Immigration and justice

In my dissertation I give a comprehensive account of the moral limits on immigration policy. Since setting terms of membership and inclusion within the state is generally considered one of the prime marks of sovereignty, this investigation also helps map some of the limits of state sovereignty. The project is situated within a "modest cosmopolitan" framework. In the first section I investigate whether there is a basic right to free movement between states and conclude that there is not. However, as people often have an interest in moving between states, some justification must be given for immigration restrictions. I locate the interest states or societies have in setting their own immigration policies in the good of political self-determination. This good allows states to have significant discretion in setting their own immigration policies, but does not give them complete discretion. Exploring the limits of this discretion make up the remainder of the work. I first consider a special group, those who need protection from the international community and can only be protected by granting them refuge in a safe country, and argue that this group is best categorized by a wide reading of the traditional UNHCR refugee definition. After detailing what is owed to refugees, so construed, I turn to the case of the family, arguing that all societies must, as a matter of justice, allow current members to bring in non-citizen immediate family members. Importantly, this right is held by current members against their own society and not by would-be immigrants. I next turn to the question of guest-worker programs and show how a suitably crafted program may be made compatible with liberal principles of justice and explain why such programs likely will have a place in liberal immigration policies. In the final chapter I describe the limits justice places on citizenship and naturalization policies. I conclude with a "plea" for societies to adopt liberal immigration policies.