Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
4 pages
1 file
Does the universal right to freedom of movement invalidate the right of states to control and limit immigration?, 2019
Does the universal right to freedom of movement invalidate the right of states to control and limit immigration? In this essay, I will try to prove that the two authors Michael Walzer Christopher Heath Wellman’s assumptions on immigration tend to be rather inaccurate. Specifically, I will concentrate on critiquing Michael Walzer’s conjecture whereby moral and legal societies tend to collimate and that societies common meanings (as intended semiotically) are also indicators of a sovereign nation-state. Furthermore, in this essay I reject Michael Walzer’s focus on giving primacy to the rights of a specific society, therefore incentivizing communitarianism while by-passing individual rights. In fact, my approach to the research question will be guided by the classical theory of liberalism and I will support my argumentation giving space to authors such as John Rawls and his "A theory of Justice" and Joseph H. Carens with his "The Ethics of Immigration". John Rawls and Joseph H. Carens approaches may be resembled in the "Platonic Allegory of the Cave" whereby the best way of going about the issue is “to walk out of the cave, leave the city, climb the mountain, fashion for oneself an objective and universal standpoint” and by all means this point of view is the most universalistic, giving the possibility to develop omni-comprehensive philosophical models to the immigration issue.
Public Reason, 2012
This study is devoted to the ways and means to justify a ‘more’ cosmopolitan realization of certain policy implications, in the case of immigration. The raison d’être of this study is the idea that the contemporary debate over open borders suffers from indeterminate discussions on whether liberal states are entitled to restrict immigration. On the other hand, most of the liberal cosmopolitan accounts neglect the detrimental consequences of their open borders argument – which take it as a means to compensate people in need –, such as brain drain and the effects of brain drain on the opportunity sets of members of sending countries. Therefore I offer a moral cosmopolitan account of immigration which takes the interests of would-be immigrants, the residents in receiving, along with the residents in sending countries in respect to their opportunity sets because of the way arbitrary border control represents the inequality of opportunity. I do not provide a well-formed immigration policy here, yet I believe the account provided here is more feasible in considering phenomena such as brain drain.
In this paper I set out a sketch of a positive case for the human right to freedom of international movement. I argue that this approach must take a distinctive view of human rights. Rather than seeing them as protection against falling below certain levels of basic well being, we should see them as frameworks for the creation of human agency, which is to be understood as possession of the power to be author of one’s own life story. I argue that there needs to be an international dimension to this agency, as people have vital international, as well as national, interests. The migration debate needs to be set within the context of a global migration regime, through which the developed world dominates and exploits the global poor. In order to resist this domination people must have control over when, where, why and how they migrate. It is this element of power and control that makes up the human right to freedom of international movement, rather than the opening of international borders alone.
Ethics & Global Politics, 2013
In this paper I focus on one very influential argument for open borders, the freedom of movement argument, which says that if we value freedom of movement we must demand open borders. I begin the paper the paper by discussing Joseph Carens' well known version of the argument. I then consider, and reject, David Miller's response to that argument. Finally, I develop my own reply to Carens. Both Carens and Miller, I argue, are mistaken about the proper grounds for freedom of movement. Once we see this, it is clear how we can value freedom of movement without being committed to open borders.
The Philosophical Forum, 2005
2007
The study argues that implicit in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of immigration as human rights is supported by principle of positive freedom, negative freedom, and equal autonomy. The study endorses a liberal egalitarian perspective by claiming that human right to immigrate promotes equal autonomy. The study also investigates why the principle of immigration as a human right has been dismissed by doctrines within Liberalism. It argues that a state lacks a legitimacy to employ a principle of national self-determination against the immigration issue. Instead, a state has a moral obligation to the protection of a human right to immigrate; it also has a duty to provide equal social rights to the immigrants in compared with those of the citizens.
ArhIn. I. Medieval Changing Landscape. Settlements, Monasteries and Fortifications. Eds. Ioan M. Tiplic, Maria Crangaci Tiplic. Sibiu, editura ”Astra Museum””, 2016
EDULEARN proceedings, 2017
Saperi segreti. La conoscenza nascosta nel mondo cristiano, ebraico e musulmano tra Medioevo e Rinascimento, 2023
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Management Decision, 2012
International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 2023
The 4th International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Computing (ISPDC'05)
Veterinary surgery : VS, 2016
Clinical Endocrinology, 2015
PROSIDING SEMINAR NASIONAL HASIL PENELITIAN, 2021
British Journal of Educational Technology, 1996
Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2016