Liberal Democracy, Illiberal Immigrants, and Equality
| Author | Yuchun Kuo |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12632 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
Liberal Democracy, Illiberal Immigrants, and
Equality
Yuchun Kuo
Department of Political Science and Institute of Strategic and International Affairs,
National Chung Cheng University
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the preservation thesis, according to which liberal democratic states can restrict the entry of illiberal
immigrants to preserve the existence and functioning of liberal democratic institutions. The most reasonable version of the
preservation thesis maintains that a liberal democratic state can accept illiberal immigrants as long as the acceptance will not
exceed its capacity to accommodate the illiberal people under its jurisdiction. The preservation thesis relies on the assumption
that a liberal democratic state should first allow its own illiberal citizens to stay in its territory and then leave illiberal immi-
grants to compete with each other for the limited opportunities to enter, even though illiberal citizens and illiberal immigrants
pose the same challenge for the preservation of liberal democratic institutions. After examining three arguments based on
humanitarianism, social ties and political ties to defend this assumption, I argue that these defenses fall victim to the prob-
lems of insufficiency and circularity. Therefore, the preservation thesis rests on a precarious ground.
Policy Implications
•Illiberal immigrants are immigrants who do not support and may take actions to endanger liberal democratic values,
rather than immigrants from illiberal societies or merely not believing in liberal democratic values.
•Democratic countries need to explain illiberal citizens’priority over illiberal immigrants regarding the chance to enter and
stay.
•The illiberal citizens’priority over illiberal immigrants cannot sufficiently be defended by humanitarian considerations, the
importance of preserving existing social relationships, and the exercise of ownership over public goods.
•The denial of entry to illiberal immigrants harms them by disrupting their prospective relationships with citizens of des-
tined countries.
On 8 March 2015, in the plaza in front of Taipei 101, Zhang
Xiuye, a Chinese immigrant who legally migrated to Taiwan
for the purpose of marriage, was arrested by the Taipei City
police on charges of verbally abusing the police and
obstructing officers in discharge of their duties (Gerber,
2015). In a video posted to YouTube in January, 2015, Zhang
Xiuye carried a national flag of the People’s Republic of
China and shouted and kicked at a police officer outside the
Taipei 101 building. She yelled: ‘I will keep persecuting the
pigs no matter what’(Hsiao, 2015). The plaza in front of Tai-
pei 101 is significant in these events because Taipei 101
attracts a lot of Chinese tourists, and hence it becomes the
place where Falun Gong practitioners protest human rights
violations in China. Zhang is a member of the pro-unifica-
tion Concentric Patriotism Association. Some members of
this association have been accused of assaulting and insult-
ing these Falun Gong practitioners.
1
Due to these previous
clashes, the mayor asked the Police Department to maintain
the public order there and protect the Falun Gong practi-
tioners’freedom of expression.
In these controversies, Zhang challenged not only the
police but also the Falun Gong practitioners’freedom of
expression, an indispensable value of liberal democracy. Can
a liberal democratic state, such as Taiwan, justifiably deny
entry to illiberal immigrants who do not subscribe to liberal
democratic values and would take actions to threaten its lib-
eral democratic institutions? (This definition of illiberal immi-
grants has three features. First, the emphasis on their
actions is important. Otherwise, the denial of their entry
would contradict liberal democratic states’insistence on
freedom of thought and conscience (Carens, 2013, p. 177).
Moreover, immigrants from illiberal societies are not neces-
sarily illiberal immigrants because their nationality does not
necessarily entail that they would threaten liberal democ-
racy. Finally, the identification of illiberal immigrants must
be based on clear evidence and reasonable expectation
(Carens, 1987, p. 259), rather than ‘groundless and frivolous
fears’(Vattel, 2008, chap. I.XIX.)).
Several writers argue that states should protect their own
essential institutions (Nafziger, 1983) and political culture
and constitutional principles (Rawls, 1999a). In particular,
some people worry that illiberal immigrants would threaten
the survival and flourishing of liberal states’political institu-
tions (Jefferson, 1787; Mayo-Smith, 1912; Whelan, 1988) and
©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2019) 10:1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12632
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 1 . February 2019
130
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial