Liberalism or Immigration Restrictions, but Not Both

Abstract

This paper argues for a dilemma: you can accept liberalism or immigration restrictions, but not both. More specifically, the standard arguments for restricting freedom of movement apply equally to textbook liberal freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, occupation and reproductive choice. We begin with a sketch of liberalism’s core principles and an argument for why freedom of movement is plausibly on a par with other liberal freedoms. Next we argue that, if a state’s right to self-determination grounds a prima facie right to restrict immigration, then it also grounds a prima facie right to restrict freedom of speech, religion, sexual choice and more. We then suggest that the social costs associated with freedom of immigration are also costs associated with occupational choice, speech and reproduction. Thus, a state’s interest in reducing these costs gives it prima facie justification to restrict not only immigration but also other core liberal freedoms. Moreover, we rebut the objection that, even if the standard arguments for a prima facie right to restrict immigration also support a prima facie right to restrict liberal freedoms generally, there are differences that render immigration restrictions – but not restrictions on speech, religion, etc. – justified all things considered. In closing, we suggest that the theoretical price of supporting immigration restrictions – viz., compromising a commitment to liberal principles – is too steep to pay.

Leadership without “the led”: a case study of the South Wales Valleys

“…It emphasises respect for the Other and inclusivity (Brookes, 2017, p. 136). Freedom of movement is fundamental to liberal philosophy (Freiman and Hidalgo, 2016), an issue that represents the fracture line in the Brexit campaign. But, exploring the failure of the Welsh to establish themselves as a nation state, Brookes (2017, p. 131) argues that liberalism is “an ideology which at its very heart discriminates against minorities”.…”

Intentional (Nation‐)States: A Group‐Agency Problem for the State’s Right to Exclude

“…To even qualify as a liberal, you must endorse the importance of protecting so-called 'basic' liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, occupational freedom, freedom of bodily choice, reproductive freedom and so on. 30 As for the rule of law, I follow Jeremy Waldron in thinking that it promotes governance by publicly accessible norms laid down in advance and resists efforts to subvert law according to decree or whim. It also protects citizens from government abuse and ensures that courts remain free from government interference.…”

Immigration Enforcement and Fairness to Would-Be Immigrants

“…I also want to remain neutral on the question of whether individuals or businesses are justified in employing immigrants without the relevant authorization. Furthermore, I do not wish to argue, contra Hidalgo (2016), that individuals have a duty to aid immigration officials in 7 There is some dispute as to how much completed border fencing on the southern border would cost. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that the construction of such fencing would cost around $3.9 million per mile -see Government Accountability Office (2009).…”

“…Many authors have argued for open borders (usually with a proviso included for certain kinds of violent criminals). This list includes Huemer (2010), Carens (1987, Freiman and Hidalgo (2016), among many others. On the contrary, Wellman (2008) argues that states have the right to freedom of association, which grounds their right to exclude foreigners.…”