Patti Tamara Lenard

Temporary labour migration, global redistribution and democratic justice

Calls to expand temporary work programmes come from two directions. First, as global justice advocates observe, every year thousands of poor migrants cross borders in search of better opportunities, often in the form of improved employment opportunities. As a result, international organizations now lobby in favour of expanding ‘guest-work’ opportunities, that is, opportunities for citizens of poorer countries to migrate temporarily to wealthier countries to fill labour shortages. Second, temporary work programmes permit domestic governments to respond to two internal, contradictory political pressures: (1) to fill labour shortages and (2) to do so without increasing rates of permanent migration. Temporary work programmes permit governments to appear ‘tough’ on migration, while responding to employer pressure to locate workers willing to work in low-skilled, poorly remunerated positions. The coincidence of national self-interest and global justice generates a strong case in favour of expanding guest-work. We evaluate the moral benefits and burdens of expanding guest-work opportunities, and conclude that although there are benefits to be gleaned from the perspective of global wealth redistribution, at present, temporary work programmes are generally unjust. We will argue that just temporary work programmes, in time, permit temporary workers to attain citizenship. This spells the end of traditional temporary work programmes, which require that workers return to their home country in time; instead, what is temporary is the employment obligation that must be fulfilled as a requirement to access citizenship. As long as this requirement is met, we endorse guest-work programmes as a tool to respond to global inequality.

Temporary labour migration: Exploitation, tool of development, or both?

Economies around the world have long relied on temporary labour migration programs. For years and years, migrants have crossed borders to access labour markets more promising than those in their countries of origin. Moreover, we have recently witnessed increases in opportunities for temporary labour migrants: for example, between 2003 and 2007, the number of temporary foreign migrants labouring in OECD countries rose by 7% per year. These programs are increasingly celebrated as a solution to domestic economies facing acute labour shortages as well as for their contribution to development assistance. However, the apparent benefits associated with temporary labour migration opportunities are frequently accompanied by harms, which may dampen our enthusiasm for them in some cases. The essays contributed to this issue suggest that we have good reason to worry about the implementation of temporary labour migration programs; yet, the contributors do not suggest abandoning them entirely, as much as they make a case for thinking hard about how to reform them in ways that will mitigate the harms they have been known to cause. Our goal in this introductory article is to offer an analytic framework through which to consider the case studies that follow, and the criticisms of temporary labour migration programs within them, in more depth. Our lens of analysis is exploitation. Temporary labour programs are regularly described as exploitative, and as our newspapers often report, migrants who participate in these programs are frequently the victims of considerable abuse at the hands of their employers and those who run recruitment programs on their behalf. As a result, many commentators – including some of the authors assembled here – believe that guest worker programs that target lowskilled workers in particular are exploitative. The jobs filled by temporary work programs are frequently at least one of ‘dirty, dangerous, and demanding’, and in some cases all three, as a result of which local workers are often unwilling to carry them out. Migrants are often motivated to take these ‘undesirable’ jobs because the living conditions in their home country make them the best, and sometimes the only, way to provide the means necessary to realize the goals they have set for themselves. As a result, some scholars suggest that these programs are unavoidably exploitative. As readers shall see, the scholars who have contributed to this issue disagree with respect to the source of morally problematic exploitation connected with temporary labour migration programs. As we see it, there are four possible sources of exploitation, three of which are related to the contracts that guest workers sign: (1) the vulnerability of the www.elsevier.com/locate/polsoc Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

What Can Multicultural Theory Tell Us about Integrating Muslims in Europe

Across Europe and elsewhere we are witnessing a series of decisions, including attempts (successful and otherwise) to ban the burka or the building of minarets on mosques, which seem to be made from a fear of ‘politicised Muslims’ – Muslim residents and citizens in European countries – who are alleged to be irredeemably and unambiguously anti-European and therefore anti-democratic. They are, additionally, frequently portrayed as taking orders from fundamentalist regimes, or organisations, which operate from outside Europe and aim to destabilise European political life. The debates and conflicts portrayed in the Swiss media in the week before the vote on whether to ban the construction of minarets, for example, and in the days just afterwards, mirror those that have been occupying European countries for the past several years. As I shall suggest in this article, these debates are familiar to theorists of multiculturalism, and of liberal democracy more generally, and they press us to consider whether the challenges (apparently) posed by Muslim integration are distinct from the challenges that have occupied the attention of multicultural theorists in the past. Underpinning the analysis in this article is my view that the principles that underpin multicultural theorising, principles that were developed in response to previous waves of immigration, are able to guide us in developing fair terms of integration for Muslim citizens.

The Reports of Multiculturalism's Death are Greatly Exaggerated

Multiculturalism has been declared dead across Western Europe and, surprisingly, in Canada. In this brief article, I argue that the declaration of its death is premature. Instead, I argue that whether policies designated ‘multicultural’ produce integration or segregation is in large part determined by the context in which they are implemented; in some cases, integration is proceeding smoothly while in others recent discourse concerning ‘integration’ of migrants bears an uncomfortable resemblance to historically discredited calls for ‘assimilation’. Finally, I argue that to the extent (and this extent is limited) that Muslim minorities are failing to integrate, the failure is caused by host country actions that signal their hostility towards Muslim migrants.

Health Inequalities and Global Justice

Global justice and human rights is perhaps the hottest topic in political science today. This series of monographs and edited collections publishes groundbreaking work on key topics in this increasingly popular field, such as democracy, gender, legal justice, poverty, human rights, environmental justice and just war theory. It will be essential reading for theorists working in politics, international relations, law, philosophy and beyond.

