study of modern international politics PDF

Introduction:
According to current international politics, this article examines whether countries can peacefully absorb
migrants and if cultural distinctions can be accepted or imposed by a dominating culture. It is the
purpose of this article to critically examine the moral-philosophical roots of ethics in the study of
modern international politics. Ethics ideas now employed in International Relations will be used in this
article, as well as current issues in the globe. In addition, this article will clarify the differences between
migration and immigration and demonstrate how the word "migration" is used incorrectly in this
context. In order to make the case that immigration limitations violate negative liberty, this paper will
define liberalism, positive liberty, and negative liberty.
Immigration issues:
In order to demonstrate the relevance of the majority culture to the migrants and to use the ethics now
utilized in International Relations to analyze and address the migration problem, the argument for
immigration limitations is used. In addition, this article will examine the Utilitarian case for open borders
and demonstrate that creating barriers to prevent migrants from entering leads to inefficiency. Charles
Taylor's "Thymos," on the other hand, will be scrutinized in this article in light of today's statistics and
liberal views.
To further conceptualize the nature of migrants, Georg Simmel's article "The Stranger" will be analyzed
and the results in this essay. There will be no omission of asylum seeker in this essay since it is critical to
Bleiker's part, which is why the term "stranger" rather than "migrant" or "immigrant" will be used after
the "definition paragraph." This will be obvious all across the essay.
The process of a person relocating from one state to another may be used as a way to define
immigration (Bertram 2015). Only if one's presence in the new nation is indefinite may one be
considered an immigrant (Bertram 2015). As a result of the brief duration of their stays, tourists and
students studying abroad do not qualify as legal immigrants (Bertram 2015). People who are just in town
for a short time might be considered migrants, but civilizations do not have to assimilate them since
their trips are brief (Bertram 2015). This article will thus focus on how cultures integrate immigrants
rather than migrants themselves
Georg Simmel, on the other hand, argues that immigrants are seen as outsiders (Bertram 2015).
Migrants and immigrants are referred to as "strangers" throughout this article, and another reason for
using the word "stranger" rather than a foreigner in this essay is to emphasize the difficulty strangers
have integrating into society (Bertram 2015).
It's important to remember that immigration is theoretically compelling precisely because it stands in
opposition to the claims of a state entity versus the individual fundamental freedoms and "outsiders"
(Bertram 2015). A state's right to set immigration limits cannot be upheld without acknowledging the
liberal rights of strangers, such as the freedom of movement that allows individuals to go from one
nation to the other (Bertram 2015).
People also value the freedom to cross political borders, which might be said to be important (Bertram
2015). Three of the most frequent reasons individuals leave their native country are to move with a
spouse, to pursue a lucrative business opportunity, or to flee political persecution (Bertram 2015).

It's also important to note that liberalism advocates for the safeguarding of fundamental rights such as
freedom of speech and expression, freedom of expression, and freedom of organization. These
initiatives are supported by all democrats, regardless of any differences in ideology. Beyond the
initiatives, liberals agree on the framework of the explanation for the policy. (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007)
There is a greater burden of proof on those who would limit freedom than those who would enjoy it
(Freiman and Hidalgo 2007). Benn says, "The burden of proof is with the one who interfered, not the
one who involved with" (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007).
Positive and negative liberty are the two moral precepts of liberalism (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007).
Negative liberty, on the other hand, refers to the right of the government or a governing entity to avoid
interfering with one's sense of the good (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007).
In spite of the apparent danger to public safety and state global security presented by radical jihadists,
this article will argue that immigration limits violate negative liberty, which implies that it includes
coercive meddling (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007).
Consequently, liberals may claim that the burden of evidence falls with the limitations of liberal liberties
(Freiman and Hidalgo 2007). It is crucial to look at the utility situation since it connects with the
distinctions between persons. However, Rawls believes that each individual is entitled to the "maximum
total system of fundamental freedoms matched with a comparable system of liberty for all" (Freiman
and Hidalgo 2007).
Using Utilitarianism as an example, the argument for open borders is that open borders force each state
to look at the foreigners as a whole in unacceptable outcomes (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007).
Furthermore, it maintains a global political system in which affluent and powerful governments have
little motivation to share their money with the world's poor or use their political strength to prevent
tyrants from tyrannising their citizens (Freiman and Hidalgo 2007).
By constructing boundaries, nations fear that it may lead to inefficiencies, according to Wellman
(Wellman 2011). The stranger is therefore prevented from realizing their full potential because of a
barrier preventing them from crossing over into the new political border (Wellman 2011). As a result,
Wellman argues that banning strangers from the household labor market is comparable to segregating
males from women in the workplace (Wellman 2011).
Nevertheless, Thymos, a moral-philosophical stance articulated in two modules by Charles Taylor, is an
expression of such position (Fukuyama 2019). Megalothymia, or the desire to be seen as better than
others, is the first (Fukuyama 2019). Because of this conviction in the inherent superiority of a select
group of people (such as aristocrats and royals), society's pre-electoral democracy was built on a system
of hierarchies and a caste system (Fukuyama 2019).
Despite this, the problem with megalothymia is that significantly more people are perceived as inferior,
and hence do not get the acknowledgment they deserve as human beings (Fukuyama 2019). Taylor says
that when a person is insulted, they feel greater resentment (Fukuyama 2019). However, "isothymia,"
an emotion that is just as strong, drives individuals to want to be treated on an equal footing with
everyone else (Fukuyama 2019).
Isothymia's ascent over megalothymia is cited as the tale of contemporary democracy's growth;
civilizations that respect the rights of a little group are granted against those that regard every other one