乘坐飞机的移民和乘坐鹳鸟的移民:我们能拒绝其中一个而不拒绝另一个吗?

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
T. Meijers
{"title":"乘坐飞机的移民和乘坐鹳鸟的移民:我们能拒绝其中一个而不拒绝另一个吗?","authors":"T. Meijers","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2022.2119005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT States combine the routine refusal of citizenship to migrants with policies that grant newborns of citizens (or residents) full membership of society without questions asked. This paper asks what, if anything, can justify this differential treatment of the two types of newcomers. It explores arguments for differential treatment based on the differential environmental impact, different impact on the (political) culture of the society in question and differences between the positions of the newcomers themselves. I conclude that, although some justification for differential treatment exists, the case for it is weaker than one may expect and the grounds on which it can be justified are surprising and problematic.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Migrants by plane and migrants by stork: can we refuse citizenship to one, but not the other?\",\"authors\":\"T. Meijers\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2022.2119005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT States combine the routine refusal of citizenship to migrants with policies that grant newborns of citizens (or residents) full membership of society without questions asked. This paper asks what, if anything, can justify this differential treatment of the two types of newcomers. It explores arguments for differential treatment based on the differential environmental impact, different impact on the (political) culture of the society in question and differences between the positions of the newcomers themselves. I conclude that, although some justification for differential treatment exists, the case for it is weaker than one may expect and the grounds on which it can be justified are surprising and problematic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2119005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Global Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2022.2119005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国家将拒绝移民公民身份的常规做法与授予公民(或居民)新生儿无条件成为社会正式成员的政策结合起来。本文提出的问题是,如果有的话,什么可以证明这种对两类新来者的区别对待是合理的。它探讨了基于不同的环境影响,对社会(政治)文化的不同影响以及新来者自身立场之间的差异的差异对待的论点。我的结论是,尽管存在差别待遇的一些理由,但这种情况比人们可能预期的要弱,而且可以证明这种情况的理由令人惊讶和有问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Migrants by plane and migrants by stork: can we refuse citizenship to one, but not the other?
ABSTRACT States combine the routine refusal of citizenship to migrants with policies that grant newborns of citizens (or residents) full membership of society without questions asked. This paper asks what, if anything, can justify this differential treatment of the two types of newcomers. It explores arguments for differential treatment based on the differential environmental impact, different impact on the (political) culture of the society in question and differences between the positions of the newcomers themselves. I conclude that, although some justification for differential treatment exists, the case for it is weaker than one may expect and the grounds on which it can be justified are surprising and problematic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信