In this essay I argue that cultural differences between indigenous groups and settler societies a... more In this essay I argue that cultural differences between indigenous groups and settler societies are, in at least some cases, of significant importance for granting indigenous groups rights of self-governance. I maintain that the legitimacy of a political community crucially depends on whether none of the groups in that community are significantly disadvantaged in its democratic decision-making procedures. Significant political disadvantages are those that undermine the basic well-being of the members of the disadvantaged group. I contend that even under deliberative democracy, which places demanding conditions on understanding and taking into account the perspectives and interests of all members of the political community, some indigenous groups will find themselves continually losing out when collectively binding decisions are made after democratic deliberation. The primary reason for their losing out will likely be the significantly different cultural views they hold in such areas...
Let me begin by indicating that I too am deeply concerned with the oppression and marginalization... more Let me begin by indicating that I too am deeply concerned with the oppression and marginalization experienced by other groups besides ethnocultural groups. If I did not discuss ‘dispersed groups’ (to use the term that Nussbaum adopts to refer to subgroups within ethnocultural populations) – such as gays and lesbians, women, sex workers, and so forth – it was not because I do not think that this is an important topic. It was because, first, one cannot do everything at once. I wanted to give the complex issues raised by ethnocultural diversity the detailed attention that they deserve. Too many authors gloss over important differences between ethnocultural groups and as a result develop theories that are inadequate for understanding the political implications of ethnocultural diversity. Second, and more important, I focused on ethnocultural groups because they represent the most compelling cases challenging the political legitimacy of existing states. Unlike dispersed groups, some ethnocultural groups formed autonomous communities with their own sociopoliticial and economic institutions before their coerced incorporation into the state. This forced incorporation represents a fundamental challenge to conventional normative theories of the state. In addition, the issues with which I am concerned when I discuss self-determination, such as democratic empowerment and universal property rights, are intended to apply to, and empower, all members of ethnocultural groups, including oppressed subgroups within the latter. What I want to do here is to show that in the book I adopt positions that already address many of Nussbaum’s concerns regarding dispersed groups. She makes three observations about ethnocultural groups and notes that there are four dangers that we can identify based on these observations. I will discuss these three observations and four dangers in turn.
Perspectives from International Law and Political Theory
My primary purpose in this essay is to examine from a normative standpoint the claim that immigra... more My primary purpose in this essay is to examine from a normative standpoint the claim that immigration should be regarded as a human right. Even though I will argue that one cannot reasonably claim that immigration is a human right, the moral concerns that motivate this claim should be taken seriously. I therefore propose some moral principles to guide the formulation of just immigration policies that take these moral concerns into account. I examine two arguments that are often used to justify the view that immigration is a human right: (1) granting people the right to immigrate is entailed by the natural right of freedom of movement and (2) a commitment to the moral equality of all human beings entails, at a minimum, that we should not interfere with their opportunity for living a flourishing life, which is what we are doing when we prevent them from accessing the labor markets of economically developed countries. Regarding the first argument, we should note that there are numerous recognized and well-justified restrictions on our freedom to move. We cannot, for example, move into private property without the owner’s consent (except perhaps during emergencies or when we have special right of access). And since most property is privately owned, this means that we are in general significantly restricted regarding where we can move. Moreover, we cannot drive our car on the streets in any direction we please or at any rate of speed. Neither can we decide to live on publicly owned spaces such as national parks or on publicly owned buildings such as city libraries. Taking note of these familiar and well-accepted restrictions on movement reminds us that our freedom to move is usually constrained by numerous considerations that involve the individual and collective interests of others. We cannot simply assume that we are free to engage in any particular form of movement without taking into account how this might affect others. Appealing to freedom of movement by itself fails to provide a moral ground for recognizing immigration as a human right because physical movement is in general a significantly constrained activity and we cannot automatically assume that relocation to another political community is among those forms of movement that should be unconstrained. I further strengthen my position by arguing that an unrestricted right to immigration would undermine the institutional effectiveness of self-governing political communities. Regarding the second argument, I maintain that not interfering with the opportunity of others to attain human flourishing is a serious moral imperative, but that it is not at all clear that regarding immigration as a human right is either necessary or wise for respecting this imperative. The literature on global migration clearly shows that the world’s most needy and vulnerable citizens typically do not immigrate because they do not have the resources or capabilities for doing so. Declaring immigration as a human right would in effect create an open market in immigration, in which immigration slots would be taken by those with the means to do so. This would further exacerbate the brain drain from developing countries, which would be hurt by the permanent departure of their most resourceful, brightest, and best educated citizens. As an alternative, I propose that fair and integrated international labor policies that enable laborers to temporarily access the global labor market without permanently departing from their home countries would be a significant step toward enabling the world’s people to achieve human flourishing. Such policies should include paying foreign laborers fair wages and providing them with such entitlements as legalized status, social services, affordable means of remittance, and labor bargaining rights. This fair international migrant labor policy approach maintains that an adequate philosophy of immigration and migration should be understood within the context of global justice and should be a part of the development strategy for poor countries. Rather than enshrining immigration as a right that countries would fail to implement because of real world political and economic considerations, the just international migrant labor approach I defend recognizes that the ultimate goal of a just philosophy of immigration is to improve the opportunities for flourishing for all the world’s peoples, and not only of those who have the means to engage in global migration.
I outline a holistic normative approach to migration in which I identify the major considerations... more I outline a holistic normative approach to migration in which I identify the major considerations that should be taken into account in formulating just migration policies. I argue that migration is basically an issue of global justice and that the basic interests of all parties significantly affected by migration should be taken into account in an adequate normative approach to this issue. I also maintain that an open borders policy does not allow for the strategic use of labor migration as a tool to address global inequalities and that it neglects legitimate concerns that liberal egalitarians should have for the most vulnerable individuals in developing countries.
PrefaceAcknowledgments1. IntroductionThree Dilemmas of Multicultural DemocraciesThree Doctrines t... more PrefaceAcknowledgments1. IntroductionThree Dilemmas of Multicultural DemocraciesThree Doctrines to Address These DilemmasDeveloping Democratic Citizenship in Multicultural Democracies2. Deliberative Democracy Advantages of Deliberative Democracy for Multicultural SocietiesProblems with Implementing Deliberative Democracy in Multicultural SocietiesClassifying Ethnocultural Groups On the Basis of the Prospects for Creating the Common Political Communities Required by Deliberative DemocracyAutonomist and Secessionist Groups and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy3. Epistemological EgalitarianismResources, Capabilities and Political EqualityMotivation for Political Participation and Political EqualityEquality of Political EfficacyThe Limits of Deliberative Democracy4. The Function and Justification of Political CommunitiesThree Questions Concerning the Normative Basis of Political CommunitiesConsent-based Theories of the StateMoral Constraints on the Formation of Political CommunitiesThe Proper Function and Justification of Political CommunitiesCommunal Self-Determination and the Autonomy of the Individual5. The Nature of Self-DeterminationTamir on National Self-DeterminationKymlicka's Theory of Ethnocultural Group Self-DeterminationEvaluating Kymlicka's Theory of Self-DeterminationThe Need for an Integrated and Comprehensive Theory of Ethnocultural Group Self-Determination6. Self-Determination for Accommodationist GroupsThe Connection Between Prejudice and Institutional PowerThe Importance of Equitable Political RepresentationThe Desirability of Systems of Proportional Representation for Accommodationist Groups7. Self-Determination for Autonomist and Secessionist GroupsGeneral Criticisms of Self-GovernanceThe Moral Justification of Self-GovernanceBuchanan's Theory of SecessionEvaluating Buchanan's Theory of SecessionThe Meaning of Self-Determination for Autonomist GroupsThe Importance of Cosmopolitan Democracy for Comprehensive Ethnocultural Group Self-Determination8. Property Rights in Multicultural Liberal DemocraciesThe Relevance of Property Rights for Multicultural Democracies
In this essay I argue that cultural differences between indigenous groups and settler societies a... more In this essay I argue that cultural differences between indigenous groups and settler societies are, in at least some cases, of significant importance for granting indigenous groups rights of self-governance. I maintain that the legitimacy of a political community crucially depends on whether none of the groups in that community are significantly disadvantaged in its democratic decision-making procedures. Significant political disadvantages are those that undermine the basic well-being of the members of the disadvantaged group. I contend that even under deliberative democracy, which places demanding conditions on understanding and taking into account the perspectives and interests of all members of the political community, some indigenous groups will find themselves continually losing out when collectively binding decisions are made after democratic deliberation. The primary reason for their losing out will likely be the significantly different cultural views they hold in such areas...
