Seyla Benhabib on the Rights of Migrants: The Ethics of Hospitality in the Context of Sovereign Borders

Introduction: The Challenge of Migration to Modern Democracy

Seyla Benhabib (born 1950) is one of the leading contemporary political philosophers, a professor at Yale University, whose work lies at the intersection of critical theory, feminism, and democratic theory. Her concept of the rights of migrants represents a profound ethical and political response to one of the key paradoxes of the globalized world: the existence of universal human rights in the context of the particular sovereignty of national states, whose borders remain the main instrument of exclusion.

Critique of "Methodological Nationalism" and the Right to Hospitality

Benhabib begins with a critique of the deeply rooted in the social sciences "methodological nationalism" — the assumption that the national state and its borders are a natural and unchanging framework for the analysis of society, law, and politics. This approach considers migrants as a "problem" or an exception to the norm. In contrast, Benhabib, following Immanuel Kant, rehabilitates the concept of "the right to hospitality" (the right to hospitality).

However, she transforms the Kantian idea (which was limited and temporary) into a stronger principle. For Benhabib, the right to hospitality is not just a moral duty, but an emerging human right (an emerging human right) that should be legally recognized. This right includes:

The right to appeal (the request for entry and asylum cannot be met with hostility).

The right to conditional membership for those who have been in the territory of the state for a long time.

Example: The situation with "dreamers" in the United States — illegal immigrants brought to the country by their parents as children. Despite de facto full integration into American society (language, culture, education), they are denied legal status. Benhabib argues that their long-term presence and social connections create a moral right to regularization of status that a democratic state cannot ignore.

The "Paradox of Democratic Legitimacy" and Iterative Universalism

A key concept of Benhabib is the "paradox of democratic legitimacy." It consists in the following: democracy acquires legitimacy from the will of the demos (the people), but the boundaries of this demos — who enters "the people" and has the right to vote — have always been established before democratic expression, often through violence, exclusion, and historical contingency. Thus, democratic sovereignty is historically based on a non-democratic act of defining its members.

To resolve this paradox, Benhabib proposes the principle of "iterative universalism." Universal human rights (the right to freedom, equality, participation) are not ready dogmas, but a discursive process. Each new claim of a group (such as migrants) on rights forces society to reiterate — to re-evaluate and redefine — the boundaries of its universalism. The democratic dialogue must be open to revision by those participating in it.

Specific application: Discussions on granting voting rights in local elections to permanent residents who are not citizens (as practiced in some EU countries and some municipalities). Benhabib sees this as an example of iteration: recognizing that those who permanently comply with the law and contribute to the life of the community have a moral right to political participation in deciding its fate.

The Concept of "Rights to Rights" and Transnational Civil Spaces

Benhabib introduces the key concept of "the right to have rights," borrowed from Hannah Arendt. In today's world, where rights are tied to citizenship, being deprived of citizenship means being deprived of the very possibility of having any rights. Migrants, especially illegal ones, end up in this "rightless" zone.

The solution, according to Benhabib, is the development of "transnational civil spaces" and "postnational membership." These are spaces where the rights of the individual derive not only from his status as a citizen of a specific state, but also from:

The fact of residence on the territory (residents' rights).

Participation in transnational networks (diasporas, human rights NGOs, professional communities).

International and supranational law (the Geneva Convention on Refugees, the European Convention on Human Rights).

Example from practice: The activities of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court has repeatedly issued decisions obliging member states of the Council of Europe (such as in the cases of Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy on the return of migrants to Libya or M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece on the conditions of receiving refugees) to comply with the rights of migrants, regardless of their status. The ECHR acts as an institution creating a transnational legal space where human rights can limit the sovereignty of the state in matters of migration.

The Ethics of Discourse and a Feminist Perspective

The feminist perspective of Benhabib adds an important aspect: the critique of abstract universalism that ignores the specific circumstances of people's lives. When talking about migrants, it is necessary to take into account the gender dimension:

Women migrants often find themselves in a vulnerable position due to the intersection of discrimination based on gender, status, and ethnicity.

They may pursue goals different from men (such as fleeing from domestic violence or mutilating operations on female genitalia, which are not always recognized as grounds for asylum).

The right to association for migrant women — the opportunity to create their communities of mutual assistance — becomes a key tool for protection.

Benhabib insists on the ethics of discourse where the voices of the migrants themselves, especially marginalized groups among them, must be heard in public debates on migration policy.

Critique and Contemporary Relevance

Benhabib's theory is criticized for normative idealism: her model requires a high level of civil solidarity and institutional development that does not exist in many countries. In the face of the rise of right-wing populism and "strong borders" policies, her ideas seem unattainable.

However, her approach is highly relevant for understanding phenomena such as:

Climate migration. People forced to leave their places of residence due to climate change do not fall under the classic definition of "refugee." The concept of "the right to have rights" and hospitality offers a basis for creating new international legal norms.

Long-term migration crises (such as the Syrian crisis). They show the inadequacy of purely coercive and restrictive approaches and confirm Benhabib's thesis on the need for an iterative, flexible, and ethically justified response.

Conclusion: Democratic borders as a subject of discussion, not a dogma
Seyla Benhabib proposes a radically democratic project for the era of migration. She calls for borders and membership in the political community to be considered not as sacred and immutable attributes of sovereignty, but as historically established institutions open to democratic contestation and moral revision. Her philosophy shifts the focus from the question "How can we limit migration?" to questions such as "What are the obligations of democratic societies to those who seek refuge or contribute to their lives?" and "How can we democratically define who constitutes 'us'?" In the end, her theory is a call for democracies to live up to their universalist principles, expanding the circle of rights and membership, rather than closing themselves in fortress nationalism. The rights of migrants, thus, become a litmus test for the strength of the foundations of modern liberal democracy.

Permanent link to this publication: