What moral standards ought nation-states abide by when selecting immigration policies? Peter Higgins argues that immigration policies can only be judged by considering the inequalities that are produced by the institutions – such as gender, race and class – that constitute our social world. He challenges conventional positions on immigration justice, including the view that states have a right to choose whatever immigration policies they like, or that all immigration restrictions ought to be eliminated and borders opened. Rather than suggesting one absolute solution, Higgins argues that a unique set of immigration policies will be just for each country. He concludes with concrete recommendations for policymaking.

Immigration Justice contains an assortment of virtues. It offers a terrific overview of key positions in contemporary immigration philosophy. Higgins's picture of immigration justice is certainly innovative; he gives a circumscribed defense of closed borders that aims to respond to the needs of the most disadvantaged as opposed to the philosophically shaky claims of prescriptive nationalism. The PDP [Priority of Disadvantage Principle] is not only philosophically rich but also potentially useful for crafting a range of forward-looking immigration policies. -- Amy Reed-Sandoval, University of Texas at El Paso * Hypatia Reviews Online *
Higgins urges us to consider the justice of immigration admissions policies from the perspective of those already unjustly disadvantaged. This offers an angle of vision on this issue that plays an important role in ordinary discussions but that has been unduly neglected in philosophical debates. The discussion is clear and lucid. This is an important contribution to contemporary debates about immigration admissions. * Joseph H. Carens, University of Toronto *

Peter Higgins is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Department Member in Women’s and Gender Studies at Eastern Michigan University. His research applies a feminist perspective to issues of global justice.