Immigration Controls: Why the Self‐Determination Argument Is Self‐Defeating

Lepoutre, Maxime

doi:10.1111/josp.12156

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11; Oberman 2016). The second critique rejects the appropriateness of the nonviolation of a human rights standard on the grounds that the coercive enforcement of border law triggers a demand for democratic legitimation (Abizadeh 2008; Lepoutre 2016). On this view, only democratic authorization from a global constituency could confer legitimacy onto states’ claims to regulate migration.…”

Section: The Concept Of Legitimacy and The Debate On Border Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These characteristics of contemporary practice amount to more than the valid point that immigration policy is not set in a vacuum and that states are able to predict the consequences of their border regimes (Lepoutre 2016, 323). They also undermine the claim that, in the case where migrants find themselves without an adequate range of valuable options, all states share responsibility for this outcome.…”

Section: The Concept Of Legitimacy and The Debate On Border Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Practice and Legitimacy of Border Control

Sandven

2022

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article interrogates the widely held, but rarely defended, view that states wield legitimate power over potential immigrants when and because they refrain from violating their human rights. I reconstruct a strong argument for this view, which turns on a claim about the limited power states claim over migrants. Drawing on recent empirical work, I show how this argument is inapplicable to the border regimes of a set of wealthy democracies. These regimes are characterized by a practice that is coordinated and extraterritorial in a way that undercuts the case for holding them to a minimal legitimacy standard. By participating in this practice, these states wield significant power over potential immigrants. I argue that this power exposes potential immigrants to novel risk, which in turn triggers a demand for the satisfaction of a higher standard of legitimation.

show abstract

Section: The Concept Of Legitimacy and The Debate On Border Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Concept Of Legitimacy and The Debate On Border Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Practice and Legitimacy of Border Control

Sandven

2022

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 The self-determination justification for the right to exclude frames exclusion as a right held by citizens. On this view, the demos' right to determine its own 'self' includes the right to determine its own composition, 8 which is taken to mean that citizens have the right to exclude potential immigrants. Hence, a denial of the right to exclude amounts to a denial of self-determination.…”

Section: Introudctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional (Nation‐)States: A Group‐Agency Problem for the State’s Right to Exclude

Joseph

2019

J Applied Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most philosophical defences of the state’s right to exclude immigrants derive their strength from the normative importance of self‐determination. If nation‐states are taken to be the political institutions of a people, then the state’s right to exclude is the people’s right to exclude – and a denial of this right constitutes an abridgement of self‐determination. In this article, I argue that this view of self‐determination does not cohere with a group‐agency view of nation‐states. On the group‐agency view that I defend, a nation‐state is the kind of group‐agent that does not supervene on the intentionality of member/citizens. If we think that a nation‐state is an intentional group‐agent in its own right, then we should think that self‐determination resides with the institutions of the state rather than with the citizens. If nation‐states do not supervene on the intentionality of citizens, then it is unclear why citizens might have the right to control membership in the state as a feature of self‐determination.

show abstract

“…In Maxime Lepoutre's () article, published in the Fall 2016 issue of JOSP, the following funder details were omitted from acknowledgement:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%