Saving Migrants’ Basic Human Rights from Sovereign Rule

Schmid, Lukas

doi:10.1017/s0003055422000028

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although they do not dismiss the possibility that these conditions are met, and some even allow that immigration restrictions are justified in principle, it should come as no surprise that all of them conclude that these conditions are not met under current circumstances and so immigration restrictions are not justified in practice. For instance, according to Mendoza (2014: 80), “anti-discriminatory commitments cannot coexist with a state’s presumptive right to control immigration, at least not if we take enforcement into consideration.” Fine (2016: 141) concedes that “some form of right to exclude is defensible in principle, under the correct conditions, but these arguments in support of a right to exclude are not applicable in the here and now, in the world as we know it, in circumstances far from ideal.” In the same vein, Schmid (2022: 965) argues that “[e]ven if they [states] are permitted to make sweeping rules of exclusion, this does not entail that they are permitted to enforce such rules.” Finally, Sager (2017: 48) concludes that:even if there are reasons at the level of principle that states’ claims to regulate migration outweigh the competing claims of many people to migrate, practical difficulties in avoiding dominating migrants in the process of enforcing migration controls make them unjust. The result is that the nature of immigration administration and enforcement commits us to much more open borders even if there are in principle good normative reasons for allowing states to restrict immigration .…”

Section: Unenforced Immigration Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of immigration enforcement: How far may states go?

Arnaiz

2023

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ethics of immigration has largely remained on the abstract level, prescribing ideal principles for non-ideal circumstances. One striking example of this tendency is found in the ethics of immigration enforcement. Many authors contend that even though immigration restrictions are legitimate in principle, enforcement renders them illegitimate in practice. In this article I argue, in response to this claim, that if one supports immigration restrictions, one should also support immigration enforcement, even if it entails the use of physical force. Not enforcing immigration restrictions is unjust to law-abiding migrants, undermines the rule of law, and amounts to virtually open borders. In order to illustrate the case, I will draw upon the enforcement of tax law. My argument is that if states are allowed to go to great lengths in the enforcement of tax law, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to go to comparable lengths in the enforcement of immigration law. This analogy will provide us with the moral baseline with which to judge the permissibility of immigration enforcement. The proposal takes the rights of migrants seriously, only the right to immigrate is not one. The article also anticipates some potential objections and responds to them.

show abstract

Section: Unenforced Immigration Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of immigration enforcement: How far may states go?

Arnaiz

2023

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Centering the figure of the migrant and the anti-racist imperative casts doubt on this arrangement. Lukas Schmid has argued that even if states have the right to use force to exclude immigrants, they only have the moral right to enforce these rules if the institutions of exclusion robustly respect basic human rights (Schmid, 2022). Schmid adds that dominant conceptions of sovereignty that prioritize control and authority makes robust support for human rights unlikely.…”

Section: Building a Radical Res Publicamentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical Republican Citizenship for a Mobile World

Sager

2023

Probl., Anu. Filos. Teor. Derecho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Migrants invariably and unavoidably experience domination under the nation-state centered concepts, categories, and institutions that structure our political thinking. In response, we need to build new forms of citizenship, including local, regional, transnational, and supranational forms of belonging, accompanied by meaningful, democratic, political power. In this paper, I examine historical and present-day alternative models of political organization as possible viable alternatives to state-centric liberal democracy. It begins the task of assessing these models using radical republican theory that grounds non-domination in the active and equal participation of people subject to power.I have three broad aims. First, we need to break down the native-migrant dichotomy to highlight commonalities and search for solidarities among migrants and other marginalized and oppressed groups, including indigenous groups. Second, I seek to awaken the political imagination. Many people do not believe there are viable alternatives to liberal democracy centered around the nation-state. In response, we should draw attention to the ways in which the nation-state’s hegemony is fragile and fragmented and the ways in which sovereignty is complex and contested. Most importantly, we need to consider alternative models for inspiration. Third, we need tools for assessing the desirability of alternatives and for building new forms of citizenship.In what follows, first I explain why the dominant, nation-state centered model of political organization is unable to deliver justice in today’s world, or, indeed, address the collective dangers that humanity faces. I next provide a sketch of a radical republican vision that provides normative guidance our thinking about alternative institutions. I end by using this radical republic vision to reflect on possibilities to guide efforts to remake the world.

show abstract

“…Focusing on human rights is useful for our purposes because it provides a distinctively moral basis for our argument, but which is still sensitive to actual political commitments of the EU and the constraints imposed by international law. Moreover, in the political theory literature on migration, respect for human rights is universally acknowledged as a fundamental standard for normatively assessing the legitimacy of border control (Sandven, 2022;Schmid, 2022). 2 Thus, on our view, an assessment of an institution's legitimacy depends on an analysis of how that institution impacts human rights protection compared to the non-institutional alternative and to available institutional alternatives.…”

Section: Normative Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Normative Legitimacy Of the Eu's Border Regimementioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetry in the Delegation of Power as a Legitimacy Criterion

Fjørtoft

Sandven²

2022

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The delegation of power and tasks to unelected bodies, a pervasive trend in modern democracies, raises a democratic puzzle. These institutions are removed from majoritarian democratic procedures, breaking the "chain of command" from citizens to elected officials and administrations. Still, they make claims to political authority and legitimacy. This dissertation asks: Under which conditions is the delegation of power to unelected expert bodies democratically legitimate?The dissertation focuses on European Union agencies. It has been common to justify the power of EU agencies by appealing to what the dissertation calls technical legitimacy. The argument says that political neutrality and technical expertise are independent sources of legitimacy for unelected bodies. Certain institutions are legitimate despite, or even because of, their isolation from majoritarian democratic procedures.Through an introductory chapter and four articles, this dissertation aims to delineate the boundaries of technical legitimacy. It cautions against too much faith in technical legitimacy, for instance through the widespread claim that agencies' value-freedom will ensure their legitimacy. But it also disagrees with the position that technical legitimacy is never appropriate. The challenge is to figure out when technical legitimacy may be the appropriate standard-and what should come in its place where it is not.The dissertation combines empirical and normative analysis. A mixedmethods media analysis finds that the legitimation arguments used about agencies in public debate depend on their scientific "hardness" and public salience. A case study of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, uncovers how appeals to technical legitimacy were central when it iii iv summary received a new mandate in 2016. On the normative side, the dissertation argues that agencies face different legitimacy demands depending on their level of epistemic uncertainty and the consequences of potential errors. It also develops a symmetry criterion for legitimacy. The legitimacy of an agency might depend on the level of power delegated to other agencies in a policy area, so that the system as a whole leaves no gaps. Taken together, the dissertation argues against a one-size-fits-all approach to legitimacy: Every institution must not satisfy everything that democracy demands, but the system as a whole must. I want to thank my supervisors, Erik O. Eriksen and Asimina Michailidou, for all discussions and comments on my drafts and ideas. It's been a privilege to work with Erik Oddvar. His commitment to the combination of normative and empirical analysis has shaped my project in more ways than one, and his advice always gives me something to think about. Asimina's perceptive readings and constructive feedback have been frequent lifesavers. Co-writing an article with Asimina was a particular joy and motivation. arena Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo has been my academic home since I started as a part-time research assistant more than six y...

show abstract

Saving Migrants’ Basic Human Rights from Sovereign Rule

Cited by 10 publications

References 51 publications

The ethics of immigration enforcement: How far may states go?

The ethics of immigration enforcement: How far may states go?

Radical Republican Citizenship for a Mobile World

Symmetry in the Delegation of Power as a Legitimacy Criterion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About