IMMIGRATION, SELF-DETERMINATION, AND GLOBAL

JUSTICE: TOWARDS A HOLISTIC NORMATIVE THEORY

OF MIGRATION
JORGE M. VALADEZ
Abstract: 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 signicantly 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.
Keywords: Freedom of movement, global justice, immigration, migration, open
borders, territorial powers
In this paper I adopt a holistic approach to examine the roles that global
justice and self-determination play in articulating just migration policies. Most
approaches to migration grant normative priority to one or another party affected
by migration, or focus on one or another socioeconomic or political factor related
to this issue, often without explicitly explaining why such parties or factors merit
overriding concern. An advantage of a holistic approach is that it takes into
account broader morally relevant considerations in determining just migration
policies. Even though I cannot claim, given obvious limitations of time and
space, to provide an exhaustive account of all of the relevant considerations
related to migration, it is important to begin to think holistically about this issue
and to integrate in a theoretically coherent manner the major factors relevant for
the identication of just migration policies. To this end, I outline the contours of
Journal of International Political Theory, 8(12) 2012, 135146
DOI: 10.3366/jipt.2012.0034
Edinburgh University Press 2012
www.eupjournals.com/jipt
135
Jorge M. Valadez
a general normative theory of migration and make some suggestions regarding
the policy guidelines that would follow from such a theory. My principal focus is
on the normative issues related to migration, even though I give due recognition
to the relevance of empirical issues.
In the rst part of this essay I specify the factors that should be taken into
account in developing an adequate normative theory of migration and identify
the general moral principles that should guide the development of such a theory.
In the second part, I explain how these factors and principles can be drawn
together in a theoretically systematic way to yield morally principled policies
of migration, placing particular attention on how these policies promote global
justice while respecting the self-determination of political communities.
Migration and Global Justice
Contemporary conceptions of morality and justice in political philosophy are
generally underpinned by the conviction that all human beings have equal moral
dignity and worth. A reasonable moral corollary to this egalitarian principle
is that all human beings deserve equal moral concern regarding their basic
welfare needs. If human beings are moral equals then it seems reasonable to
maintain that their basic interests, which include sustenance and other human
development needs, should be objects of equal moral concern. Though I will not
systematically defend them here, I take the egalitarian principles of equal moral
status and concern as basic guiding principles that any adequate normative theory
of migration should respect. As we shall see, the best way to do justice to these
egalitarian principles in developing a morally principled theory of migration
is to take holistic account of the basic interests of all of the major parties
affected by migration policies as well as the likely consequences of major policy
options.
From the outset it is important to recognize that migration is an issue of
global justice, for it involves the regulated movement of people across national
boundaries. Such regulation is often enforced by coercive means and, more
important, restricts access to political communities and labor markets, which
can result in the limitation of peoples opportunities to satisfy even basic needs.
Given egregious differences in the economic and social opportunities provided
by different political communities, restrictions on the movement of people across
national boundaries represent important limitations on their opportunities to
lead at least minimally satisfying lives. Without satisfying their basic needs,
it is difcult to see how people can exercise autonomy and pursue their life
projects. Thus it seems reasonable to claim that restricting peoples capacity to
move across national boundaries undermines their basic freedom and greatly
limits their life opportunities. If we conjoin these considerations with the
claim that political bodies such as states cannot provide compelling reasons
136
Immigration, Self-determination, and Global Justice
to refuse entrance to potential immigrants, morally appropriate immigration
policies would seem to be those allowing individuals freedom of movement
across national boundaries with very few, if any, restrictions.
1
It is instructive to see why this deceptively simple line of reasoning fails. As
I have argued elsewhere (Valadez 2010), there is no general right to freedom
of movement, because there are many justiable and accepted restrictions on
our capacity to move. We cannot, for instance, move into property that is
privately owned without the owners permission or freely occupy public spaces
without regard to the legal restrictions limiting access to them. Concerning
private property, since most property in political communities is privately
owned, restrictions to access such property represent major, albeit reasonable,
limitations to freedom of movement. On the other hand, rules and regulations
governing movement into and across public spaces such as streets, roads,
bridges, rivers, lakes, parks, public buildings, and open spaces in cities also
impose signicant restrictions on freedom of movement. Given the need to use
public spaces in a fair and safe way, the movement restrictions that societies
place on these spaces seem reasonable. We do not want, for example, for people
to have the freedom to walk in the middle of the street or to drive their cars
the wrong way on a one-way street. A moments reection will remind us that
these familiar and widespread limitations to freedom of movement in private and
public spaces are justiable insofar as they are necessary to protect the interests
and rights of others.
