I think it's good to have a discussion of the philosophical arguments underpinning this whole debate though, because what one reads in most popular publications leaves all of these fundamental questions unanswered! Thanks for reading!

Thanks for this. It's going on the reading list! I tend to disagree with the differentiation of justifications to force people to fight. There may be lots of good reasons to serve. This is not what the argument disputes - forcing someone to fight through invoking the authority of a state isn't one

I’m interested in this: how would one make the argument in this case? Thanks for reading!

I would think that they may mean work primarily by poststructuralists and postcolonialist scholars. They will undoubtedly talk about citizenship.

I agree, those are a problem, but are they not more a problem for the moral view on the matter? The issue might be there that one merely repeats contrary moral oughts that seem to have no purchase in politics. Sadly, I think we also see anti-migrant policies from non-far-right wingers

Yes, the paper does not make a moral argument. The problem is, that all sorts of moral arguments seem to have failed, especially perhaps in Australia. Perhaps there would be different outcomes if we started emphasising the important political roles that refugees can play (including their agency)?