L'État a-t-il un droit d'exclure? Une réponse cosmopolitique à la question migratoire
This master’s thesis tries to answer two interrelated questions: does the state have, from a philosophical point of view, a right to exclude, and what is the answer the state should give, from a moral point of view, to the migratory phenomenon? To do this, we engage in a critical analysis of the philosophical debate on borders and immigration between the defenders of the state’s right to exclude and the defenders of open borders. Adopting a non-ideal cosmopolitan liberal egalitarian approach and focusing mainly on unskilled economic migration from poor countries to rich liberal democracies in today's world, we successively criticize the security, socio-economic and democratic arguments for the state’s right to exclude. In general, we aim to show that these three arguments exaggerate the threat of immigration for security, public order, jobs, wages, the welfare state, culture and political self-determination, and that they do not give enough weight to the interests of migrants from poor countries. We conclude that the state does not, from a philosophical point of view, have a right to exclude, and that it would be morally preferable to open the borders further, while redefining the powers and responsibilities of states and international institutions to enable an international multilateral governance of migration, and to better respond to the main problems that amplify the migratory phenomenon, i.e. armed conflicts, glaring global socio-economic inequalities, and climate change.
immigration philosophy ethics in international relations cosmopolitanism liberal egalitarianism ideal and non-ideal theories equality of opportunity relational equality immigration open borders international institutional reform