Political rights, republican freedom, and temporary workers

Sager, Alex

doi:10.1080/13698230.2012.733586

Cited by 33 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There, political theorists are debating a variant of the issue that Ruhs and Martin () term the ‘numbers versus rights’ dilemma: since migrant labourers will probably never be given access to the same rights as citizens and residents, is it better to advocate shutting down TMW programmes than to continue subjecting enrollees to inevitable domination and exploitation? (see, inter alia , Carens ; Lenard and Strahle, ; Sager, ).…”

Section: Discussion and Suggestions For Reformmentioning

confidence: 98%

Troubling the Fields: Choice, Consent, and Coercion of Canada's Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Silverman

Hari

2016

International Migration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article brings a new, theoretically minded approach to weighing the relative utilities and harms of Canada's Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) without dismissing the agency of SAWP enrollees or arriving at an abolitionist argument to end Temporary Migrant Worker (TMW) programmes in Canada. Building on the anti-trafficking debate within feminist migration studies, we evaluate the availability and exercise of consent, choice, and coercion among SAWP workers. We draw on extensive documentation by scholars across disciplines to contextualize the SAWP within a socio-economic history that engendered and continues to legitimize the "success" of the programme in both Mexico (the largest sending state) and Ontario (the largest provincial recipient of workers). Our analysis suggests that, while grievous, the SAWP's structural injustice ought not to preclude individuals from migrating and earning wages. The article concludes with recommendations to create a fairer avenue for Mexican workers into, through, and out of the SAWP.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Suggestions For Reformmentioning

confidence: 98%

Troubling the Fields: Choice, Consent, and Coercion of Canada's Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Silverman

Hari

2016

International Migration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ian Shapiro argues that 'if democracy is about structuring power relations so as to limit domination' then 'the claim to a democratic say in collective decisions, whether or not one is a citizen, rests on the causal principle of having a pertinent affected interest' (Shapiro 2003, p. 52). Others have challenged the view that the neo-republican conception of democracy requires inclusion of everyone affected (Owen 2012;Sager 2014). Owen (2012) explicitly challenges Shapiro's view, arguing that democratic inclusion is not the appropriate response to all instances of interference.…”

Section: The All-affected Principle and Non-dominationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In assessing the reasonableness of principles of democratic inclusion, we take into account recent debates on the all-affected principle and the all-subjected principle (Miller 2009;Näsström 2011;Erman 2014;Valentini 2014;Beckman 2008;Owen 2012). In assessing the fit with neo-republicanism, the picture is less clear-cut as previous writers make conflicting assumptions; some take for granted that freedom of non-domination calls for the inclusion of everyone affected (Schuppert 2014, p. 139;Benton 2014, p. 410), whereas others reason on the premise that only those subject to the state should be included in the neo-republican state (for example Sager 2014;Owen 2014, p. 98). Our position on democratic inclusion should be consistent with both general developments in democratic theory and the basic commitments of neo-republicanism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…As noted by Sager (2014), there are important similarities between the neorepublican position and the view that democracy requires political rights for everyone subject to coercive state power. The similarity derives from the neorepublican claim that people subject to a legal and political authority where they have no political rights represents a typical instance of domination.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion

Beckman

Rosenberg

2017

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to neo-republicans, democracy is morally justified because it is among the prerequisites for freedom as non-domination. The claim that democracy secures freedom as non-domination needs to explain why democratic procedures contribute to non-domination and for whom democracy secures nondomination. This requires an account of why domination is countered by democratic procedures and an account of to whom domination is countered by access to democratic procedures. Neo-republican theory of democracy is based on a detailed discussion of the former but a scant discussion of the latter. We address this lacuna by interpreting the two most influential principles of inclusion, the all-subjected principle and the all-affected principle, in light of neo-republican commitments. The preliminary conclusion is that both principles are able to capture relations of domination between the democratic state and the people controlled by it in the relevant sense. Yet, the state has virtually unlimited powers to control residents, but only limited powers to interfere in the lives of non-residents. Republican aspirations are therefore more in tune with the all-subjected principle according to which only residents in the territory of the state should be granted rights to political participation.

show abstract

“…This includes the all-affected principle (AAP) (Goodin 2007), the subjected to coercion principle (SCP) (Abizadeh 2008;, and the neo-republican principle (NRP) (Sager 2014). Although these principles constitute the ideal demos in different ways, we explicate that they all imply (rapid) enfranchisement of irregular immigrants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Irregular Immigrants Be (Rapidly) Enfranchised?

Angell

Huseby

2017

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of voting rights differ quite sharply with regards to whether or not they support (rapid) enfranchisement of irregular immigrants. In this paper we first outline these theories and their implications. We then assess a number of reasons against rapidly enfranchising irregular immigrants. We find, on reflection, that none of these reasons are persuasive. While this result is not in itself sufficient to draw strong conclusions, it does offer some support to the more inclusive theories of voting rights, and poses a challenge to the less inclusive ones.3

show abstract

Political rights, republican freedom, and temporary workers

Cited by 33 publications

References 31 publications

Troubling the Fields: Choice, Consent, and Coercion of Canada's Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Troubling the Fields: Choice, Consent, and Coercion of Canada's Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion

Should Irregular Immigrants Be (Rapidly) Enfranchised?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About