1
MODULE 5 LECTURE NOTES – IMMIGRATION
Immigration
Phi 306 Applied Ethics
I. Introduction
Immigration is the process of the people’s migration to another country for better
employment opportunities, political freedom or better standard of living. This has favored
cultures as well as economies of the world to change, and both the country that is being left and
the country that is being joined. Today, immigration has a number of ethical and political
aspects, which has been aggravated by the process of globalization. Due to the fact that these
migrations have roots and ramifications concerning race and colonialism, Spickard, Beltrán, and
Hooton (2022) postulate that policy concerns are race-orientated and as a result, complex.
Ethical issues are mainly ethnic while political issues relate to the balance between economic
necessities and ethnic harmony. Immigrants mean adding new blood which brings new sets of
ideas and talent to a particular society. Zimmader has a misconception of the city as not being on
his side within this venture, and this is evident even in his perception of potential overlapping of
interests as well as in concerns about resources and social inclusion. Public is divided and
reflects all the controversies regarding nationalism and competition in the economy. This
particular type of immigration is still a subject of heated discussions in present days, while its
effects from the period under consideration remain apparent in today’s policies. This increases
the pressure on governments to encourage economic growth and stability and the maintenance of
2
peace and order with immigration as one of the issues of management. It also involves ethic and
politics when handling it.
Immigration generates numerous ethical matters along with political matters as well as
social justice and human rights together with questions regarding national identity. Migration
theories analyze migration patterns between individual choice and social environmental elements
(Arango 2017). Migrant rights form the core subject of ethical discussions but political
conversations concentrate on host states' duties toward immigrants. On one hand, ethical
discussions revolve around the rights of migrants; on the other, they concern the duties of host
countries. Governments work to combine economic advantages with social equilibrium during
their immigration policy development process. Public opinion influences the formation of these
policies at all times. According to Rheindorf and Wodak (2018) border control serves as a
method for both crime prevention and national security maintenance and cultural protection.
Both public attitudes and government actions are defined by them. The ethical and political
aspects of immigration are tightly intertwined, affecting not only individual lives but also
society in full. Policies have to respect human dignity while working through practical
challenges to be designed by governments. Striking such a balance entails weighing the rights
of migrants against the demands of host countries. The approach each nation takes is shaped by
its values and priorities, which, in turn, shape migration patterns both domestically and
internationally.
The main moral question regarding immigration relates to the conflict of interests
between nationalism and liberty of citizens to move. According to Miller (2016), using the
instruments derived from the concept of the welfare state, the nation must be able to control its
borders in the same way. He says that ridiculously high immigration negatively affects the
3
homogenization of values and reduction of social cohesion. This perspective also brings out the
need to preserve cultural orientation. While Kukathas (2005) advocates for open borders, people
ought to be free to move as a matter of natural justice. This he sees as a sign that reducing
immigration has the effect of denying people the chance to improve their lives’ circumstances.
The friction between majority and minority is one of the most salient problems of contemporary
world society. Mobility and migration, as De Genova and Mezzadra & Pickles (2015)
highlighted, are arranged through power in terms of what is included and excluded. Where
Kukathas emphasizes the idea of people’s freedom, Miller emphasizes people’s culture. It can
be interpreted that both points of view are valid in that they brought up questions of what does
community imply and what does identity and ethnicity imply. To this end, some basic concepts
of immigration policies should be re-evaluated as they relate opportunities that are presented to
migrants and motivate social relations in countries that receive immigrants. They offer divergent
views which provides multiple areas of concern in the question to ethical approach to migration
regulation in the contemporary globalized world.
II. The ethics of immigration: An overview
The field of ethics presents various viewpoints about immigration matters. The
deontological ethical framework promotes using essential moral principles to establish
immigration policies which remain indifferent to actual results. From the utilitarian perspective
the assessment centers on identifying all advantages or disadvantages immigration will create.
