Territorial Exclusion: An Argument against Closed Borders
29 Mar 2021-Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy (Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy)-Vol. 19, Iss: 3
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a new form of the exclusion argument against closed borders which escapes this "right to stay put" reply by describing a kind of exclusion that has not been discussed in depth.
Abstract: Supporters of open borders sometimes argue that the state has no pro tanto right to restrict immigration, because such a right would also entail a right to exclude existing citizens for whatever reasons justify excluding immigrants. These arguments can be defeated by suggesting that people have a right to stay put. I present a new form of the exclusion argument against closed borders which escapes this “right to stay put” reply. I do this by describing a kind of exclusion that has not been discussed in depth, which I call “territorial exclusion.” Territorial exclusion is the process according to which the group that wishes to exclude current citizens secedes from the territory in which those citizens reside. I argue that the wrongness of territorial exclusion explains why there is no pro tanto right for a state to exclude immigrants, because otherwise there would be a pro tanto right for the state to kick people out by seceding from the territory they inhabit. Because kicking people out like this is typically wrong, borders cannot be closed.
TL;DR: The Problems of Secession, the Morality of Separation, and the Moral Case Against Secession: A Constitutional Right to Secede as discussed by the authors, is a good summary of the main arguments against and in favor of separation.
Abstract: * The Problems of Secession * The Morality of Secession * The Moral Case Against Secession * A Constitutional Right to Secede * Conclusions
TL;DR: The cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession as mentioned in this paper argues that a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice, and it is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism.
Abstract: I defend the cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession, according to which a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice. I argue that the theory is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism, which is independently attractive, and because, unlike other theories of secession, it allows us to give the answers we want to give in cases like secession of the rich or secession that would make things worse for minorities. I defend the view against the objections that it allows for colonialism and annexation, that it is not a distinct theory, and that it is impractical.
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: Young as mentioned in this paper argues that normative theory and public policy should undermine group-based oppression by affirming rather than suppressing social group difference, and argues for a principle of group representation in democratic publics and for group-differentiated policies.
Abstract: This book challenges the prevailing philosophical reduction of social justice to distributive justice. It critically analyzes basic concepts underlying most theories of justice, including impartiality, formal equality, and the unitary moral subjectivity. Starting from claims of excluded groups about decision making, cultural expression, and division of labor, Iris Young defines concepts of domination and oppression to cover issues eluding the distributive model. Democratic theorists, according to Young do not adequately address the problem of an inclusive participatory framework. By assuming a homogeneous public, they fail to consider institutional arrangements for including people not culturally identified with white European male norms of reason and respectability. Young urges that normative theory and public policy should undermine group-based oppression by affirming rather than suppressing social group difference. Basing her vision of the good society on the differentiated, culturally plural network of contemporary urban life, she argues for a principle of group representation in democratic publics and for group-differentiated policies. "This is an innovative work, an important contribution to feminist theory and political thought, and one of the most impressive statements of the relationship between postmodernist critiques of universalism and concrete thinking.... Iris Young makes the most convincing case I know of for the emancipatory implications of postmodernism." --Seyla Benhabib, State University of New York at Stony Brook
TL;DR: In this paper, complex equality, membership, security and welfare, money and commodities, office, hard work, free time, education, kinship and love, recognition, political power, Tyrannies and just societies.
Abstract: * Complex Equality * Membership * Security and Welfare * Money and Commodities * Office * Hard Work * Free Time * Education * Kinship and Love * Divine Grace * Recognition * Political Power * Tyrannies and Just Societies
TL;DR: The need for workable ideas about the global or international case presents political theory with its most important current task, and even perhaps with the opportunity to make a practical contribution in the long run, though perhaps only the very long run as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: By comparison with the perplexing and undeveloped state of this subject, domestic political theory is very well understood, with multiple highly developed theories offering alternative solutions to well-defined problems By contrast, concepts and theories of global justice are in the early stages of formation, and it is not clear what the main questions are, let alone the main possible answers I believe that the need for workable ideas about the global or international case presents political theory with its most important current task, and even perhaps with the opportunity to make a practical contribution in the long run, though perhaps only the very long run The theoretical and normative questions I want to discuss are closely related to pressing practical questions that we now face about the legitimate path forward in the governance of the world These are, inevitably, questions about institutions, many of which do not yet exist However imperfectly, the nation-state is the primary locus of political legitimacy and the pursuit of justice, and it is one of the advantages of domestic political theory that nation-states actually exist But when we are
TL;DR: Lawler as mentioned in this paper argued that being for the freeze means that one is not for disarmament, which is hardly a rational position in the sense that it is suspect if not immoral, in the eyes of some.
Abstract: that a plurality of the American Catholic bishops endorse a nuclear freeze (p. 4), saying that they are thus "taking their stance with Moscow,55 which is for a freeze, and not with the Vatican, which "is still in favor of disarmament?not a freeze.55 To make any sense at all, Mr. Lawler must mean that being for the freeze means that one is not for disarmament? hardly a rational position. One recalls here the arguments, during the 19305s and 19405s, that being for racial justice in the United States was suspect if not immoral, in the eyes of some, because the communists also favored it.
TL;DR: This article argued that many poor and oppressed people wish to leave their countries of origin in the third world to come to affluent Western societies and that there is little justification for keeping them out.
Abstract: Many poor and oppressed people wish to leave their countries of origin in the third world to come to affluent Western societies. This essay argues that there is little justification for keeping them out. The essay draws on three contemporary approaches to political theory — the Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian — to construct arguments for open borders. The fact that all three theories converge upon the same results on this issue, despite their significant disagreements on others, strengthens the case for open borders and reveals its roots in our deep commitment to respect all human beings as free and equal moral persons. The final part of the essay considers communitarian objections to this conclusion, especially those of Michael Walzer.
Related Papers (5)
30 May 2021