Let me begin by indicating that I too am deeply concerned with the oppression and marginalization... more Let me begin by indicating that I too am deeply concerned with the oppression and marginalization experienced by other groups besides ethnocultural groups. If I did not discuss ‘dispersed groups’ (to use the term that Nussbaum adopts to refer to subgroups within ethnocultural populations) – such as gays and lesbians, women, sex workers, and so forth – it was not because I do not think that this is an important topic. It was because, first, one cannot do everything at once. I wanted to give the complex issues raised by ethnocultural diversity the detailed attention that they deserve. Too many authors gloss over important differences between ethnocultural groups and as a result develop theories that are inadequate for understanding the political implications of ethnocultural diversity. Second, and more important, I focused on ethnocultural groups because they represent the most compelling cases challenging the political legitimacy of existing states. Unlike dispersed groups, some ethnocultural groups formed autonomous communities with their own sociopoliticial and economic institutions before their coerced incorporation into the state. This forced incorporation represents a fundamental challenge to conventional normative theories of the state. In addition, the issues with which I am concerned when I discuss self-determination, such as democratic empowerment and universal property rights, are intended to apply to, and empower, all members of ethnocultural groups, including oppressed subgroups within the latter. What I want to do here is to show that in the book I adopt positions that already address many of Nussbaum’s concerns regarding dispersed groups. She makes three observations about ethnocultural groups and notes that there are four dangers that we can identify based on these observations. I will discuss these three observations and four dangers in turn.
Perspectives from International Law and Political Theory
My primary purpose in this essay is to examine from a normative standpoint the claim that immigra... more My primary purpose in this essay is to examine from a normative standpoint the claim that immigration should be regarded as a human right. Even though I will argue that one cannot reasonably claim that immigration is a human right, the moral concerns that motivate this claim should be taken seriously. I therefore propose some moral principles to guide the formulation of just immigration policies that take these moral concerns into account. I examine two arguments that are often used to justify the view that immigration is a human right: (1) granting people the right to immigrate is entailed by the natural right of freedom of movement and (2) a commitment to the moral equality of all human beings entails, at a minimum, that we should not interfere with their opportunity for living a flourishing life, which is what we are doing when we prevent them from accessing the labor markets of economically developed countries. Regarding the first argument, we should note that there are numerous recognized and well-justified restrictions on our freedom to move. We cannot, for example, move into private property without the owner’s consent (except perhaps during emergencies or when we have special right of access). And since most property is privately owned, this means that we are in general significantly restricted regarding where we can move. Moreover, we cannot drive our car on the streets in any direction we please or at any rate of speed. Neither can we decide to live on publicly owned spaces such as national parks or on publicly owned buildings such as city libraries. Taking note of these familiar and well-accepted restrictions on movement reminds us that our freedom to move is usually constrained by numerous considerations that involve the individual and collective interests of others. We cannot simply assume that we are free to engage in any particular form of movement without taking into account how this might affect others. Appealing to freedom of movement by itself fails to provide a moral ground for recognizing immigration as a human right because physical movement is in general a significantly constrained activity and we cannot automatically assume that relocation to another political community is among those forms of movement that should be unconstrained. I further strengthen my position by arguing that an unrestricted right to immigration would undermine the institutional effectiveness of self-governing political communities. Regarding the second argument, I maintain that not interfering with the opportunity of others to attain human flourishing is a serious moral imperative, but that it is not at all clear that regarding immigration as a