We should note that even when movement of a particular kind is necessary
for our basic welfare, we are not necessarily justied in engaging in that kind
of movement. Even if I am homeless, for example, would appealing to freedom
of movement sufce to justify my moving into someones house or camping out
on their property? And even if I am poor and hungry, it is implausible to assume
that, in the absence of additional arguments, relying on freedom of movement
would in itself grant me the right, for example, to plant a vegetable garden on
your property. In short, there is in general no basic or natural right to freedomof
movement; in determining whether movement of a particular kind is justied we
need to examine how such movement affects others. We therefore cannot simply
assume that the kind of movement involved in migrating across national borders
is justied, even when our basic welfare is at stake. As we shall see in what
follows, in the case of migration identifying the effects of migration policies and
the ways in which different parties are affected is a complex matter, one that
requires taking a holistic approach that is not xated on the interests of just one
or two groups of individuals. If we are to take seriously the egalitarian principles
of equal moral status and the corollary principle of equal moral concern, we
need to take into account the interests of all the parties signicantly affected by
migration policies.
Let us point out the benets and liabilities of migration, starting with the
benets and how they are distributed among the affected parties. Migrants, their
137
Jorge M. Valadez
families, and the communities from which they come can benet greatly by
migration. Low-skilled workers from developing countries benet by earning
much higher incomes in afuent countries than they would earn in their home
countries for similar kinds of work. In situations in which highly educated
workers in developing countries are not able to nd employment or when
they stand to earn low wages despite their high level of training, they can
be better rewarded for their specialized skills by migrating to technologically-
advanced countries. Communities in developing countries also benet from the
remittances sent by emigrating workers. According to estimates by the World
Bank (2010), approximately $350 billion in remittances was sent in 2010 to
developing countries, an amount more than three times greater than the yearly
total development assistance which developing countries receive. In general,
total global economic output is increased by labor-driven migration. Some
studies estimate that world income would increase by $350 billion if global
migration levels between 2001 and 2025 are similar to migration levels between
1997 and 2000 (Kapur and McHale 2006).
Moreover, when migrants return to their country of origin, they can use their
experiences, knowledge, and contacts to make important economic contributions
and institutional improvements in their home countries. Particularly when
highly educated and talented migrants return to their country of origin, they
can provide distinctive benets to their community, since they are the ones
most likely to promote positive social, economic and political reforms, such
as democratization, increases in political accountability, and improvements in
the efciency of domestic institutions. This observation suggests that one way
in which migration policies can promote development in poor countries is
by providing incentives for the most educated and talented citizens of these
countries to return and contribute to their countrys economic, social, and
political development.
Receiving countries also benet from labor-driven migration. Migrants
provide a much needed supply of labor to those afuent countries that
have experienced a decline in their national population. This is particularly
true in some European countries in which birth rates among native-born
citizens have declined. People in developed countries also benet from the
lower prices in goods and services resulting from the lower wages that new
immigrants are willing to work for. The receiving country also benets from the
migrants willingness to engage in labor that domestic workers are unwilling
or reluctant to do. Moreover, receiving countries can benet by promoting
cooperation between individuals with diverse talents and technically specialized
skills.
Just as there are signicant advantages to migration, however, there are
also signicant disadvantages. Perhaps the most important of these are the
negative effects on developing countries of the exodus of their most enterprising,
educated, and talented individuals. As McHale and Kapurs recent analysis
138
Immigration, Self-determination, and Global Justice
indicates, developing countries lose out when some of their most talented and
hard-working citizens, on whom they have spent scare resources educating and
cultivating, migrate to developed countries at the point where they would start to
exercise their professional knowledge and skills. The emigration rate in 2000 for
highly skilled and educated individuals from Western Africa, for example, was
27 percent, from the Caribbean region 41 percent, from the African countries of
Mauritius and Ghana, 56 and 47 percent, respectively, and from Latin America
16 percent (Kapur and McHale 2006: 3067). This represents a major loss
of human resources for developing countries that urgently need talented and
educated individuals to improve their societal institutions and provide basic
services to their citizens.
