Unauthorized residence

Residence of unauthorized immigrants is a stable feature of the Global North’s liberal democracies. This article asks how liberal-democratic policymakers should respond to this phenomenon, assuming both that states have incontrovertible rights and interests to assert control over immigration and that unauthorized residence is nevertheless an entrenched fact. It argues that a set of liberal-democratic commitments gives policymakers strong reason to implement both so-called ‘firewall’ and ‘regularization’ policies, thereby protecting unauthorized immigrants’ basic needs and interests and officially incorporating many of them in society. It then explains that the background imperative of immigration control creates a dilemmatic tension between these policies, as regularization is envisaged alongside the removal of the ineligible, which is in turn hindered by the implementation of firewalls. This creates a dilemma between the pursuit of two policy goals that are both underwritten by the same value commitments. Though it cannot be entirely dissolved, I argue that the best way to mitigate this dilemma is to design regularization policy in a way that leaves only a small number of unauthorized immigrants subject to removal.

Read full kick-off paper: 6 April 2024 – Lukas Schmid: ‘Responding to unauthorized residence: on a dilemma between ‘firewalls’ and ‘regularizations’.

I share the basic assumptions underpinning Schmid’s article, which are driven by a commitment to developing policy prescriptions within the fundamental constraints of the current political order. I also align with the value commitments that support both firewall and regularization policies. I am persuaded that Schmid’s proposal to develop regularization programs characterized by minimal conditionality and continuity over time is both ethically and politically desirable. However, I remain unconvinced by the assertion of the ethical dilemma that underpins Schmid’s article. The assertion is that the presence of firewalls hinders the implementation of removals of unauthorized immigrants who are ineligible for regularization. This piece presents some reasons to be skeptical of this claim.

Read the full response: Antje Ellermann ‘Do firewalls create social fog?‘

In his interesting and challenging paper, Schmid proposes that there is a serious tension between two familiar liberal policy approaches to the presence of unauthorized immigration, namely ‘firewalls’ and ‘regularizations’. I’ll begin by explaining the dilemma he proposes, considering some different potential sources of tension he exposes between the two policies. I’ll argue that these tensions arise only because of some widely shared assumptions that Schmid makes about the proper basis for regularization policies. I’ll suggest that if we adopt an alternative, and in my view superior, basis for regularization—what I call the ‘autonomy argument’—Schmid’s dilemma does not arise. His paper thus provides some indirect support for the autonomy argument, since it suggests that only that approach allows us to reconcile important liberal policies.

Read the full response: Adam Omar Hosein: “Regularizations and firewalls are compatible if we grasp the best justifications for each”.

In this thoughtful article, Schmid sheds light on a dilemma for policymakers in liberal democracies between “firewall” and “regularization” immigration policies. Although both policies stem from the same value commitments to fundamental liberal democratic principles, they are in tension because of the imperative of immigration control. This dilemma can be mitigated through regularization policies that minimize the number of unauthorized immigrants at risk of deportation. The implementation of such policies requires conscientious policymakers committed to doing what is right. In my response, I discuss some constraints conscientious policymakers may face, such as a policy landscape of government agencies with conflicting goals as well as foreign policy and international obligations, all of which are rooted in anti-immigrant backlash and racism around the globe. I hope my comments encourage further discussion of this critical issue, which Schmid insightfully brings to our attention.

Read the full response – Cecilia Menjívar: “Do liberal states facilitate or undermine ethical immigration policy?”

I want to thank Antje Ellermann, Adam Hosein and Cecilia Menjívar for their careful and challenging responses to my article on Responding to Unauthorized Residence. They all raise important, interrelated questions. In the following pages, I discuss some of the key points they make, outlining agreements and disagreements, and attempting to see the bigger picture arising from these discussions.

Read the rejoinder – Lukas Schmid: Responding to critics