أخلاقيات الهجرة العالمية عند جوزيف كارنيز: النظرية الأخلاقية والممارسة العملية "المشكلات والمقترحات" .

الملخص EN

Immigration began to gain attention as a major theme in applied Ethics and political Ethics in the mid-1980s because in recent years there has been a continuous interaction between applied ethics and political philosophy The importance of research lies in seeking to find concrete practical solutions to solve the problem of immigration, searching for and activating lost immigrant rights and making them morally and legally binding, and this in itself is an ethical attempt..

Immigration is a serious Ethical problem that still lacks the ethical solutions that we can find by emphasizing the Ethical values and ideals that policymakers, decision makers, and governments must adhere to in order for there to be just policies in migration, such as activating the values of liberal tolerance, Equality, freedom, non-racial discrimination, and displaying These liberal policies do not live up to their moral principles..

This research aims to shed light on the immoral policies that take place in the right of migrants to deport and forcibly detain, not to grant citizenship or to deprive them of citizenship rights or their rights to work and treat them as criminals, their physical exploitation and abuse, and other practices that are unacceptable, unjust, and morally impermissible, Because it expresses utilitarian, unethical policies that must be morally evaluated to follow the path of justice and move away from interest and benefit, just as these policies are not consistent with the liberal democratic principles that these western countries have claimed before.

Also, this research attempts to draw a map of the interaction between Allen Ritual and practice in immigration Ethics, as well as trying to bridge the gap between practice and moral theory, say and act, and show how normative immigration issues can be linked to immigration issues in practice and then find a fair immigration Ethics characterized by democracy, liberalism, objectivity and impartiality against migrants in general and migrants Muslims in particular, reject the immoral practices that take place against migrants from exploitation and ill-treatment that are morally indefensible, and call for respect for the human dignity of migrants, as this research contributes to contemporary controversy about the Cultural numerical and respect for cultural differences of migrants, and calls for activating the moral values of theoretical and applied to actual cases and practice..

The research problems lie: First: in the large and growing gap between liberal Ethical rules that includes (the rights and duties of migrants), and between the contemporary unethical policy that actually applies to migrants around the world and this big gap is a gap between practice and theory.

Second: in the value conflict between moral duties and rights, and there are conflicting moral values, such as the values of liberal commitment to moral equality for all people and the value of respecting the sovereignty of the state, there is a value conflict between the value of cultural diversity and cultural homogeneity, between the value of respecting the cultural identity of migrants and the value of preserving identity Patriotism and societal culture of the state, between the value of equality and priority, shall we make the priority for the people of the land itself or for the poor of humanity..? Third: in conflicting moral rights, such as the right of immigrants to migrate, which contradicts the state’s right to control immigration, and the state’s right not to accept and exclude immigrants is incompatible with the right of migrants to stay and unify the family and the rights of social membership, citizenship and nationality, as well as the state’s right to freedom of composition Societies and the right to self-determination contradict the right of migrants to be treated equally between them and citizens and the right to non-discrimination against migrant.

Fourth: there is a deep moral tension between moral obligations.

The moral obligation to respect the rights of migrants, which is consistent with (the demands of justice and universal human rights and the principle of reciprocity and the principle of respect for all human beings because they are equal moral persons), is inconsistent with the moral obligation to respect the sovereignty of the state and its right to control Immigration and the acceptance of immigrants, and the state’s moral obligations towards immigrants to achieve distributive justice are incompatible with the state’s obligation to self-determination and its discretionary authority over immigration..

Fifth:there is an Ethical problem and a great tension between national citizenship and cultural pluralism, and between the value of national loyalty and respect for cultural differences, there is an ethical problem in the non-acceptance of immigrants, discrimination and exclusion on a racial basis and respect for liberal democratic principles, there is an ethical problem between narrow nationalism and global citizenship, there is a problematic Exploitation of temporary workers and the problem of exploiting unskilled labor.

Sixth:How do illegal immigrants have legal rights guaranteed by law even though they violate the law itself and enter without a legal Visa.

.

Seventh: There is a big gap between what migrants should have of rights consistent with liberal principles, and what is embodied and embodied in practice in the mistreatment of migrants by those states that claim democracy and freedom..

Eighth: The problem of the criminal law, which is a sword over the control of migrants only in order to implement immigration laws and does not apply to countries that are proven to mistreat migrants and violate their human rights, as well as when employers exploit migrants economically, or when they become victims, this law does not come They are the perpetrators, and they are not informed because they fear deportation.! Among the most important search results:- -Carnes defended the right to emigrate and the right of weak and poor migrants to emigrate in order to improve their situation.

