Conference Schedule

Here is the most up-to-date schedule. We will still need volunteers to be rapporteurs, who will post their reports on this blog site after the conference.

Chairs will be expected to make a brief summary of the papers, preferably in ways that connect the papers in the session and that raise a few specific issues to address. Authors will not give an overview of their papers, which we all will have read in advance.

Copies of the Schedule will be in packets available at the front desk of the Ayres Hotel.

Program Committee members please comment if you have anything more to add or correct!

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Shuttle bus to Chapman University campus departs at 5:30pm

6:00pm – 7:15pm, Reception in the Faculty Athenaeum

7:15 – 9pm, Welcome and Session 1 in AF 209abc

7:15 – 7:30pm, Welcome & Introductory Remarks: Host Gordon Babst, Executive Director Ann Cudd, and President Tim Sellers

7:30pm – 9:00pm, Session I: General Moral Framework for Immigration Issues
Session Moderator: Ann Cudd
– Ed Abegg, “A Moral Framework for the Immigration Issue”
– Stephen Nathanson, “Immigration, Citizenship, and the Clash Between Partiality and Impartiality”
– Kenneth Henley, “Irregular immigration from the Perspective of Humean Virtue Ethics”
– Comments on Abegg and Henley by Robert Van Wyk

Shuttle bus to Ayres Hotel departs at 9:15pm


Friday, October 10, 2014

Complimentary Breakfast at the Ayres Hotel, 6:30-8:20am

Shuttle bus to Chapman University campus departs at 8:25am

9:00am – 5:00pm, Sessions 2-3-4-5 in Sandhu Conference Center

9:00 – 10:30am, Session II: Immigration and the Ethics of Exclusion: 9:00-10:30
Session Moderator: Ken Kipnis
Rapporteur: Steve Lee
– Bruce Landesman, “Restricting Immigration Fairly”
– Win-chiat Lee, “On Nonmembers’ Duty to Obey Immigration Law”
– Peter Higgins, “The Ethics of Immigration and the Justice of Immigration Policies”
– Comments on Landesman by Deen Chatterjee, Richard Barron Parke,r and Robert Van Wyk, and on Higgins by Richard De George

10:30 – 10:45am, mid-Morning Break

10:45am – 12:15pm, Session III: Immigration and the Benefits of Membership
Session Moderator: Tim Sellers
Rapporteur: Richard DeGeorge
– Theresa Beaumier, “At the Borders of Society: Border Control and the Perpetuation of Poverty Among Immigrant Communities”
– John Francis, “Who Else Should Vote in Local Decision-making: Enfranchising Part-Time Residents and Non-Citizens”
– Richard Barron Parker, “Two Visions of Democracy: Immigration”

12:15 – 2:00pm, Lunch on campus or in downtown Orange

2:00 – 3:30pm, Session IV: Specific Immigration Policy Issues
Session Moderator: Matt Lister
Rapporteur: Ken Kipnis
– Ann Cudd, “Domestic Violence as Justification for Asylum”
– Grant J. Silva, ““Migratorial” Disobedience and the Fetishization of Law in the Immigration Debate”
– Mark Navin, “Open Borders and the Ethics of US Alien Vaccination Law”

3:30 – 3:45pm, mid-Afternoon Break

3:45 – 5pm, Session V: Citizenship and Self-Government in Kant’s Republicanism
Session Moderator: Gordon Babst
– Yi Deng, “The Expansion of Kant’s Republicanism with Active Citizenship”
– Helga Varden, “Self-Governance in Kant’s Republicanism”

Shuttle bus to Ayres Hotel departs at 5:05pm


Saturday, October 11, 2014

Complimentary Breakfast at the Ayres Hotel, 6:30-8:20am

Shuttle bus to Chapman University campus departs at 8:25am

9:00am – 4:30pm, Sessions 6-7-8 and Business Meeting in Sandhu Conference Center

9:00 – 10:30am, Session VI: Conceptions of Citizenship
Session Moderator: Win Lee
– Laurence Houlgate, “Membership and Community in the State of Nature: Locke On Naturalization and Natural Law”
– Wade Robison, “Citizens as Artifacts”
– Nicolaus Tideman, “In a Just World We Would Provide Refuge to All”
– Comments on Houlgate by Robert Van Wyk, and on Robison by Kenneth Kipnis

10:30 – 10:45am, mid-Morning Break

10:45am – 11:45am, Session VII: Conceptions of Citizenship
Session Moderator: Helga Varden
Rapporteur: Steve Nathanson
– Emily Gill, “National Citizenship and Civil Marriage: Ascriptive and Consensual Models”
– Steven Lee, “Cosmopolitan Citizenship”

11:45am – 1:45pm, Lunch on campus or in downtown Orange

1:45 – 3:15pm, Session VIII: Equality and Responsibilities in Citizenship
Session Moderator: Leslie Francis
Rapporteur: Mark Navin
– Gordon Babst and John Compton, “Equal Citizenship and Religion”
– Anja Matwijkiw and Bronik Matwijkiw, “The Law of Jante”
– Joan McGregor, “Why Food Citizenship”
– Comment on McGregor by Leslie Francis

3:15 – 3:30pm, mid-Afternoon Break

3:30 – 4:30pm, business meeting

Shuttle bus to Ayres Hotel departs at 4:35pm

Shuttle bus to Chapman University campus departs at 6:10pm

6:30pm – 10:00pm, Reception and Banquet in Beckman 404
– 6:30 – 7:30pm, Closing Reception
– 7:30 – 10pm, Celebratory Banquet

Shuttle bus to Ayres Hotel departs at 10:05pm


Sunday, October 12, 2014

Complimentary Breakfast at the Ayres Hotel, 6:30-9:30am

One thought on “Conference Schedule

  1. Leslie Francis says:

    Blogging from Amintaphil–the first session.

