untitled
Professor: Douglas Nelson
Office: Tilton 108 (Murphy Institute), Phone: 865-5317
Office Hours: Wednesday and Thursday, 3:30-5:30
Phone: 865-5317
email: dnelson@tulane.edu
Webpage: http://nelson.wp.tulane.edu/
Immigration is a topic of first rate importance. Virtually everywhere in the world, immigration is a major topic of public political discourse. Much of this discourse rests on matters of fact (e.g. the effect of migration on wages, fiscal sustainability, growth, etc.), but a sizable part revolves around ethical questions (e.g. what should be the rights/obligations of natives, current immigrants and potential immigrants to the benefits of residence and/or citizenship in a given country? Or what are the ethical implications of personhood, community and nation in grounding those rights/obligations?). Given this centrality, we should not be surprised to discover that there is a sizable academic literature treating immigration as an issue in applied ethics. What is striking about this literature is that, within virtually every broadly conceived tradition of ethical discourse (utilitarian, libertarian, communitarian, republican, liberal egalitarian, etc.) there is considerable disagreement on the implications of that tradition for a good immigration policy.
The course is divided into three parts. The first part develops the basic welfare economics of migration. This work, like most welfare economics, treats the evaluation of migration policy under some simplified version of utilitarianism. In this part we will examine the ethical foundations of utilitarianism and, more broadly, the domain over which we should make our ethical calculus (global, national, local, etc.). The next part of the course reviews a number of traditions of ethical discourse and the implications of those traditions for migration policy. Finally, having developed each of these traditions, we turn to a number of specific policy questions.
Readings for the course will be drawn from:
Will Kymlicka (2001). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. [Kymlicka]
Joseph Carens (2015). The Ethics of Immigration. New York: Oxford University Press. [Carens]
Miller, David (2016). Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Miller]
And many articles.
Capstone courses. This course is a senior seminar for the Murphy Institute. 1) Prerequisites. In addition to the exposure to a broad range of perspectives in the Murphy core courses, I will presume familiarity with microeconomics at the intermediate level (i.e. Economics 3010) and a level of familiarity (and comfort) with formal and statistical analysis at the same level. 2) Participation. This course will be run as a seminar which means attendance and active participation are mandatory. I will expect all members of the seminar to have read, and be prepared to discuss, all the assigned readings before the date on which we discuss them. The analytical comments (see below) are an aid to this.
Evaluation: Your performance in this course will be evaluated on the basis of 12 analytical comments (worth 100 points total), 1 review essay (worth 100 points), and an evaluation of your seminar participation (worth 100 points). To receive an A, you must earn at least 90 percent of the points available. To pass the course you must earn at least 60 percent of the points available. Grades between these limits will be determined on the basis of your performance relative to that of the class as a whole.
Policy on analytical comments. Every member of the seminar must submit an analytical comment each week. The analytical comments are written assignments consisting of two parts: a comment on the assigned reading for the week (7 of 10 points); and 5 questions raised by the assigned reading for the week (3 of 10 points). The comment should be about 3 double-spaced pages long. Do not waste time summarizing the reading. The goal is to identify some aspect of the reading that strikes you as particularly interesting and to explain why you find it interesting. The questions should identify things you would like to see discussed in class. The comments are due on, or before, midnight of the day before the class in which the material is discussed. Late comments will not be accepted.
Review essays. Every member of the class is required to produce a review essay on one of the major topics in the ethics of migration policy, I expect papers in the 15-20 page range [if you have picked a topic that can be effectively exhausted in 10 pages, you have picked too narrow a topic; if you need 50 pages to do the job, not narrow enough]. Beyond the assigned reading on the topic, I expect you to do additional reading so that you can present a broader perspective. A grade in the A-B range [i.e. 80-100] can only be earned by a paper that provides a synthesis of the literature under review. That is, if you only summarize the literature the best grade you can earn will be a C [note well: this is a maximum, you can earn a lower grade by doing a bad job of summarizing.]
To ensure that topics are well-established and suitable for the course, I require a proposal due no later than 14 February. Late proposals will result in a 10 point penalty to be assessed on the paper’s final score. If you change your paper topic without my approval, 20 points will be deducted from your final mark. Review essays are due at the last regular meeting of the course (25 April). Late papers will not be accepted, and will earn a score of 0 points.
