This is a rich and stimulating piece, which—characteristically of Joseph Carens's work—challenges us to rethink certain suppositions about appropriate responses to migration. Of particular interest is Carens’s suggestion for a so-called firewall protecting irregular migrants' basic rights. This suggestion, which I would like to term the "dualist" position, requires the state to guarantee certain rights of unauthorized migrants while at the same time retaining its prerogative to deny such migrants legal residency. While I find this prima facie a compelling idea, I will suggest that it creates serious problems of coherence and feasibility for the legal and political systems of host countries. I shall also question whether it is ethically tenable on liberal universalist grounds. The key problem for the dualist position, I shall argue, is the basic contradiction between guaranteeing access to rights while denying a right to be present to access such rights.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2008 (22.2) • Essay
Immigration Policy and "Immanent Critique"
Carens's use of 'immanent critique' to ground his moral prescriptions on the not yet realized normative purposes of the immigration policies of liberal democratic states ...
Summer 2008 (22.2) • Review
Bioethics and Armed Conflict: Moral Dilemmas of Medicine and War by Michael L. Gross
This book is important as an analysis of some of the least-discussed dilemmas related to warfare. But its value extends beyond its novel subject matter ...
Summer 2008 (22.2) • Essay
Migrants and Work-related Rights
Carens's discussion of the work-related rights of irregular migrants fails to consider the differentiated employment rights of legal temporary migrants, permanent residents, and citizens.