Replication Data for Proportional Immigration Enforcement

This article considers how much harm is justified in reaching a given immigration goal. Political philosophers generally overlook this question, focusing on whether states have a right to exclude immigrants in general, rather than whether certain means of exclusion are justified. For example, even if excluding new migrants during a pandemic is justified, shooting at migrants attempting to enter is likely an unjustified means of exclusion. We argue harm against migrants in immigration enforcement must be proportional. Whether harm is proportional is impacted by the level of harm migrants experience relative to the harm immigration control averts; whether migrants are forced to migrate; whether the harm against migrants is intended; and whether the harm is instigated directly by a state vs. a non-state actor. We demonstrate that these claims regarding enforcement have implications for justice in immigration currently overlooked. Moreover, these claims are supported in a sample of citizens of the UK and US, despite general opposition to increasing migration in both countries. Drawing on an original experiment focusing on enforcement, novel in evaluating whether the public's opinions are consistent with the requirements of immigration justice, we demonstrate that opinions on enforcement are consistent with sub-principles of proportionality we present.

本文研究为达成既定移民目标时，施加伤害的正当性限度。政治哲学家们通常忽视这一问题，他们多聚焦于国家是否普遍享有驱逐移民的权利，而非探讨特定驱逐手段是否具备正当性。例如，即便在疫情期间驱逐新入境移民具备正当性，向试图入境的移民开枪仍大概率属于缺乏正当性的驱逐手段。本文主张，移民执法过程中对移民施加的伤害必须遵循比例原则。伤害是否符合比例原则，需综合考量多重维度：移民所承受的伤害程度与移民管控所规避的伤害的相对水平、移民是否为被迫迁移、对移民施加的伤害是否具有主观故意，以及伤害是由国家直接引发还是由非国家行为主体所导致。本文证明，上述关于移民执法的主张，对当前学界尚未充分关注的移民正义议题具有重要启示意义。此外，尽管英美两国普通民众普遍反对增加移民规模，但针对两国公民的抽样调查结果为上述主张提供了实证支持。本研究依托一项聚焦移民执法的原创性实验——该实验在评估公众观点是否契合移民正义要求方面具有创新性——证实，民众对移民执法的态度与本文提出的比例原则子原则高度契合。