Selling Citizenship: A Defence

Hidalgo, Javier

doi:10.1111/japp.12117

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the widely held view that states possess a moral right to exclude nonmembers, the importance of free mobility in the domestic realm is unquestionable in liberal thought and among the general public (Carens, 2013: 10; Hidalgo, 2016: 4). This means that at least formally, every person is free to reside wherever she wishes and cities have to admit all those who wish to become their members.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Cities, selective admission, and economic sorting

Glick

2020

Politics, Philosophy & Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last few decades, residency in some of the world’s desired destination cities has become a privilege, as housing supply has not kept pace with population growth. This has led to a significant rise in housing prices and consequently to the exclusion of middle- and low-income populations on a large scale. These developments have received only scant attention in political theory despite their prominence in local policymaking and their contribution to processes of redrawing the boundaries of inclusion into local political communities. My focus in this article is on the question ‘is it morally permissible for cities to sort members by economic means, and grant the better-off privileged access to residency?’ I explore this question by examining the main arguments used to support the city’s right to selectively admit would-be members. This allows me to delineate the limitations of the city’s general duty to be accessible to all segments of society and to present particular cases where the city has special obligations to incorporate nonmembers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Cities, selective admission, and economic sorting

Glick

2020

Politics, Philosophy & Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Economic migration is often voluntary and mutually beneficial. Since a state has a right to exclude outsiders from entering its territory, it should also have the right to select immigrants for economic benefits (Hidalgo, 2016: 224–225; Miller, 2016: 104–106). My principal objection to this view is that affluent states’ right to select migrants is seriously undermined by background injustice in the global realm.…”

Section: Background Injustice and The Right To Excludementioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting Immigrants in an Unjust World

2019

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many individuals living in poor societies, migration is the best hope for improving their life prospect. However, global migration today is highly selective and stratified. Affluent states often enjoy great discretion to cherry pick their immigration, favouring those with particular skills and qualifications. In this article, I argue that this practice of selective immigration is morally permissible only when a set of demanding conditions are met. I also argue that their right to exclude potential immigrants is constrained by the background distributive injustice in the global context.

show abstract

“…3 However, Javier Hidalgo has recently produced a moral defence of the state's sale of citizenship. 4 The argument, very roughly, is that if a state may control its membership in general (e.g. by granting and denying citizenship to prospective applicants), then it may admit new members in exchange for payment.…”

Section: The Private Sale Of Citizenshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case for Markets in Citizenship

Freiman

2017

J Applied Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of countries sell citizenship rights to foreign buyers. Gary Becker makes an economic case for the state's sale of citizenship; more recently, Javier Hidalgo has offered a moral defence. However, the private sale of citizenship on a market remains largely unexplored and undefended. This article argues that under certain conditions states ought to permit their citizens to swap citizenship rights with foreigners in exchange for payment. I begin by offering two defeasible reasons to legalize citizenship markets: they would enable mutually beneficial exchange and increase the labour market opportunities of the global poor. I consider a number of counterarguments and conclude that none are dispositive, leaving the case for citizenship markets undefeated.

show abstract

Selling Citizenship: A Defence

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

Cities, selective admission, and economic sorting

Cities, selective admission, and economic sorting

Selecting Immigrants in an Unjust World

The Case for Markets in Citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About