Articles for category: AAA General

Immigration, Majority Rights, and Welfare State Solidarity

Liav Orgad’s new book, The Cultural Defense of Nations, could hardly have appeared at a more opportune moment. It represents a systematic effort to grapple with the core issues of national identity so much on the agenda of both the classical and new lands of immigration. It seeks to do so within the framework of liberal political and social theory while turning our sympathies toward majority cultures facing the “threat” of lost identity and dominance, a loss being brought about by both immigration and the multiculturalist policies of the past generation.

29. Februar 2016

, , ,

The immigration flow’s liability

There is little doubt that the contemporary rise of populist forms of politics, especially those of the right, have targeted immigration as a key issue – and, more generally, political parties of left and right have responded to, and often stoked, perceived public concerns (however ill-founded) concerning immigration through efforts designed to highlight and demarcate the privileges of citizenship. In his timely response to this phenomenon, Liav Orgad aims to offer an account of majority rights that is, he thinks, missing from contemporary political theory and that can differentiate justifiable and unjustifiable ways in which the majority culture can defend its dominant standing and, hence, the rights it should (and should not) possess.

24. Februar 2016

, , ,

Cultural majorities, constitutional essentials, and cosmopolitan citizenship

Liav Orgad’s idea of a two-stage process of the regulation of immigration and access to citizenship in The Cultural Defense of Nations appears sensible and on first sight largely agreeable. But a more careful positioning of the argument regarding democratic theory and sociological understandings of nationalism brings out aspects that problematize some of its key assumptions and that reveal a risk of counter-productivity. In this, the argument might be less original than claimed and the specific version of a liberal theory of cultural defense less fit for socio-culturally complex democratic societies, in particular within the European context. I will briefly touch upon three dimensions that seem to me problematic: the notions of majority culture and cultural defense; the notion of constitutional identity as used in the book; and the problem of constitutional populism.

24. Februar 2016

, , ,

Lokale Zuzugssperren für Arme: für Straßburg kein Freizügigkeitsproblem

Das Recht auf Freizügigkeit hat es schwer in diesen dunklen Tagen in Europa. In der EU sowieso, wo die Freiheit, sich grenzüberschreitend in Europa frei zu bewegen und niederzulassen, massiv unter Beschuss ist. Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat heute ein Urteil veröffentlicht, das die innerstaatliche Freizügigkeit betrifft – das ganz normale Recht von Staatsbürgern, im eigenen Land überall hinziehen zu dürfen, wo man hinziehen möchte, ohne dass der Staat sagen darf, dich wollen wir hier nicht. Mit diesem in Art. 2 Prot. 4 EMRK verankerten Grundrecht, zu dem es bislang nicht viel Judikatur gibt, weiß der Straßburger Gerichtshof offenbar nicht viel anzufangen.

23. Februar 2016

, ,

Does the majority have a right to have rights? On the Cultural Defence of Nations

Over the last several decades, a burgeoning literature on minority rights and minority accommodation has emerged. The rights of the ‘majority’ – everyone else – have garnered little interest because scholars have assumed that they will take care of themselves. In this excellent book, Liav Orgad argues that large-scale immigration to Europe and North America has rendered this assumption false. Immigration, above all to North America, is of course not new, but the overall numbers today are greater than in the past, and it is occurring in a new context of globalization, transnationalism (migrants live half their lives or more in their home countries), and radically new technology (which allows one to live in a Twitter/Facebook-/YouTube world entirely in one’s home country language).

23. Februar 2016

, , ,

The prince of Denmark facing mass immigration – from Germany.

How would Denmark react to a wave of mass immigration from Germany, numbering hundreds of thousands or millions of people? The question is, needles to say, purely hypothetical, but it is nevertheless, in my view, highly pertinent in the context of discussing the issues raised in Liav Orgad’s important book, The Cultural Defense of Nations. These questions are at the very heart of Europe’s present concerns and dilemmas, which makes the book’s highly original, learned and well-argued contribution to the debate all the more valuable.

22. Februar 2016

, , ,

Linguistic Defense and Offense

When I first wrote about linguistic self-defense (discussed in Liav Orgad’s book pp. 198-200) I had a conception of languages in danger, The most visible potential victim were the French in Quebec. But with the help of Charles de Gaulle, the Quebecois have held on well to their culture (majority at home, minority at large, but supported by a large nation in Europe). One form of linguistic self-defense I proposed at the time was insisting on speaking your language in commercial transactions. For the sake of profit, store keepers would play along. Also, public advertising is a critical mode of making a language seem like the background state of normalcy. The key case in Quebec, as I recall, was called Chaussures Brown Shoes. That was the way they wanted their sign to read. The Anglophones objected and lost.

19. Februar 2016

, , ,

Sind Staaten auch nur Menschen?

Grundrechte sind für Menschen da, nicht für Staaten. Das ist nach deutscher Verfassungsdoktrin so selbstverständlich, dass man sich kaum traut es hinzuschreiben. Der Staat hat keine Grundrechte, kann schon aus denklogischen Gründen keine haben. Grundrechte binden die öffentliche Gewalt: Sie sollen ihr nicht Freiheit geben, sondern welche nehmen. Gilt das auch für europäische Grundrechte? Das könnte zweifelhaft erscheinen, wenn man das heute verkündete Urteil Bank Mellat des Europäischen Gerichtshofs ansieht.

18. Februar 2016

, , ,