Skip to main content

Sarah Song

University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall), Faculty Member

Followers

174

Following

26

Public Views

I'm a political theorist with an interest in questions about democracy, migration, membership, multiculturalism, feminism, and inequality. I teach courses in political and legal philosophy, citizenship and migration, and feminist jurisprudence in the interdisciplinary PhD Program in Jurisprudence

less

University of Delaware

University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP)

University of Central Florida

Benjamin Isakhan

Deakin University

Central European University

University of Cologne

Armando Marques-Guedes

UNL - New University of Lisbon

University of York

University of the Basque Country, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

University of Birmingham

InterestsView All (13)

Uploads

Papers by Sarah Song

Strangers in Our Midst

European Political Science, Aug 23, 2017

Enduring injustice

Contemporary Political Theory, Oct 28, 2014

No country's history is free of injustice. How should we think about and respond to past injustic... more No country's history is free of injustice. How should we think about and respond to past injustices? In his characteristically clear-eyed way, Jeff Spinner-Halev argues that the history of injustices matters not so much as a way of determining responsibility for the injustices or shaping our collective memories of them but rather because it enables us to understand the effects of the injustices and how to overcome them. He engages deeply with liberal political theory in order to show the limits of liberal solutions to what he calls the problem of 'enduring injustice'. It is hard not to be sympathetic to Spinner-Halev's claim that we should move from the idea of historical injustice to enduring injustice. The problem of enduring injustice, as he frames it, has both a historical and a contemporary component. The concern is not only that people suffered injustices in the past but also that they continue to suffer injustices (p. 58). Causality is a central concern for those who want to ameliorate enduring injustice. On this point, specifically with respect to the role of causal argumentsas to how injustices came about and why they persist -Spinner-Halev's account is ambiguous. He introduces the idea of causal arguments in discussing the collective narratives of groups who have suffered injustice; the source of injustice is a part of the collective narratives of groups. He concedes that causal arguments are hard to prove but nonetheless maintains that we can make 'reasonable suppositions' about causality, such as the causal role of government policies in the current suffering of Native Americans. As he puts it, 'there is a clear and strong connection between the past injustice and the current injustice, even if we cannot say what the course of history would have been without the injustice ' (pp. 59-60). While acknowledging the role of causal arguments at the level of group narratives, Spinner-Halev backs away from them when he turns to discuss the idea of responsibility. He says he loosely follows Miller's (2001) view, which distinguishes among: (i) causal responsibility, (ii) moral responsibility, (iii) remedial responsibility and (iv) responsibility in virtue of membership in a community that has inflicted or

The Claims of Family

Oxford Scholarship Online

Chapter 8 examines family-based immigration, which makes up a large share of the regular admissio... more Chapter 8 examines family-based immigration, which makes up a large share of the regular admissions for permanent residence in many democratic countries. F`amily-based immigration schemes have come under criticism for crowding out other kinds of migration such as high-skilled immigration. The chapter explores some important normative questions about family-based immigration. Why should states privilege family relationships in designing immigration policy? Which relationships have counted as family, and which relationships should count? The chapter defends family-based immigration and argues for moving beyond the traditional model of the family to include more pluralistic conceptions of family, including nonfamilial relationships of care.

Refugees and Other Necessitous Migrants

Oxford Scholarship Online

Chapter 7 considers the substance of immigration policy. It argues that the duty to protect refug... more Chapter 7 considers the substance of immigration policy. It argues that the duty to protect refugees and other forcibly displaced migrants is a moral constraint on the state’s right to control immigration. The chapter examines the grounds of the obligation toward refugees, who should be regarded as a refugee, what the duty to assist refugees entails, how the duty should be shared among states, and what the limits on the duty to refugees might be. It concludes by considering some implications for contemporary policy toward refugees.

