This project is an analysis of the different arguments that support the L87 regulations on refugees and foreign policy. These arguments are shown to be representative of the larger, ongoing debate in Denmark with regards to immigration and integration. The purpose of this project is therefore to examine how the Danish debate on this matter takes form in 2016, since Denmark has become so involved in the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War. Since L87 has become such a controversial subject, we will analyse Mette Frederiksen’s central arguments for this bill, as she is a potential Prime Minister candidate, and leader of the main opposition party. We will also analyse Søren Pind’s arguments, since he is a ideologically frontal figure in the political sphere, and he is the minister for justice in the current ministry. From this analysis, the main reasons and arguments will be reconstructed and discussed, based on ethical theories from the two main opposing sides in the philosophical and political debate, presented by Matthew J. Gibney: partialism and impartialism. Based on this discussion, we can conclude that the restrictions in L87 do not have a strong ethical support. First, these restictions give cause to discrimination between different groups of refugees, which is not based on an ethically relevant distinction. Secondly, the presumed advantages of these regulations, with regards to conserving danish welfare and culture, are not very visible, and they do not outweigh the damage that these restrictions actually do to those refugees that are subject to them.
|Educations||Philosophy and Science Studies, (Bachelor/Graduate Programme) Undergraduate or graduate|
|Publication date||26 May 2016|