    Let the games begin!!!!!

    How should we approach immigration and citizenship from the perspectives of moral and political philosophy? Our Amintaphil meeting, on immigration and citizenship, opened with three papers setting out basic moral frameworks for approaching these issues. In “A Moral Framework for the Immigration Issue” Ed Abegg expressed the views of a skeptic: there is no “cosmic” morality so each country is responsible for their own citizens. On Ed’s view, the best way to pursue global goals might be for one country to help other countries benefit their own citizens. Stephen Nathanson, in “Immigration, Citizenship, and the Clash Between Partiality and Impartiality,” employed rule utilitarianism to argue for a middle ground between extreme partialism and full globalization. Virtue ethics was represented by Kenneth Henley’s “Irregular immigration from the Perspective of Humean Virtue Ethics,” which argued that the virtuous person should respond humanely to those fleeing circumstances of dire poverty.

    Steve faced many questions about what rule utilitarianism requires. One set of questions asked about the relevance of unfair divisions between states. Another asked whether Steve needed to take more seriously the question of respect not only for political rights but also social and economic rights. Steve’s response was that he “draws a blank” about theories of rights independently of a rule utilitarian basis. Still another set of questions came from the other side, asking whether Steve’s brand of utilitarianism really yields moderate patriotism—here the suggestion was that it might yield a new way of looking at partiality in terms of responsibility, what Singer called impartial partiality.

    Win-Chiat asked Steve whether if you start out as a rule-utilitarian you’ll end up as a globalist, at least in terms of second-order principles where impartialism prevails when there are conflicts among first order principles. Along the lines of Rawls’s “Two Concepts of Rules,” Win-Chiat suggested that constituent rules are a special kind of rules, producing a kind of well being that can only be promoted by people taking special care of one another. He also commented that nations might be able to make this kind of special wellbeing argument. Steve Nathanson pointed out that Brad Hooker’s distinction between impartiality at the level of justification and at the level of actions might be relevant to this discussion.

    Ed was pressed on his level of skepticism—whether he really believed it. What about Nuremberg, everyone’s favorite example of an atrocity? Ed replied that the history of philosophy is “filled with illusion” and we can still hate what Hitler did even if there’s no rational basis for so doing. Tim Sellers (no doubt thinking of IVR 2015) responded with outrage to the view that there might be no rational basis for human emotions and sentiments.

    As for virtue ethics, Henley was pressed on whether the individual and the state are different. He was asked questions such as whether the individual who has compassion is justified in getting the government to legislate? Ken replied by saying he wanted to raise a different question, about individual virtue and responses, as a separate question from what the state might/might not do. We need to recognize the issue of of viciousness as manifested in attacks on politicians like Rubio who at one point supported an immigration bill. There is simply too much viciousness on the part of many Americans—so thinking about virtue is important in this context.

    Much of the discussion concerned more general questions about all of the papers. Helga Varden questioned whether all of the participants in this session were working with the assumption that states own territories on the model of individuals owning private property. Directed to Henley’s virtue theory, the point was that it is not at all clear that what states ought to do should be modeled on what individual people of virtue ought to do. Henley responded that the point of switching to virtue is to give a different focus to the debate and to put distance between individuals and states, to separate out nativism. Abegg responded to Helga that we are stuck with territorial assumptions. Nathanson averred that he wasn’t thinking of a property-owning model, although it wasn’t made clear why not. Helga pressed her point: that we seem to be considering the problem of borders as a problem of sharing “our” stuff; if we do that, we are presupposing territory is “ours” as with private property. Nicholas Tideman agreed: when someone comes knocking on the border and the response is “it’s ours,” then the question is on what basis is the claim made that “it’s ours.”

    Ken Kipnis then observed that two different sets of concepts seem to be at work here: partiality and responsibility. Steve replied that his argument is that there are limits to the extent we should be taking care of our own when there are people in dire need and we have resources. Carol Gould suggested rights or basic interests are an important alternative to the rule utilitarian concern for overall well-being. Steve’s reply is that the virtue of rule utilitarianism is that it does set limits in an area we don’t have very good ways of thinking about

    Bruce Landesman returned us to Helga’s view and suggested the possibility of views about special obligations to fellow citizens without commitment to nation as private property owner. The analogy would be to a club with rules about new members. Helga thought that even here images of “ours” persist—and that it is important to radically reconsider these images.

    Mark Navin then asked why start with general principles about the permissible extent of national partiality. Why not start with equal moral worth of persons and then look at all kinds of facts about how different institutions and practices involve people? Steve’s reply was that it is useful to start with some general approaches but that nothing forecloses being more contextual.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: