Summary Article and Wlbcinke Natin and Migratin
Orban’e hietirii epllih pute Hungary in war fiitng
- If Europe is fragile and not free, Hungarians cannot be free
- Orban is concerned about the many refugees feeing to Europe
- He thinks not only the prosperity, cosy lives and jobs of Europeans are at stake, but also our security
and the peaceful order of our lives are menaced as well. The principles of life that Europe has been
built on are in mortal danger. All this is atacked by migraton
- Migrants who want to change the naton or come with violence are not welcome
- The main danger comes from Brussels’s fanatcal internatonalism
- Orban says they will not allow migrants to bring homophobia, crime and other violent practces to
their land.
- He calls every citien of Hungary and every citien of Europe to unite against the dangers of
migraton he fears for. lnder which the losing of everything that is uniuue, age-old and natonal.
Mlrklc: Glrmany iimmitld ti aiilptng rlfuglle
- Merkel thinks it is the responsibility of Europe to accept refugees. She thinks the Islam is not the
source of terrorism, the problem is that it is not understood.
- Lund says the soluton is not to accept refuges but to solve the problem in the countries where the
refugees come from
- Europe supports wars in the Middle East, but this brings refugees with it. They do not want to
accept refugees, so why support the wars? Militariiing is not an opton anymore
Thl mape and iharte that lxpcain hiw Euripl’e rlfugll irieie dlvlcipld in 2016
- Most asylum applicants in Germany (due to Merkel’s welcoming positonn, Italy and France.
- Germany is the most generous El country to refugees
- The majority of refugees are coming from Syria, the next countries are Afghanistan and Irau
Carlne – Whi Shiucd Glt in? Thl Ethiie if Immigratin Admieeiine
- The goal here is to identfy the norms and principles embedded in the immigraton practces of
liberal democratc states and refect critcally upon them.
- Carens wants to show that, whatever moral limits ought to be placed on immigraton policy, they
ought at least to include the ones identied here, and that these are much more extensive than the
conventonal view would acknowledge.
Obligatory admissions
- It is common to hear people say that states are morally free to exclude whomever they choose. In
fact, all liberal democratc states recogniie moral obligatons to admit noncitiens in two categories:
the immediate family of current citiens and residents and refugees claiming asylum.
- Why family reunion?:
These new admissions were not perceived as economically advantageous and were not
politcally popular. States did this nevertheless because they felt a moral obligaton,
1
, sometmes acknowledged by government ofcials and sometmes pressed by court rulings
about the implicatons of deep consttutonal commitments.
The right of people to live with their family clearly sets a moral limit to the state’s right simply
to set its admissions policy as it chooses. Some special justicaton is needed to override the
claim to family reuniicaton, not merely the usual calculaton of state interests.
The term “family” has been treated as though it were unproblematc, but the uueston of
who should count as an immediate family member varies in practce and can be contested at
the level of principle.
There is a tension between an approach to the deiniton of family that is open to analogies,
cultural variability, and functonal euuivalents and an approach that is ixed and relies on
criteria from the dominant culture.
Often the obstacles to family reuniicaton are not formal but administratve and procedural,
which creates unjust practces even though the policy is formally just.
Another ethical problem arises in the ways that some states try to prevent the abuse of
the right of family reuniicaton. For many people, admission to the states of Europe and
North America is a scarce and valuable opportunity. Since the ways to obtain admission are
limited, some inevitably try to take advantage of points of access to which they are not
enttled (sham marriagesn.
Refugees
- There are two categories of people to be considered under the heading of refugees: those who
have been determined to be refuges by some formal process conducted by the lN High
Commissioner for Refugees or a potental destnaton country and who are then selected for
resetlement by that country and people who arrive in one of the states of Europe or North America
claiming to be refugees and asking for asylum.
- Resetlement:
A points system to select for resetlement is often used to determine who is most likely to
adapt successfully and contribute economically
On the one hand, the idea of choosing refugees for their economic potental strikes many
people as perverse because refugees are in desperate need. On the other hand, people
selected for resetlement have normally already found asylum outside their country,
as a prereuuisite to their being formally determined to be refugee.
The argument for admitng refugees for resetlement is usually couched in humanitarian
terms as something that is generous but not obligatory.
One minor uualiicaton to this general picture is that states sometmes act as though they
have a special obligaton to admit partcular groups of refugees when the state’s own actons
have contributed to the process by which the people have become refugees. (lS after
Vietnam warn
- Asylum:
People who arrive in a state and claim to be refugees must be given a fair hearing to
determine whether they are in fact refugees and, if they are, must be permited to stay.