Second, large migrant ows, particularly of poorly educated or low-skilled
workers, can strain public services in receiving countries in such areas as
education, health, and housing. While middle- and upper-class communities
in afuent countries benet from the lower wages which migrant low-skilled
laborers are willing to work for, poor communities in developed countries
often bear the brunt of accommodating low-skilled migrants. Low-skilled
migrants are more likely to settle in poor communities, increasing prices
for low-income housing and stressing poor school systems which have few
resources. The problems created for education systems are exacerbated when
the migrants come from a country that speaks a different language than the
country of destination, for additional resources need to be spent in successfully
integrating these immigrant students. Moreover, by increasing the labor-supply
for low-income jobs, low-skilled migrants put downward pressure on wages
and diminish employment opportunities for the poor and least educated in
countries of destination, who have less leverage to negotiate for better wages
and employment benets than highly educated workers.
Third, some countries of destination can face a number of environmental
problems from the unplanned inux of large numbers of migrants, such as
desertication, deforestation, water depletion or contamination, soil erosion, and
pasture degradation. Social conicts can also arise between new migrants and
local populations when they are faced with diminishing natural resource bases,
such as sheries or arable land. These problems are exacerbated when the rapid
arrival of migrants leaves insufcient time for the environmental assessment of
migrants needs and the implementation of environmental safeguards. Finally,
when migration is irregular, i.e. illegal, a host of problems are created,
including human trafcking, economic exploitation, and exposure to injury or
death by migrants using illegal means of entrance. Undocumented migrants are
often outside of the protection of the lawand therefore susceptible to exploitation
by unscrupulous employers, criminals, and others who are aware of their greater
vulnerability. Because undocumented migrants cannot readily visit their families
due to the difculty of reentry, the social cohesion of families and communities
in countries of origin is strained by their extended absence. By living outside
139
Jorge M. Valadez
of the social and legal institutions of the receiving country, the civic and social
integration of undocumented migrants is seriously hindered.
Having briey identied some of the positive and negative aspects of
migration, in the second part of this paper I suggest some migration policy
proposals that optimize the benets of global migration while minimizing some
of its major disadvantages. These policy proposals express respect for the
egalitarian principles of equal moral status and concern as well as the right to
self-governance of political communities.
Towards Morally Principled Migration Policies
How do we balance the sometimes competing interests of the parties
differentially affected by migration in a morally principled way, especially in
a world in which deeply entrenched and formally recognized territorialized
political communities confer on themselves the right of exclusion and natural
resource ownership? We could start by challenging a basic normative assumption
of the contemporary geopolitical conguration of states, namely, their territorial
powers, and see what global moral obligations emerge from applying our
egalitarian principles of equal moral status and concern to this geopolitical
environment.
It seems reasonable to claim that if all human beings merit equal status and
concern, they should be able to equally access the earths land and natural
resources to satisfy their sustenance needs. However, existing conceptions of
sovereignty include territorial powers, which political communities employ to
justify border control and ownership of land and natural resources. But it is
historically undisputable that these territorial powers were acquired through
morally illegitimate means, such as conquest, invasive settlement, broken
treaties, and partitioning of land by imperial powers. Even on those very rare
occasions in which a state was founded without the coerced displacement of
pre-existing communities, it is still the case that the state in question did not
obtain consent from the world community for their exclusive territorial powers.
Despite the morally illegitimate way in which states acquired their territories,
the world community recognizes their territorial powers and it is utopian to
believe that states will give up these ownership powers to satisfy an abstract
conception of justice, however well justied it might be. I propose that we
think of the territorial powers of states as morally conditional on the observance
by states of certain global moral obligations. Given that we cannot start from
scratch and distribute land and natural resources fairly among the worlds
people, what kind of obligations do states have to the world community to
morally reciprocate for the latters recognition of their illegitimately acquired
territorial powers? We could maintain that the continued recognition of the
legitimacy of territorial powers depends on states being fair participants in the
140
Immigration, Self-determination, and Global Justice
global cooperative enterprise in which political communities use the earths
natural resources to promote the survival and ourishing of all of the worlds
people. We could see states as administrative units which use their control
over portions of the earth for the benet of their members and, through fair
global trade and immigration policies, for example, for the benet of the worlds
people as well. My suggestion is that imposing certain global moral obligations
(identied below) on self-governing political bodies is a politically feasible but
morally principled way of addressing the tension between a commitment to basic
liberal egalitarian principles and the recognition of territorialized self-governing
political communities with special responsibilities.
