Normative political theory over recent decades has focused mainly on what ought to be done as far as migration policies are concerned. It faces a basic challenge, which stems from two competing, yet equally fundamental, ideals underpinning liberal democratic societies: a commitment to moral universalism and the exclusionary requirement of democracy. The objective of this special issue, ‘New Challenges in Immigration Theory’, is to provide a conceptual overview of (some) immigration theories and to highlight the challenges new streams of immigration (...) pose for normative (political) theory and liberal democratic practice. The issue will consider how to reconcile state-based exclusion with a commitment to equal moral concern for all persons, by focusing on the non-standard immigration questions that have so far been ‘neglected’ by normative political theory. In line with this objective, the issue will discuss some of the inadequacies of the dominant political theories of immigration and show how such theories can be expanded to take account of new migration challenges such as brain drain, climate migration, detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, rights of labour migrants, transnational networks of movement, and so on. (shrink)

In this thesis, I examine what makes a migration policy “just” by focussing on the following question: Is a policy of open borders the only morally defensible option or are there legitimate reasons for excluding would-be immigrants from entering? I reason that absent a global constitutional framework to determine and secure the relevant rights and duties at stake, potential immigrants lack a legitimate general right to immigrate since states bear no corresponding general duty to let them in. In the same (...) breath, because would-be immigrants do not owe states a general duty not to immigrate, states lack a legitimate general right to exclude. Does it mean then that states cannot exclude potential immigrants, at all? I posit that a state may prevent a would-be immigrant from entering if there is evidence to show that such an individual poses a threat to the life and property of residents of the receiving state. My justification is that since residents delegate their individual right to self-help to the state, a state owes its residents a jurisdictional duty to secure the necessary condition for pursuing compatible conceptions of the good life. And given that a state exercises the delegated right to self-help internally by restricting the movement of persons that offend or threaten law and order, it would be unjust if the state fails to arrest threats from without. Finally, I propose what I call “temporary citizenship” as a fair system of migration predicated upon a jurisdiction-based citizenship acquisition. According to this proposal, all residents should be citizens irrespective of the duration of their stay. In view of the normative ideal requiring reflexivity between subjection to the law and authorship of the law, I conclude that the exercise of governmental power over non-citizen residents amounts to tyranny and therefore an illegitimate exercise of authority over them; therefore, immigrants should be admitted as citizens. The implication is that while protecting the life and property of all residents, the government can also exact from all residents the corresponding duties without distinction. (shrink)

As far as immigration theory is concerned, the attempt to reconcile concern for all persons with the reality of state boundaries and exclusionary policies has proved difficult within the limits of normative liberal political philosophy. However, the realpolitik of migration in today's environment forces a major paradigm shift. We must move beyond standard debates between those who argue for more open borders and those who argue for more closed borders. This book aims to show that a realistic utopia of political (...) theory of immigration is possible, but argues that to do so we must focus on expanding the boundaries of what are familiar normative positions in political theory. Theorists must better inform themselves of the concrete challenges facing migration policies: statelessness, brain drain, migrant rights, asylum policies, migrant detention practices, climate refugees, etc. We must ask: what is the best we can and ought to wish for in the face of these difficult migration challenges. Blake, Carens, and Cole offer pieces that outline the major normative questions in the political theory of immigration. The positions these scholars outline are challenged by the pieces contributed by Lister, Ottonelli, Torresi, Sager, and Silverman. These latter pieces force the reformulation of the central positions in normative political theory of immigration. This book was originally published as a special issue of New Challenges in Immigration Theory. (shrink)