quiz Philosophical Debates on Migration and the Regulation of Borders
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Queens University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
GDIPICL
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
12
Uploaded by AgentStar117761
In Christopher Wellman, “Immigration and the Right to National Self-Determination” argues against open borders on with which of the following three interrelated premises?
A)
Political self-determination, freedom of association, and duties of distributive justice
B)
Political self-determination, freedom of association, and the right to refuse to associate with others.
C)
Political self-determination, freedom of association, and international refugee law
D)
None of the above
Hide question 1 feedback
B: Wellman argues that the duties of distributive justice and international refugee law do not overturn a legitimate state’s right to self-determination, which implies freedom of association and the right to exclude. In his view, countries can make good on their duties of distributive justice and international refugee law without opening their borders (e.g., by providing aid and refugee in third party countries).
2
0 / 1 point
True or false: According to David Miller’s “Justice in immigration,” justice requires that refugees be given asylum in a safe country but nothing more.
True
False
Hide question 2 feedback
False: David Miller argues that in the long term, justice requires that refugees be given permanent status in their host country: “The rationale for this is that a decent human life requires relatively stable conditions such that the person in question can plan for the future, develop a career, educate her children, and so forth, which cannot happen
if there is an ongoing possibility of removal at short notice.” (397)
3
1 / 1 point
In “Migration: controlling the unsettled poor,” Bridget Anderson surveys the history of British laws against vagrancy in order to…
A)
…undermine essentialist conceptions of the “migrant” and “the citizen.”
B)
…highlight the hypocrisy of viewing work as a “right,” which is unavailable to migrants, but a “duty,” which is imposed upon c
C)
…show how national laws have always tried to coerce the poor, both locally and globally.
D)
All of the above
Hide question 3 feedback
D: Anderson’s argument is complex, which is why she’s written an entire book on it. Answers A, B, and C are all correct. She wants to soften the seemingly hard distinction between citizen and migrant. She argues that it is hypocritical to treat work as an unobtainable “privilege” for some but an unavoidable “duty” for others. And she wants to highlight the parallels between the Medieval “vagrant” and the 21st -century migrant, both of whom are subject to forces they cannot control.
4
0 / 1 point
In “The Global Philosopher: Should Borders Matter?”, Michael Sandel uses Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s claim in
The Social Contract
(1762) that “the sentiment of humanity evaporates and weakens as it is extended over the whole world” to show…
A)
…that 21st-century technology might play a role in strengthening our compassionate ties to humanity.
B)
…that little has changed since the 18th century: patriotism and cosmopolitanism still vie with each other for hearts and minds
C)
… that Rousseau thought patriotism was stronger than cosmopolitanism (i.e., that compassion connected people to their fellow
than to foreigners from “Tartary or Japan.”)
D)
All of the above
Hide question 4 feedback
D: Sandel uses Rousseau to show that the debate over patriotism vs. cosmopolitanism 1) is not new, 2) that it has not changed much in the last 250 years and 3) that technology may yet tip the scales in favour or cosmopolitanism (i.e., global citizenry).
5
0 / 1 point
According to Sadiya Ansari's reading of Joseph Carens in "What Do Borders Really Do?", what's the difference between a "criminal offence" and a "civil violation" and why does it matter to immigration?
A)
Charging undocumented migrants with a "criminal offence" gives rise to a criminal record, whereas charging them with a "civ
distinction matters because the criminalization of undocumented migrants effectively bars their path to citizenship.
B)
Undocumented migrants should be charged with a "criminal offence" if they cross the border illegally, but asylum seekers sho
"civil violation" as they have not broken any laws.
C)
A "criminal offence" implies a more dangerous threat to the public than a "civil violation." Treating undocumented migration fuels the myth that migrants are criminals.
D)
All of the above
Hide question 5 feedback
C: Answer A is incorrect because Ansari does not go into the details about how "criminal offences" and "civil violations" impact one's chances for citizenship. Answer B is incorrect because Carens does not think anyone should be charged with a "criminal offence" just because they cross a border irregularly.
6
0 / 1 point
In “Membership and Justice,” Michael Walzer states unequivocally that his main concern is…
A)
how to reconcile membership rights and the claims of justice.
B)
how to disentangle membership rights from the claims of justice.
C)
how to limit membership rights in favour of the claims of justice.
D)
how to write so opaquely that few readers can understand him.
