Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Irregular Migrant Access to Care: Mapping Public Policy Rationales

Irregular Migrant Access to Care: Mapping Public Policy Rationales Both the USA and Europe limit access to care by undocumented immigrants (irregular migrants or IMs). In the debate over what level of access to confer to IMs, there are various public policy rationales operating either explicitly, or below the surface, ranging from minimalist humanitarianism to full cosmopolitan equality, with several intermediate positions between these two poles. This article informs the international debate by providing a conceptual mapping of these underlying policy rationales. Each position is based on different lines of reasoning or bodies of evidence, and each leads to somewhat different conclusions about the extent to which IMs should have access to different types of health care.It is unlikely that broad consensus will be achieved in this ongoing debate. However, by articulating the ethical, legal, pragmatic and conceptual reasons to support or oppose various positions, we hope to help determine where in the landscape of reasoned argument various positions lie, and how each position might be best supported or refuted. In particular, we see in this debate an illustration of Michael Walzers classic analysis of competing spheres of justice. Various positions depend to a considerable extent on whether their advocates approach this issue from the health policy sphere rather than the sphere of immigration policy, or whether they attempt to blend the two spheres. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Public Health Ethics Oxford University Press

Irregular Migrant Access to Care: Mapping Public Policy Rationales

Hall, Mark A.; Perrin, Jacob
Public Health Ethics , Volume 8 (2) – Jul 17, 2015
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/irregular-migrant-access-to-care-mapping-public-policy-rationales-ACchsJ8P7M

References (53)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. Available online at www.phe.oxfordjournals.org
ISSN
1754-9973
eISSN
1754-9981
DOI
10.1093/phe/phv016
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Both the USA and Europe limit access to care by undocumented immigrants (irregular migrants or IMs). In the debate over what level of access to confer to IMs, there are various public policy rationales operating either explicitly, or below the surface, ranging from minimalist humanitarianism to full cosmopolitan equality, with several intermediate positions between these two poles. This article informs the international debate by providing a conceptual mapping of these underlying policy rationales. Each position is based on different lines of reasoning or bodies of evidence, and each leads to somewhat different conclusions about the extent to which IMs should have access to different types of health care.It is unlikely that broad consensus will be achieved in this ongoing debate. However, by articulating the ethical, legal, pragmatic and conceptual reasons to support or oppose various positions, we hope to help determine where in the landscape of reasoned argument various positions lie, and how each position might be best supported or refuted. In particular, we see in this debate an illustration of Michael Walzers classic analysis of competing spheres of justice. Various positions depend to a considerable extent on whether their advocates approach this issue from the health policy sphere rather than the sphere of immigration policy, or whether they attempt to blend the two spheres.

Journal

Public Health Ethics – Oxford University Press

Published: Jul 17, 2015

There are no references for this article.