2
The historical trajectories of economic development of different countries
have been vastly different and a realistic procedure for promoting global
economic justice within this existing geopolitical conguration must be found.
I propose that the following conditions promoting global economic justice be
recognized by states as morally obligatory: (1) that afuent countries recognize
as a basic moral obligation to the world community the need to provide economic
and technological aid to states and other political communities disadvantaged
by scarce natural resources, (2) that a fair international system of trade,
production, labor, and nance be developed and implemented, with input from
developing nations, (3) that all political communities abstain from practices that
are environmentally destructive and that degrade the common natural resource
base on which the world community depends for its sustenance and continued
well-being. It makes sense to impose these normative conditions on the worlds
political communities because they reect respect for the egalitarian principles
of equal moral worth and concern as well as support the normative reasons for
conditionally recognizing the territorial ownership claims of states in the rst
place.
I have discussed these normative conditions elsewhere,
3
so here I focus
only on the second of these, which is the most relevant for the issue of just
immigration policies. The purpose of the second normative condition is to
promote the welfare of the worlds people within the realistic constraint of a
geopolitical conguration of self-governing territorialized political bodies that
is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Part of a just international
economic system involves the transnational regulation of labor, so fair migration
policies that help developing countries can play an important role in alleviating
global injustices and inequalities. In what follows I discuss the form that these
just migration policies should take.
Just migration policies should prioritize the basic needs of the poorest and
most vulnerable individuals. This is vital for global justice since the most
vulnerable members of a political community such as the extremely poor, the
inrm, the elderly, and the very young are the ones who are less self-reliant
because of their dependence on others and are more susceptible to suffering from
contingencies that threaten their welfare. It seems reasonable to interpret the
141
Jorge M. Valadez
corollary principle of equal moral concern for the welfare of others in a way that
grants special attention to those who are the most vulnerable and whose welfare
is the most fragile. If the moral concern that underpins our egalitarian principles
involves promoting the welfare of others, it makes sense for our social policies
(and our migration policies in particular) to prioritize the needs of those whose
chances of attaining a sustainable state of well-being are less than those who are
more self-reliant. Granting priority to the most vulnerable is not a violation of the
egalitarian principles of equal moral worth and concern, but rather a renement
in the understanding of these principles.
4
Just migration policies should also support the creation of economically
viable political communities because such communities provide the stable
social frameworks within which individuals can ourish, and where vulnerable
individuals can achieve a sustainable state of well-being. Economic prosperity
for the worlds people cannot be achieved by massive migrations to developed
countries for the simple reason that there are far more poor people in the
world than can be accommodated in afuent countries. The most reasonable and
viable approach to attaining economic global justice for all would thus involve
developing economically prosperous and sustainable communities throughout
the world.
In addition to prioritizing the needs of the most vulnerable and supporting the
creation of economically viable political communities, just migration policies
should also respect the democratic right to self-governance of territorialized
political communities. If we recognize the democratic right of political
communities to determine their political and economic affairs, we must be
willing to grant themthe wherewithal to accomplish these objectives. This means
that as long as they fulll the global justice obligations described earlier, they
should have the wherewithal to make short- and long-termdecisions to determine
their social and economic future in such areas as education, health care, housing,
national social security benets, natural resource use, and a national savings
rate. Democratic principles of self-governance and subsidiarity mandate that we
should respect the capacity of a political community to make decisions in areas
such as these to ensure the basic well-being of its members.
What kind of migration policies would respect the factors just identied,
namely, prioritizing the needs of the most vulnerable, creating economically
stable communities, and allowing political communities the capacity for self-
governance? The most important observation is that a policy of open borders
would violate all three of these conditions. It would violate the rst condition
because open borders would not allow afuent countries to prioritize entrance
by implementing immigration policies designed to help the worlds neediest
individuals. It is well known from migration studies that the very poorest
individuals are not the ones who migrate since a certain amount of resources are
needed in order to engage in the process of migration. Open borders would favor
those who have sufcient resources to migrate, particularly the well-educated
142
Immigration, Self-determination, and Global Justice
and highly skilled. Moreover, the welfare of those who are most vulnerable and
left behind would likely worsen under open borders. As we observed earlier,
many poor countries are already suffering the effects of losing their most skilled
and talented individuals. Approximately 50 percent of the doctors educated in
Kenya, for example, have emigrated, representing a transfer of wealth from
poor to afuent countries of $600,000 for each doctor, when both losses in
educational training and returns from investment are taken into account (Kirigia
et al. 2006). Open borders would in effect exacerbate this situation by creating an
open market for immigration slots, which would likely not be lled either by the
neediest able-bodied individuals in the poorest countries or the most vulnerable,
less mobile individuals left behind. It is ironic that thinkers who are generally
highly skeptical of open markets producing just outcomes would be in favor of
a laissez-faire approach to global migration.
