Home Categories About
argument top image
Should countries accept immigrants? Should countries accept immigrants?
Yes, countries should accept immigrants Yes, countries should accept immigrants
No, countries should not accept immigrants No, countries should not accept immigrants
Immigrants positively affect the economy Immigrants positively affect the economy
People have the right to live wherever they want People have the right to live wherever they want
A liberal state must allow freedom of movement A liberal state must allow freedom of movement
Countries with colonial pasts cannot turn immigrants away Countries with colonial pasts cannot turn immigrants away
Accepting refugees is beneficial Accepting refugees is beneficial
Immigrants put an unnecessary strain on public services Immigrants put an unnecessary strain on public services
Immigrants erode local culture and traditions Immigrants erode local culture and traditions
Immigrants increase competition for work Immigrants increase competition for work
Debate Mini Map

Should countries accept immigrants?
Back to question

Yes, countries should accept immigrants

(1 of 2) Next position >

People have the right to live wherever they want

Progressives argue that borders should stay open because people have the right to migrate to wherever they want. The desire to migrate and settle in a more prosperous country is a purely rational one. Open borders is a good response to the huge economic inequalities in the world.
Joseph Carens
< (2 of 5) Next argument >

The Argument

One's country of birth does determine, to a significant extent, what one can expect to achieve in life. Some people are born into prosperous countries with rewarding paths of education and work, but others are born into countries with no promising paths of learning or livelihood. However, neither is responsible for their relative positions within global society.[1] Therefore, arbitrary borders do nothing but perpetuate this inequality. Pro-immigration arguments object to this massive international inequality. The average Swede, they maintain, only has a better life than the average Chadian because they were born in a flourishing environment; only because of luck do they enjoy a comfortable life.[1] So what grounds can the Swedes give for turning Chadians away from their borders—Chadians who want to migrate north and settle in a better social, political and economic environment? Keeping borders open is a necessary response to the serious economic inequalities that exist between different countries.[1]

Counter arguments

This argument for open borders assumes that inequality is fixable. Those who put forward this argument believe that every inequality that emerges from luck needs to be fixed.[1] For others, the real flaw in this argument is that its conclusion does not seem to follow from its ethical foundations. There are other means for prosperous nations to meet provide justice and meet their ethical obligations, not just open borders.[1] Foreign aid and investment is another form of justice that helps better the contexts of other countries[1] This is how wealthy individuals and countries can provide justice, without opening borders to all immigrants. For example, as long as Jeff Bezos gives a portion of his wealth to the less fortunate, he has every right to keep others out of his home. If the domestic environment is like this, then why should the international one be any different?

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

Further Reading

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/case-for-open-borders/ https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/2015/01/joe-carens-the-ethics-of-immigration/

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immigration/#Lib
This page was last edited on Monday, 30 Nov 2020 at 12:21 UTC

Explore related arguments