human right is either necessary or wise for respecting this imperative. The literature on global migration clearly shows that the world’s most needy and vulnerable citizens typically do not immigrate because they do not have the resources or capabilities for doing so. Declaring immigration as a human right would in effect create an open market in immigration, in which immigration slots would be taken by those with the means to do so. This would further exacerbate the brain drain from developing countries, which would be hurt by the permanent departure of their most resourceful, brightest, and best educated citizens. As an alternative, I propose that fair and integrated international labor policies that enable laborers to temporarily access the global labor market without permanently departing from their home countries would be a significant step toward enabling the world’s people to achieve human flourishing. Such policies should include paying foreign laborers fair wages and providing them with such entitlements as legalized status, social services, affordable means of remittance, and labor bargaining rights. This fair international migrant labor policy approach maintains that an adequate philosophy of immigration and migration should be understood within the context of global justice and should be a part of the development strategy for poor countries. Rather than enshrining immigration as a right that countries would fail to implement because of real world political and economic considerations, the just international migrant labor approach I defend recognizes that the ultimate goal of a just philosophy of immigration is to improve the opportunities for flourishing for all the world’s peoples, and not only of those who have the means to engage in global migration.
I outline a holistic normative approach to migration in which I identify the major considerations... more I outline a holistic normative approach to migration in which I identify the major considerations that should be taken into account in formulating just migration policies. I argue that migration is basically an issue of global justice and that the basic interests of all parties significantly affected by migration should be taken into account in an adequate normative approach to this issue. I also maintain that an open borders policy does not allow for the strategic use of labor migration as a tool to address global inequalities and that it neglects legitimate concerns that liberal egalitarians should have for the most vulnerable individuals in developing countries.
PrefaceAcknowledgments1. IntroductionThree Dilemmas of Multicultural DemocraciesThree Doctrines t... more PrefaceAcknowledgments1. IntroductionThree Dilemmas of Multicultural DemocraciesThree Doctrines to Address These DilemmasDeveloping Democratic Citizenship in Multicultural Democracies2. Deliberative Democracy Advantages of Deliberative Democracy for Multicultural SocietiesProblems with Implementing Deliberative Democracy in Multicultural SocietiesClassifying Ethnocultural Groups On the Basis of the Prospects for Creating the Common Political Communities Required by Deliberative DemocracyAutonomist and Secessionist Groups and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy3. Epistemological EgalitarianismResources, Capabilities and Political EqualityMotivation for Political Participation and Political EqualityEquality of Political EfficacyThe Limits of Deliberative Democracy4. The Function and Justification of Political CommunitiesThree Questions Concerning the Normative Basis of Political CommunitiesConsent-based Theories of the StateMoral Constraints on the Formation of Political CommunitiesThe Proper Function and Justification of Political CommunitiesCommunal Self-Determination and the Autonomy of the Individual5. The Nature of Self-DeterminationTamir on National Self-DeterminationKymlicka's Theory of Ethnocultural Group Self-DeterminationEvaluating Kymlicka's Theory of Self-DeterminationThe Need for an Integrated and Comprehensive Theory of Ethnocultural Group Self-Determination6. Self-Determination for Accommodationist GroupsThe Connection Between Prejudice and Institutional PowerThe Importance of Equitable Political RepresentationThe Desirability of Systems of Proportional Representation for Accommodationist Groups7. Self-Determination for Autonomist and Secessionist GroupsGeneral Criticisms of Self-GovernanceThe Moral Justification of Self-GovernanceBuchanan's Theory of SecessionEvaluating Buchanan's Theory of SecessionThe Meaning of Self-Determination for Autonomist GroupsThe Importance of Cosmopolitan Democracy for Comprehensive Ethnocultural Group Self-Determination8. Property Rights in Multicultural Liberal DemocraciesThe Relevance of Property Rights for Multicultural Democracies
Uploads
Papers by Jorge Valadez