At the same time, he rejected selective immigration or brain drain because it harms sending countries and increases their backwardness and poverty, so it is illegal immigration..

-Carnes rejected the traditional view of immigration, which holds that states have an absolute right to accept and exclude immigrants, and he considered that the right of immigrants to family reunification, non-deportation and staying is stronger than the state's right to exercise its discretion over immigrants, as immigration ethics at Carneys conflict with extremist nationalism and consistent with citizenship Multicultural Therefore, nationalism must be reformed to become more inclusive, accommodating and accommodating cultural differences, as Will Kymlicka put it.

-Although migrants ’rights are universal and consistent with human rights, they are not safe rights, and they are often violated by democratic countries and migrants often die at the hands of security men without reckoning or punishment, and liberal democratic countries often strike by wall with human rights laws..

- The current immigration policies make clear that these democratic countries have failed to live up to the moral level required for liberal states due to non-liberal practices that violate the moral obligations of liberal states, and that democratic countries have failed to fulfill their moral obligations towards immigrants such as preference for selective immigration (such as the migration of doctors, engineers, and skilled workers)), Rejecting the emigration of the poor and vulnerable most in need of emigration, and excluding Muslim immigrants and these are the unwanted immigrants..

- *Carnes defended the rights of Muslim immigrants and refused to exclude them, and made clear that there is a misunderstanding of Islam, refusal to prejudice against Muslims and Islam, or to consider them criminals or terrorists, and considered that this is morally unjustified and has no real reasons, and he defended respect for their religious beliefs and cultural differences as he defended the rights of women Muslim woman to wear whatever Islamic costume she wants, and this is counted for him.

But on the other hand, unfortunately, we find Carneys way of dealing with the problem of poverty very utilitarian and in which exploitation of unskilled immigrants at the expense of sacrificing justice, and he could not justify this utilitarian position! Also, Carneys did not investigate how illegal immigration can be part An integral part of the capitalist sector, states are involved in illegal immigration because they need a cheap and reliable workforce, so how can they become illegal immigration with the knowledge of states and governments.! -Carnes has attempted to radically reform jar ethics by linking immigration ethics with both: - immigration reform ethics/ immigrant acceptance ethics/ immigration restriction ethics that contradict immigrant acceptance ethics/ immigration laws ethics/ global justice ethics/ responsibility ethics/ ethics of global citizenship/ Ethics of multicultural citizenship/ Ethics of social membership/ Cosmopolitan ethics/ Non-discrimination ethics/ Non-exclusion ethics/ Work ethics/ Welfare ethics...

Theoretical and practical solutions to the immigration problem: - We must prioritize the worst luck and the poor and achieve distributive justice in order to reduce injustice by correcting economic inequalities.

Thus, the moral solution to the immigration problem does not lie in the veil of ignorance of John Rolls, but it lies in the moral change for us and that we become more altruistic as Thomas Nagel and Thomas Scanlon went, and in helping the rich countries of the poor countries, and alleviating poverty in the poor developing countries of the third world by James Helved And Kristin Jobick rejected the priority of the citizens and set concrete and applicable moral scenarios to eliminate the problem of migrants and their wasted rights in order to come up with a workable theory of immigration, "said Adrian Favell..

The problem of immigration can be eliminated by eliminating the causes of injustice, poverty, persecution and wars.

When the causes of migration disappear, immigration will disappear because when the world becomes fair, the differences between societies will be small.

Therefore, if we want migration to disappear, we must live in a fair and equitable world in which all are respected.

Humans have equal moral value in order to activate the practices of peaceful coexistence, so in an ideal and just world there will be no need for immigration controls and immigration will not become a problem, so we must strive towards a more humane world and secure basic rights for all and fulfill the principle of reciprocity, in the words of John Rolls.

Because we can not live in that utopia on earth and scarce peoples community fair, dignified peoples that honors human rights and migration do not disappear and will continue to exist so we need to find theoretical and practical solutions..

We must bridge that gap between theoretical and practical, between the ideal and the real, between saying and doing, between speech and practice, between what we must do and what we can do so that immigration ethics discourse does not become a fictitious discourse negated by existing practices by melting the barriers between Liberal moral values and practice, and that moral principles are reflected in actual situations and in practice.