Should countries accept immigrants?

A liberal state must allow freedom of movement

Question: Should countries accept immigrants?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, countries should accept immigrants
Argument‹4 of 5›: A liberal state must allow freedom of movement

Those who are not currently citizens of a particular liberal state should enjoy the same rights are those who are already citizens. When a liberal state disallows non-citizens entry into its territory, it negates their liberal freedom of movement and behaves inconsistently.

The argument

It is a mark of the liberal state that it grants certain rights to its citizens, including the right to go wherever they please. States award this right of freedom of movement to its citizens by virtue of their humanity. Every human being should enjoy certain freedoms, such as the freedom to worship whichever god they desire or the freedom to go wherever they want. The state should respect and protect these rights. This is a central tenet of political liberalism. Those who are not currently citizens of a particular liberal state are still humans. Thus they should enjoy the same rights are those who are already citizens. It would be inconsistent for the liberal state to deny this. If a liberal state disallows a non-citizen entry into its territory, then it will have denied his or her right to freedom of movement and fallen into inconsistency.

Premises

[P1]A liberal state grants its citizens rights, including freedom of movement, by virtue of their humanity. [P2] Non-citizens are equally human and so are entitled to the same fundamental freedoms. [P3] Denying a non-citizen entry would deny their freedom of movement, making the liberal state inconsistent with its own principles. [C] Therefore, a liberal state must allow freedom of movement, so countries should accept immigrants.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the argument proves too much: if freedom of movement is an absolute right owed to every human by virtue of humanity, no state could ever set any immigration limit — a conclusion even most liberals reject. Liberal theory standardly distinguishes internal freedom of movement (a right against one's own state) from a right to enter any state one chooses; the former does not entail the latter. States also owe special associative duties to their own members, and democratic self-determination over membership is itself a liberal value — so a liberal state can consistently welcome immigrants as a matter of justice or generosity without conceding an unlimited right of entry that would dissolve the very idea of a bounded political community.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Freedom of movement as a liberal right is a right to move within one's own polity and against arbitrary detention, not a right to enter any state at will; the argument equivocates between the two. [Rejecting P2] That non-citizens are equally human grants them human rights, but the right to cross a particular border is not obviously among them — a liberal state can owe special duties to its members without denying anyone's humanity. [Rejecting C] The inconsistency charge dissolves once the two senses of freedom of movement are separated: a liberal state can limit entry while fully honouring the internal freedom it grants citizens, so "must allow freedom of movement" does not follow.

The argument

Premises

Counter-arguments

Rejecting the premises

Further reading