Suchergebnisse

Winner of the North American Society for Social Philosophy's major prize - The Most Important Social Philosophy Title to be Published in 2000The mass movement of people across the globe constitutes a major feature of world politics today.Whatever the cause of the movement - often war, famine, economic hardship, political repression or climate change - the governments of western capitalist states see this 'torrent of people in flight' as a serious threat to their stability and the scale of this migration indicates a need for a radical re-thinking of both political theory and practice, for the sake of political, social and economic justice.This book argues that there is at present a serious gap between the legal and social practices of immigration and naturalisation in liberal democratic states and any theoretical justification for such practices that can be made within the tradition of liberal political philosophy. How can liberal states develop institutions of democratic citizenship and at the same time justifiably exclude 'outsiders' from participating in those institutions? The book examines various responses to this contradiction within the liberal tradition, and finds none of them satisfactory - there are no consistently liberal justifications for immigration control and this has serious implications both for liberal practice and theory.Key FeaturesAn original contribution to political philosophy - fills a significant gap in the marketA comprehensive review and critique of theoretical arguments within political philosophy which attempt to justify practices of exclusionAn outline of a radical position on that questionA review of immigration and naturalisation practices of liberal democratic states including the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New ZealandApplies theoretical perspectives to the practices of immigration and naturalisation

In this paper I re-state the egalitarian argument against the morality of immigration controls: such limits violate the central ethical commitment to moral equality. This means that immigration controls fail a fundamental moral test and represent the ethical failure of the liberal project of moral equality. I set this re-statement against recent arguments about what moral equality means, specifically Christopher Heath Wellman's use of Elizabeth Anderson's notion of relational equality. Wellman believes that Anderson's ideas seriously damage the egalitarian argument, but I argue that this is a misreading of her account. I conclude that any liberal attempt to morally justify immigration controls must fail through committing the basic logical error of 'begging the question'.