Political Science

Question 2.a
Carens main justifications for open borders are centered on three main approaches, namely the Nozickean, the Rawlsian and the Utilitarian schools of thought, which, despite a divergence on a number of issues, all construct arguments for open borders. These theories are etched in the belief that all human beings ought to be regarded as free and equal moral entities, against the pillar of respect (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264).

The Nozickean Theory
Here, it is assumed that individuals in the state of nature have rights, including that to acquire and use property, and that all individuals have the same natural rights, the exercise of which leads to material inequalities, thus, the inconveniences of the state of nature justify creation of a minimal state, charged with the protection of people within a given territory against violations of their rights.

Further, Nozick holds that the state has no implicit right to do anything more than enforce the rights which individuals already enjoy in the state of nature by extension, this could be interpreted as a case where citizenship does not give rise to a distinctive claim, and the state is obliged to equitably protect the rights of noncitizens and citizens alike, as it enjoys a de facto monopoly over enforcement of rights within its territory. In this scenario, the state may not interfere with the voluntary exchanges between individuals, provided that the same do not violate other peoples rights (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264).

The Rawlsian Theory
Penned by John Rawls, this theory provides a justification for an activist state with positive responsibilities for social welfare. Worth mentioning is the fact that Rawls explicitly assumes a closed system, whereby questions relating to immigration could not arise.

The Rawlisian theory is based on two main principles which, according to Rawls, would come into play were people to govern society with the option of being oblivious to issues of race, sex, natural talents, religious beliefs, class to mention but a few (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264). The first principle would guarantee equal liberty to all, while the second would permit socio-economic inequalities, so long as these were to the advantage of the least well off and attached to positions at the disposal of all under fair conditions of equal opportunity.

In addition, a distinction is made between the ideal and non-ideal theory within Rawls argument in the former, it is assumed that, even after the proverbial veil of ignorance is lifted (categorization by way of class, sex, etcetera), people will accept and generally abide by the principles chosen in the original position. Furthermore, it is held that there are no obstacles to the realization of just institutions. In the latter theory, one takes account of both the unjust actions of others and the historical obstacles, thus being more immediately relevant to practical problems, as juxtaposed against the ideal theory which is more fundamental, establishing the ultimate goal of social reform and a basis for judging the relative importance of departures from the ideal (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264).

Utilitarianism
This approach, in relation to the issue of immigration, does not provide much support for the restrictions that are common in modern-day. With the fundamental principle of utilitarianism being to maximize utility, the utilitarian commitment to moral equality is reflected in the assumption that everyone is to count for one, and no one for more than one, when utility is calculated (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264).

Utilitarian calculations by both the classical and neoclassical economists lay credence to the fact that free mobility of labor and capital is essential to the maximization of overall economic gains. However, the free mobility of labor would require open borders, thus, despite the fact that economic costs to current citizens are morally relevant in the general utilitarian blueprint they would probably not be adequate to justify restrictions.

Question 2.b
Gans main arguments for preferring the members of a given culture in immigration policies are based on the principles of distributive justice, pegged on a version of liberal nationalism according to which individuals can have fundamental interests in their national culture, interests which are deep-rooted in freedom, identity and in ensuring the meaningfulness of their endeavor (Gans, 1998, pp. 159-167). These include

The globalist approach
This approach states that the entire world is the basic implementation unit of distributive justice goods to be distributed are those of the whole world, while the individuals set to benefit from their distribution are those of the whole world. Here, states have an intermediary and administrative role in the supervision of the production and distribution of these goods (Gans, 1998, pp. 159-167).

This approach is generally more compatible with the liberal point of view, which postulates that it is human beings who are the primary beneficiaries of justice, and not only those inhabiting a particular part of the world.

Additionally, the globalist approach is more applicable in the question of whether states immigration policies may favor groups with whom they are culturally tied (Gans, 1998, pp. 159-167).

The localist approach
In this approach, the state is the basic implementation unit of distributive justice, while the goods which are the subject of the distribution are those contained within the states territory. The beneficiaries of this said distribution are those living within state territory.

In this connection, two major arguments have further been advanced in support of the view that individuals have interests in their national cultures, namely, the freedom-based argument, which states that people need culture as it is the source of the materials with which they shape their lives whilst activating their autonomy and freedom in addition, the second approach, referred to as the identity-based argument, holds that people have an interest in their national culture because it is a component of their identity (Gans, 1998, pp. 159-167).

Question 2.c
Carens responds to Quebecs immigration policies by way of applying evaluation techniques to scrutinize not only the policies themselves, but also the conceptions of community and membership that serve to inform the same (Carens, 1995, p. 20-29).

The primary focus of the first moral inquiry is on what minimum moral standards require, that is, what is morally permissible, while the second has to do with what is good for a particular political community and or what goals that community should pursue.

In this light, Carens appreciates that the express articulation of the immigration policy document, acknowledging that the policy statement regards a vision, rather than an accomplished fact (Carens, 1995, pp. 30-79).

Question 2.d
The main arguments advanced by Sheffler whilst arguing against granting culture justificatory power when discussing immigration include the following

Firstly, it is worth acknowledging that a countrys unity is both expressed in and sustained by its citizens shared sense of history, allegiance to a common set of values, mutual recognition of national holidays, symbols, ceremonies and myths and also by the citizens participation in a range of informal tendencies and customs encompassing every aspect of life, including dress codes, humor, work patterns, attitudes toward a variety of issues such as sexuality, to mention but a few (Scheffler, 2007, pp. 93-101).

However, Scheffler goes on to point out that immigrants arrive with their own distinct traditions and histories, ceremonies and habits, as well as customs and values, and thus, the features and practices that define the host nations distinctive identity come off as unfamiliar, alienating or even oppressive, to the immigrants. In this case, the symbols of inclusion and commonality are transformed into allegories of discord and exclusion (Scheffler, 2007, pp. 93-101).

QUESTION 3 HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO
As an authority in the dilemma, I would go on to choose the candidate who is NOT a member of the dominant cultural group from my country.

This is against the backdrop of not only opening up of borders (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264), but also the globalist approach, whereby the entire globe is regarded to be the basic implementation unit of distributive justice, as earlier mentioned the opportunity to better the life of the candidate should be based on the tenets of his her being of the whole world, and not his her origins.

The globalist approach further outlines that, from a liberal point of view, it is human beings who are the prime donees of justice, and the same is not a preserve of a select few dwelling in a particular segment of the universe.

Additionally, the Nozickean theory presupposes that the state has no implicit right to do more than enforce the rights which individuals already enjoy in the state of nature, which was earlier interpreted as an instance where citizenship does not necessarily translate to an individual having a distinctive claim here, I, in my capacity as a state representative, would be obliged to equitably protect the rights of the noncitizen and that of the citizen alike.

Along the same line, the Rawlsian theory comes to the fore in this hypothetical situation, whereby the principles guaranteeing equal liberty to all and permitting socio-economic inequlities, especially as far as these are to the explicit advantage of the least well off and attached to positions of all under fair conditions of equal opportunity (Carens, 1987, pp. 251-264).

Further, utilitarianism posits that free mobility of labor (and capital) is an essential aspect in the process of maximizing overall economic gains such a scenario however, depends on there being open borders in the first place.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that Scheffler was quick to point out the fact that a random immigrant tends to arrive with his her own distinct tradition and history, not to mention values and customs. More often than not, these are vastly different from those of the host nation, whose symbols of commonality and inclusion may fuel exclusion and discord. Thus, it is worth embracing the foreigner to guard against this discriminatory state of affairs, and give rise to a more pluralistic society in the process (Scheffler, 2007, pp. 93-101).