Open borders would also violate the second condition, namely, creating
economically stable political communities. The emigration of some of their most
talented, educated, entrepreneurial, skilled, and motivated citizens would surely
not contribute to the creation of prosperous and stable political communities in
the developing world. On the contrary, it is likely that their emigration would
contribute to fraying of the social cohesion and vitality of these communities.
Economically prosperous and stable political communities need to be recognized
as an essential component of a viable holistic vision of global justice and a policy
of open borders would militate against such a vision.
The third condition of fair migration policies, namely, the capacity for self-
governance of political communities, would also be undermined by a policy
of open borders, particularly for choice countries of destination. It is unlikely
that political communities would be able to accurately determine an appropriate
national savings rate, for example, if a global policy of open borders were
in place. Without controlling and limiting the inux of immigrants into its
borders, a political community could not make reliable estimates of its future
population and calculate what an appropriate savings rate for future needs and
contingencies would be. Its capacity to provide adequate health care for all of
its residents would also likely be compromised by a large and sudden inux of
immigrants, as would its ability to effectively address the educational needs of
large numbers of young new immigrants that speak a variety of languages and
that come from different cultural backgrounds. Providing adequate housing is
also a potential problem, particularly if a large inux of low-skilled indigent
individuals increases the demand for already scarce affordable low-income
housing. At present, many afuent countries are engaged in intense and
sometimes acrimonious debates on cutting back on social services for their own
citizens and this problem would be greatly exacerbated by large numbers of new
immigrants who would also need such services.
In order to obtain an idea of the number of immigrants that a country like
the U.S. should expect under a policy of open borders, consider the number
143
Jorge M. Valadez
of applicants to the diversity immigrant visa program that grants permanent
resident visas to people from countries with low U.S. immigration rates. This
program provides one of the few sources of hard data for the estimates of
potential immigrants to a choice country of destination. In the latest year for
which application gures are available, almost 20 million individuals applied
for permanent resident visas to the U.S., and this gure does not include China,
India, and other countries with high U.S. immigration rates (U.S. Department
of State 2011). If we included these other countries, the gure easily rises to
about 40 million individuals who would want to immigrate to the U.S. in a
given year. It is clear that, let us say, an increase of 200 million immigrants
over a ve or ten year period would represent very serious problems for
U.S. society in providing social welfare benets in the areas of health care,
education, and housing. Additional serious problems would likely emerge in
developing transportation, waste disposal, water ltration, and other kinds
of physical infrastructures necessary for accommodating such large increases
in population.
Political communities are collectivities with a history and that history should
be taken into account in identifying its responsibilities to its members and to
nonmembers. The collective history of a political community is a process in
which its members have made personal sacrices, made economic contributions,
developed reasonable expectations, made long-term commitments, engaged in
democratic decisions, delayed gratications, and so forth. Whatever responsibil-
ities it has to nonmembers, a political community certainly has responsibilities
to its own members, especially looking after their basic welfare. As we have just
seen, the demographic impact of a policy of open borders would raise serious
questions about whether choice countries of destination like the U.S. would be
able to fulll their responsibilities to their own members, including in areas that
affect their basic welfare.
In contrast to open borders, what kinds of initiatives promoting global justice
would be implemented by fair migration policies? First, migration policies of
wealthy nations could grant priority to low-skilled workers from the worlds
poorest countries. Given the established benets that poor communities receive
from migrant laborers through remittances, this is an important way in which
afuent countries could address global economic inequalities. Legalizing the
admission of these workers would bring them under the protection of the law,
address security issues of concern to receiving countries, and reduce incentives
for irregular labor migration, since they would know that the jobs they seek
are already taken. By prioritizing the admission of workers from the poorest
countries, wealthier countries would acknowledge that it is consistent with the
egalitarian principles of equal moral status and concern to give special attention
to the worlds neediest and most vulnerable people.
