Debating the ethics of immigration: is there a right to exclude?

Abstract

The book has a clear focus on philosophical theory and ethical argument, referring to economic and other evidence for the positions taken where this is helpful, but making it clear that what is ultimately at stake is the morality of border controls. Each author sets out a distinct and thought-provoking position on the ethics of immigration, with Christopher Wellman arguing that legitimate states have the right to have any immigration regime they want, and Phillip Cole arguing that national borders should be completely open. By setting out what may seem to be radical positions, Wellman and Cole succeed in showing clearly what is at stake when it comes to the ethics of migration policy. Do states have the right to prevent potential immigrants from crossing their borders, or should people have the freedom to migrate and settle wherever they wish? Christopher Heath Wellman and Phillip Cole develop and defend opposing answers to this timely and important question. Appealing to the right to freedom of association, Wellman contends that legitimate states have broad discretion to exclude potential immigrants, even those who desperately seek to enter. Against this, Cole argues that the commitment to the moral equality of all human beings - which legitimate states can be expected to hold - means national borders must be open: equal respect requires equal access, both to territory and membership; and that the idea of open borders is less radical than it seems when we consider how many territorial and community boundaries have this open nature. In addition to engaging with each other's arguments, Wellman and Cole address a range of central questions and prominent positions on this topic. The authors therefore provide a critical overview of the major contributions to the ethics of migration, as well as developing original, provocative positions of their own.