Essay On Open Border

An open border is defined as a border, which enables movement between two states with little to no restrictions on movement. The term refers solely to the free movement of people and not necessarily of goods and services. Immigration policy is a very thorny issue which even divides libertarians. Traditionally, one would expect, a group such as the libertarians to be staunch supporters of open borders- the free movement of people . This division amongst libertarians highlights how difficult the issue of migration can be.
The question of why we are to have open borders has been constantly asked and is the consternation of many ‘flourishing’ countries that are seen to be the popular destinations for many seeking to escape the struggles of their own countries. The reason for migration includes political reasons, the need for work, and the need to fight poverty among numerous other reasons. The arguments for the duty to have open borders have come from various ideologies; most tend to focus on the ethical reason for an open border; that of recognizing a fundamental human right. There are two central at stake here constantly asked: (i) what can morally justify a state in restricting immigration, and (ii) what gives a state the right to control immigrants?
The answers

to both questions revolve around the concept of ‘sovereignty’, which means possessing the power of self-determination and deciding unilaterally on its way of proceeding in all aspects of governance, which includes immigration policy. However, many, including Phillip Cole have argued that this simplistic view is neither inconsistent nor irrational in a globalized world where the right to freedom of movement can only be valuable if it is matched with the right to enter. Cole argues that the human right to freedom of movement should supersede a unilateral right to migration policy (Wellman and Cole 52). This shows two generally accepted conclusions, the right to movement is in itself a fundamental moral right as it provides the axis for other basic rights , and can only be fulfilled if it is complemented with the right to enter.
As was said, many libertarians, even though maintaining the argument for free trade, are supporters of a closed border. Also, numerous egalitarians have also found themselves on the side that defends the legitimacy and need for closed borders. For this reason, there is a call for libertarians and egalitarians to be consistent in their worldviews, which, resulting from their common view of liberty would result in a greater push for open borders. This would be as a result of the basic notions of freedom held by both ideologies that seem to become opaque when it comes to the concept of immigration- more so with open borders. The argument is solidified with the claim that like the free exit and entry of all commodities, labor/migrants should be allowed to move freely. One example of this is Howard Chang’s equilibrium theory that argues for a liberalized immigration based on three perspectives: particularist national economic welfare, the welfare of immigrants, and global economic welfare (Chang). The cosmopolitan egalitarian combines the moral insight that all humans, whether they are nationals or foreigners, are equally deserving of moral consideration. The minimum view of an egalitarian perspective is that each person has enough for survival, that is, basic rights are met. In today’s world, the inequality between nations is astounding. This forces one to ask what makes an individual born in Australia without doing anything privy to a higher standard of living than a person born in Zimbabwe? Why should mere luck be the separating factor for these two individuals? For the cosmopolitan egalitarian- the Australians have no justification in preventing Zimbabweans from traveling to Australia in order to take advantage of the superior social, political and economic environment. In the words of Joseph Carens, “citizenship in Western liberal democracies is the modern equivalent to the feudal privilege- an inherited status that greatly enhances one’s life chances. Like feudal birthright privileges, restrictive citizenship is hard to justify when one thinks about it closely.” (Carens). With this, egalitarians see open borders as the apt response to the enormous economic inequalities which currently exist between nations. Libertarians argue that immigration affects both insiders and outsiders and thus by closing borders, the insiders, who are members of the sovereignty are also affected. Carens explains it in this example. “Suppose a farmer from the United States wanted to hire workers from Mexico. The government would have no right to prohibit him from doing this. To prevent the Mexicans from coming would violate the rights of both the American and the Mexican workers to engage in voluntary transactions” (Carens). The government’s closed border policy would place a limit on the citizens’ right to unilaterally invite whomever they want onto their property while simultaneously interferes with a foreigner’s right to freedom of movement. Thus, the right of all to enter must be matched with the opportunity to execute that right. This brings to the fore the concept of political dependency and the need for it to be mixed with adequate human rights protection- one being the right for an individual to invite whomever they wish to their property and the right of a person to international movements.
States often provide numerous reasons, including maintaining cohesion in society, job security, etc. for the need to control, limit and close its border to possible immigrants. However, is limiting immigration an absolute necessity and/or sufficient to secure the particular reason listed? And even if limiting immigration is necessary and sufficient, do those who seek to restrict immigration actually have a moral right to the listed reasons?
States should be willing to aid those in need owing to a basic assumption of basic-acceptable moral theories that people should not benefit or suffer from morally arbitrary natural and social contingencies, for examples: the case of the Zimbabwean been born in Zimbabwe and not Australia, natural talents or handicaps. States should be more inclined to aid in the global good rather than focusing on their individual successes and growth, especially at the expense of shutting out others. Also, Cole argues that the consequentialist argument, that is, the impact of migrants on the state, can adequately be invalidated. There is no current empirical evidence to support the claims for a closed border (Wellman and Cole 164). These claims include: economic, social, and cultural toll that the invasion of numerous foreigners would have on the state. Thus, all immigration policies are shaped by the concern for the state citizen’s economic, cultural and political arrangement rather than the actual impact of the invasion of foreigners. Therefore, it’s not done as a result of immigration in itself negatively impacting the overall structure of the sovereign state rather unproven fears that there would be devastating impacts.
The arguments for open border question the reasons given for the desire to perpetuate closed borders by probing with pertinent questions.

One of these questions is, how can imposing immigration policies on foreigners be ethically defended in a society with strict human rights policy? There is no moral justification and the human right to freedom should be protected. In the following section, I will look at this issue through the lens of two Christian thoughts. Like the case of the libertarians and open borders, one would assume that Christians would be more welcoming to the stranger, seeing the image of God in the foreigner. However, there are varying Christians views on how to welcome or treat the

stranger.