What is striking about this reuuirement is that it limits the normal right of the state to control
the entry and term of residence of noncitiens.
2
, What gives asylum seekers a vital moral claim, however, is the fact that their arrival
involves the state directly and immediately in their fate. It is one thing to leave someone
languishing in a refugee camp, uuite another to send a person back to the country of origin to
be tortured or killed. But the conditons might not difer much in the camps.
By contrast if asylum seekers are denied entry and sent back, the state is directly involved in
what happens to them. Those seeking to harm them could not do so if the destnaton state
did not return them.
Every refugee determinaton system, no mater how good, will have complex legal features
that make the interpretaton and applicaton of the criteria to partcular cases contestable
and uncertain. So we should not assume that all failed claimants are actng in bad faith.
According to the Geneva Conventon, a refugee is any person who, “owing to a well- founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, natonality, membership of a partcular
social group or politcal opinion, is outside the country of his natonality and is unable to or,
owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protecton of that country....”Almost
every word in this deiniton is subject to interpretaton and contestaton.
In practce each state has to implement the Geneva Conventon through its own internal
legislaton, which means that it has to adopt the deiniton, sometmes in modiied form, and
then interpret and apply it through its own legal procedures. Some states adopt a much
broader interpretaton than others.
Discretonary Admissions
- How do liberal democratc states behave toward potental immigrants whom the state has no
special obligaton to admit, and how should they behave?
- Some people may say that the use of criteria is inevitably discriminatory, and will thus reject them.
States should then set numerical limits, but not distnguish among those seeking entry
- If criteria are used, some criteria are regarded as morally permissible, and others as morally
impermissible
- Criteria of exclusion:
People perceived to be threats to natonal security
People with signiicant criminal records
No state may legitmately exclude potental immigrants on the basis of race, religion, sexual
orientaton, or ethnicity.
Financial needs and medical conditons are also taken into regard before selecton, although
these criteria are controversial
- Criteria of Selecton:
States often use family relatonships (outside the principle of family reuniicatonn, economic
potental, cultural afnites, and ethnic tes in selectng among potental immigrants.
Sometmes immigrants are admited because they possess partcular skills that are in short
supply in the domestc labour market, such as computer programming, or are willing to do
certain kinds of work that local workers are unwilling to undertake, such as live-in caretaking.
A third criteria sometmes used is cultural afnity (economic potental, knowledge of
languagen
3
, Another (deeply problematcn criterion of selecton that is used by some states in selectng
immigrants and that is often seen as closely related to culture is ethnicity. Another criterion
of selecton that is used by some states in selectng immigrants and that is often seen as
closely related to culture is ethnicity. The only justicaton for using ethnicity as a criterion
for the selecton of immigrants is when that ethnic identty is connected to a disadvantage
elsewhere in the world.
Sirutin – Cinelrving Natine
- Everywhere the idea of the naton is under atack – either despised as an atavistc form of social
unity, or even condemned as a cause of war and confict, to be broken down and replaced by more
enlightened and more universal forms of jurisdicton.
- We have to choose whether to go forward to a new conditon in which the natonalites of Europe
dissolve in a historically meaningless collectvity, or back to the familiar sovereignty of the territorial
naton state.
- Scruton claims that the naton state is the only soluton to the problems of modern government
that has proved itself
- The case against the naton state has not been properly made, and the case for the transnatonal
alternatve has not been made at all. Scruton believes that we are on the brink of decisions that
could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few years in which to
take stock of our inheritance and the reassume it. We in the naton state of Europe need to earn
again the sovereignty that previous generatons so laboriously shaped from inheritance of
Christanity, imperial government and Roman law.
Citzenship
- Migrants are migratng form regions where natonality is weak or non-existent, they are not
migratng because they have feelings of love or loyalty towards the natons in whose territory they
seek a home. They are migratng in search of citienship, which is the principal gift of natonal
jurisdictons, and the origin of peace, law, stability and prosperity that stll prevails in the West
- Citiens enjoy certain rights and are not subject to the state they also enjoy prosperity because of
the market economy they enjoy trust because all citiens are bound by a common set of rules (social
contractn
Membership and Natonality
- It is because citienship presupposes membership that natonality has become so important in the
modern world.
- Natonality is not the only kind of social membership, nor is it an exclusive te. However, it is the
only form of membership that has shown itself able to sustain a democratc process and a liberal rule
of law.
- Forms of social membership
Tribal society: based on kinship and a common ancestor hierarchical, with accountability
running one way outsiders cannot become insiders. Members see each other as family
Creed community: criterion of membership is religious. Members see each other as the
faithful
4
