 253)
(Thus violate individual rights)
3. Democratic views
Democratic principles (justification to all the coerced) are incompatible with unilateral border control
i.e.itwouldbeimpermissibleforastatetoforciblyrestrictoutsiderswithoutfirstgivingtheseoutsidersasaytodecidewhetherornottoadoptthisrestrictive
immigrationpolicy.
4. Utilitarianism
Restricting immigration may undermine economic efficiency no full use of external labor force, give away potential economic
opportunities

Partial citizenship - just or unjust?


Just: ?
Unjust: exploitation

Discretionary Immigration
-immigration of people who are not entitled to immigrate
- goes beyond what states are morally required to do.
- Discretionary immigration will be discharged the obligation/ Non-discretionary one aims at making a full-member of the
society.
- Michael Blake: Partial citizenship, but it has a concern on ppl will be exploitative, contribute to unjust global order
Immigration
An argument to support legalizing illegal immigrants
Law motion of adverse possession
Open occupation of property by people who do not own it, GIVEN THAT THE OWNER LNOW OF THE SITUATION
Become the mainstay of parts of the economy
Create pressure to facilitate adjustment of status for illegal immigrants