All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

Two Treatises of Government.

政治自由主义 = Political liberalism

Inclusion and democracy.

The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. By Seyla Benhabib. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 251p. $65.00 cloth, $23.99 paper. Between 1910 and 2000, the world's population more than tripled, from 1.6 to 5.3 billion. The number of persons who live as migrants in countries other than those in which they were born increased nearly sixfold, from 33 million to 175 million, and more than half of this increase has occurred since 1965. Almost 20 million of these are refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons. In her book, Seyla Benhabib grapples with both the political and moral implications of this rapid increase in transnational migration, arguing that the central principles that shape our thinking about political membership and state sovereignty are in tension, if not outright contradiction, with one another. “From a philosophical point of view,” she writes, “transnational migrations bring to the fore the constitutive dilemma at the heart of liberal democracies: between sovereign self-determination claims on the one hand and adherence to universal human rights principles on the other” (p. 2). She argues for an internal reconstruction of both, underscoring the significance of membership in bounded communities, while at the same time promoting the cultivation of democratic loyalties that exceed the national state, supporting political participation on the part of citizens and noncitizen residents alike.

The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens

Democracy Across Borders: from Demos to Demoi

PART ONE: ENTRY AND EXIT PART TWO: MIGRATION, EQUALITY, AND JUSTICE PART THREE: MIGRATION AND MEMBERSHIP

Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership

Cosmopolitan liberals have long argued that, contrary to prevailing practices and assumptions, there is a tension between liberal principles, on the one hand, and the coercively enforced borders and exclusive membership practices that are familiar features of nation states, on the other hand. In that vein, it has become common to emphasize the liberal commitments to universalism and moral equality and to highlight the moral arbitrariness of birth place in order to question the relevance of borders in relation to a person’s rights and opportunities. It is notable, too, that liberal principles are often regarded as the universalist antidote to the more particularist or exclusionary tendencies of the other features (sovereignty, nationality, democracy) that make up the modern state. This is one of the reasons why Christopher Heath Wellman’s article “Immigration and Freedom of Association” is so novel and interesting: Wellman puts forward what appears to be a distinctly liberal case for the state’s right to exclude would-be immigrants. As Wellman points out, we must not overlook the potentially exclusionary implications of the liberal commitment to freedom of association. There is a widespread and apparently uncontroversial view of the relationship between free-

/pdf/freedom-of-association-is-not-the-answer-2058jcip5d.pdf

Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer

Many of us take it for granted that states have a right to control the entry and settlement of non-citizens in their territories, and hardly pause to consider or evaluate the moral justifications for immigration controls. For a long time, very few political philosophers showed a great deal of interest in the subject. However, it is now attracting much more attention in the discipline. This article aims to show that we most certainly should not take it for granted that states enjoy a moral right to exclude would-be immigrants. It is neither obvious nor uncontroversial. And if we cannot find adequate justifications for the existence of such a right, then we need to re-evaluate the very backbone of current approaches to immigration policy. The paper begins with an overview of the existing academic debate about the extent of the right to freedom of movement. Next it introduces three arguments in support of the state’s right to exclude would-be immigrants which draw on claims about the collective right to self-determination. Finally it outlines three important challenges faced by these arguments in support of the state’s right to exclude.

The Ethics of Immigration: Self-Determination and the Right to Exclude

Migration in Political Theory

In this paper, I begin a preliminary exploration of the ways in which neo-Roman republicanism, organized as it is around the twin notions of free person and free state, might contribute to the ongoing conversation about the ethics of migration. I extrapolate and sketch distinctively republican responses to the following migration-related issues: refugees, resident non-citizens, international freedom of movement and state rights to exclude would-be immigrants. I indicate areas where I think republicans are on the strongest ground, areas where republicanism’s contribution is limited and areas where republicans face important dilemmas. I examine how these dilemmas might be addressed from within republican theory. The aim is to reflect upon the ethics of migration through the lens of the neo-Roman conception of political liberty, to see what we learn both about enduring questions in the ethics of migration and about the appeal of contemporary republicanism as a political theory.

Sarah Fine

Papers

Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership

Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer

The Ethics of Immigration: Self-Determination and the Right to Exclude

Migration in Political Theory

Non-domination and The Ethics of Migration