These papers must be original work, plagiarism will not be tolerated. This includes: unattributed appropriation of someone else’s work; and excessive use (whether or not attributed) of a secondary source [including, in particular, any of the above survey articles.] If you are unclear as to what constitutes plagiarism, consult the Tulane University Honor Code on plagiarism.
Tulane Honor Code: All students are responsible for knowing and adhering to Tulane University’s Code of academic conduct, available at https://college.tulane.edu/code-of-academic-conduct.
SACS-Related Material
I am aware that Tulane students are able to read a standard university syllabus and determine the content of the course and its relation to the major and the individual student’s course of study. However, the administration of Tulane University, along with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS–which “accredits” primary and secondary schools as well as all varieties of 2 and 4 year undergraduate programs [with very little in the way of adjustment in rubrics, metrics, etc.]), has determined that you require additional information. I collect this material in a separate section so that you can refer to it, or discard it, as you consider appropriate.
STUDENT OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: By the end of the course, the student should be able to think, speak, and write fluently and competently about the ideas and issues covered in the course (as reflected in the course description and the syllabus). The student should have a solid understanding of the social, political, economic, and philosophical significance of ideas and concepts in the analysis of social networks and they should be familiar with major ideas and theories regarding explanations, interpretations, applications, and criticisms of work on social networks. The student should be able to formulate critical views concerning these issues and respond fluently and competently to questions concerning these views.
1. Students will be able to identify and recognize major themes, ideas, and concepts.
2. Students will analyze, interpret, and discuss these ideas in a scholarly and coherent manner.
3. Students will construct, formulate, and develop creative and critical scholarly assessments.
4. Students will appraise, evaluate, and appreciate the values and consequences of these ideas.
Topic I. Course Introduction
● General background
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 1
■ Carens, Chapter 1
■ Miller, Chapter 1
○ Coleman & Harding (1995). “Citizenship, the Demands of Justice and the Moral Relevance of Political Borders”. In Schwartz, ed. Justice in Immigration, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 18-52. [Canvas]
Topic II. Utilitarianism: the house ethics of welfare economics
● Some welfare economics basics
■ Robbins (1938). “Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment.” The Economic Journal, V.48-#192, 635-41.
■ Kaldor (1939). “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” The Economic Journal, V.49-#195, 549-52.
■ Hicks (1939). “The Foundations of Welfare Economics.” The Economic Journal, V.49-#196, 696-712.
○ Hicks (1959). “A Manifesto,” in J. R. Hicks ed Wealth and Welfare. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 135-41.
○ Samuelson (1956). “Social Indifference Curves.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, V.70-#1, 1-22.
○ Samuelson (1947). “Welfare Economics”. Chapter 8, Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
○ Baldwin (1953). “A Comparison of Welfare Criteria.” The Review of Economic Studies, V.21-#2, 154-61.
○ Sen (1979). “Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What’s Wrong with Welfare Economics.” The Economic Journal, V.89-#355, 537-58.
○ Sen (1979). “Utilitarianism and Welfarism.” The Journal of Philosophy, V.76-#9, 463-89.
○ Cooter and Rappoport. (1984). “Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?” Journal of Economic Literature, V.22-#2, 507-30.
● Variable Population Ethics: Repugnant Conclusion, etc. (Optional)
○ Kavka (1982). “The Paradox of Future Individuals”. Philosophy & Public Affairs; V.11-#2, pp. 93-112.
■ Parfit (1982). “Future Generations: Further Problems”. Philosophy & Public Affairs; V.11-#2, pp. 113-172 [esp. 140-169].
○ Broome (1996). “The Welfare Economics of Population”. Oxford Economic Papers; V.48-#?, pp. 177-193.
○ Blackorby, Bossert & Donaldson (1997). “Critical-Level Utilitarianism and the Population-Ethics Dilemma”. Economics & Philosophy; V.13-#2, pp. 197-230.
○ Ryberg and Tännsjö (2004). The Repugnant Conclusion: Essays on Population Ethics. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
○ Blackorby, Bossert and Donaldson (2005). Population Issues in Social-Choice Theory, Welfare Economics and Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
○ Mulgan (2006). Future People: A Moderate Consequentialist Account of Our Obligations to Future Generations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
● Welfare Economics of Migration
■ Borjas (2014). “The Economic Benefits from Immigration”. Chapter 7 in Immigration Economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp 149-169.
■ Gaston and Nelson (2000). “Immigration and Labour Market Outcomes in the United States: A Political-Economy Puzzle.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, V.16-#3, 104-14.