Social contract theory makes efforts to establish harmony between national concerns and human
rights. According to Miller (2016) nations maintain the right to regulate immigration for cultural
protection reasons provided they respect human rights standards. The philosophical theory of
social contract theory supports national well-being as its main focus. Scarcely any experts
4
support cultural protection because they observe it leads countries to enact discriminatory
immigration restrictions. From a utilitarian viewpoint, the economic and social benefits of
immigration advocate for more open borders. According to Swain (2018), immigration
strengthens labor markets and broadens cultural diversity. But utilitarianism also takes into
account potential burdens on society, including strains on public services. Balch and Balabanova
(2016) demonstrated how media portrayals of Eastern European migrants in the UK shaped
public perceptions, which in turn impacted policy debates. These narratives demonstrate how
ethicsFits are underpinned by political truths. Although deontology and utilitarianism hold good
reasons for moral action, social contract theory concentrates on reciprocal duties among the
citizenry and the state. Wolff (2019) argues that states have a dual obligation to their citizens to
be a just society but to treat their citizens humanely. This framework shapes citizenship policies,
adjudicating who belongs inside a nation’s social contract. However, restrictive borders can be at
odds with principles of universal human rights. Despite each framework having value, their use
has effective limitations relative to balancing national sovereignty and other moral
responsibilities toward immigrants and refugees.
A humanitarian perspective as well as an ethical theoretical perspective led to the view
that there are moral responsibilities to immigrants and refugees. Deontological ethics calls for
respecting individual dignity, irrespective of territorial bounds. As an example, Miller (2016)
acknowledges states’ obligations to refugees, but maintains that states can limit regular
immigration to protect social cohesion. This stance rests on social contract theory, which justifies
states privileging its citizens’ well-being. Humanitarian ethics often emphasizes conflicting
claims and argues against those restrictions, reminding us that human lives are more important
than political ones. From a utilitarian perspective, immigration is evaluated through a lens of
5
overall consequence, with government policies that maximize the greater good supported.
Skilled immigrants (Swain, 2018) provide economic benefits, adding to the case for open
borders. However, utilitarianism also takes into account possible drawbacks, like draining
resources and creating cultural tensions. Public debates on Eastern European migration in the
UK, for example, emphasized concerns about welfare competition, which further fostered
restrictive policies (Balch and Balabanova, 2016). Such debates reflect the tension between
humanitarian obligations and national interests. These are mutually intelligible and a social
contract theory of immigration places immigration within the matrix of reciprocal rights and
duties. According to Wolff (2019), restricting immigration to protect welfare is permissible,
however states also have an obligation to universal human rights. This dual obligation leads to
ethical dilemmas when national policies go against humanitarian principles. Part of immigration
ethics is the balance between protecting citizens’ wants and respecting immigrants’ dignity.
There are frameworks that each traverse these complex moral terrains, helping guide policy as
well as public discourse.
The ethical challenge in immigration policy is how to balance collective national rights
and individual human rights. Social contract theory stresses the state's responsibility to protect
its citizens but acknowledges moral obligations to those who are not citizens. As Miller (2016)
argues, this does not mean that states cannot restrict immigration in order to maintain social
cohesion, as long as they observe immigrants’ fundamental rights. His approach mirrors the
pervading social contract ethos of preserving a stable, secure society, but critics argue that
putting national interests first can often go hand in hand with exclusionary practices. That is
where utilitarianism provides a different perspective as it evaluates immigration in terms of its
overall good and harm. Swain (2018) argues for the economic contributions of immigrants, and
6
that having a more inclusive immigration policy is beneficial to society. However, utilitarianism
also takes into account potential drawbacks, such as competition for resources and cultural
tensions. Media portrayals of Eastern European migrants were found to have shaped public
perceptions in UK (Balch & Balabanova, 2016) which in turn, influenced the policy-making in
restrictive ways in the country. These accounts underscore how national interests can clash with
individual rights. Deontological ethics, by contrast, stresses that individuals’ dignity must be
respected, independent of wider consequences. Immigration policies need to be in line with basic
human rights, which gives countries the right to regulate immigration, but undermines borders
based on national interest. Wolff (2019) says that this framework encourages more inclusive
approaches, pointing to the intrinsic moral worth of immigrants. Every one of the theories can
be effective; however the challenge is in trying to determine whether the states have the right to
control immigrants while at the same time they should uphold the rights of every human being.
The moral conflict defines both policymaking and the agenda for public discourse and is linked
with broader concerns of justice and inclusion.