Democratic Citizenship and Denationalization

Are democratic states permitted to denationalize citizens, in particular those whom they believe pose dangers to the physical safety of others? In this article, I argue that they are not. The power to denationalize citizens—that is, to revoke citizenship—is one that many states have historically claimed for themselves, but which has largely been in disuse in the last several decades. Recent terrorist events have, however, prompted scholars and political actors to reconsider the role that denationalization can and perhaps should play in democratic states, in particular with respect to its role in protecting national security and in supporting the global fight against terror more generally. In this article, my objective is to show that denationalization laws have no place in democratic states. To understand why, I propose examining the foundations of the right of citizenship, which lie, I shall argue, in the very strong interests that individuals have in security of residence. I use this formulation of the right to respond to two broad clusters of arguments: (1) those that claim that it is justifiable to denationalize citizens who threaten to undermine the safety of citizens in a democratic state or the ability of a democratic state to function as a democratic state, and (2) those that claim that it is justifiable to denationalize dual citizens because they possess citizenship status in a second country that is also able to protect their rights.

The ethics of deportation in liberal democratic states

This article considers two questions: (1) Do democratic states have the right to deport non-citizens present or residing on their territory? (2) And, if so, what principles should guide deportation in democratic states? The overall objective is to offer an account of what deportation should look like in a liberal democratic state. I begin by situating the practice of deportation in larger discussions of the extent of state discretion in controlling both borders and membership; here, I will argue that potential deportees occupy an awkward middle space, i.e. it is not clear whether they should be treated according to the principles that regulate discretion at the border or discretion in admitting migrants to membership. I then consider more deeply whether deportation can be rendered non-arbitrary, or whether it is bound to remain unjustly applied; where it cannot be rendered non-arbitrary, it must be rejected, or so I shall argue. To be non-arbitrary, the practice of deportation must meet three criteria: a publicity criterion, a justification criterion, and a collective interest criterion. In the final section of the article, I disentangle deportation into its component parts – I distinguish just cause for deportation from just action in deportation – and consider how the criteria that stem from a commitment to non-arbitrariness constrain its application to non-citizen residents. The consequence of requiring deportation to be applied, if at all, in a non-arbitrary way is that there will certainly be cases where liberal democracies find themselves unable to deport those who might otherwise be thought eligible for deportation. Ultimately, I conclude that deportation from liberal democratic states can be fair only in a small number of cases.

Democratic Self-determination and Non-citizen Residents

AbstractIn liberal democracies, citizens are entitled to a substantive package of rights, including the right to participate in politics. Without this right, citizens cannot be self-determining in any rich sense. As more and more people cross borders, the number of residents without citizenship is rising, as is the number of people who have little say in the political life of the communities in which they reside. I assess the normative status of long-term, non-citizen residents and conclude that, without the right to vote, and without the right to run for office, long-term, non-citizen residents are denied political self-determination. Using the “thick-thin” lens that unites the contributions to this issue, I propose granting non-citizen residents more expansive political rights.

Lessons from Canada and Germany

There have been important similarities between Canada’s and Germany’s policies and approaches towards immigration and integration, ranging from practices of ethnic and racial exclusion in the f irst part of the last century to the subsequent development of both countries “into de-facto multicultural societies” (Triadafilopoulos, 2012: 2). However, because of signif icant differences in their historical contexts, as well as in the contemporary political and geographical circumstances that shape immigration and integration discourses and policies, considerable variations remain (Bauder, 2011). This special issue explores recent developments related to the immigration and integration experiences in both countries. Comparisons between Canada and Germany with respect to immigration and integration have become of increasing scholarly interest in recent years (e.g. Bauder, 2006b, 2008, 2011; Bendel and Kreienbrink, 2008; Reitz et al., 1999; Geiβler, 2003; Schmidtke, 2010; Schultze, 1994; Triadafilopoulos, 2004, 2006, 2012; Winter, 2007; ZWH, 20091). Apparently, comparisons of Canada and Germany have much to offer to migration research and policy making in that they “can de-center what is taken for granted” and thereby “challenge conventional wisdom” related to immigration and integration (Bloemraad, 2013: 29). Recent political developments made it necessary to update and expand the existing comparative literature. Canada’s immigration system is in the process of a signif icant overhaul. The Canadian government has lately COMPARATIVE MIGRATION STUDIES

The ‘rights’ of temporary labour migrants in Asian states

This article considers the struggles faced by Asian states in their attempts to recruit mostly low-skilled temporary labour migrants. The article observes three trends: (1) there is a marked reluctance to admit low-skilled migrants into many Asian states, even where they are clearly needed; (2) where they are admitted, there is an associated marked reluctance to grant them an expansive set of rights, including in particular a path to citizenship; and (3) there continues to be a concern to protect the cultural basis of the nation, which serves as justification for both the reluctance to admit migrant workers and the reluctance to extend them rights. As a result of these three trends, two observations can be made. First, the presence of increasing numbers of both high- and low-skilled migrants may force Asian states to reconsider their reliance on ethno-national self-definitions. Second, however, to the extent that this reconsideration is already transpiring, it is not yet easily translating into more and better rights for, especially, low-skilled migrants, in particular with respect to the rights associated with citizenship status. The worry that migrants threaten social cohesion in Asian states, by sullying the national ‘brand’, prevails.