Hide question 6 feedback
B: The first sentence of “Membership and Justice” reads: “The distribution of membership is not pervasively subject to the constraints of justice.” Walzer doesn’t want to reconcile membership rights and the claims of justice. He wants membership rights to take precedence. Answer D has some merit, but Answer B is Walzer’s main concern.
7
1 / 1 point
According to David Miller’s “Justice in immigration,” which of the following is NOT a potential “particularity claimant”:
A)
A member of the French Foreign Legion, who was wounded in battle for France and is now applying for French citizenship
B)
A Syrian refugee who applies for asylum in Germany
C)
An Iraqi translator who worked with the American Armed Forces and now wants to immigrate to the United States
D)
A Mexican whose farmland on the US-Mexico border was destroyed and rendered “less able to support human life” by an Ame
applies for entry into the United States.
Hide question 7 feedback
B: The Syrian refugee can claim asylum in Germany, but they could just as easily claim asylum in Austria. Their claim to asylum is not particular to Germany, but rather a fundamental human right that can be satisfied by any number of countries. All three other examples (A, C, and D) have claim on a particular country.
8
1 / 1 point
In "Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration," Bryan Caplan's argument can best be summarized as:
A)
Liberal: "We should be generous (or even open) with immigration policies because we have ethical obligations that extend beyo
B)
Conservative: "We should tightly restrict immigration because we need to safeguard American culture and national identity."
C)
Libertarian: "We should have open borders because we have no right to restrict entry to the US and doing so has negative econo
D)
Marxist: "Having open borders will allow the global working class to overturn the capitalist system."
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Hide question 8 feedback
C: Bryan Caplan is (like his host the CATO Institute) a libertarian. He does not support immigration on humanitarian grounds (which rules out A). He does not oppose immigration because of its perceived threats to national cultural and identity (which rules out B). And he is not worried about an equitable redistribution of wealth (which rules out D). Caplan opposes government interference in all of its manifestations, including border control. He thinks open borders will increase global wealth by allowing the free movement of labour.
9
0 / 1 point
In “Why No Borders?” Bridget Anderson, Nandita Sharma and Cynthia Wright argue that a No Borders politics will…
A)
…spark a radical change by which capitalism and nationalism would be replaced by different economic and social structures.
B)
…have a positive impact on labour markets while maintaining the status quo of capitalism and national citizenship.
C)
…undermine welfare protections, national identities, and liberal democratic values.
D)
…bring about a utopian future where wealth is equitably distributed and war is a thing of the past.
Hide question 9 feedback
A: The authors of “Why No Borders?” do not hide their desire for radical change. They see open borders as incompatible with capitalism and nationalism (which rules out A). They refer to the concern expressed in answer C as the “catastrophe prediction.” But they do not pretend to be offering a utopian vision (which rules out D).
10
0 / 1 point
In “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” Joseph H Carens argues that in the case of immigration to the United States, the difference between an “ideal theory” and “nonideal, real world” is best characterized as:
A)
Nonexistent: ideal theory demands free migration, and the same would be necessary to ensure justice in the “nonideal, real wo
B)
Nonexistent: ideal theory does not demand free migration, and nor does justice in the “nonideal, real world” of the United Sta
C)
Limited: ideal theory demands free migration, but some level of border restrictions can be justly imposed in the pursuit/defens
being said, current restrictions in the United States far outstrip such a level.
D)
Significant: ideal theory demands free migration, but justice in the “nonideal, real world” of the United States needs to consid
make strict border controls necessary to prevent the country being overwhelmed by immigrants and Americans from losing th
Hide question 10 feedback
C: See page 122 for the summary of Carens’ argument “In sum, nonideal theory provides more grounds for restricting immigration than ideal theory, but these grounds are severely limited. And ideal theory holds up the principle of free migration as an essential part of the just social order toward which we should strive.”
According to Andrew Griffith’s “How to debate immigration issues in Canada,” who is “guilty” of the following argumentative flaws: “immigration boosters,” “immigration critics” or both?
__2
__
The overuse of anecdotal evidence
__3
__
(2)
Citation of a contested Fraser Institute study
__1
__
(3)
Ignoring the importance of public support for certain issues
__2
__
(1)
Disregarding inconvenient evidence
__1
__
(3)
Unwillingness to acknowledge concerns over shared values
1
.
both
2
.
immigration critics
3
.
immigration boosters
Hide question 1 feedback
Note: Notice that the “contested Fraser Institute study” was written by Patrick Grady and Herbert Grubel, whose articles we covered in
2
1 / 1 point
In “Justice in immigration,” David Miller’s framework for assessing questions of justice in immigration includes which two dimensions?
