Human Rights in Immigration Enforcement and Policy

Authors: Nour Touti, Alexandra Opera

SUNY Campus: SUNY Buffalo

Presentation Type: Oral

Location: UUW 325

Presentation #: 7

Timeslot: Session C 1:45-2:45 PM

Abstract: In this paper, I contend that, while states possess the right to control their borders, they must do so in using methods that respect the dignity and human rights of migrants, avoiding dehumanization. I therefore argue for a more nuanced approach to immigration policy, one that balances the competing demands of justice, sovereignty, and humanity. At the core of contemporary immigration debates is the question of whether migration is a universal human right or a privilege granted by states. Advocates of the universal right to migrate, such as egalitarians, argue that all individuals, regardless of ethnicity and nationality, deserve equal moral consideration. They contend that the birthplace is arbitrary morally and unjustly determines life prospects, basing it off a moral lottery. Joseph Caren’s, for example, argues that restrictive citizenship is akin to feudal privilege in the sense that inherited status should not dictate access to better opportunities. In contrast, critics of open borders, such as David Miller, argue that states have legitimate reasons to restrict immigration, which include preserving cultural identity, distributing state benefits, sustaining economic stability, and ensuring political self-determination. My paper advances this conversation by reorienting it away from the ideal immigration policy states ought to pursue to the complexities of non-ideal theory, particularly issues in immigration enforcement. In doing so, I draw on Edward Hall, Jose Jorge Mendoza and others who identify a range of ethical violations caused by immigration enforcement that states ought to address.