My principal objective in this paper is to examine what position liberal egalitarians should take regarding the issue of immigration. Given that liberal egalitarians grant central importance to individual autonomy and...My principal objective in this paper is to examine what position liberal egalitarians should take regarding the issue of immigration. Given that liberal egalitarians grant central importance to individual autonomy and the moral equality of all persons, their rejection of restrictive immigration policies appears to follow from these central normative commitments. Liberal egalitarians such as Joseph Carens and Phillip Cole have argued that those who are committed to individual autonomy and moral equality should advocate for an open borders position in immigration. I argue that it is a serious mistake for liberal egalitarians to advocate open national borders and that borders should instead be strategically regulated to reduce global economic inequalities through immigration policies systematically integrated into development programs for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Open borders would create an open market for immigration slots to choice countries of destination, which out of practical necessity would have to delimit the number of new immigrants. It is well known in migration studies that those who are more educated, young, and have more resources are more likely to migrate than the very young, the elderly, the infirm, and the poorest individuals. Those left behind in developing countries suffer serious negative consequences from the emigration of the most highly educated, capable, and talented individuals in their society. I then argue that liberal egalitarians should grant particular moral consideration to the world＇s poorest and most vulnerable and that immigration policies strategically designed to prioritize their needs are actually more consistent with the dual commitments of individual autonomy and moral equality than an open borders position. I propose three principles of global justice that are consistent with liberal egalitarianism that should guide transnational moral obligations. I end the paper by arguing that two of these principles can be used to justify restricted immigration policies that would enable developed countries to partially discharge some of their moral obligations to developing countries while enhancing the autonomy of the world＇s most vulnerable people.展开更多
文摘My principal objective in this paper is to examine what position liberal egalitarians should take regarding the issue of immigration. Given that liberal egalitarians grant central importance to individual autonomy and the moral equality of all persons, their rejection of restrictive immigration policies appears to follow from these central normative commitments. Liberal egalitarians such as Joseph Carens and Phillip Cole have argued that those who are committed to individual autonomy and moral equality should advocate for an open borders position in immigration. I argue that it is a serious mistake for liberal egalitarians to advocate open national borders and that borders should instead be strategically regulated to reduce global economic inequalities through immigration policies systematically integrated into development programs for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Open borders would create an open market for immigration slots to choice countries of destination, which out of practical necessity would have to delimit the number of new immigrants. It is well known in migration studies that those who are more educated, young, and have more resources are more likely to migrate than the very young, the elderly, the infirm, and the poorest individuals. Those left behind in developing countries suffer serious negative consequences from the emigration of the most highly educated, capable, and talented individuals in their society. I then argue that liberal egalitarians should grant particular moral consideration to the world＇s poorest and most vulnerable and that immigration policies strategically designed to prioritize their needs are actually more consistent with the dual commitments of individual autonomy and moral equality than an open borders position. I propose three principles of global justice that are consistent with liberal egalitarianism that should guide transnational moral obligations. I end the paper by arguing that two of these principles can be used to justify restricted immigration policies that would enable developed countries to partially discharge some of their moral obligations to developing countries while enhancing the autonomy of the world＇s most vulnerable people.
