Migration Control, Authority, and Disobedience

• In Event: Immigration and Justified Borders

Abstract

Several scholars have sought to characterize irregular migration as a type of civil disobedience. I argue, instead, that we should characterize irregular migration as an act of unprincipled disobedience. I make this argument in two steps. First, I argue that migration control exerts authority over migrants. Therefore, to be legitimate, it should meet two criteria: it should be democratic and just. Scholars studying disobedience to migration control have missed the first criterion. In response, I argue that for border control to be legitimate, a necessary condition is that it be multilaterally determined. Since the current border control regime fails to meet the standards of legitimate authority—it is unjust, and migrants generally lack influence over the policies that determine admission—I argue that migrants are justified in disobeying migration control. In the second step of my argument, I argue that we should understand disobedience to migration control as a form of unprincipled disobedience—disobedience to the law that is (in the case of most migrants) not guided by a moral or political goal. Disobedience to migration control is not justified because migrants aim to change the current border control regime. Instead, it is justified because there is no legitimate authority with the right to enforce migration control over them. This suggests that we do not need to hold migrants to demanding standards of morality or neediness to justify their disobedience to migration law.

Author

• Diego Mauricio Tapia-Riquelme, University of Virginia