ipl-logo

John Rawls Argument For Open Borders

469 Words2 Pages

Liberal traditions are significantly rooted in the argument for open borders. The concept of open borders can not be correctly understood without studying its liberalistic ways. John Rawls is a theorist whose ideas against immigration revoke the liberalism that surrounds open borders. However, the three thinkers who support open borders as liberalism are Joseph Carens, John Mill, and Sheyla Benhabib. Unfortunately, despite his veil of ignorance theory, John Rawls does not agree with open borders. Although the veil of ignorance has liberalistic-like ways, Rawls does not extend this part of his philosophy to immigrants. Instead, Rawls is more interested in using his philosophy for the purpose of securing and protecting nation-states.
On the other hand, Carens, Mill, and Benhabib …show more content…

The author’s first major argument is crucial to Carens’ belief of immigration because it suggests open-borders will allow people to control their faith by not becoming victims of their nation’s socioeconomic problems (page 259). Mill would agree with Carens’ belief that immigration does allow people to control their faith. As a result, Mill believes foreigners are doing what is deemed a necessity, so they may gain better livelihoods. The author is in support of this regardless if immigrants crossing the border do so illegally (because they are committing a wrongful act for the greater good of their lives). The greater good of their lives is easily defined as the pursuit of liberty, happiness, and property (page 86). Benhabib provides clarification to her readers on why Rawls’ immigration theory rejects liberalism. In the reading, Benhabib extracts several key quotes from Rawls’ philosophy on foreigners. A key concept from Rawls that caught my attention was his description of nation-states as a “complete” and “closed social system.” Moreover, he continues

Show More
Related
389 Words | 2 Pages

In 1924 US congress passed the Johnson-Reed act. This act reduced the amount of immigrants coming to the US from any other country to a mere 2%. Many thought this act was unjust and consequently, “un-american”. One man, Robert H. Clancy, a Republican congressman from Detroit, stood up for those being oppressed by this act. Mr. Clancy states his points in the 1924 speech “An “Un-American Bill” through the use of diction, a myriad of anecdotes, and a motley of pathos.

Read More
946 Words | 4 Pages

While analyzing the nature of American stimulus, Scott Russell Sanders proclaimed, “But who would pretend that a history of migration has immunized the United States against bigotry?” (Sanders 40). Sanders was a firm believer that America had transformed into a state of take-and-abandon. He made several observations and analogies that highlighted the privation of conservatism. Sanders saw that when people fished a stream, they did not fish it with concern for population of the fish, they fished it until not a fish was left, before moving on to the next stream; when a farmer utilized a field, rather than caring for the field, when the soil quality dropped, the farmer would find somewhere new to settle.

Read More
901 Words | 4 Pages

I will talk about John Rawls’ philosophy and two major critiques made to his work by G.A. Cohen John Rawls was born in Baltimore in 1921. He was always concerned about poverty in the United States and wanted to change the society he lived in. He wrote his most famous book A Theory of Justice in 1971. This book is considered the most important book in American philosophy after the World War II. John Rawls philosophy is based on his vision of justice.

Read More
1172 Words | 5 Pages

The United States is already a “melting pot” for many different races and cultures already. Building a wall may seem like justice in the eyes of some, the question that is raised is if it will be beneficial for the citizens as a whole. Assessing the issue at hand can lead to the conclusion that building a wall may appear to seem beneficial. If becoming a citizen legally is so rough than how can some immigrants do so and not all? McIntosh’s Invisible Knapsack theory can argue that building a wall to separate Mexico from the United States only adds to our benefits as being citizens.

Read More
808 Words | 4 Pages

The picture of Lady Liberty with open arms outstretched to the poor and down-trodden throughout the world is an inspiring symbol for conservative and liberal citizens of the United States of America. They are united in the desire to continue living out the Founders’ vision in the modern age. However, they are divided in their interpretation of exactly who is included within that embrace. The terminology of ‘open immigration’ sounds appealing to many residents of the USA. After all, why shouldn’t everyone be able to enter our wonderful homeland?

