12 October 2006
Visas and Justice
Awarding permission to enter the U.S., or any country, is not a matter of justice. George Packer seems to be of two minds on this issue. In his article in the October 16, 2006 New Yorker he at first characterizes cases of exclusion of asylum-seekers from immigration as “unjust.” Later, Packer admits that Tariq Ramadan, applying for admission to the U.S. under a work permit, has no inalienable right to an immigration visa--he should rather be granted one “in the interest of the national good.”
America is not obligated by any theory of justice to admit immigrants to its shores. Even in a Rawlsian system, it is only when the population at large deems it to its advantage that an immigrant be admitted that a visa is “justified.” Whether the reason for that judgment may be enlightened self-interest or short-term economic gain, the prospective immigrant really has no say in the debate. If he is lucky enough to present himself for admission when he satisfies the criteria established by decision-makers in the destination country, then he may even have a role in selecting the next set of criteria. Until then, he has little choice but to enter the country on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
There is no universal code of citizenship rights like that of “human rights.” We may all be able to agree on standards of respect for life and decency, but the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is granted only to themselves by those in power. This exclusionary manifesto applies as much to liberal democracies as to repressive autocracies. Members of any society may or may not recognize the advantage they gain from opening their borders to newcomers with diverse views and backgrounds; but they make that decision with the caveat that they must defend it, if need be. In the end, a sovereign state is basically a mutual defense organization in which justice is defined as its own preservation.
Awarding permission to enter the U.S., or any country, is not a matter of justice. George Packer seems to be of two minds on this issue. In his article in the October 16, 2006 New Yorker he at first characterizes cases of exclusion of asylum-seekers from immigration as “unjust.” Later, Packer admits that Tariq Ramadan, applying for admission to the U.S. under a work permit, has no inalienable right to an immigration visa--he should rather be granted one “in the interest of the national good.”
America is not obligated by any theory of justice to admit immigrants to its shores. Even in a Rawlsian system, it is only when the population at large deems it to its advantage that an immigrant be admitted that a visa is “justified.” Whether the reason for that judgment may be enlightened self-interest or short-term economic gain, the prospective immigrant really has no say in the debate. If he is lucky enough to present himself for admission when he satisfies the criteria established by decision-makers in the destination country, then he may even have a role in selecting the next set of criteria. Until then, he has little choice but to enter the country on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
There is no universal code of citizenship rights like that of “human rights.” We may all be able to agree on standards of respect for life and decency, but the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is granted only to themselves by those in power. This exclusionary manifesto applies as much to liberal democracies as to repressive autocracies. Members of any society may or may not recognize the advantage they gain from opening their borders to newcomers with diverse views and backgrounds; but they make that decision with the caveat that they must defend it, if need be. In the end, a sovereign state is basically a mutual defense organization in which justice is defined as its own preservation.
Comments:
Post a Comment