○ Sykes (1995). “The Welfare Economics of Immigration Law: A Theoretical Survey with an Analysis of US Policy”. In Schwartz, ed. Justice in Immigration, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 158-200.
○ Clarke (1995). “Some Welfare Implications of Birth, Death, and Migration.” International Advances in Economic Research, V.1-#3, 242-50.
○ Wong (1986). “The Economic Analysis of International Migration: A Generalization.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 19(2), 357-62.
○ Kemp (1993). “The Welfare Gains from International Migration”. Keio Economic Studies; V.30-#1, pp. 1-5.
○ Hammond & Sempere. (2006). “Gains from Trade Versus Gains from Migration: What Makes Them So Different?” Journal of Public Economic Theory, V.8-#1, 145-70.
○ Walmsley, Winters and Ahmed. 2011. “The Impact of the Movement of Labour: Results from a Model of Bilateral Migration Flows.” Global Economy Journal, 11(4).
● Utilitarian Philosophers and Migration Policy
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 2
■ Sidgwick (1891). “Principles of External Policy,” in The Elements of Politics. London: Macmillan, 275-278. [Canvas]
■ Goodin (1992). “If People were Money…”. In Barry & Goodin, eds. Free Movement. University Park: Penn State University Press, pp. 6-22. [Canvas]
■ Barry (1992). “The Quest for Consistency: A Skeptical View”. In Barry & Goodin, eds. Free Movement. University Park: Penn State University Press, pp. 279-287. [Canvas]
■ Hadfield (1995). “Just Borders: Normative Economics and Immigration Law”. In Schwartz, ed. Justice in Immigration, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-211. [Canvas]
○ Chang (1998). “Migration as International Trade: The Economic Gains from the Liberalized Movement of Labor”. UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs; V.3-#2, pp. 371-414.
○ Bhagwati (1979). “International Factor Movements and National Advantage”. Indian Economic Review; V.14-#2; pp. 73-100.
● Who Should “Count”: Nationalism v. Cosmopolitanism
■ Carens, Chapter 8
■ Miller, Chapter 2
○ Kant (1795). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. London: George Allen & Unwin.
■ Walzer (1983). “Membership”. Chapter 2 in Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books, pp. 31-63. [Canvas]
■ Rawls (1993). “The Law of Peoples.” Critical Inquiry, V.20-#1, 36-68.
○ Miller (1988). “The Ethical Significance of Nationality”. Ethics; V.98-#4, pp. 647-662.
○ Pogge (1992). “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty.” Ethics, V.103-#1, 48-75.
○ Pogge (1994). “An Egalitarian Law of Peoples.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, V.23-#3, 195-224.
■ Pogge (2002). “Moral Universalism and Global Economic Justice.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, V.1-#1, 29-58.
■ Goodin (1988). “What Is So Special About Our Fellow Countrymen?”. Ethics; V.98-#4, pp. 663-686.
■ Scheffler (1999). “Conceptions of Cosmopolitanism”. Utilitas; V.11-#3, pp. 255-276.
■ Weyl (2018). “The Openness‐Equality Trade‐Off in Global Redistribution.” The Economic Journal, V.128-#612, F1-F36.
○ Scheffler (2001). “Families, Natives and Strangers”. Chapter 3 in Boundaries and Allegiances. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 48-65.
○ Nagel (2005). “The Problem of Global Justice”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, V.33-#2, pp. 113-147.
○ Beitz (2005). “Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice.” The Journal of Ethics, V.9-#1-2, 11-27.
Topic II. Political Philosophy & the Ethics of Migration Policy
● Liberal Egalitarians and migration policy
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 3
■ Carens, Chapter 11
■ Miller, Chapter 3
○ Carens (1987). “Aliens and Citizens – the Case for Open Borders.” Review of Politics, V.49-#2, 251-73.
○ Carens (1992). “Migration and Morality: A Liberal Egalitarian Perspective,” in B. Barry and R. E. Goodin eds, Free Movement. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 25-47.
○ Woodward (1992). “Commentary: Liberalism and Migration,” in B. Barry and R. E. Goodin eds, Free Movement. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 59-84.
○ Meilaender (1999). “Liberalism and Open Borders: The Argument of Joseph Carens.” International Migration Review, V.33-#4, 1062-81.
