The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions?
Open accessAbstract
This article considers one seemingly compelling justification for immigration restrictions: that they help restrict the brain drain of skilled workers from poor states. Yet this article finds that justifying immigration restrictions on brain drain grounds is far from straightforward. For restrictions to be justified, a series of demanding conditions must be fulfilled.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
98 Own interpretation · 29 No basis given · 11 Sources not found · 6 Not checked yet · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Own result
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, many skilled workers fall into one or more of these groups.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“War and civil conflict have also been important factors in prompting skilled workers to leave.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a study of Zimbabwean health professionals, 68.5 percent said they found it difficult to live on their earnings.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chikanda, 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Across the developing world, health professionals are routinely forced to take on additional work just to get by.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Connell, 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Iraq lost up to 8,000 of its 17,000 doctors after the 2003 invasion.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In many countries safety regulations are either ill-enforced or nonexistent.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sub-Saharan Africa, the stress of work is compounded by the fear of contracting HIV-AIDS from patients.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In some countries, wages for skilled work are insufficient to cover basic needs.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A combination of low staff to patient ratios, high rates of disease, and inadequate equipment place health professionals under significant mental and physi-”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The work that skilled workers are required to perform, moreover, is often stressful, unregulated, and unsafe.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
- Probably not a substantial claim. 52
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Liberia had 400 doctors prior to war in 1989, but only twenty by the time the war ended in 2003.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The monthly wage of a nurse in Zambia is a mere $299; this is less than the $350 a family needs for food.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lusalle, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a shortage of clinical gloves and high incidents of needle-stick accidents during vaccinations.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Brain drain does provide a successful argument for some immigration restrictions, but it is an argument that fails to justify restrictions beyond a small minority of cases.”
- Also stated in: § Kieran Oberman · plain
“Brain drain does function as the basis for a successful argument for some immigration restrictions, but it is an argument that is of little use to anyone who wishes to defend restrictions outside a small minority of cases.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > Kieran Oberman
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Kieran Oberman · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The revenue from such taxation could potentially be so large that the skilled workers benefit their poor compatriots more from abroad than they would do by staying home.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To coerce people to get them to labor for others, without first establishing that they have a duty to labor, is to come too close to treating them merely as a means to be acceptable.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > I. THE FOUR CONDITIONS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immigration restrictions can only be justified if a skilled worker owes assistance to her poor compatriots.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2. The skilled worker has a duty to stay in her state of origin to provide the assistance she owes her poor compatriots.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > I. THE FOUR CONDITIONS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“4. The rich state has the legitimacy to impose counter-brain-drain immigration restrictions.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > I. THE FOUR CONDITIONS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immigration restrictions unquestionably curtail individual liberty.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > Kieran Oberman
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“everyone has an agent-centered prerogative allowing them to resist duties that are too burdensome.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one need not think the duty of assistance is limitless.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems plausible that most skilled workers will owe some measure of assistance to their poor compatriots.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But even if no such contract was signed, I think a skilled worker would be under an obligation of repayment, assuming that ðiÞ she consented to receive the training, ðiiÞ she knew the training was provided to her in the expectation that she would go on to benefit her poor compatriots, and ðiiiÞ her state can ill afford to provide such training for free.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“3. It is permissible to enforce a skilled worker's duty to stay and assist her poor compatriots using immigration restrictions.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > I. THE FOUR CONDITIONS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there may be problems in collecting or spending the emigrant tax revenue.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a foreigner moves to a poor country, she must abandon these attachments, but this is not true of the native who stays.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unless they have a duty to stay and assist their poor compatriots, they should not be prevented from migrating.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > I. THE FOUR CONDITIONS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“general duties do not require native skilled workers to make any greater sacrifice for their poor compatriots than skilled workers from other countries who are equally able to assist”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To demand that someone stay when she wants to move is to demand that she accepts a significant additional burden.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Let me suggest four plausible examples of skilled workers threatened by unreasonably high costs: ð1Þ those separated from their immediate family, ð2Þ those living in fear of persecution, civil conflict, or widespread violence, ð3Þ those living in severe poverty, and ð4Þ those working in dangerous conditions.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The general rule here is that coercion should only be used against a person when that person is subject to a moral duty.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > I. THE FOUR CONDITIONS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A skilled worker might be able to provide the assistance she owes from abroad were the right institutions in place.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is unreasonable to expect anyone to sacrifice these goods in order to do work that benefits her compatriots.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The idea that some people, particularly comparatively privileged people from rich states, have a duty to go and do essential work in poor states, at least for a time, does not seem so strange.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one consumes the resources of the poor in the knowledge that they expect reciprocation, one has a duty to reciprocate in the manner they desire or at least repay them the costs of the resources consumed.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if even some foreign skilled workers have a duty to move to poor states, then we seem required to reconceptualize the problem.”