A)
the physical location of the immigrant and the kind of claim being made by the immigrant
B)
the laws of the receiving country and the legal status of the immigrant
C)
the conditions of the receiving country and the condition of the immigrant
D)
domestic law and international law
Hide question 2 feedback
A: See page 395, where Miller argues that “[a] justice-compliant immigration policy must therefore be sensitive both to the physical location of the immigrant (‘inside the state’, ‘outside the state’, ‘at the border’) and to the kind of claim for admission she can make (‘refugee’, ‘economic migrant’, ‘particularity claimant’).”
3
0 / 1 point
In “Membership,” what rights does Michael Walzer think political communities have to close their borders to “strangers”?
A)
No rights: Walzer advances an Open Borders politics based on the analogy of neighbourhoods and states.
B)
Minimal rights: Walzer argues that states should be able to limit the flow of refugees in order to maintain social order.
C)
Strong rights: Walzer argues for the “forceful claim for admission” of some refugees, but even then he thinks states are entitle
share their religion and political ideology.
D)
Unrestricted rights: Walzer allows political communities to completely shut their borders to foreigners, including refugees in Hide question 3 feedback
C: Walzer is not for open borders, which rules out Answer A. Answer B best describes Carens’s argument, not Walzer's. C is correct because Walzer argues for the “forceful claim for admission” of some refugees, but even then he thinks states are entitled to prioritize refugees who share their religion and political ideology. Answer D goes too far for Walzer who do think we have the obligation to help those in life-or-death situations.
4
1 / 1 point
Which of the following best characterizes the argument of Bridget Anderson’s
Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control
(2013)?
A)
Immigration controls do not just control the mobility of the global poor. They also define citizens and their “community of valu
B)
14th century feudal system is akin to 21st migration controls insofar as both allowed the randomness of one’s birth to limit one’
C)
There is no difference between the immigrant and the citizen. There are people who conform to the “community of value” withi
D)
All of the above
Hide question 4 feedback
A: Answer A best captures the whole argument of
Us and Them
, which aims to show how borders impact migrants and citizens alike. Answer B may be familiar to you from Joseph Carens. Anderson makes a similar comparison between the social status of the “vagrant” in the 14th century and social status of the migrant today. However, this is
just one step in her larger argument. Answer C is wrong because it oversimplifies Anderson’s argument, which aims
to problematize the differences between “us and them” but not undermine them completely.
5
1 / 1 point
True or false: In “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” Joseph H Carens agrees with Bridget Anderson,
Nandita Sharma and Cynthia Wright, who argue that open borders will erase the distinction between aliens and citizens (i.e., the nationalist paradigm).
True
False
Hide question 5 feedback
False: See page 125, where Carens argues that “to say that membership is open to all who wish to join is not to say that there is no distinction between members and non-members.”
6
0 / 1 point
True or false: In "The Global Philosopher: Should Borders Matter?", the moderator Michael Sandel summarizes the conversation by pointing to the central role that economics played in the various contributions.
True
False
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Hide question 6 feedback
False: Michael Sandel summarizes the conversation by undermining the role played by economics and pointing to the deeper issues at the core of debates around immigration: one's duties to fellow citizens versus one's duties to humanity and the definition of patriotism as a virtue or a prejudice.
7
0 / 1 point
True or false: On a moral level, Joseph Carens (as interpreted by Sadiya Ansari) argues that national border restrictions are akin to the feudal system that Western society rejected because it did not want the randomness of birth to limit or dictate one’s chances in life.
True
False
Hide question 7 feedback
True: Ansari quotes Carens as saying “To be born into a rich state like Canada, the U.S. or the European states is like being born into the nobility […] The point of the open borders argument is to get people to see that we have organized the world in a way that can’t possibly be justified if you take seriously the idea that every human being ought to count.”
8
0 / 1 point
In "Membership," Michael Walzer writes disparagingly about "global libertarianism" and "global socialism." Which texts from Module 1.1.5 could best be classified under those terms?
A)
Wellman and Carens, respectively.
B)
Wellman and Anderson/ Sharma/ Wright, respectively.
C)
Caplan and Anderson/ Sharma/ Wright, respectively.
D)
Caplan and Carens, respectively.