○ Carens (1999). “A Reply to Meilaender: Reconsidering Open Borders.” International Migration Review, V.33-#4, 1082-97.
○ Isbister (2000). “A Liberal Argument for Border Controls: Reply to Carens.” International Migration Review, V.34-#2, 629-35.
○ Carens (2000). “Open Borders and Liberal Limits: A Response to Isbister.” International Migration Review, V.34-#2, 636-43.
■ Benhabib (2004). “The Law of Peoples, Distributive Justice, and Migrations”. Fordham Law Review; V.72-#5, pp. 1761-1787.
● Libertarians and migration policy
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 4
■ Lomasky (2001). “Toward a Liberal Theory of National Boundaries”. in Miller and Hashmi, eds. Boundaries and Justice: Diverse Ethical Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 55-78. [on Canvas]
■ Steiner (2001). “Hard Borders, Compensation, and Classical Liberalism”. in Miller and Hashmi, eds. Boundaries and Justice: Diverse Ethical Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 79-88. [on Canvas]
■ Huemer (2010). “Is There A Right to Immigrate?“. Social Theory & Practice; V.36-#3, 429-461.
○ Caplan (2012). “Why Should We Restrict Immigration?“. Cato Journal; V.32-#1, 5-24.
○ vonMises (1935). “The Freedom to Move as an International Problem”. In The Clash of Group Interests and Other Essays. New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, pp. 19-22.
○ Rothbard (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press, pp 118-120.
○ Steiner (1992). “Libertarianism and the Transnational Migration of People,” in B. Barry and R. E. Goodin eds, Free Movement. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 87-94.
○ O’Neill (1992). “Commentary: Magic Associations and Imperfect People,” in B. Barry and R. E. Goodin eds, Free Movement. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 115-119.
○ Block (1998). “A Libertarian Case for Free Migration.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, V.13-#2, 167-86.
■ Hoppe (1998). “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, V.13-#2, 221-33.
○ Hoppe (2002). “Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, V.16-#1, 75-98.
○ Block (2011). “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, V.22-#1, 593-623.
○ Block (2011). “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration”. Journal of Libertarian Studies; V.22-#1, pp. 771-792.
● Communitarians and Migration Policy
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 6
■ Carens, Chapter 12
■ Miller, Chapter 4
○ Miller (2008). “Immigrants, Nations, and Citizenship.” Journal of Political Philosophy, V.16-#4, 371-90.
○ Christiano (2008). “Immigration, Political Community, and Cosmopolitanism.” San Diego Law Review, V.45-#4, 933-61.
■ Wellman (2008). “Immigration and Freedom of Association.” Ethics, V.119-#1, 109-41.
■ Fine (2010). “Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer.” Ethics, V.120-#2, 338-56.
■ Blake (2012). “Immigration, Association, and Antidiscrimination.” Ethics, V.122-#4, 748-62.
○ Pevnick (2009). “Social Trust and the Ethics of Immigration Policy.” Journal of Political Philosophy, V.17-#2, 146-67.
○ Scheffler (2007). “Immigration and the Significance of Culture.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, V.35-#2, 93-125.
○ Blake (2014). “The Right to Exclude.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, V.17-#5, 521-37.
○ van der Vossen (2014). “Immigration and Self-Determination.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, V.14-#3, pp. 270-290.
● Republicans, Deliberative Democracy and Migration Policy
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 7
■ Dagger (2004). “Communitarianism and Republicanism,” in G. F. Gaus and C. Kukathas eds, Handbook of Political Theory. London: Sage Publications, 167-79. [Canvas]
○ Dagger (2001). “Republicanism and the Politics of Place.” Philosophical Explorations, V.4-#3, 157-73.
○ Bohman (2004). “Republican Cosmopolitanism.” Journal of Political Philosophy, V.12-#3, 336-52.
○ Pettit (2012). On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 160-166.
■ Fine (2014). “Non-Domination and the Ethics of Migration.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, V.17-#1, 10-30.
■ Honohan (2014). “Domination and Migration: An Alternative Approach to the Legitimacy of Migration Controls.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, V.17-#1, 31-48.
■ Owen (2014). “Republicanism and the Constitution of Migrant Statuses.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, V.17-#1, 90-110.
○ Costa (2015). “Republican Liberty and Border Controls.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 1-16.
○ Sager (2017). “Immigration Enforcement and Domination: An Indirect Argument for Much More Open Borders.” Political Research Quarterly, V.70-#1, 42-54.
