DOI
10.1017/S1752971915000226
Abstract
States have rights to unilaterally determine their own immigration policies under international law and few international institutions regulate states’ decision-making about immigration. As a result, states have extensive discretion over immigration policy. In this paper, I argue that states should join international migration institutions that would constrain their discretion over immigration. Immigration restrictions are morally risky. When states restrict immigration, they risk unjustly harming foreigners and restricting their freedom. Furthermore, biases and epistemic defects pervasively influence states’ decision-making about immigration policy. States should transfer some of their decision-making authority over immigration to more reliable institutions in order to mitigate the risks that they will unjustly restrict immigration. International institutions that include the interests of potential immigrants would be more reliable with respect to immigration policy than unilateral state decision-making. Thus, states should subject their immigration policies to international control.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-21-2015
Publisher Statement
Copyright © 2015, Cambridge University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971915000226
The definitive version is available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/case-for-the-international-governance-of-immigration/E2CB03A586CD586B8CF12C3BB69B4832
Recommended Citation
Hidalgo J. The case for the international governance of immigration. International Theory. 2016;8(1):140-170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971915000226
Included in
Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Leadership Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, Psychology Commons
