Family Migration Schemes and Liberal Neutrality

A Dilemma

in Journal of Moral Philosophy
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


In this essay, I argue that the privileging of romantic and familial ties by those who believe in the liberal state’s right to exclude prospective immigrants cannot be justified. The reasons that count in favour of these relationships count equally in favour of a great array of relationships, from friends to creative collaborators, and whatever else falls in between. The liberal partialist now faces a dilemma, either the scope of the right to exclude is much more limited or much broader than she previously assumed.

  • 6

     See Christopher H. Wellman“Immigration and Freedom of Association,” Ethics 119 (2008) pp. 109–141; David Miller “Immigration: The Case for Limits” in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics A. Cohen and C. Wellman (eds.) (Malden ma: Blackwell Publishing 2005) pp. 193–206; Ryan Pevnick Immigration and the Constraints of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011) respectively.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

     See Matthew Lister“Immigration, Association, and the Family,” Law and Philosophy 29 (2010) pp. 717–745. See also Matthew Lister “A Rawlsian Argument for Extending Family-Based Immigration Benefits to Same-Sex Couples” The University of Memphis Law Review 37 (2007) pp. 745–780. Christopher Wellman endorses Lister’s account in Debating the Ethics of Immigration p. 92. See also Blake “Immigration Jurisdiction and Exclusion” p. 129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Lister“Immigration Association and the Family” p. 741.

  • 14

    Anthony F. Bogaert“Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality,” Review of General Psychology 10 (2006) pp. 241–250.

  • 15

    Robert Nozick“Love's Bond,” in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations (Simon & Schuster: 1989) p. 70.

  • 16

    Ibid. p. 72.

  • 17

    Ibid. p. 82.

  • 18

    Robert C. SolomonLove: Emotion Myth and Metaphor (New York: Prometheus Books1990) p. 148.

  • 19

    Noël Merino“The Problem with “We”: Rethinking Joint Identity in Romantic Love,” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2004) p. 132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    J. David Velleman“Persons in Prospect,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 36 (2008) pp. 245–266.

  • 26

     See for example Nozick“Love's Bond” pp. 68–86; Jennifer E. Whiting “Impersonal Friends” The Monist 74 (1991) pp. 3–29; Neil Delany “Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal” American Philosophical Quarterly 33 (1996) pp. 339–356; Niko Kolodny “Love as Valuing a Relationship” The Philosophical Review 112 (2003) pp. 135–89.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Delany p. 346.

  • 32

     See Lawrence Thomas“Friendship,” Synthese 72 (1987) pp. 217–236; Nancy Sherman “Aristotle and the Shared Life” in N. K. Badhwar (ed.) Friendship: A Philosophical Reader (Ithaca n.y.: Cornell University press 1993) pp. 91–107; Dean Cocking & Jeanette Kennett “Friendship and the Self” Ethics 108 (1998) pp. 502–527.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

     See Blake“Immigration Jurisdiction and Exclusion” pp. 129–130.

  • 40

     See Miller“Immigration: The Case for Limits” p. 202.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 142 136 13
Full Text Views 210 210 0
PDF Downloads 56 56 0
EPUB Downloads 8 8 0