Border enforcement Includes challenge for what balance of national security respect for
human rights. Deontological ethics, for example, emphasizes the respect for the dignity of
individuals no matter their status under the law. Beyond humanitarianism, Miller (2016)
suggests that for states to effectively enforce borders, which both fortify society and serve as a
tool for political violence, they must treat immigrants humanely. But words must start to give
way to an enforcement that can prove rights violations, which goes against deontological
principles. Utilitarianism evaluates border policies based on their net effects. According to
Swain (2018), Social welfare can be protected by prevention from illegal immigration through
efficient border control. But also, utilitarianism accounts for the harm that comes from such
7
strong enforcement mechanisms. In a study by Balch and Balabanova (2016), the authors detail
how particular characteristics of migrants, as espoused by media narratives, were found to have
significant effects on the level of public support for restrictive policies in the UK. The theory of
social contract can frame the enforcement of a border as a matter of maintaining a social order.
According to Wolff (2019), states have an obligation to ensure citizens’ welfare, which involves
immigration regulation. Yet, this responsibility needs to be reconciled with respect for
immigrants’ rights. Overly restrictive border control regimes risk degrading human dignity and
threaten the moral foundations of social contracts. The ethical dilemma arises in addressing how
to implement these mechanisms in a manner that preserves national sovereignty and protects
individual freedoms. We must balance those concerns with policies that keep us safe while
meeting immigrants where they are with respect and compassion. Kimberly Smith pointed as
immigration debates rage on, ethical frameworks provide tools for assessing the moral
underpinnings of border enforcement and crafting to ensure fairer, more humane policies.
Issues about inclusion, belonging and justice are brought up in the way people access
citizenship. From a deontological ethical perspective, one should treat people’s right to join a
society with dignity. Miller (2016) argues, however, that states can define citizenship norms to
protect social cohesiveness, as long as they practice non-discrimination. This reflects the
emphasis of the social contract on reciprocal rights and duties. But strict criteria can also
exclude long-term residents, a poorly received approach that some fear would be unfair. The
utilitarian approach evaluates citizenship policies according to their effects on society. Swain
(2018) notes that as a principle, inclusive citizenship enhances social cohesion, building a sense
of belonging. Nonetheless, utilitarianism also weighs hypothetical drawbacks, including strain
on resources and cultural tensions. Public concerns about welfare competition affected restrictive
8
citizenship policies used in the UK (Balch and Balabanova 2016). Such debates reveal the
conflict between social welfare and individual rights. Consider citizenship as a social contract
theory. States have the responsibility to reconcile interests of citizens with others’ contributions
as argued by Wolff (2019). Such restrictive policies can also be divisive in terms of splitting
individuals into citizens and non-citizens, undermining social cohesion; But permissive criteria
may ultimately erode the social contract, diminishing citizens’ sense of collective identity. The
ethical dilemma is to create citizenship policies that will preserve national unity while
recognizing individual dignity. Policymakers can use ethical systems to create more ideas of
inclusion and recognizing the contribution of immigrants while continuing social stability.
III. David Miller: Immigration and National Self-Determination
David Miller claims that the right of states to control immigration is justified on the basis
of national self-determination. This is the foundation on which citizens build to actively
participate in the destiny of their society. Immigration control allows such nations to retain their
cultural identity, maintain social cohesion and protect public resources (Miller, 2016).
Preservation of culture is necessary because it creates a sense of citizenship which held together
by values, traditions and languages. We should be particularly careful not to invite people in
who would exacerbate fragmentation along ethno-cultural lines, because fragmentation is the
chief enemy of cohesive national unity. Social cohesion enhances trust and cooperation, which
make democratic governance more effective. This way, authoritarian migration policies in any
part of the world could allow for social tension to arise through the clash of otherwise diverse
cultural norms with pre-existing societal practices (Kukathas, 2017). In the absence of such
limits, rapid demographic changes can shatter social cohesion, producing scores of alienated and
resentful native citizens and newcomers alike. Nations must balance the need for humane
9
immigration policies with the essential moral imperative to prioritize the well-being of their
citizens (Miller, 2023). States can preserve their cultural identity and assume their moral
obligations with that equilibrium. In the end, Miller’s argument casts immigration control as a
legitimate expression of democratic self-rule that upholds both the integrity of national identity
and social order.
According to Miller (2020), immigration is a complex issue affecting national identity,
social integration, and public trust. Shared cultural values that create a sense of belonging in a
nation are important to our collective identity. As Miller (2020) explains, as counties undergo
high rates of immigration, this identity can be tested through new beliefs and customs that may
not cohere with traditional social networks. In fact, this cultural diversity makes social
integration more difficult, preventing immigrants from being full participants in society.