- Also stated in: § II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST · hedged
“the problem would cease to be best described as one of 'brain drain' but rather one of 'brain shortage'”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People tend to have strong social attachments binding them to their home state.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people who are better able to assist may be required to make further sacrifices.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the freedom to cross borders is a basic liberty, the freedom should only be restricted for the sake of ensuring that desperately poor people receive the assistance they are owed, not for the sake of avoiding unfairness to rich states.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ii.She will not face an unreasonably high cost in staying.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is true even though skilled workers may have a duty to stay in their home state in order to provide their fair share of assistance.59”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [59]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I accept that it is unfair if rich states have to provide extra assistance to make up for a failure by skilled workers to fulfill their duties to their poor compatriots.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The British taxpayer in the British doctor case and rich states in the case of skilled workers must pay more.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Or at least: ii.The rich state is not seeking to enforce a skilled worker's secondary duty of assistance that the skilled worker only has because the rich state has failed to fulfill its primary duty of assistance.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“iii.The rich state is committed to fulfilling its duty of assistance toward the skilled worker.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Condition 4. The rich state has the legitimacy to impose counterbrain-drain immigration restrictions. The rich state has this legitimacy if: i.It has fulfilled its own duty of assistance to the global poor.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, they violate not only the basic liberties of foreigners but those of citizens as well.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This conception of basic liberties, as extensive but also bounded and nonabsolute, is a conventional one.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And in both cases, while such a solution represents an unfairness to those who must provide this extra assistance, it is nevertheless required, since the two alternative solutions, of curtailing the workers' freedom to migrate or denying their compatriots the provision of some basic good, are unacceptable.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each person's basic liberties are bounded by the rights and liberties of others.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A skilled worker may have a duty to stay, but, since she has a basic liberty to migrate, she also has a right to violate her duty.60”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [60]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of almost all skilled workers, condition 1 will be fulfilled.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immigration restrictions overreach individual rights of refusal, turning the preferences of some into the law for all.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“basic liberties are neither unbounded nor absolute.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If people in poor states are left without the assistance to which they are entitled, their needs are left unfulfilled and their very survival is put at risk.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the other conditions are far less likely to be fulfilled since many skilled workers have strong reason to leave, and there are many things rich states could be doing to address global poverty in general and brain drain in particular which they are failing to do.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if migration is a basic liberty, then immigration restrictions cannot be imposed to avoid a less than severe cost, and the imposition of distributive unfairness upon rich states fits this latter category.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, despite the unfairness, it would be wrong for the United Kingdom to prevent doctors from emigrating to the United States”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The health professionals may have a duty to stay and assist their poor compatriots struggle to keep the disease at bay, but this is not a duty that the rich state has the legitimacy to enforce.65”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since rich states owe general duties of assistance to the global poor, it might be that any assistance required to counter brain drain merely forms part of what rich states already owe.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Rich states owe general duties of assistance to the global poor.
In the paper
“Skilled workers may have a duty to endure the injustice of having to live in poverty for the sake of their poor compatriots, but that duty should not be enforced by the states that are responsible for this very injustice.66”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Rich states owe duties of assistance toward the global poor, which many believe they are failing to fulfill.63”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [63]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Raising additional tax revenues to address the problem may involve an unfairness, but it remains an acceptable alternative to restricting a British doctor's freedom to migrate.62”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [62]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are, then, likely to be cases in which immigration restrictions can be justified on brain drain grounds, and there are practical steps which rich states can take to help identify these cases.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Brain drain can cause grave suffering, and it may seem odd that states cannot impose immigration restrictions to prevent grave suffering when they routinely impose such restrictions for a variety of lesser purposes.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both of these considerations I think arise in the brain drain case.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ii.She has not fulfilled her duty of assistance.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > VI. CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a skilled worker has experienced hardship and deprivation in the service of her poor compatriots, it is not for a rich state who has failed her to enforce any remaining duty she may owe.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This three-stage process would help to ensure that the first three conditions for justified exclusion on brain drain grounds are satisfied.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“i.She relied on state funds to pay for her training and has not fulfilled her obligation of repayment and/or”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > VI. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This, then, is why I contend that rich states must seek to provide extra assistance to compensate for the effects of deleterious brain drain before they consider enforcing immigration restrictions against skilled workers.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once admitted to a state, foreigners are entitled to move, associate, worship, and so forth, freely within it.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immigration restrictions restrict people's basic liberties to move, work, and associate as they wish and, in some cases, force individuals to remain in places that they have compelling reason to leave.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > This is so if and only if:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The claim that it would amounts to a demand that rich states take on extra burdens to make up for a failure by skilled workers to fulfill their duties to their poor compatriots.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“skilled workers who enjoy an adequate degree of safety and prosperity inside their country of origin and who could not provide the assistance they owe from elsewhere will have a duty to stay.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That exclusion would prevent the workers from accessing the jobs and opportunities in the rich state that would allow them to achieve the better life that was owed to them all along.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“their scope is extensive.People are entitled to more than just a degree of choice; they are entitled to something like the most extensive range of choice that is compatible with the rights and liberties of others.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless rich states must seek to provide this extra assistance before they can justify imposing counter-brain-drain immigration restrictions.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The authors state this as an assumption.