Hide question 8 feedback
C: Wellman and Carens are liberals, which rules out A, B and D. Caplan advances a no-border politics that would result in a "global libertarianism". Anderson, Sharma, and Wright advance a no-borders politics that would overturn
capitalism and nationalism and put into place "different economic and social structures." They don't use the term "socialism", but they are clearly dedicated to liberating the global working class from exploitation, which could be understood under the umbrella term "socialism."
9
0 / 1 point
True or false: Joseph H Carens acknowledges that his argument for open borders comes from the liberal tradition and he does not believe that it applies to cultures and nations who reject liberalism.
True
False
Hide question 9 feedback
False: See page 124. In the face of communitarian objections, Carens stands by the very universalist claims of liberalism. He says “respect for the diversity of communities does not require us to abandon all claims about what other states ought to do.”
10
0 / 1 point
In “Membership,” Michael Walzer argues that which of the following offers the best analogy for the moral life of contemporary states?
A)
Neighbourhoods: “One ought to be able to go and come as one likes, provided one has the financial resources to do so.”
B)
Clubs: “Like clubs, states can regulate people coming in but they can’t stop people from leaving.”
C)
Families: “Like families, the citizens of states are morally connected to people whom they did not voluntarily choose.”
D)
Country clubs: “You are lucky if Daddy and Mommy got you into a good one. Otherwise you’ll need to make a lot of money and put yourse
waiting list.”
Hide question 10 feedback
C: The analogy between states and neighbourhoods was part of “classical political economy” in the nineteenth century. The economists argued “for perfect freedom of contract, without any political restraint” (108). Walzer attacks the state-neighbourhood analogy, claiming that in the absence of state borders neighbourhoods themselves would become mini-states: “To tear down the walls of the state is not…to create a world without walls, but rather to create a thousand petty fortresses” (109).” Walzer likes the state-club analogy with regard to the law, but he does not think it captures the “moral life” of a state (110). Walzer likes the family-
state analogy the best for describing the “moral life” and refuge-granting dimensions of the state (111).
1 / 1 point
David Miller’s “weak cosmopolitan compromise” dictates that a country admitting immigrants must do which of the following?
A)
Admit all immigrants with an exception for immigrants who constitute a “verifiable” threat to society.
B)
Admit as many immigrants as it likes but use the principle of random selection, so as not to unjustly preference some immigrants over others.
C)
Admit as many immigrants as it likes, but justify its methods of selection.
D)
Admit as many immigrants as it likes and whoever it likes without the burden of justification.
Hide question 1 feedback
C: David Miller argues that, “an immigration policy that admits some but not others must offer relevant reasons to those excluded” because the “weak cosmopolitan compromise” dictates that “we owe all human beings moral consideration of some kind.”
1 / 1 point
True or false: In “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” Joseph H Carens argues that open borders are a logical
extension of liberalism.
True
False
Hide question 2 feedback
True: See page 124. “I think these recent developments [e.g., Civil Rights Movement…] reflect something fundamental about the inner logic of liberalism. The extension of the right to immigrate reflects the same logic: equal treatment of individuals in the public sphere.”
0 / 1 point
True or false: Joseph H Carens acknowledges that his argument for open borders comes from the liberal tradition and he does not believe that it applies to cultures and nations who reject liberalism.
True
False
Hide question 3 feedback
False: See page 124. In the face of communitarian objections, Carens stands by the very universalist claims of liberalism. He says “respect for the diversity of communities does not require us to abandon all claims about what other states ought to do.”
1 / 1 point
Which of the following best characterizes the argument of Bridget Anderson’s
Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control
(2013)?
A)
Immigration controls do not just control the mobility of the global poor. They also define citizens and their “community of value.”
B)
14th century feudal system is akin to 21st migration controls insofar as both allowed the randomness of one’s birth to limit one’s chances in life
C)
There is no difference between the immigrant and the citizen. There are people who conform to the “community of value” within and without a
D)
All of the above
Hide question 4 feedback
A: Answer A best captures the whole argument of
Us and Them
, which aims to show how borders impact migrants and citizens alike. Answer B may be familiar to you from Joseph Carens. Anderson makes a similar comparison between the social status of the “vagrant” in the 14th century and social status of the migrant today. However, this is just one step in her larger argument. Answer C is wrong because it oversimplifies Anderson’s argument, which aims to problematize the differences between “us and them” but not undermine them completely.
