Eminent political theorist Joseph Carens tests the limits of democratic theory in the realm of immigration, arguing that any acceptable immigration policy must be based on moral principles even if it conflicts with the will of the majority.

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. (shrink)

This book makes a significant contribution to the contemporary debate about multiculturalism and democratic theory. It reflects upon the ways in which claims about culture and identity are advanced by immigrants, national minorities, aboriginals, and other groups. It argues that liberal democrats should provide recognition and support for minority cultures and identities, and examines case studies from a number of different societies to show how theorists can learn about justice.

Suggests that illegal immigrants should be offered a path to citizenship.

Irregular migrants are morally entitled to a wide range of legal rights, including basic human and civil rights. Therefore, states ought to create a firewall between those charged with protecting and enforcing these rights and those charged with enforcing immigration laws.

Muchas personas pobres y oprimidas dejan sus paísesen el tercer mundo para veniralas ricas sociedades occidentales. Este artículo sostiene que hay pocas justificaciones para mantenerlos fuera. Su inspiración abreva de tres aproximaciones contemporáneas a la teoría política-la de Rawls, la de Nozick y el utilitarismo para construir argumentos a favor de la apertura de fronteras. El hecho de que, a pesar de sus significativos desacuerdos en otros temas, en esta materia las tres teorías converjan en las mismas conclusiones, fortalece el (...) argumento a favor de la apertura de fronteras y revela su fundamentación en nuestro compromiso en respetar a todos los seres humanos como personas morales libres e iguales. La parte final del ensayo considera los argumentos comunitaristas que objetan la anterior conclusión, en especial los formulados por Michael Walzer. (shrink)

This article explores normative questions about what legal rights settled immigrants should have in liberal democratic states. It argues that liberal democratic justice, properly understood, greatly constrains the distinctions that can be made between citizens and residents. The longer people stay in a society, the stronger their moral claims become, and after a while they pass a threshold that entitles them to virtually the same legal status as citizens and eventually easy access to citizenship itself.

This article explores the advantages of using a range of actual cases in doing political theory. This sort of approach clarifies what is at stake in alternative theoretical formulations, draws attention to the wisdom that may be embedded in existing practices, and encourages theorists to confront challenges they might otherwise overlook and to think through the implications of their accounts more fully.

Moral philosophers are fond of the dictum “ought implies can” and even deontologists normally admit the need to take account of consequences in the design of social institutions. Too often, however, philosophers fail to take advantage of the knowledge provided by the social sciences about the constraints and consequences of alternative forms of social organization. By discussing ideals in abstraction from the problems of institutionalization, they fail at least to see some of the important consequences and costs of a proposed (...) ideal, and sometimes they fail even to understand the ideal itself. (shrink)

For this collection entitled “After Socialism,” we were asked to reflect upon such questions as what rectifications to present market capitalist systems might be desirable and whether there is any viable remnant in the socialist ideal that ought to be preserved. My basic answer to the latter is that the socialist principle of distribution “From each according to abilities, to each according to needs” remains a compelling moral ideal, superior to the resigned, complacent, or enthusiastic acceptance of economic inequality that (...) is offered by defenders of conventional capitalism and by many versions of liberalism. And so, my answer to the former is that the rectifications to present market capitalist systems that would be desirable would be to reduce the deep injustices and social malformations of these systems as much as possible by moving their distributive outcomes in the direction of the socialist ideal. (shrink)

Moral philosophers are fond of the dictum “ought implies can” and even deontologists normally admit the need to take account of consequences in the design of social institutions. Too often, however, philosophers fail to take advantage of the knowledge provided by the social sciences about the constraints and consequences of alternative forms of social organization. By discussing ideals in abstraction from the problems of institutionalization, they fail at least to see some of the important consequences and costs of a proposed (...) ideal, and sometimes they fail even to understand the ideal itself. (shrink)

ABSTRACTLibertarians like John Tomasi, who care about social justice, must say more about which economic freedoms matter and why they matter if they hope to persuade liberal egalitarians to adopt their approach. In particular, they must clarify the preconditions of equal freedom and explore more fully the relationship between security and freedom. They must also address questions about collective-action problems and the extent to which the modern corporation should be viewed as an outgrowth and expression of individual freedom. Finally, libertarians (...) should engage more fully with recent feminist literature that challenges the ideal of market-centered self-authorship that Tomasi celebrates. (shrink)

Will Kymlicka’s new book makes important conceptual, methodological, and substantive contributions to contemporary discussions of multiculturalism. Nevertheless, Kymlicka’s attempt to construct a defense of special rights for minority cultural groups on the basis of his conception of “societal culture” entails implications that are both too radical and too restrictive with regard to the kinds of minority claims they support. In particular, Kymlicka’s account undermines the claims of immigrant minorities to the sorts of special rights that Kymlicka thinks they are entitled (...) to demand. (shrink)

What is and what ought to be the relationship between empirical research and normative analysis with respect to migration policies? The paper addresses this question from the perspective of political theory, asking about the place of empirical research in philosophical discussions of migration, and, for the most part, leaving to others questions about what role, if any, normative considerations do and should play in empirical research on migration. At the outset the paper also takes note of one important way in (...) which empirical research can and should contribute to normative discussions of migration, quite apart from its role in contributing to political philosophy. DOI: 10.17879/15199614880. (shrink)

In Is Quebec Nationalism Just? contributors explore Quebec's relationship with the rest of Canada from a normative perspective. The case of Quebec is interesting, both politically and philosophically, because it epitomizes the puzzle of liberal nationalism. While nationalism is often assumed to be inherently illiberal and regressive, the authors of these essays argue that Quebecers' desire to control their own political destiny is not fuelled by hostility to liberalism. On the contrary, they conclude that Quebecers are at least as deeply (...) committed to liberal values, institutions, and practices as people in the rest of Canada. (shrink)

Este artículo quiere ofrecer una visión general de lo que la justicia demanda respecto a la admisión de inmigrantes en Europa y en América del Norte si se aceptan dos presupuestos generales: un derecho general de los Estados a controlar la inmigración y el compromiso con los principios liberal-democráticos. El artículo argumenta que los Estados están moralmente constreñidos en cuanto a los tipos de criterios que pueden utilizar para excluir y seleccionar inmigrantes. En particular, normalmente no pueden utilizar criterios raciales (...) o étnicos en la selección. Más aún, los Estados tienen la obligación de admitir como inmigrantes a los parientes cercanos , o a los ya ciudadanos, a los residentes permanentes y tienen la obligación de aceptar a los refugiados que solicitan asilo. (shrink)

To a large extent, the differences between my four interlocutors and me have more to do with the way we choose to frame a question or approach a problem than with substantive disagreements. In her discussion of temporary workers and the brain drain, Gillian Brock implicitly assumes a different background framework of moral responsibility from the one I adopt in my book. Similarly, Cécile Fabre asks important questions about the intersection of immigration and criminal justice, but ones that I chose (...) not to pursue in quite the same way or, in some cases, at all. Matthias Risse says that political theory should be ‘action-guiding’, and I try to problematize that claim, at least to the extent that it limits the questions we can ask. Finally, I applaud the attention that Sarah Song brings to the link between political community and social membership but resist her suggestion that this shows that political community is more fundamental than social membership. I also suggest the need to clarify further the limits to democratic self-determination. (shrink)

"First published by Oxford University Press, 1916."--Title page verso.