Abstract
AbstractMigration often causes what I refer to in this paper as ‘anti-immigration backlashes’ in receiving countries. Such reactions have substantial costs in terms of the undermining of national solidarity and the diffusion of political distrust. In short, anti-immigration backlashes can threaten the social and political stability of receiving countries. Do such risks constitute a reason against permissive immigration policies which are otherwise desirable? I argue that a positive answer may depend on a skeptical view based on the alleged constraints that certain political facts - especially facts about human nature - pose on political intervention. This view does not stand conceptual and empirical scrutiny in the case of anti-immigration backlashes, where feasibility comes in degree. Yet focusing on the recalcitrance to change of these facts is practically important when devising action plans. This pragmatic core of the skeptical view yields a gradualist and naturalistic way of thinking about constraints in political theorising about migration, and elsewhere.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Philosophy
Reference75 articles.
1. Alesina A, Glaeser E, Sacerdote B (2001) Why Doesn't the US have a European-style welfare system? NBER Working Paper, 8524
2. Alesina A, Glaeser E (2004) Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: a world of difference. Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Balibar E (1991) “Is there a ‘neo-racism’?” In Wallerstein IM, Balibar E. 1991. Race, nations, and class: ambiguous identities. London: Verso, pp. 17–28
4. Bertram C (2018) Do states have the right to exclude immigrants? Polity, Cambridge
5. Blake M (2002) Discretionary migration. Philos Top 30(2):273–289
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献