Exit and the duty to admit

Conventionally, it is presumed that while citizens have the right to exit the state in which they are located, no particular state (except a citizen's home state) is required to admit them. Yet, this convention has produced, and continues to produce, injustice; to understand why, I focus on def...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ethics & global politics 2015, Vol.8 (1), p.25975-19
Main Author: Lenard, Patti Tamara
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Airports
Citizens
Citizenship
duty to admit
Ethics
Expatriates
global governance
Human rights
Immigration
imperfect duties
International law
Migrants
Migration
Political asylum
Politics
right to exit
Right wing politics
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Conventionally, it is presumed that while citizens have the right to exit the state in which they are located, no particular state (except a citizen's home state) is required to admit them. Yet, this convention has produced, and continues to produce, injustice; to understand why, I focus on defining and protecting a right to exit, as distinct from the right to move in general. This analysis leads me to propose that whereas the political theoretic literature appears to have converged on a commitment to decisive asymmetry (in favor of accepting a state's right to exclude), I propose that only a weak asymmetry is justified. I argue that receiving states are duty-bound to act in ways that enable migrants to exercise their right to exit. In particular, I argue that receiving states have a perfect duty to collectivize the process by which needy migrants can exercise the right to exit.
ISSN:1654-4951
1654-6369
DOI:10.3402/egp.v8.25975