Read More
1125 Words | 5 Pages

For instance, the right of the state to refuse the entry to anyone wishing to enter in its territory must always be grounded in a specific reason. In chapter fourth, is mainly about the problem that states express to avoid immigration. On of this problem is racial prejudice because foreigners are different from those who are living in certain country. In present times fortunately, in American and Australian immigrations laws had been changed.

Read More
373 Words | 2 Pages

Colonists and immigrants stood at the origins of the country, that could be today called a land of immigration, and that is why the immigration issue is rooted in the history of the United States of America. Multiculturalists and nativists are arguing about whether immigration and assimilation is good or bad. The paper evaluates arguments of both parties, considers pros and cons of the immigration and supports multiculturalists' arguments because legal immigration without limits truly reflects American original ideals. Strict immigration control, prohibition of immigration, deterioration of living conditions of immigrants, limitations on immigration, and other measures, which were popular among both citizens and authorities of the USA in the

Read More
466 Words | 2 Pages

With the current election raging, illegal immigration has been the hot topic amongst both liberals and conservatives. Many conservatives believe that illegals steal jobs, abuse tax benefits, and, most importantly, threaten their way of life. Liberals, on the other hand, support immigration reform based purely on sympathy. They understand that many Latin Americans go through extreme measures to escape hopeless situations back home. While there’s nothing wrong with sympathy for our fellow humans, it may serve to be beneficial to look at immigration reform through the lens of reason.

Read More
1165 Words | 5 Pages

A Critique of Tommie Shelby.” These include an inaccurate distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory, a conflation of racial and class injustice, and the non-endorsement of Rawls himself regarding the application of his principles to non-ideal theory. Further, along the way I would like to address

Read More
1004 Words | 5 Pages

Rawls accepts the fact that everyone does not want to better themselves but that should not hinder those who want to achieve more. Rawls also believes that luck-based features should not put a particular group, or groups, above others. It is unfair to give the upper hand to certain people because of factors beyond our control, such as race, age, talent, and more. With Rawls, I believe that there is an obligation to help others because you never know when you may need their help. Therefore, it is important to not stack the odds against anyone who lacks a particular feature, or features.

Read More
1198 Words | 5 Pages

Should people be allowed to immigrate? This multifaceted question exemplifies the contemporary news cycle. Hence, it raises the question regarding the rise of such highly debated and opposing views on such a matter. The theories of Karl Marx and subsequently, Frantz Fanon can be applied to such a perplexing phenomena to gain a more comprehensive understanding. It is empirically provable that people have migrated for thousands of years, however the matter has become immensely contested in the contemporary political and social sphere.

Read More
600 Words | 3 Pages

In a series of rhetorical questions, he asks if an immigrant can call a country that met him with nothing but “the frowns of the rich [and] the severity of the laws” (11) his homeland. The way these questions were included vividly illustrate his point that there is reason for an immigrant continuing to

Read More
1463 Words | 6 Pages

J RAWLS, The Laws of Peoples-with the Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Harvard University Press: USA, 1999. John Rawls was an influential political philosopher and his publications are widely read. One of which is the Law of Peoples published in 1993 which is the subject of my study. In the Law of Peoples Rawls concerns of the general principles whereby one can uphold and be accept by the liberal people as well as the non-liberal society. “This principle is a standard for which can be useful in regulating the behavior of the citizens towards one and other.”

Read More
1030 Words | 5 Pages

The gamblers would not in their lucid mind take the risk, and would also probably not accept the current dispensation as it is today. Rawls suggests that every sane player in the game from behind the veil, will want to see well-kept and well-performing schools, affordable and quality healthcare, fair judicial conduct and decent housing for all. Rawls’ theory is thus of the utmost importance to policy makers when deciding how best to allocate resources, as policy makers have to according to Rawls take a step back into this veil of ignorance in order to devise the best or most just solution.

Read More
1821 Words | 8 Pages

On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.

Read More

More about John Rawls Argument For Open Borders

Related Topics

Open Document