Migration and Political Theory. Gillian Brock
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Migration and Political Theory - Gillian Brock страница 11

Название: Migration and Political Theory

Автор: Gillian Brock

Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited

Жанр: Афоризмы и цитаты

Серия:

isbn: 9781509535248

isbn:

СКАЧАТЬ from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam in the wake of that war, settling close to one million refugees at that time.

      What about when the number of refugees is very large? Walzer admits that there are limits to our collective liability to take in needy strangers, but it is difficult to know how to specify such limits. Ultimately, the right to restrict entrants remains an important aspect in our ability to have communal self-determination and to preserve our cultural identity. We continue to discuss issues concerning refugees in the next chapter, but for the purposes of this chapter it is important to appreciate that Walzer recognizes significant limits on the right to self-determination, even while he defends such rights.

       2.1.2 Freedom of association

      Christopher Wellman’s prominent argument for strong rights to restrict immigrants relies crucially on the importance of freedom of association. He argues that legitimate states (i.e. ones that respect basic moral rights) have a right to political self-determination and that freedom of association is a crucial component of self-determination. Freedom of association entails that states also have a right to refrain from associating and so a right to deny prospective immigrants entry to their territory. In short, a state has the right to exclude those with whom it does not wish to associate.

      In addition to the case Wellman makes for self-determination grounded in the importance of freedom of association, he also argues against proponents of more open borders. For instance, while egalitarians make a powerful case for being concerned with the global disadvantaged, there is insufficient reason for that concern to take the form of open borders. Opening borders is neither the only nor even the best way to assist the global poor. These are issues I consider further in later sections.

      Many of Wellman’s arguments proceed by analogy with how freedom of association operates for individuals and small groups. However, one might challenge whether we can infer anything about the state from those examples. In the case of friendships, marriages, or religious associations, we have intimate or expressive associations in which freedom of association might matter a great deal (Fine 2010: 353). However, with states we have qualitatively different kinds of groups. In the case of states, freedom of association does not matter in the same kind of fundamental way and so cannot carry the argumentative burden required to exclude prospective immigrants.

      One way to deepen the argument in response to such concerns might be to argue that there is something special about our association with others, namely in what we have created together and to which we therefore have a right. Ryan Pevnick’s arguments might be construed in this light.

       2.1.3 Ownership of institutions

      So, on this account, when citizens construct schemes for mutual benefit, such as pension programs or publicly provided healthcare, they gain control over the benefits and resources that these schemes create. After all, it is their efforts and contributions that have generated the central resources that make those states desirable immigration targets.

      If Pevnick’s arguments are compelling, then there is a kind of collective ownership over the state’s institutions, though he also concedes that this ownership claim would have limits “including responsibilities toward non-owners” (Pevnick 2011: 12). While he might concede that those from impoverished countries should be allowed to move, this conclusion would still fall considerably short of allowing all free access.

       2.1.4 Arguments for closed borders in virtue of the costs of open borders

      One worry is that if borders are open, the scale of migration to high-income countries would be so great that the economies of those high-income countries would be challenged in various ways. States would be unable to fulfill obligations to their citizens; for instance, they would be unable to sustain a vibrant economy СКАЧАТЬ