Immigration

Arguments for Closed Borders

1. Cultural Preservation

A nation’s cultural identity and way of life should be protected from the influence of foreign cultures by limiting immigration.

2. Political Functioning

States can operate because their citizens are willing to make enormous political sacrifices.

Citizens are willing to make these sacrifices because they identify with one another.

This identification depends upon a shared culture.

3. Jurisdiction

Whenever someone moves to a new state, the citizens of the receiving country become responsible for this newcomer.

But it would seem strange to suppose that everyone should be free to move to whatever country they like.

If that were true, each of us would be entitled to unilaterally impose moral responsibilities upon others.

4. Indirect Cosmopolitanism

Denying repressive states the right to limit immigration may undermine the prospects that these regimes will be able and willing to construct larger international mechanisms.

These international mechanisms may provide the best long-term chances of substantially improving the lives of the world’s poorest people.

Arguments for Open Borders

1. Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism

All human beings are equally deserving of moral consideration.

One’s country of birth has a profound impact upon one’s life prospects.

Open borders may be the required response to the enormous economic inequalities that currently exist between countries.

2. Libertarianism

Closed borders infringe upon individual rights.

They interfere with both:

• An outsider’s freedom of movement
• An insider’s property right to invite foreigners onto her land

3. Democracy

It may be impermissible for a state to close its borders without first giving outsiders a vote in the referendum deciding whether to adopt the restrictive immigration policy.

4. Utilitarianism

Closed borders may be economically inefficient.

If closed borders are economically inefficient, then they may lead to a worldwide decrease in happiness.

Questions

1. Should we distinguish between the economic or political migrant and the refugee? Are there any other criteria we should use in allowing or barring movement into a country?

2. Milton Friedman famously asserted, “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Was he right?

3. Must a state prioritize the needs of its citizens over the needs of non-citizens living within its borders? What does it mean to be a citizen of a country anyway? Why is it so important?

4. Suppose it turns out that cultural preservation leads to economic destruction. Should a state still seek to preserve culture? Suppose it turns out that economic flourishing leads to cultural destruction. Should a state still seek economic flourishing?

5. Is cultural homogeneity necessary for social cohesion and stability in a society, or can a diverse culture actually promote unity and understanding?

6. Is it permissible for a rich country to take educated workers away from a poorer country if those workers would improve the lives of the poor in their own country?