There are at least some cases where brain drain imposes severe costs on sending states.
“The only assumption the article therefore makes is that there are at least some cases where brain drain does impose severe costs on sending states.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
People are bound by general duties to help the global poor.
“I assume that people are bound by general duties to help the global poor.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The general duty to provide assistance to the global poor demands that each make an equal level of sacrifice, rather than contribution.
“I am assuming that the general duty to provide assistance to the global poor demands that each make an equal level of sacrifice, rather than contribution.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Poor states are unable or unwilling to prevent their skilled workers from leaving.
“As long as poor states are unable or unwilling to prevent their skilled workers from leaving, rich states must decide how to respond.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
General duties require equal levels of sacrifice from people who are equally able to assist.
“I am assuming that general duties require equal levels of sacrifice from people who are equally able to assist.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Everyone who is able to assist the global poor has a duty to do something, and it is left open whether compatriots must make any greater sacrifice than foreigners.
“I shall assume only that everyone who is able to assist the global poor has a duty to do something and leave it open as to whether their compatriots must make any greater sacrifice than foreigners.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Under certain circumstances, skilled workers will be able to assert an agent-centered prerogative in the face of demands that they provide further assistance to their poor compatriots.
“I shall assume that, under certain circumstances, skilled workers will be able to assert an agent-centered prerogative in the face of demands that they provide further assistance to their poor compatriots.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most people are currently not doing enough to fulfill their duties to the global poor.
“I think it is safe to say that most people are currently not doing enough.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Rich states owe general duties of assistance to the global poor.
“since rich states owe general duties of assistance to the global poor”
The authors state this as an assumption.
States, or at least democratic states, can be regarded as agents.
“I am assuming here a view of collective responsibility that allows for states, or at least democratic states, to be regarded as agents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Global poverty is a moral evil.
“given the moral evil that poverty constitutes”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are realistically no other candidates to enforce immigration restrictions besides existing states.
“there are, realistically, no other candidates to enforce immigration restrictions besides existing states.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > II. A DU T Y TO ASSIST
“The first is 2.i.The skilled worker cannot provide the assistance she owes from abroad.”
§ Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions? > VI. CONCLUSION
“i.She can better provide the assistance she owes if she stays in her state of origin than from her state of destination.”
Citations
Cites
Cohen, G. A. (2008) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674029651 · Cited by 1,832
Brain drain and economic growth: theory and evidence
Beine, M. A. R., Docquier, F., & Hillel Rapoport, C. (2001) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-3878(00)00133-4 · Cited by 1,271
Unger, P. (1996) · doi:10.1093/0195108590.001.0001 · Cited by 884
Griffin, J. (2008) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238781.001.0001 · Cited by 870
What is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?
Goodin, R. E. (1988) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/292998 · Cited by 672
Shacknove, A. E. (1985) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/292626 · Cited by 413
Oberman, K. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199676606.003.0003 · Cited by 361
Self-citationStark, O. (2003) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.013 · Cited by 338
Brain drain and health professionals
Pang, T. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7336.499 · Cited by 324
Waldron, J. (1981) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/292295 · Cited by 300
Special Obligations to Compatriots
Mason, A. S. (1997) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/233743 · Cited by 209
Waldron, J. (1989) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/293094 · Cited by 209
Freedom of Association Is Not the Answer
Fine, S. (2010) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/649626 · Cited by 198
Reasonable Partiality Towards Compatriots
Miller, D. E. (2005) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-005-3296-2 · Cited by 195
Tackling Malawi's Human Resources Crisis
Palmer, D. (2006) · Reproductive Health Matters · doi:10.1016/s0968-8080(06)27244-6 · Cited by 155
Gomberg, P. (1990) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/293264 · Cited by 148
Utilitarianism, Integrity and Partiality
Ashford, E. (2000) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.5840/jphil200097834 · Cited by 144
Justice in Migration: A Closed Borders Utopia?*
Ypi, L. (2008) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00326.x · Cited by 142
Casting the First Stone: Who Can, and Who Can’t, Condemn the Terrorists?
