Answering the question - Essay Example

This argument implies that states are at liberty to take strangers in or out to protect national and individual interests of the foreign country (Carens, 267). The theory of justice does not focus on universal principles but instead concerned on the specificity of history, customs and membership. Distributive justice should be approached from the viewpoint of membership in apolitical society, not from “a veil of ignorance” Walzer believes that this theory is workable and remains sound, where people share a universal culture and insight about justice.

This implies that exclusion is defensible by right of societies to freedom. This argument compares the idea of open states with familiarity of neighborhoods as a way of open relationship. However, it is questionable on how distinctiveness depends on the prospects of recognized closure (Carens, 267). On the other hand, Caren objects Walzer’s arguments on the necessity of restricting immigration based on the theory of justice. For instance, no logic found in Walzer’s belief that distributive justice should be approached from a viewpoint of membership and not from a “Veil of Ignorance”.

The three fundamental points on this Walzer’s argument intended to defeat its logical representation and ideals are discussed as follows. According to Walzer, exclusion is vindicated by right of societies to freedom. The right to exclusion is constrained in three fundamental ways (Carens, 267). First, the society is obligated to admit some needy outsiders and provide for them some resources and place of residence. This is allowable and morally right if it is no expensive to undertake. Second, upon admission of people as inhabitants and economy builders, they must be permitted to obtain nationality.

This constraint flows from the philosophies of justice not reciprocated aid, consequently; the impression of permanent “visitor workers” diverges from the essential validation of communal independence, which defends the right to exclude. Third, new governments or states may not exorcise existing residents even they are perceived as a line by majority of the population (Carens, 267). This is contrary to Walzer’s belief of exclusion. In my own opinion, Welzer contradicts his perceptions, theories and expressions with the morally acceptable rights for human beings from across the races. 2. Peri Fletcher describes the Mexican village of Nazipauro as a “transnational community.

” Drawing on readings (Fletcher, Dreby, Gabaccia, Hernandez-Leon) and lectures, explain how migration builds connections linking places of origin and destination and describe the nature of those ties. Then discuss some of the factors that weaken those connections. Nazipauro is described as a transnational community, because of its existence as unit of people from one origin, thriving well in harmony far away from the country of Mexico. Despite of non-linear progression from folk to open, penetrated or fragmented community, Nazipauro has thrived in a community transformation, reflecting its own chronological particularities in a highly globalized world.

Migration is a sure way of building connections and linking places of origin and destinations (Fletcher, 24). For instance, Nazipauro expanded slowly as an agricultural and business center. The extensiveness of agricultural and trading activities compelled for a call for more