Collective Self-Determination and Immigration Control

Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018

Chapter 4 advances an alternative justification for the state’s right to control immigration base... more Chapter 4 advances an alternative justification for the state’s right to control immigration based on the idea of collective self-determination. Collective self-determination is the idea that a group of people should govern themselves. The chapter begins by discussing the meaning, role, and value of collective self-determination and then elaborates a conception of collective self-determination. It argues that the agent of collective self-determination is not a nation, joint owners of state institutions, or members of a voluntary association but “a people.” It then explores the connections between collective self-determination, territorial rights, and immigration control. It concludes by considering the distinctive requirements of democratic self-determination and its implications for immigration control in democratic societies.

Review essay on Joseph Carens's The Ethics of Immigration

Immigration and Democracy

Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018

Immigration and Democracy develops an intermediate ethical position on immigration between closed... more Immigration and Democracy develops an intermediate ethical position on immigration between closed borders and open borders. It argues that states have the right to control borders, but this right is qualified by an obligation to assist those outside their borders. In democratic societies, the right of immigration control must also be exercised in ways that are consistent with democratic values. Part I explores the normative grounds of the modern state’s power over immigration found in US immigration law and in political theory. It argues for a qualified, not absolute, right of states to control immigration based on a particular interpretation of the value of collective self-determination. Part II considers the case for open borders. One argument for open borders rests on the demands of global distributive justice; another argument emphasizes the value of freedom of movement as a fundamental human right. The book argues that both arguments fall short of justifying open borders. Part ...

1. Why Does the State Have the Right to Control Immigration?

Immigration, Emigration, and Migration, 2017

Public debate about immigration proceeds on the assumption that each country has the right to con... more Public debate about immigration proceeds on the assumption that each country has the right to control its own borders. But what, if anything, justifies the modern state’s power over borders? This chapter provides an answer in three parts. First, it examines the earliest immigration law cases in U.S. history and finds that the leading theorist they rely upon falls short of providing adequate normative justification of the state’s right to control immigration. In the second part, it turns to contemporary political theory and philosophy, critically assessing three leading arguments for the state’s right to control immigration: (1) national identity, (2) freedom of association, and (3) ownership/property. The third and final section offers an alternative argument based on the requirements of democracy.

Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration

Migration Studies, 2017

In this timely book, David Miller argues for the right of states to restrict immigration or to 'c... more In this timely book, David Miller argues for the right of states to restrict immigration or to 'close borders': a controversial thesis among political philosophers. Of course, states already exercise the right to restrict immigration, but it is political philosophy's job to determine whether they ought to have it. In the last few decades, many political philosophers have argued that they ought not. States should be much more open to migrants than they currently are, these philosophers claim, or else they violate the universal principles of equality and avoiding unjustified coercion. Yet, in the very same period, the position Miller defends has become more and more popular among non-academics. As the victory REVIEWS 465

Immigration and Democratic Principles: On Carens’ Ethics of Immigration

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2016

Joseph Carens first advanced his case for open borders in 1987, and it has played a defining role... more Joseph Carens first advanced his case for open borders in 1987, and it has played a defining role in the normative debate on immigration ever since. In one of the most memorable passages, he analogizes citizenship regimes with feudalism: Citizenship in Western liberal democracies is the modern equivalent of feudal privilege-an inherited status that greatly enhances one's life chances. Like feudal birthright privilege, restrictive citizenship is hard to justify when one thinks about it closely. 1 Carens's analogy highlights the unfairness implicit in being born a citizen of a wealthy country. Like being born into a wealthy family, citizenship acquired in virtue of birth in the territory of, or to parents who are citizens of, wealthy liberal democratic states is, to borrow a phrase from Rawls, "so arbitrary from a moral point of view" and yet so strongly shapes our prospects in life. 2 Based on his interpretations of three leading theories of justice, Carens concludes "there is little justification for restricting immigration" (252). While Carens has clarified and deepened his arguments in response to critics over the years, he has been unwavering in his commitment to the contention that

DIAGNOSING DEMOCRACY’S DISCONTENT Comment on M. Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit

American Journal of Law and Equality, 2021

These are troubling times for democracy: mounting inequality, growing xenophobia, and persistent ... more These are troubling times for democracy: mounting inequality, growing xenophobia, and persistent public support for autocratic politicians who have little regard for democratic institutions. In The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, 1 Michael Sandel contends that mainstream parties and politicians have failed to understand the source of the discontent fueling the populist backlash in the United States and Europe. The problem is not only an economic one generated by global trade and technological change, nor is it primarily about xenophobia and racism against immigrants and racial minorities. It is fundamentally a moral and cultural problem driven by the meritocratic ideal. Sandel acknowledges that the populist backlash is partly a response to the way mainstream parties have carried out the project of globalization over the past four decades. Politicians, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, adopted a technocratic approach to politics, in which market mechanisms are the primary tools for pursuing the public good. Neither Republicans nor Democrats did much to address the deepening inequality. Despite this, Sandel suggests, the technocratic approach to governing is not the main source of the populist backlash. Rather, it is the meritocratic ethic embraced by elites, which Sandel calls the rhetoric of rising-anyone who works hard

Immigrant legalization: A dilemma between justice and the rule of law

Migration Studies

Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma between justice and the rule of law. On t... more Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma between justice and the rule of law. On the one hand, liberal democracies aspire to the principles of individual liberty and equality. Building on liberal ideals of justice, compelling arguments have been made for granting legal status and a path to citizenship to unauthorized migrants by virtue of the social ties they have developed, their contributions to the host society, and their vulnerability to exploitation. On the other hand, legalization poses a challenge to another important value, the rule of law, which requires government to operate within a framework of law in accordance with well-established public norms. Immigrant legalization programmes are said to undermine the rule of law because they reward lawbreaking, allow queue-jumping, and incentivize further unauthorized migration. This article clarifies each horn of the dilemma, focusing on rule of law arguments. We offer a critical reappraisal of immigrant legalizatio...

Immigrant Legalization: A Dilemma between Inclusion and the Rule of Law?

Social Science Research Network, 2021

Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma for liberal democracies. On the one hand,... more Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma for liberal democracies. On the one hand, liberal democracies aspire to respect the basic equality of all persons. Compelling moral arguments have been made for granting legal status and a path to citizenship to unauthorized migrants by virtue of the social ties that they have developed, their contributions to the host society, and their vulnerability to exploitation and subordination. On the other hand, legalization poses a challenge to another important value, the rule of law, which requires government to operate within a framework of law in accordance with well-established public norms, not in an arbitrary or ad hoc manner. Immigrant legalization programs are said to undermine the rule of law because they reward lawbreaking, allow queue-jumping, and incentivize further unauthorized migration. This article clarifies each horn of the dilemma, focusing on rule of law arguments since less has been written about them. We assess both the empirical assumptions and normative interpretations embedded in rule of law arguments. We concentrate on the United States but also give some attention to legalization in other countries. We acknowledge that some of the rule of law objections to legalization have merit, but we argue that there are also rule of law arguments that support legalization, which help to mitigate, although not eliminate, the dilemma. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis and considering how liberal democratic states might better manage the dilemma.

Justice, Collective Self‐Determination, and the Ethics of Immigration Control

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2022

Political Theories of Migration

Annual Review of Political Science, 2018

The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy ... more The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy of state power, the boundaries of political membership, and justice within and across state borders. States exercise power over borders, but what, if anything, justifies this power? Is it morally permissible for liberal democratic states to prevent their citizens from exiting the country and exclude prospective migrants from entering? If liberal democratic states are justified in excluding some and accepting others, how should they decide whom to admit? This review examines how contemporary political theorists and philosophers have answered these questions. First, I examine the conventional view that says states have the right to control immigration; second, I discuss arguments for open borders. The third section examines critique of open borders, and the fourth section considers more recent arguments that have been advanced in favor of the conventional view. I conclude with some suggest...

