Your Guide to Starting a US Business as a Foreign National

 Given these interpretations of citizenship, it is critical to emphasize that new members of any society who come from different countries and nationalities have the right to live wherever they want. In a similar vein, there are also concerns about whether or not countries have the right to admit whomever they want or attach conditions to migration.Whatever respects they desire. Integration concerns may also arise if members of the minority demonstrate an unwillingness to act as citizens of the country of migration. However, it is important to note that some members of the majority may treat members of the minority with ignorance and hostility (McRitchie, 2006). However, these concerns have a negative impact on migrants' recognition claims based on cultural capital. This is why the recognition and protection principle states that cultural capital should be recognized equally for all individuals, regardless of whether they are members of the majority or minority groups.

Accommodation

Concerns may also be raised about how border controls should be enforced and what will happen to those who remain undocumented members of society (Schuck, 2008; Christiano, 2008; Blake, 2008) seeking citizenship. The most pressing question, however, is whether migrants' citizenship status as members of a minority group in a society is equal to that of members of the majority group, and whether appropriate practices or instruments are used to design resource distribution that allows migrants to develop their capacities to become active, informed, and responsible citizens. In response to this matter, the subject of accommodation can be discussed. 

Migrant farm workers, as minority members, have unique values derived from their cultural capital that cannot be compromised by majority members.

 

Accommodation as a social practice provides them with a diverse set of options, increasing their autonomy to respond to their own values or act for specific reasons. For example, if accommodations are made to recognise migrant farm workers' cultural values in public, it increases their autonomy by allowing them to respond to and engage with their own cultural values more directly.Two concerns can be raised. For starters, the values that accommodation promotes may not serve as a public justification for political action to protect or recognize migrant workers' cultural assets. Second, who will bear the cost of accommodation, and how? It is important to recognise that there are numerous other good grounds and lodging options. This inquiry stems from a fair distributive scheme, which, according to many contemporary liberal egalitarians, requires resource distribution to be designed using choice-sensitivity criteria (Arneson, 1989; Cohen, 1989; Dworkin, 1981; Kymlicka, 2001; Rakowski, 1991). Many egalitarians and non-egalitarians argue that resource distribution should be designed in such a way that individuals are held accountable for the costs of their voluntary choices/endeavours (Shiffrin, 2004). Choice-sensitive resource distribution measures can be discussed in terms of accommodation practices to determine who can bear some of the cost of other people's free, morally relevant decisions. Seana Shiffrin contributes to this discussion by defining accommodation as 'a social practice in which agents absorb some of the costs of others' behaviour, even if this behaviour is voluntary and the cost-absorption is not necessary in order to achieve luck-insensitivity' (Shiffrin, 2004:275).

Egalitarianism consists of more than just a choice-sensitive criterion.

 

Egalitarianism also requires that resource distribution be designed using a luck-insensitive criterion, which implies that morally arbitrary factors such as luck should not influence the distribution scheme, and that people should not be held accountable for bearing the costs of their involuntary choices or misfortunes. However, some egalitarians question whether equality requires social distribution to be insensitive to people's natural misfortunes, such as congenital disabilities (Rawls, 1971; Wolf, 1998, Anderson, 1999; Cohen, 1989; Dworkin, 2000). There are also disagreements about which features should be considered as choice criteria. I'd like to argue here that the distinguishing characteristics of migrant workers are not due to luck and thus fall under the luck-insensitive umbrella. Migrant workers, as minority members of a community, deserve to be recognized for their cultural capital and to have the freedom to practice their own culture in any context. They have not chosen to be responsible for being minority members, as Kymlica (2001) contends, and thus should not bear the full costs of integrating into the majority culture and converting their resources and assets into national capital to legitimize their belonging in the host country. If a cost-internalization criterion is used as a choice sensitivity guide to design resource distribution, it will obstruct meaningful freedom. Because there will be undue restrictions that make it less conducive to exercising one's rights, desires, or the like.