Topic III. Core Migration Issues
● Citizenship: Who Should Be A Citizen?
■ Carens, Chapters 2 & 3
■ Miller, Chapter 7
■ Kymlicka (2003). “Immigration, Citizenship, Multiculturalism: Exploring the Links.” The Political Quarterly, V.74, 195-208.
■ De Schutter and Ypi (2015). “Mandatory Citizenship for Immigrants.” British Journal of Political Science, V.45-#2, 235-51.
■Oberman (2017). “Immigration, Citizenship, and Consent: What Is Wrong with Permanent Alienage?” Journal of Political Philosophy, V.25-#1, 91-107.
○ Hampton (1995). “Immigration, Identity and Justice”. In Schwartz, ed. Justice in Immigration, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67-93.
○ Marshall (1963). “Citizenship and Social Class,” in Sociology at the Crossroads. London: Heinemann, 67-127.
○ Schuck (2002). “Liberal Citizenship,” in E. F. Isin and B. S. Turner eds, Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage Publications, 131-44.
○ Dagger, Richard (2002). “Republican Citizenship,” in E. F. Isin and B. S. Turner eds, Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage Publications, 145-57.
○ Delanty (2002). “Communitarianism and Citizenship,” in E. F. Isin and B. S. Turner eds, Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage Publications, 161-74.
○ Weil (2001), “Access to citizenship: a comparison of twenty-five nationality laws”, in T. A. Aleinikoff and D. Klusmeyer (eds.), Citizenship today: Global perspectives and practices, (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 17-35.
● The Obligations of Citizenship: Acculturation, Assimilation, Multiculturalism, etc.
■ Kymlicka, Chapter 8
■ Carens, Chapter 4
■ Miller, Chapter 8
■ Habermas (1991). “Citizenship & National Identity”. Appendix II in Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 591-515. [Canvas]
■ Mason (1999). “Political Community, Liberal Nationalism, and the Ethics of Assimilation.” Ethics, V.109-#2, 261-86.
■ Fukuyama (2006). “Identity, Immigration, and Liberal Democracy.” Journal of Democracy, V.17-#2, 5-20.
○ Joppke (1996). “Multiculturalism and Immigration: A Comparison of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain.” Theory and Society, V.25-#4, 449-500.
○ Bauböck (2002). “Farewell to Multiculturalism? Sharing Values and Identities in Societies of Immigration.” Journal of International Migration and Integration, V.3-#1, 1-16.
○ Scheffler (2007). “Immigration and the Significance of Culture.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, V.35-#2, 93-125.
■ Joppke (2008). “Immigration and the Identity of Citizenship: The Paradox of Universalism.” Citizenship Studies, V.12-#6, 533-46.
○ Bloemraad, Korteweg and Yurdakul. (2008). “Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State.” Annual Review of Sociology, V.34-#1, 153-79.
○ Barry (2001). Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
○ Kelly (2002). Multiculturalism Reconsidered: ‘Culture and Equality’ and Its Critics. Cambridge: Malden, MA: Polity Press.
● Guest workers
■ Carens, Chapter 6
■ Miller, Chapter 6
■ Buchanan (1995). “A Two Country Parable”. In Schwartz, ed. Justice in Immigration, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63-66.
■ Chang (2008). “Guest Workers and Justice in a Second-Best World.” University of Dayton Law Review, V.34-#1, 3-14.
■ Lenard and Straehle (2012). “Temporary Labour Migration, Global Redistribution, and Democratic Justice.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, V.11-#2, 206-30.
■ Ottonelli & Torresi (2012). “Inclusivist Egalitarian Liberalism and Temporary Migration: A Dilemma”. Journal of Political Philosophy; V.20-#2, pp. 202-224.
■ Arneson (2018). “Guest Worker Programs and Reasonable, Feasible Cosmopolitanism.” The Journal of Legal Studies, V.47-#S1, S169-S94.
■ <Casella, Alessandra and Adam B. Cox (2018). “A Property Rights Approach to Temporary Work Visas.” The Journal of Legal Studies, V.47-#S1, S195-S227.
○ Teitelbaum (1980). “Factual and Ethical Issues Surrounding Guest-Worker Proposals.” In Defense of the Alien, V.3, 13-17.
○ Joppke (1998). “Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration”. World Politics; V.50-#2, pp. 266-293.
