Immigration, Citizenship, and the Clash Between Partiality and Impartiality

Abstract

Do aspiring immigrants have a right to enter a new country? Do countries have a moral duty to allow people seeking refuge to enter? Or do countries have a moral right to deny entry? In this paper, I link these questions to the broader clash between a partialist morality that stresses duties to particular people and an impartialist morality that requires equal treatment of all people. According to strongly partialist views, governments and citizens have duties only to their own country and its citizens and thus no duty to admit aspiring immigrants. According to strongly impartialist views, morality requires impartial concern for all people and thus a duty to admit aspiring immigrants. I focus on the problem of partialism vs. impartialism because solving it is necessary (though perhaps not suffi cient) for determining what are the rights of aspiring immigrants and what are the rights and duties of countries that aspiring immigrants seek to enter. One possible solution is provided by ``moderate patriotism,{''} a view that is meant to reconcile partiality and impartiality. According to moderate patriotism, countries have greater duties to their own citizens but also have some duties to non-citizens. Because moderate patriotism can take different forms, it provides multiple answers to questions about immigration. To settle on one answer requires determining which form of moderate patriotism is correct. I describe a few types of moderate patriotism and use a rule utilitarian strategy to determine which type provides the best answers to questions about immigration rights and duties.