Majority Norms, Multiculturalism, and Gender Equality

American Political Science Review, 2005

Although many scholars have discussed the conflict that can arise between multiculturalism and ge... more Although many scholars have discussed the conflict that can arise between multiculturalism and gender equality, both critics and defenders of multiculturalism have largely overlooked a variety of interactive dynamics between majority and minority cultures that have important implications for the theory and practice of multiculturalism. Examining cases in the U.S. context, this essay argues for an interactive view of the dilemmas of gender and culture that is attentive to interconnections between majority and minority cultures. What is of particular concern for debates on multiculturalism is that the mainstream legal and normative frameworks within which minority claims for accommodation are evaluated have themselves been informed by patriarchal norms, which in turn have offered support for gender hierarchies within minority cultures. The interactive view defended here suggests the need to scrutinize both minority and majority norms and practices in evaluating the claims of minority ...

The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state

International Theory, 2012

Democracy is rule by the demos, but by what criteria is the demos constituted? Theorists of democ... more Democracy is rule by the demos, but by what criteria is the demos constituted? Theorists of democracy have tended to assume that the demos is properly defined by national boundaries or by the territorial boundaries of the modern state. In a recent turn, many democratic theorists have advanced the principles of affected interests and coercion as the basis for defining the boundaries of democracy. According to these principles, it is not co-nationals or fellow citizens but all affected or all subjected to coercion who constitute the demos. In this paper, I argue that these recent approaches to the boundary problem are insufficiently attentive to the conditions of democracy. Democracy is not merely a set of procedures; it also consists of substantive values and principles. Political equality is a constitutive condition of democracy, and solidarity is an instrumental condition of democracy. The affected interests and coercion principles create serious problems for the realization of the...

Political Theories of Migration

Annual Review of Political Science, 2018

The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy ... more The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy of state power, the boundaries of political membership, and justice within and across state borders. States exercise power over borders , but what, if anything, justifies this power? Is it morally permissible for liberal democratic states to prevent their citizens from exiting the country and exclude prospective migrants from entering? If liberal democratic states are justified in excluding some and accepting others, how should they decide whom to admit? This review examines how contemporary political theorists and philosophers have answered these questions. First, I examine the conventional view that says states have the right to control immigration; second, I discuss arguments for open borders. The third section examines critique of open borders, and the fourth section considers more recent arguments that have been advanced in favor of the conventional view. I conclude with some suggestions for future research.

Polygamy Today: A Case for Qualified Recognition

The Polygamy Question, eds. Janet Benin and Lisa Fishbayn Joffe, 2016

Feminists Rethink Multiculturalism

Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory, 2014

Strangers in Our Midst

European Political Science, Aug 23, 2017

Enduring injustice

Contemporary Political Theory, Oct 28, 2014

No country's history is free of injustice. How should we think about and respond to past injustic... more No country's history is free of injustice. How should we think about and respond to past injustices? In his characteristically clear-eyed way, Jeff Spinner-Halev argues that the history of injustices matters not so much as a way of determining responsibility for the injustices or shaping our collective memories of them but rather because it enables us to understand the effects of the injustices and how to overcome them. He engages deeply with liberal political theory in order to show the limits of liberal solutions to what he calls the problem of 'enduring injustice'. It is hard not to be sympathetic to Spinner-Halev's claim that we should move from the idea of historical injustice to enduring injustice. The problem of enduring injustice, as he frames it, has both a historical and a contemporary component. The concern is not only that people suffered injustices in the past but also that they continue to suffer injustices (p. 58). Causality is a central concern for those who want to ameliorate enduring injustice. On this point, specifically with respect to the role of causal argumentsas to how injustices came about and why they persist -Spinner-Halev's account is ambiguous. He introduces the idea of causal arguments in discussing the collective narratives of groups who have suffered injustice; the source of injustice is a part of the collective narratives of groups. He concedes that causal arguments are hard to prove but nonetheless maintains that we can make 'reasonable suppositions' about causality, such as the causal role of government policies in the current suffering of Native Americans. As he puts it, 'there is a clear and strong connection between the past injustice and the current injustice, even if we cannot say what the course of history would have been without the injustice ' (pp. 59-60). While acknowledging the role of causal arguments at the level of group narratives, Spinner-Halev backs away from them when he turns to discuss the idea of responsibility. He says he loosely follows Miller's (2001) view, which distinguishes among: (i) causal responsibility, (ii) moral responsibility, (iii) remedial responsibility and (iv) responsibility in virtue of membership in a community that has inflicted or