○ Ruhs and Chang (2004). “The Ethics of Labor Immigration Policy.” International Organization, V.58-#1, 69-102.
○ Mayer (2005). “Guestworkers and Exploitation.” The Review of Politics, V.67-#2, 311-34.
○ Garcia (2006). “Labor as Property: Guestworkers, International Trade, and the Democracy Deficit.” J. Gender Race & Just., V.10-#1, 27-65.
○ Ruhs and Martin (2008). “Numbers Vs. Rights: Trade-Offs and Guest Worker Programs.” International Migration Review, V.42-#1, 249-65.
○ Ciupijus (2010). “Ethical Pitfalls of Temporary Labour Migration: A Critical Review of Issues.” Journal of Business Ethics, V.97, 9-18.
○ Stilz (2010). “Guestworkers and Second-Class Citizenship.” Policy and Society, V.29-#4, 295-307.
○ Lenard (2012). “Why Temporary Labour Migration Is Not a Satisfactory Alternative to Permanent Migration.” Journal of International Political Theory, V.8-#1-2, 172-83.
● Illegal/undocumented/irregular immigrants
■ Carens, Chapter 7
■ Miller (2008). “Irregular Migrants: An Alternative Perspective.” Ethics & International Affairs, V.22-#2, 193- 97.
■ Blake (2010). “Equality without Documents: Political Justice and the Right to Amnesty.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, V.40-#sup1, 99-122.
○ Bosniak (1995). “Opposing Prop. 187: Undocumented Immigrants and the National Imagination.” Connecticut Law Review, V.28-#3, 555-620.
○ De Genova (2002). “Migrant “Illegality” and Deportability in Everyday Life.” Annual Review of Anthropology, V.31, 419-47.
○ Bosniak (2007). “The Undocumented Immigrant: Contending Policy Approaches”. In Swain, ed. Debating Immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85-94.
○ Schuck and Smith (1985). Citizenship without Consent: Illegal/Aliens in the American Polity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
● Refugees
■ Carens, Chapter 10
■ Miller, Chapter 5
■ Shacknove (1985). “Who Is a Refugee?” Ethics, V.95-#2, 274-84.
○ Shacknove (1993). “From Asylum to Containment.” International Journal of Refugee Law, V.5-#4, 516-33.
■ Gibney (1999). “Liberal Democratic States and Responsibilities to Refugees.” The American Political Science Review, V.93-#1, 169- 81.
○ Gibney (2002). “Security and the Ethics of Asylum after 11 September.” Forced Migration Review, V.13, 40-43.
■ Singer and Singer (2010). “The Ethics of Refugee Policy’,” in M. Gibney ed Population and Political Theory. 285-304. [also as “Insiders and Outsiders” in Singer, Practical Ethics (2nd ed), Cambridge: CUP, pp. 247-263.)
○ Souter (2014). “Towards a Theory of Asylum as Reparation for Past Injustice.” Political Studies, V.62-#2, 326-42.
○ Dummett (2001). On Immigration and Refugees. London: Routledge.
○ Gibney (2004). The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
● Brain Drain
○ Docquier and Rapoport. (2012). “Globalization, Brain Drain, and Development.” Journal of Economic Literature, V.50-#3, 681-730.
■ Kapur and McHale. (2006). “Should a Cosmopolitan Worry About the ‘Brain Drain’?” Ethics & International Affairs, V.20-#3, 305-20.
○ Tesón (2008). “Brain Drain.” San Diego Law Review, V.45-#4, 899-932.
■ Oberman (2013). “Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions?” Ethics, V.123-#3, 427-55.
○ Oberman (2015). “Poverty and Immigration Policy.” American Political Science Review, V.109-#02, 239-51.
○ Oberman (2016). “Emigration in a Time of Cholera: Freedom, Brain Drain, and Human Rights.” Law, Ethics and Philosophy, V.4, 87-108.
■ Ferracioli (2015). “Immigration, Self-Determination, and the Brain Drain.” Review of International Studies, V.41-#1, 99-115.
○ Brock and Blake (2015). Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration? Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. [in 2016 there were symposia on this book in Ethics & Global Politics; Law, Ethics & Philosophy; and Moral Philosophy & Politics; and in 2017 in South African Journal of Philosophy; and Journal of Medical Ethics]
○ Whelan (1981). “Citizenship and the Right to Leave.” The American Political Science Review, V.75-#3, 636-53.