Are Closed Borders Morally Justifiable?

In this paper, I will argue that closed borders are morally justifiable. Limits to immigration are often implemented in order to protect a nation's interests, such as protecting the safety of the citizens or preserving welfare funds. In some cases, however, limits to immigration are vital to preserving the culture and preventing overpopulation of a country. Advocates for open borders claim that border restrictions infringe upon one or more basic human rights, such as the freedoms of movement and association (Kukathas 212). I contend, however, that these freedoms do not extend as a right to free immigration. Border restrictions, therefore, do not violate these human rights and are thus morally permissible.

One of the most significant reasons

to close borders is to maintain the culture of the nation. A shared identity is critical to sustaining democracy and nationalism within a given country. Its citizens feel connected to their fellow citizens through the history and traditions that they have in common. The more culturally diverse a society becomes, the harder it is to maintain a unifying culture that connects its members. Although cultures are subjected to change over time naturally, immigration with open borders leads to an influx of new cultures into a country, forcing its national identity to change. The lack of shared identity between citizens reduces the fellowship and camaraderie that they typically share, which ultimately diminishes the nationalism of that country. Different cultures have differing values, which leads to disagreement among the people of these cultures. The diversity of beliefs and opinions present in a heterogeneous population makes it more difficult for democracy to prosper, which provides an incentive for states to keep out other cultures. Differing beliefs can also cause a nation to divide, which causes tension between its citizens and can ultimately lead to conflict.
A common objection to closed borders is that it violates the human right to freedom of movement. Human rights are rights essential to all human beings, regardless of nationality, sex, origin, religion, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. Our human rights include the right to live, freedom from torture, and freedom from slavery. Human rights are intended to protect the interests vital to our survival. Freedom of movement is a valid human right in that we need to be able to move within our space to accomplish everyday activities. We also require the necessary range of mobility to acquire less accessible basic needs, such as a job. Freedom of movement, however, does not include such an extent as immigration. Professor David Miller, of Oxford University, argues that "since most land is privately owned, this means that a large proportion of physical space does not fall within the ambit of a right to free movement[...]Yet few would argue that because of these limitations, people in these societies are deprived of one of their human rights" (Miller 195). There is no human right to travel into private property because there is no vital interest that requires this movement. Using the same logic, humans do not have an inherent right to migration. Therefore, the freedom of movement between countries is not a human right that would be infringed upon by border restrictions.
Another significant reason for closed borders is to prevent overpopulation in a country.

The mass migration of immigrants to a developed country can cause the population of that country to increase rapidly. This expansion of population can negatively affect multiple aspects of the country, including its culture, quality of life, and natural environment. An influx of new citizens to a particular area forces the current citizens of that area to change the way that they live. As population density increases, congestion increases. As a result, it becomes more difficult to move from place to place and reduces access to public goods. When a country becomes overpopulated, the demand for goods exceeds the supply, which raises the prices of various commodities including food, shelter, and healthcare. This inflation means that people have to pay more to survive and feed their families. Overpopulation additionally gives rise to unemployment since there are fewer jobs to support a large number of people. The surge in unemployment also increases crime rates as people steal various items to feed their families. These outcomes ultimately lower the quality of life of the citizens of this area, not to mention the destruction to the environment caused by the increased consumption of goods and increase in pollution. There are only a certain number of natural resources in a region, and they get depleted due to overpopulation. The sudden lack of resources per person requires that the citizens

consume less than they did before and be more aware of the environmental choices they make. Increases in pollution ultimately lead to the melting of polar ice caps, changing climate patterns, and a rise in sea level. When developed countries open their borders, immigration increases swiftly, which can lead to a rapid increase in population. These nations, therefore, require border restrictions to prevent the detrimental outcomes caused by overpopulation.
Another objection to closed borders is that it restricts the right to freedom of association.

This right is significant since it allows a person to make their own life decisions, such as who they want to marry or what religion they want to practice. Each of us has a moral claim to make such important decisions that affect our own lives. Along with our right to the freedom of association, however, comes the right not to associate or to disassociate. Any organization or group of people, therefore, has the right to exclude anyone with whom they do not wish to associate. For example, anyone can choose to practice a particular religion with whomever they wish, and cannot force anyone to join them. Furthermore, people can choose both who they would like to marry and who they do not want to marry. A person is not obliged to associate with everyone who wants to associate with them; they can reject someone else's marriage proposal if they wish. Just as an individual has a right to determine whom they would like to marry, a group of citizens has a right to determine whom it would like to invite into its community. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not imply that any person can associate themselves with any nation they wish. Nations have the right to reject immigrants from entering their borders if they believe that the person will affect the country negatively. This action is a part of their right to disassociate; therefore, it does not violate the individual's

right to freedom of association and is morally permissible.
Countries around the world have varying levels of limitations to immigration. Some argue that it is morally wrong to impose border restrictions that keep out potential immigrants. I, however, claim that there are moral justifications to closed borders. Developed countries often require border restrictions to protect their culture and to prevent eventual overpopulation. There are claims that these restrictions infringe upon the human rights to freedom of movement and association; however, border limitations are well within the authority of these countries and do not violate any human rights. Therefore, governments are free to place restrictions on immigration and are justified in enforcing closed borders.