Open Borders and the Ideality of Approaches: An Analysis of Joseph Carens’ Critique of the Conventional View Regarding Immigration

• Main Author: Thomas Pölzler
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: University of Rijeka. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences 2019-07-01
• Series: European Journal of Analytic Philosophy
• Subjects: migration ethics; ideal/non-ideal theory; Joseph Carens; open borders
• Online Access: https://hrcak.srce.hr/223122

Do liberal states have a moral duty to admit immigrants? According to what has been called the “conventional view”, this question is to be answered in the negative. One of the most prominent critics of the conventional view is Joseph Carens. In the past 30 years Carens’ contributions to the open borders debate have gradually taken on a different complexion. This is explained by the varying “ideality” of his approaches. Sometimes Carens attempts to figure out what states would be obliged to do under otherwise perfectly just conditions (i.e., he attempts to establish an ideal). At other times, he is more interested in what to do, given the (not fully just) world that we actually live in. In my view, the relevance of the ideal/non-ideal theory debate to the open borders debate (and the ethics of migration more generally) has not yet received sufficient attention. My aim in this paper therefore is to show in detail how Carens’ varying approaches affect his critique of the conventional view. To this effect I analyse three of his papers: “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders” (1987), “Realistic and Idealistic Approaches to the Ethics of Migration” (1996), and “Who Should get in? The Ethics of Immigration Admissions” (2003).