1 / 1 point
True or false: According to David Miller’s “Justice in immigration,” justice requires that refugees be given asylum in a safe country
but nothing more.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
True
False
Hide question 5 feedback
False: David Miller argues that in the long term, justice requires that refugees be given permanent status in their host country: “The rationale for this is that a decent human life requires relatively stable conditions such that the person in question can plan for the future, develop a career, educate her children, and so forth, which cannot happen
if there is an ongoing possibility of removal at short notice.” (397)
1 / 1 point
In “Migration: controlling the unsettled poor,” Bridget Anderson surveys the history of British laws against vagrancy in order to…
A)
…undermine essentialist conceptions of the “migrant” and “the citizen.”
B)
…highlight the hypocrisy of viewing work as a “right,” which is unavailable to migrants, but a “duty,” which is imposed upon citizens.
C)
…show how national laws have always tried to coerce the poor, both locally and globally.
D)
All of the above
Hide question 6 feedback
D: Anderson’s argument is complex, which is why she’s written an entire book on it. Answers A, B, and C are all correct. She wants to soften the seemingly hard distinction between citizen and migrant. She argues that it is hypocritical to treat work as an unobtainable “privilege” for some but an unavoidable “duty” for others. And she wants to highlight the parallels between the Medieval “vagrant” and the 21st -century migrant, both of whom are subject to forces they cannot control.
1 / 1 point
In “Membership,” what rights does Michael Walzer think political communities have to close their borders to “strangers”?
A)
No rights: Walzer advances an Open Borders politics based on the analogy of neighbourhoods and states.
B)
Minimal rights: Walzer argues that states should be able to limit the flow of refugees in order to maintain social order.
C)
Strong rights: Walzer argues for the “forceful claim for admission” of some refugees, but even then he thinks states are entitled to prioritize refu
share their religion and political ideology.
D)
Unrestricted rights: Walzer allows political communities to completely shut their borders to foreigners, including refugees in life-threatening da
Hide question 7 feedback
C: Walzer is not for open borders, which rules out Answer A. Answer B best describes Carens’s argument, not Walzer's. C is correct because Walzer argues for the “forceful claim for admission” of some refugees, but even then
he thinks states are entitled to prioritize refugees who share their religion and political ideology. Answer D goes too
far for Walzer who do think we have the obligation to help those in life-or-death situations.
1 / 1 point
In Christopher Wellman, “Immigration and the Right to National Self-Determination” argues against open borders on with which of
the following three interrelated premises?
A)
Political self-determination, freedom of association, and duties of distributive justice
B)
Political self-determination, freedom of association, and the right to refuse to associate with others.
C)
Political self-determination, freedom of association, and international refugee law
D)
None of the above
Hide question 8 feedback
B: Wellman argues that the duties of distributive justice and international refugee law do not overturn a legitimate state’s right to self-determination, which implies freedom of association and the right to exclude. In his view, countries can make good on their duties of distributive justice and international refugee law without opening their borders (e.g., by providing aid and refugee in third party countries).
1 / 1 point
According to Sadiya Ansari's reading of Joseph Carens in "What Do Borders Really Do?", what's the difference between a "criminal offence" and a "civil violation" and why does it matter to immigration?
A)
Charging undocumented migrants with a "criminal offence" gives rise to a criminal record, whereas charging them with a "civil violation" does
distinction matters because the criminalization of undocumented migrants effectively bars their path to citizenship.
B)
Undocumented migrants should be charged with a "criminal offence" if they cross the border illegally, but asylum seekers should only be charg
"civil violation" as they have not broken any laws.
C)
A "criminal offence" implies a more dangerous threat to the public than a "civil violation." Treating undocumented migration as a "criminal off
the myth that migrants are criminals.
D)
All of the above
Hide question 9 feedback
C: Answer A is incorrect because Ansari does not go into the details about how "criminal offences" and "civil violations" impact one's chances for citizenship. Answer B is incorrect because Carens does not think anyone should be charged with a "criminal offence" just because they cross a border irregularly.
1 / 1 point
True or false: In "The Global Philosopher: Should Borders Matter?", the moderator Michael Sandel summarizes the conversation by
pointing to the central role that economics played in the various contributions.
True
False
Hide question 10 feedback
False: Michael Sandel summarizes the conversation by undermining the role played by economics and pointing to the deeper issues at the core of debates around immigration: one's duties to fellow citizens versus one's duties to humanity and the definition of patriotism as a virtue or a prejudice.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help