Second, greater emphasis could be placed on circular labor migration by
facilitating legally sanctioned movement to and from countries of origin and
144
Immigration, Self-determination, and Global Justice
by providing incentives for migrants to help in the development of their
communities of origin. Circular migration would help maintain connections
between migrants and their home countries and create a vested interest for them
to return to their communities. In Mexico, for example, the state government
of Zacatecas, in collaboration with migrant hometown associations, introduced
a program called Dos por Uno, in which the state and federal governments
match every dollar contributed by migrants for development programs in
Zacatecas (Orozco and Rouse 2007). Active involvement in the development
of their communities would encourage migrants to return, and further help
their communities with their capital, experience, knowledge, and connections.
In any temporary migrant labor program, there should be an important role
for international organizations to supervise such programs and ensure that the
human rights of migrants are respected, since these programs have a notorious
history of worker abuse and exploitation. Regarding circular migration, it is
important to note that approaches advocating greater freedom of movement
for temporary migrants through such means as greater citizenship rights, dual
citizenship, or regional migration accords are generally compatible with my
perspective. Such programs generally assume that receiving countries (and
countries of origin as well) can legitimately employ standards regulating
and restricting participation in these programs. Political philosophy debates
concerning temporary migration often center on the regulated conditions under
which temporary migrants can enjoy greater mobility and justice, and not on
the justication of open borders. In fact, one of the most prominent advocates of
increased mobility for temporary migrants, Rainer Baubock, is rightly concerned
with the negative effects of large scale free labor mobility on democratic self-
governance and the civic stability of democratic political bodies (Baubock
2011).
Third, afuent countries could provide compensation to developing countries
for the loss of high-skilled workers. As observed earlier, the emigration of
these workers represents an enormous loss for developing countries. Under
current circumstances, wealthy countries benet freely and abundantly from
the investments in human resource development undertaken at great cost by
developing countries.
Open border approaches are less morally principled because they typically
do not sufciently take into account the interests of all the parties affected by
migration. They are also less politically feasible, and avoid the hard questions of
real world migration, such as who should be granted priority in admission, how
to deal with those left behind, and how to respond to the losses suffered by poor
countries from the emigration of their most educated and skilled citizens. It is
high time that political philosophers get down to the hard work of developing
feasible but morally justied migration policies that address the varied and
complex problems of global migration, particularly the problems that beset the
worlds most vulnerable people.
145
Jorge M. Valadez
Notes
1
Reasonable restrictions could be placed on applicants with highly contagious diseases or
backgrounds involving serious crimes.
2
For the position that such a tension exists, see Lenard and Moore (2008).
3
I discuss conditions two and three in Valadez (2008).
4
It is notable that strong egalitarians, such as John Rawls, Roland Dworkin, and G. A. Cohen,
prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable, particularly when their vulnerabilities are due to
unchosen circumstances, which is presumably the case with the neediest in poor countries.
References
Baubock, R. 2011. Temporary Migrants, Partial Citizenship, and Hyper-
migration, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
14(5): 66593.
Kapur, D. and McHale, J. 2006. Should a Cosmopolitan Worry About the Brain
Drain?, Ethics & International Affairs 20(3): 30520.
Kirigia, J. M., Gbary, A. R., Muthuri, L. K., Nyoni, J. and Seddoh, A. 2006. The
Cost of Health Professionals Brain Drain in Kenya, BMC Health Service
Research 6(89), http://www.biomedcentral.com/14726963/6/89
Lenard, P. and Moore, M. 2008. Ineliminable Tension: A Reply to Abizadeh and
Gilaberts Is There a Genuine Tension between Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism
and Special Responsibilities?, Philosophical Studies 138: 34965.
Orozco, M. and Rouse, R. 2007. Migrant Hometown Associations and
Opportunities for Development: A Global Perspective, http://www.
migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=579
U.S. Department of State. 2011. Total Number of DV Lottery Applicants by
Country, http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/TotalDVApplicantsbyCountry.pdf
Valadez, J. M. 2008. Immigration and the Territorial Powers of Nation-States,
APA Newsletters, Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy 7(2):
1112.
Valadez, J. M. 2010. Is Immigration a Human Right?, in R. Pierik and W.
Werner (eds), Cosmopolitanism in Context: Perspectives from International
Law and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
World Bank. 2010. Migration and Remittances Brief 13, http://go.worldbank.
org/QOWEWD6TA0
146