Whether or not to grant ‘amnesty’ has been a contentious policy issue in a wide range of settings, from human rights violations to draft avoidance to library fines. Recently, the idea of amnesty has come to structure many debates over irregular immigration. While amnesty’s meaning is usually treated as self-evident, the term in fact signifies in a variety of normative directions. This article employs amnesty as an optic to examine accountability questions that structure normative debates over irregular immigration in liberal (...) states. It distinguishes among conceptions of amnesty emphasizing forgiveness, erasure and vindication, and argues that developing a vindicatory account of amnesty is both particularly difficult and particularly necessary in the immigration setting. (shrink)

Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic are two recent crises whose combined effects exacerbated the exclusion of irregular migrants in Europe. In this thesis, I will explore the structure-agency linkages that shaped the everyday survival strategies of irregular Filipino migrants (IFMs) in navigating a post-Brexit, mid-pandemic UK. Using Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson’s frameworks of political-civil society, differential inclusion, and internal borders, I examine how IFMs exercised their agency against the “formal” rules of the state as well as the “informal” rules (...) set by fellow social actors. The themes that emerged from the analysis underscored the long-debated sociological tensions between structure and agency. Among these, the most recurring one is that IFMs’ agency were expanded or delimited by their positionality vis-à-vis various social actors such as employers, landlords, co-tenants, “benevolent” individuals, and immigration middlemen. This necessitates further studies that could link these micro-level structurations to the broader epistemic shifts within Europe’s migration governance framework. (shrink)

By now one might hope that the robust body of theoretical work recently published on immigration ethics would have taken general political philosophy a long way from the prevailing Rawlsian-style insularity premise, according to which society is “a closed system isolated from other societies” into which persons “enter only by birth and exit only by death.” But there are still a great many political theorists whose focus is unreflectively endogenous and who assume away questions of states’ constitutive scope and boundaries. (...) One of the signal merits of David Miller's new book,Strangers in Our Midst, is that it lucidly demonstrates why ignoring state boundary constitution is untenable for political theory. Miller shows that foundational debates in political philosophy are inescapably related, both as premise and entailment, to many normative immigration questions. (shrink)