The Claims of Family

Oxford Scholarship Online

Chapter 8 examines family-based immigration, which makes up a large share of the regular admissio... more Chapter 8 examines family-based immigration, which makes up a large share of the regular admissions for permanent residence in many democratic countries. F`amily-based immigration schemes have come under criticism for crowding out other kinds of migration such as high-skilled immigration. The chapter explores some important normative questions about family-based immigration. Why should states privilege family relationships in designing immigration policy? Which relationships have counted as family, and which relationships should count? The chapter defends family-based immigration and argues for moving beyond the traditional model of the family to include more pluralistic conceptions of family, including nonfamilial relationships of care.

Refugees and Other Necessitous Migrants

Oxford Scholarship Online

Chapter 7 considers the substance of immigration policy. It argues that the duty to protect refug... more Chapter 7 considers the substance of immigration policy. It argues that the duty to protect refugees and other forcibly displaced migrants is a moral constraint on the state’s right to control immigration. The chapter examines the grounds of the obligation toward refugees, who should be regarded as a refugee, what the duty to assist refugees entails, how the duty should be shared among states, and what the limits on the duty to refugees might be. It concludes by considering some implications for contemporary policy toward refugees.

Collective Self-Determination and Immigration Control

Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018

Chapter 4 advances an alternative justification for the state’s right to control immigration base... more Chapter 4 advances an alternative justification for the state’s right to control immigration based on the idea of collective self-determination. Collective self-determination is the idea that a group of people should govern themselves. The chapter begins by discussing the meaning, role, and value of collective self-determination and then elaborates a conception of collective self-determination. It argues that the agent of collective self-determination is not a nation, joint owners of state institutions, or members of a voluntary association but “a people.” It then explores the connections between collective self-determination, territorial rights, and immigration control. It concludes by considering the distinctive requirements of democratic self-determination and its implications for immigration control in democratic societies.

Review essay on Joseph Carens's The Ethics of Immigration

Immigration and Democracy

Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018

Immigration and Democracy develops an intermediate ethical position on immigration between closed... more Immigration and Democracy develops an intermediate ethical position on immigration between closed borders and open borders. It argues that states have the right to control borders, but this right is qualified by an obligation to assist those outside their borders. In democratic societies, the right of immigration control must also be exercised in ways that are consistent with democratic values. Part I explores the normative grounds of the modern state’s power over immigration found in US immigration law and in political theory. It argues for a qualified, not absolute, right of states to control immigration based on a particular interpretation of the value of collective self-determination. Part II considers the case for open borders. One argument for open borders rests on the demands of global distributive justice; another argument emphasizes the value of freedom of movement as a fundamental human right. The book argues that both arguments fall short of justifying open borders. Part ...

1. Why Does the State Have the Right to Control Immigration?

Immigration, Emigration, and Migration, 2017

Public debate about immigration proceeds on the assumption that each country has the right to con... more Public debate about immigration proceeds on the assumption that each country has the right to control its own borders. But what, if anything, justifies the modern state’s power over borders? This chapter provides an answer in three parts. First, it examines the earliest immigration law cases in U.S. history and finds that the leading theorist they rely upon falls short of providing adequate normative justification of the state’s right to control immigration. In the second part, it turns to contemporary political theory and philosophy, critically assessing three leading arguments for the state’s right to control immigration: (1) national identity, (2) freedom of association, and (3) ownership/property. The third and final section offers an alternative argument based on the requirements of democracy.

Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration

Migration Studies, 2017

In this timely book, David Miller argues for the right of states to restrict immigration or to 'c... more In this timely book, David Miller argues for the right of states to restrict immigration or to 'close borders': a controversial thesis among political philosophers. Of course, states already exercise the right to restrict immigration, but it is political philosophy's job to determine whether they ought to have it. In the last few decades, many political philosophers have argued that they ought not. States should be much more open to migrants than they currently are, these philosophers claim, or else they violate the universal principles of equality and avoiding unjustified coercion. Yet, in the very same period, the position Miller defends has become more and more popular among non-academics. As the victory REVIEWS 465

Immigration and Democratic Principles: On Carens’ Ethics of Immigration

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2016

Joseph Carens first advanced his case for open borders in 1987, and it has played a defining role... more Joseph Carens first advanced his case for open borders in 1987, and it has played a defining role in the normative debate on immigration ever since. In one of the most memorable passages, he analogizes citizenship regimes with feudalism: Citizenship in Western liberal democracies is the modern equivalent of feudal privilege-an inherited status that greatly enhances one's life chances. Like feudal birthright privilege, restrictive citizenship is hard to justify when one thinks about it closely. 1 Carens's analogy highlights the unfairness implicit in being born a citizen of a wealthy country. Like being born into a wealthy family, citizenship acquired in virtue of birth in the territory of, or to parents who are citizens of, wealthy liberal democratic states is, to borrow a phrase from Rawls, "so arbitrary from a moral point of view" and yet so strongly shapes our prospects in life. 2 Based on his interpretations of three leading theories of justice, Carens concludes "there is little justification for restricting immigration" (252). While Carens has clarified and deepened his arguments in response to critics over the years, he has been unwavering in his commitment to the contention that

DIAGNOSING DEMOCRACY’S DISCONTENT Comment on M. Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit

American Journal of Law and Equality, 2021

These are troubling times for democracy: mounting inequality, growing xenophobia, and persistent ... more These are troubling times for democracy: mounting inequality, growing xenophobia, and persistent public support for autocratic politicians who have little regard for democratic institutions. In The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, 1 Michael Sandel contends that mainstream parties and politicians have failed to understand the source of the discontent fueling the populist backlash in the United States and Europe. The problem is not only an economic one generated by global trade and technological change, nor is it primarily about xenophobia and racism against immigrants and racial minorities. It is fundamentally a moral and cultural problem driven by the meritocratic ideal. Sandel acknowledges that the populist backlash is partly a response to the way mainstream parties have carried out the project of globalization over the past four decades. Politicians, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, adopted a technocratic approach to politics, in which market mechanisms are the primary tools for pursuing the public good. Neither Republicans nor Democrats did much to address the deepening inequality. Despite this, Sandel suggests, the technocratic approach to governing is not the main source of the populist backlash. Rather, it is the meritocratic ethic embraced by elites, which Sandel calls the rhetoric of rising-anyone who works hard

Immigrant legalization: A dilemma between justice and the rule of law

Migration Studies

Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma between justice and the rule of law. On t... more Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma between justice and the rule of law. On the one hand, liberal democracies aspire to the principles of individual liberty and equality. Building on liberal ideals of justice, compelling arguments have been made for granting legal status and a path to citizenship to unauthorized migrants by virtue of the social ties they have developed, their contributions to the host society, and their vulnerability to exploitation. On the other hand, legalization poses a challenge to another important value, the rule of law, which requires government to operate within a framework of law in accordance with well-established public norms. Immigrant legalization programmes are said to undermine the rule of law because they reward lawbreaking, allow queue-jumping, and incentivize further unauthorized migration. This article clarifies each horn of the dilemma, focusing on rule of law arguments. We offer a critical reappraisal of immigrant legalizatio...

Immigrant Legalization: A Dilemma between Inclusion and the Rule of Law?

Social Science Research Network, 2021

Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma for liberal democracies. On the one hand,... more Immigrant legalization policies pose an ethical dilemma for liberal democracies. On the one hand, liberal democracies aspire to respect the basic equality of all persons. Compelling moral arguments have been made for granting legal status and a path to citizenship to unauthorized migrants by virtue of the social ties that they have developed, their contributions to the host society, and their vulnerability to exploitation and subordination. On the other hand, legalization poses a challenge to another important value, the rule of law, which requires government to operate within a framework of law in accordance with well-established public norms, not in an arbitrary or ad hoc manner. Immigrant legalization programs are said to undermine the rule of law because they reward lawbreaking, allow queue-jumping, and incentivize further unauthorized migration. This article clarifies each horn of the dilemma, focusing on rule of law arguments since less has been written about them. We assess both the empirical assumptions and normative interpretations embedded in rule of law arguments. We concentrate on the United States but also give some attention to legalization in other countries. We acknowledge that some of the rule of law objections to legalization have merit, but we argue that there are also rule of law arguments that support legalization, which help to mitigate, although not eliminate, the dilemma. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis and considering how liberal democratic states might better manage the dilemma.