Cohen, G. (2006) · Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement · doi:10.1017/s1358246106058061 · Cited by 139
National Human Development Report, 2005
and, M. C.-H. C. W. (2005) · Cited by 136
Immigration, Global Poverty and the Right to Stay
Oberman, K. (2011) · Political Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00889.x · Cited by 101
Self-citationDoctors leaving 12 tertiary hospitals in Iraq, 2004–2007
Burnham, G. M., Lafta, R., & Doocy, S. (2009) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.021 · Cited by 100
The Brain Drain: An Unmitigated Blessing?Preprint
Faini, R. (2003) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.463021 · Cited by 99
Skilled Health Professionals’ Migration and its Impact on Health Delivery in Zimbabwe
Chikanda, A. (2006) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/13691830600610064 · Cited by 91
Utilitarianism, Integrity, and Partiality
Ashford, E. (2000) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2678423 · Cited by 87
Sharing the Spoils: Taxing International Human Capital Flows
Desai, M. A., Kapur, D., & McHale, J. (2004) · International Tax and Public Finance · doi:10.1023/b:itax.0000036696.58785.f9 · Cited by 77
Does hypocrisy matter? The case of US foreign policy
Glaser, D. J. (2006) · Review of International Studies · doi:10.1017/s0260210506007017 · Cited by 56
Migration and the Globalisation of Health Care: The Health Worker Exodus?
Connell, J. (2010) · doi:10.4337/9781849805186 · Cited by 56
Friends, Compatriots, and Special Political Obligations
Wellman, C. H. (2001) · Political Theory · doi:10.1177/0090591701029002003 · Cited by 49
Immigration as a Human RightPreprint
Oberman, K. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2164939 · Cited by 35
Self-citationSchatz, J. J. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60287-1 · Cited by 30
Immigration and Freedom of Association
Wellman, C. H. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982189.003.0010 · Cited by 21
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Kapur The, 2009, Their approach is considered below. The idea is entertained, if not endorsed, by Gillian Brock, Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account ðOxford
- Tesón Fernando R., 2008, San Diego Law Review, 45, 899
- Dowty Alan, 1987, Closed Borders: The Contemporary Assault on Freedom of Movement ðNew Haven
- Immigration, 2010, Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel ðGeneva
- Robert Contrast, 1974, State and Utopia ½New York: Basic Books
- This, 2000, Murphy in Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory ðOxford: Oxford University Press
- Scheffler Samuel, 2001, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought ðOxford: Oxford University Press
- Brighouse Harry, 2011, Arguing about Justice: Essays for Philippe Van Parijs, ed. Axel Gosseries and Yannick Vanderborght ðLouvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain
- Raustøl Anne, 2010, The International Migration of Health Workers: Ethics, Rights and Justice, ed. Rebecca S. Shah ðBasingstoke
- Nagel Thomas, 1991, Equality and Partiality ðNew York: Oxford University Press
- Scheffler Samuel, 1982, The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions ðOxford: Clarendon
- Jagdish, 1976, Taxing the Brain Drain: A Proposal ðAmsterdam: North Holland
- Sharing the Spoils
- Lusalle David, 2007, Bulletin of Medicus Mundi Switzerland, 104, 19
- International Council of Nurses, 2006, Position Statement: Occupational Health and Safety for Nurses ðGeneva: ICN
- Cole Phillip, 2006, Ethics and Economics, 4, 1
- de Mesquita Judith Bueno, 2005, The International Migration of Health Workers: A Human Rights Analysis ðLondon: Medact
- Steiner, Hard Borders
- Enoch David, 2002, Law and Philosophy, 21, 355
- 2005, Guardian
- Chomsky Noam, 2004, ZMagazine
- Said Edward, 2003, Counterpunch
- Shklar Judith N., 1984, Belknap, 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methodological Nationalism, Migration and Political Theory
Sager, A. (2016) · Political Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12167 · Cited by 171
“Third, the normative literature on brain drain is incomprehensible without the assumption that people belong to one nation state, and that the distribution of goods and opportunities is defined by that nation state’s institutions (Brock, 2009; Oberman, 2013; Sager, 2014).”
BackgroundThe Political Philosophy of Refuge
Owen, D. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108666466 · Cited by 98
Poverty and Immigration Policy
Oberman, K. (2015) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055415000106 · Cited by 94
Self-citationMiller, D. E. (2015) · European Journal of Political Theory · doi:10.1177/1474885115584833 · Cited by 60
“Though this argument has to be made with considerable care, as Kieran Oberman (2013) has shown.”
BackgroundLiberal Self-Determination in a World of Migration
Ferracioli, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190056070.001.0001 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Oberman, K.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Oberman, Kieran
- ORCID
- Oberman, Kieran
- Venue
- Ethics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 427-455
- ISSN
- 0014-1704 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-297X
- OpenAlex
- W3126120034
- Semantic Scholar
- 3a3b014f235f20247fb52a41784c14280561f222
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 29 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 13.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Ethics (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Labor Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Social Sciences › Law › Immigration Law and Human Rights
- Keywords
- brain drain, skilled migration, immigration restrictions, basic services, ethics of migration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
