Abstract
Most accounts of immigration ethics implicitly rely upon neoclassical migration theory, which understands migration as the result of poverty and unemployment in sending countries. This paper argues that neoclassical migration theory assumes an account of the human person as solely an autonomous rational agent which then leads to ethics of migration which overemphasize freedom and self-determination. This tendency to assume that migration works as neoclassical migration theory describes is shared by political philosophers, such as Joseph Carens, Michael Walzer, and David Miller. This paper argues that all three philosophers incorrectly frame migration as a contest between the freedom of the migrant and the communal self-determination of the political community. Migration systems theory is presented as a theory that draws upon a relationally embedded understanding of autonomy in order to begin to develop a migration systems ethics. This paper concludes by arguing that the central ethical category for an ethics of migration is not freedom or self-determination, but justice-in-relation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an excellent layperson’s summary of the debates between economists on immigration and its impact on domestic labor markets, see (Lowenstein 2006).
While Borjas does acknowledge that individuals are members of families that often play a role in making decisions about migration, Borjas uses the same assumptions when he makes families the subject of decision-making rather than individuals: “In fact, it is families who enter the immigration market, compare the various offers, and choose the option that maximizes the household’s economic well-being” (Borjas 1990: 188). In this case, it is the family who are the rational actors instead of individuals. Borjas is drawing on the research of migration systems theorists who would not support the neoclassical model by mapping the data onto his own anthropological assumptions.
Borjas attributes this to the fact that the cost of migrating from Sweden to the United States would exceed the small benefit of increased wages (Borjas 1999: 49).
There was some migration from Sweden to the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century. However, the circumstances that began that particular migration flow ended with the Swedish reforms of 1907. Soon after, World War I interrupted that particular migration flow.
For a brief overview of the phenomenon of “brain drain,” see (Carrington 1999)
Walzer does limit Australia’s claim to unoccupied land in the face of tremendous need of its neighbors, but Walzer affirms that Australia could have ceded land without granting admission to non-whites.
For example, see (Rawls 1999: 39n)
There are instances where small migration flows have been initiated by one person or a small group of people. See Kritz and Zlotnik 1992.
For a summary of feminist philosophical critiques of autonomy, see (Mackenzie and Stoljar 2000)
Walzer does acknowledge that guestworker policies have had such unintended consequences, but the continued presence of guestworkers in the territory is presented as an exception to Walzer’s strong account of self-determination and not as a typical example of how migration occurs.
Jean Porter points out this distinction between justice in the thought of Aquinas and justice in the thought of contemporary philosophers like John Rawls (Porter 2002: 277).
For an extensive discussion of social sin and immigration, see (Heyer 2010).
Aquinas does consider the question of the love of the near and distant neighbor, but this is considered under questions about charity, not justice (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 26) (See also Pope 1994: Ch. 2.).
Elsewhere, I have addressed the responsibilities that such relationships generate (Rajendra TM (forthcoming) Justice, not benevolence: catholic social thought, migration theory and the rights of migrants. Political Theology)
For a historical account of deportation in the United States, see (Kanstroom 2007)
This point comes from a conversation with Daniel Kanstroom.
References
Borjas GJ (1990) Friends or strangers: the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy. Basic Books, New York
Borjas GJ (1999) Heaven’s door: immigration policy and the American economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Carens JH (1987) Aliens and citizens: the case for open borders. Rev Polit 49:251–273
Carens JH (1996) Realistic and idealistic approaches to the ethics of migration. Int Migr Rev 30:156–170
Carens JH (1997) The philosopher and the policy maker: two perspective of the ethics of immigration with special attention to the problem of restricting asylum. In: Hailbronner K, Martin DA, Motumora H (eds) Immigration admissions: the search for workable policies in Germany and the United States. Berghan Books, Providence, pp 3–50
Carens JH (2000) Open borders and liberal limits: a response to Isbister. Int Migr Rev 34(2):636–643
Carens JH (2003) Who should get in?: the ethics of alien admissions. Ethics Int Aff 17:95–110
Carens JH (2008) Live-in domestics, seasonal workers, and others hard to locate on the map of democracy. J Polit Philos 16:419–445
Carens JH (2013) The ethics of immigration. Oxford University Press, New York
Carrington WJ (1999) International migration and the “brain drain.” J Soc Polit and Econ Stud 24:163–171
Castles S, Miller MJ (2009) The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world. Guilford Press, New York
Faist T (2000) The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Clarendon, Oxford
Farley MA (1993) A feminist version of respect for persons. J Fem Stud Relig 9:183–198
Heyer KE (2010) Social sin and immigration: good fences make bad neighbors. Theol Stud 71:410–436
Kanstroom D (2007) Deportation nation: outsiders in American history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Kritz MM, Zlotnik H (1992) Global interactions: migration systems, processes, and policies. In: Kritz MM, Lim LL, Zlotnik H (eds) International migration systems: a global approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–34
Lowenstein R (2006) The immigration equation. Times, New York
Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) (2000) Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on automony, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press, New York
Massey DS, Arango J, Hugo G, Pellegrino A, Taylor JE (2005) Worlds in motion: understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford University Press, New York
Miller D (2007) National responsibility and global justice. Oxford University Press, New York
Pope SJ (1994) The evolution of altruism and the ordering of love. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C
Porter J (2002) The virtue of justice (IIa IIae, qq. 58–122). In: Pope SJ (ed) The ethics of aquinas. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C, pp 273–286
Portes A (1997) Immigration theory for a new century: some problems and opportunities. Int Migr Rev 31:799–825
Portes A, Böröcz J (1989) Contemporary immigration: theoretical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorporation. Int Migr Rev 23:606–630
Rawls J (1999) The law of peoples. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Sassen S (1988) The mobility of labor and capital: a study in international investment and labor flow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sassen S (1996) Losing control?: sovereignty in an age of globalization. Columbia University Press, New York
Sassen S (1999) Guests and aliens. New Press, New York
Skeldon R (1997) Migration and development: a global perspective. Addison-Wesley Longman Higher Education, London
Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice: a defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books, New York
Acknowledgments
This article has greatly benefitted from the revisions suggested by Hille Haker, Sandra Sullivan Dunbar, the attendees of the 2012 Conference on Poverty, Coercion and Human Rights at Loyola University Chicago and the anonymous peer reviewers for this journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rajendra, T.M. The Rational Agent or the Relational Agent: Moving from Freedom to Justice in Migration Systems Ethics. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 18, 355–369 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9522-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9522-z