Justice, Collective Self‐Determination, and the Ethics of Immigration Control

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2022

Political Theories of Migration

Annual Review of Political Science, 2018

The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy ... more The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy of state power, the boundaries of political membership, and justice within and across state borders. States exercise power over borders, but what, if anything, justifies this power? Is it morally permissible for liberal democratic states to prevent their citizens from exiting the country and exclude prospective migrants from entering? If liberal democratic states are justified in excluding some and accepting others, how should they decide whom to admit? This review examines how contemporary political theorists and philosophers have answered these questions. First, I examine the conventional view that says states have the right to control immigration; second, I discuss arguments for open borders. The third section examines critique of open borders, and the fourth section considers more recent arguments that have been advanced in favor of the conventional view. I conclude with some suggest...

Majority Norms, Multiculturalism, and Gender Equality

American Political Science Review, 2005

Although many scholars have discussed the conflict that can arise between multiculturalism and ge... more Although many scholars have discussed the conflict that can arise between multiculturalism and gender equality, both critics and defenders of multiculturalism have largely overlooked a variety of interactive dynamics between majority and minority cultures that have important implications for the theory and practice of multiculturalism. Examining cases in the U.S. context, this essay argues for an interactive view of the dilemmas of gender and culture that is attentive to interconnections between majority and minority cultures. What is of particular concern for debates on multiculturalism is that the mainstream legal and normative frameworks within which minority claims for accommodation are evaluated have themselves been informed by patriarchal norms, which in turn have offered support for gender hierarchies within minority cultures. The interactive view defended here suggests the need to scrutinize both minority and majority norms and practices in evaluating the claims of minority ...

The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state

International Theory, 2012

Democracy is rule by the demos, but by what criteria is the demos constituted? Theorists of democ... more Democracy is rule by the demos, but by what criteria is the demos constituted? Theorists of democracy have tended to assume that the demos is properly defined by national boundaries or by the territorial boundaries of the modern state. In a recent turn, many democratic theorists have advanced the principles of affected interests and coercion as the basis for defining the boundaries of democracy. According to these principles, it is not co-nationals or fellow citizens but all affected or all subjected to coercion who constitute the demos. In this paper, I argue that these recent approaches to the boundary problem are insufficiently attentive to the conditions of democracy. Democracy is not merely a set of procedures; it also consists of substantive values and principles. Political equality is a constitutive condition of democracy, and solidarity is an instrumental condition of democracy. The affected interests and coercion principles create serious problems for the realization of the...

Political Theories of Migration

Annual Review of Political Science, 2018

The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy ... more The topic of migration raises important and challenging normative questions about the legitimacy of state power, the boundaries of political membership, and justice within and across state borders. States exercise power over borders , but what, if anything, justifies this power? Is it morally permissible for liberal democratic states to prevent their citizens from exiting the country and exclude prospective migrants from entering? If liberal democratic states are justified in excluding some and accepting others, how should they decide whom to admit? This review examines how contemporary political theorists and philosophers have answered these questions. First, I examine the conventional view that says states have the right to control immigration; second, I discuss arguments for open borders. The third section examines critique of open borders, and the fourth section considers more recent arguments that have been advanced in favor of the conventional view. I conclude with some suggestions for future research.

Polygamy Today: A Case for Qualified Recognition

The Polygamy Question, eds. Janet Benin and Lisa Fishbayn Joffe, 2016

Feminists Rethink Multiculturalism

Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory, 2014