DOI
10.26556/jesp.v8i2.162
Abstract
In a recent paper, Michael Blake (2013) presents a novel
argument for the claim that, if states have obligations to protect the human
rights of everyone in their jurisdiction, then some immigration restrictions
are morally justified. Blake argues that citizens acquire new obligations
to protect the human rights of immigrants once these immigrants enter
a state’s territorial jurisdiction. But he contends that people have rights to
avoid unwanted obligations and that citizens can permissibly restrict immigration
in order to prevent immigrants from imposing unwanted obligations
on them. In this paper, I will show that Blake’s argument for immigration
restrictions is unsound. In particular, I will argue that it is false that we have
rights to avoid unwanted obligations.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
8-2014
Publisher Statement
Copyright © 2014, Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v8i2.162
The definitive version is available at: https://jesp.org/index.php/jesp/issue/view/23
Recommended Citation
Hidalgo, Javier. “Immigration Restrictions and the Right to Avoid Unwanted Obligations,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (August 2014): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v8i2.162
Included in
Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, International Relations Commons, Leadership Studies Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons