The philosophical debate on the freedom of movement focuses almost exclusively on long-term migration, what I call, migration as settlement. The normative justifications defending border controls assume that the movement of people across political borders, independent of its purpose and the length of stay, refers to migration as settlement. “Global mobility,” “international movement,” and “immigration” are oftenused interchangeably. However, global mobility also refers to the movements of people across international borders for a short length of time such as travel, short-term (...) and circular migration. While most scholarly attention has focused on long-term migration, the vast majority of cross-border movement of people (approximately 85% of all cross-border movements in 2019) is short-term. The existing literature offers normative arguments for border controls, which are grounded on states’ right to self-determination, the freedom of (dis)association, the welfare state, the duty to compatriots, and brain drain. In this paper, I argue that these arguments do not justify excluding travelers, short-term and circular migrants from the territory. (shrink)

In Justice for People on the Move, Gillian Brock constructs an elaborate normative framework, based on human rights practice, to assess how states must treat international migrants in order to legitimate exclusionary claims to self-determination. In this discussion piece, I argue that this framework cannot always satisfactorily explain when and why it is impermissible for legitimate states to remove irregular migrants from their territory (i.e. deport them). I show that Brock’s intuitions about at least one of her own paradigm cases (...) – the removal of long-settled immigrants whose irregular immigration was tacitly approved at the time – are not accommodated by her own framework. However, Brock also acknowledges that deportation is often harmful to persons and that this is morally problematic. Although this concern with harm is not systematically elaborated in Brock’s discussion, I think it should be. I suggest that a purely harm-based framework is fully able to negotiate Brock’s moral worries about deportation and outline the cornerstones of such a framework, stressing that harm in deportation may count as permissible only if it satisfies the joint desiderata of necessity and proportionality. I conclude by giving a sense of how one of Brock’s paradigm cases – the tacit-approval case – could be assessed within this framework, arguing that such an analysis would likely bolster Brock’s intuitions about this case whilst satisfactorily explaining if and why exactly the deportation practice in question cannot permissibly be pursued by legitimate states. (shrink)

Hoy día, en tiempos en que se intensifica la movilidad migratoria en todo el mundo, y con ello, se multiplican y diversifican las lenguas habladas en las comunidades que habitamos y en sus márgenes, compartir una lengua es algo que cada vez se debe dar menos por supuesto. En este artículo, examino las prácticas de hablar unos con otros en condiciones de ausencia de lengua común, esto es, situaciones en las que no se dan las bases para la comunicación verbal, (...) ni tampoco una comunicación translingüística que use la proximidad de las lenguas, así como el habla con intermediarios. Desde una aproximación teórica, me baso en la fenomenología del lenguaje de Merleau-Ponty y en las reflexiones existenciales y políticas de Hannah Arendt sobre el habla. (shrink)

Methodological nationalism is a cognitive bias that construes states as the natural and necessary form of contemporary social organisation. This gives rise to a state-centred view which naturalises national communities, exaggerates the differences between citizens and migrants, and exceptionalises international migration. In this paper, I argue that methodological nationalism is not only empirically inaccurate, but also normatively problematic, because its assumptions prevent migration ethicists from properly theorising about discrimination. I begin by briefly presenting methodological nationalism and clarifying some misconceptions. I (...) also identify some features that would make a policy discriminatory and show that many contemporary migration policies are discriminatory. Looking at three variants of methodological nationalism (naturalisation, territorialisation, and ignorance), I argue that methodological nationalism marginalises concerns about discrimination in migration ethics and prevents migration ethicists from developing accounts that would be able to counter xenophobic arguments. Last, I consider the implications of my argument for migration ethics. (shrink)

This article presents moral dilemmas that arise when expressing an argument persuades citizens to support rights for migrants, but also persuades citizens to support rights for some migrants and not others. We draw upon an original survey experiment to illustrate versions of these dilemmas.

Brands are widely regarded as a constellation of shared associations surrounding a company and its offerings. On the traditional view of brands, these associations are regarded as perceptions and attitudes in consumers’ minds in relation to a company. We argue that this traditional framing of brands faces an explanatory problem: the inability to satisfactorily explain why certain branding activism initiatives elicit the moralized reactive attitudes that are paradigmatic responses to wrongdoing. In this paper, we argue for a reframing of brands (...) that calls for viewing brands as a series of normatively binding expectations that are ethically akin to promises. Our promissory framing of brands avoids the explanatory problem, illuminates a number of ethical requirements on branding, and reconceptualizes the role of brand managers. (shrink)

My paper explores the question of when it is wrong for a state’s immigration criteria to discriminate against people with disabilities, focusing on the idea that discrimination is wrong when it demeans a group, rather than when it disadvantages them. I argue that selecting against people with disabilities often demeans them but might not always do so even when immigration criteria explicitly exclude people on the basis of having disabilities – that is, in cases of direct discrimination. Moreover, I demonstrate (...) that certain cases of less direct forms of discrimination that select against people with disabilities – in particular, when states apply health-cost limits on admissions – can function as proxies designed to exclude people with disabilities and thereby demean them. Finally, I explain why my analysis of discrimination’s wrong does not typically apply to health conditions in general, such as heart, liver, or lung disease or cancer, setting my view apart from a prominent view in the literature. (shrink)