Who, how many, and under what conditions should outsiders in need be granted entry into a nation state?
A Comparative Study.
The debates surroundings ideas of entry for outsiders range dramatically. According to Michael Walzer whose theories adopt a partialist or conservative nature, the extent as to how many outsiders (whether refugees specifically, or more broadly anyone seeking citizenship) granted entry within another state depends upon several crucial factors. These concepts range from the preservation of the cultural community (Walzer, 1983) to the right to self-determination by “elite” states (Walzer, 1983). However, there is strong overtone of bigotry and fear towards outsiders failing to assimilate and/or threatening cultural foundations, within Walzer’s writing. This underlying fear is capable of, if turning this theory into practice, exclusivity and racism. The Singers on the other hand adopt a more liberal, cosmopolitan/impartialist view in regards to the ethics surrounding the refugee dilemma. They not only favour the duty of states to protect their own citizens but also the interests of non-citizens. Their arguments lay upon a foundation of utilitarianism; the greatest good for the greatest number. They view states as agents and actors who should align themselves with values of human rights, gender equality and respect for all citizens of any state.
Access being granted to “strangers” outside of a state, according to Walzer, is a decision that should be made solely by the state and its existing citizens (Walzer, 1983). He likens affluent countries to elite universities, embodying the right to choose individuals that best align with their sense of community (Walzer, 1983). However, there are a few implications that present themselves when discussing this “sense of identity” (Walzer, 1983). Walzer fails to consider countries (or governments) who may pride themselves on their appeals to white supremacy for example. It is less likely that these states would accept any (even a small number) of refugees if their skin tone or dialect is too different from the citizens of their own state. This feeds into implications of underlying racism that still exists heavily amongst governments and citizens who use their “sense of identity (Walzer, 1983)” to exclude anyone else of a different lifestyle. Observing the US in particular, it is not a far-fetched idea that could lead to, and is already leading to, increased bigotry, breaching of human rights laws, lack of diversity and ultimately the neglect for innocent individuals forced to endure turmoil; political and social.
Anxiety towards existing cultural norms and collective identities being submerged by migrants (Walzer, 1983) is a concern that runs right through Walzer’s arguments. This leads us to a few of the key conditions that outsiders must abide by in order to achieve entry: assimilation and coming in small numbers (Walzer, 1983). However, even if these people are accepted, their safety after gaining citizenship won’t be entirely ensured if citizens embody that “us and them” mentality. The negligence from states towards these individuals in order to protect their own citizens and the lack of pressure they feel to take people in (Walzer, 1983) ultimately worsens the situation. The abuse towards asylum seekers detained in the offshore Nauru detention centres is proof that this limited acceptance from governments and Walzer’s overall theory of protecting your own first, is detrimental to the people most in need.
Walzer suggests several hypothetical fixes to the issue of mass migration, however, fails to provide a solid solution to the increasing number of stateless individuals. Walzer admits that elite states have contributed to the refugee crisis and therefore must give priority to those most in need (Walzer, 1983); a concept that does contradict other statements he’s made. His other hypothetical fix to mass migration in general, is birth control; which would have severe implications in regards to applying such a system of public policy (Walzer, 1983), which he does admit. A few more libertarian concepts that Walzer reflects upon do provide a more positive look upon the assistance to outsiders; such as Rawls’ concept of hospitality and good will being extended to not just strangers of a similar social order or cooperation, but to everyone (Walzer, 1983). He touches upon global liberaltarianism and global socialism as well, whereby status and the need for membership are non-existent (Walzer, 1983). However, Walzer dismisses these as unrealistic and unnecessary.
In comparison to Walzer, it is key to observe the theories of the Singers; who address the hesitation of states to even recognise large groups of refugees, as well as when doing so, categorize them into “economic” refugees or “genuine refugees” in order to decipher those more in need of help (Singer and Singer, 2010). This distinction, however, allows states to neglect a large body of people who regardless of their reason for migration (whether environmental and politically-driven), are in search for a better and safer home. They discuss the best solutions for such an issue; voluntary repatriation (which is out of the question for some groups), local integration (also proving difficult if neighbouring countries are struggling) and resettlement (Singer and Singer, 2010). The Singers outline how resettlement is the most beneficial response to this crisis, however, not an easy one to apply when wealthy countries implement closed-borders policies, as well as the fact that only 2% of those resettled, are resettled permanently (Singer and Singer, 2010). Hypocrisy is also highlighted; it is duplicitous for states to reject applications of individuals in the same dire-straits as those closer to home that they choose to deport (Singer and Singer, 2010). The Singers give equal respect to all refugees, regardless of location; taking into account the demarcation that is bestowed upon individuals depending on their place and environment of birth (Singer and Singer, 2010). They believe granting membership should be based upon the interests of those most affected; obviously the existing citizens of host states, but more-so those in greater need (Singer and Singer, 2010).
Both the partialist and impartialist positions presented above provide concerns, possible fixes and ultimately very different approaches to how states should go about granting entry to outsiders. The cosmopolitan approach (The Singers) seems most ethical and beneficial to those in need and doesn’t seek to belittle their rights for refuge nor their reasoning. The partialist approach (Walzer) seems to provide more excuses as to why host states should feel unwilling to accept foreigners, and ultimately exudes an overtone of bigotry towards anyone of a different upbringing, race and/or religion. The latter view mostly promotes the acceptance of very few in order to maintain their cultural identity, whereas, the prior emphasises the importance of accepting and helping as many as possible, for the greater good of the world and to uphold and abide by their moral duty (Singer and Singer, 2010).
References:
Singer, P. and Singer, R. (2010). 'The ethics of refugee policy' in Population and political theory. [ebook] Wiley-Blackwell, pp.285-304. Available at: https://deakin.rl.talis.com/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.talisaspire.com%2Fdeakin%2Fbundles%2F595450ab646be04f185c3194&sig=2e24c79cec021bc9fd1edbe5c8382112f9465a1ae845c908dc5ed6c98f2e484f [Accessed 11 Aug. 2019].
Walzer, M. (1983). 'Membership' in Spheres of justice; a defense of pluralism and equality. [ebook] New York: Basic Books, pp.31-35, 48-51. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/deakin/bundles/59545cd0646be004f45c3194 [Accessed 11 Aug. 2019].