Successful integration is a process that involves both sides adapting to one another, but too great
diversity is detrimental to the formation of common societal ties. If citizens feel that immigration
poses a threat to social cohesion, public trust may well also erode (Ip, 2023). Rapid demographic
change can sow uncertainty and lead to resentments fester and social tensions rise. Furthermore,
Immigrants constantly challenge the economy, lowering wage rates for low-skilled native
workers and thus the native citizens gain less (Miller, 2023). Such pressures can raise
competition in labor markets, especially in low-wage industries, producing economic
insecurities. While immigration can promote economic growth and cultural exchange, excessive
immigration can lead to social tensions and strain public resources. The same goes for Miller’s
wider point that national self-determination presupposes social cohesion and economic well-
being.
10
Miller argues that human beings should be treated humanely by their fellow humans,
drawing a clear line between a state’s moral obligation to help migrants and refugees and a
state’s general responsibility to provide for its own citizens. Hearings of the Refugee Attraction
act to eradicate locking refugees up and thus denies them help, as it violates basic human rights.
Miller (2023) states that it is the ethical duty of states to offer temporary protection until
refugees are able to return safely home. This is perhaps best understood as a corollary to the
principle of human dignity since human beings are obliged to alleviate suffering where we can.
Yet, according to Miller, states are not morally bound to provide permanent resettlement, since
this would undermine national self-determination. Economic migrants in search of better
opportunities fall into a different ethical category (Kukathas, 2017). Their migration is an act of
choice, unlike refugees fleeing immediate danger. State governments might restrict economic
immigration in order to best serve their citizens and preserve society. However, Miller argues
that rich countries have a moral responsibility to provide support for economic development in
poorer countries (Somin, 2020). If states address the factors driving migration, people will no
longer have to look for opportunities abroad. It combines humanitarian empathy and the need
for practical social stability and positions immigration policy within the framework of ethics and
national interest.
Border control protects state sovereignty, and thus is arguably the first promise of
national self-determination. A state’s sovereign authority over its borders is a manifestation of
its right to control who has permission to enter and live in that state’s territory. Miller (2016)
states that this control enables countries to safeguard their cultural identity, social cohesion, and
economic stability States could lose their demographic composition as crucial laws to enforce
immigration are inadequate, which could jeopardize their collective identity. Border
11
enforcement helps to ensure that immigration occurs through legally established pathways,
increasing equity and transparency. Proper border management also avoids the overburdening of
public resources and ensures social services are ring fenced for citizens (Ip, 2023) Illegal
immigration erases the legal pathways and promotes social and economic chaos that leads to a
lack of faith in government. Deportation and detention "are legitimate, and even necessary, tools
enforcement mechanisms when they are used in a fair and humane way," Miller writes (Miller,
2020). This is to keep unauthorized entry out and help uphold the rule that legal regulations are
enforced for the effective maintenance of social order. While these measures seem tough, they
are intended to ensure the wider purpose of maintaining the national self govern herself. Hence,
border control is as much a practical necessity as a moral right that enables states to account for
humanitarian considerations while discharging their responsibility to safeguard their citizens’
well-being.
Miller’s approach to immigration control has ethical and practical critiques. Immigration
limits in the service of national identity, however, raise issues of moral equality. According to
Kollar (2017), strict limits on immigration unjustifiably favor the interests of citizens over
outsiders, failing to comply with the principle of equal moral worth. Critics argue that cultural
preservation is no justification for denying people the opportunity to improve their lives by
moving. Furthermore, restricting immigration can entrench divisions by reinforcing myths and
stereotypes, undermining instead of preserving social cohesion. There is also practicality
against strict immigration policies (Ip, 2023). Most of them are just passed under pressure, which
may violate the human rights of the people involved (unless humane conditions of detention
have been retained). Immigration constraints impede economic development by reducing the
workforce, especially in industries that rely on migrant labor (Miller, 2023). The critics argue
12
that a policy of inclusion, integrating diverse communities, is more effective than restricting
immigration. Cohesive societies based on mutual understanding and respect can foster cultural
diversity. Cumulative work on these critiques illuminate the shifting calculus of national self-
determination balanced against ethical duties we owe both to immigrants and to citizens, and
how this might inform what would constitute just and practical immigration policy.
Strict immigration limits raise a number of ethical and practical issues that cast doubt on
their justification. This creates ethical dilemmas about global justice and the intersection of
interest and national identity, both of which are critical to live and let live, Mukesh is still way
better than (Somin, 2020). Restricting immigration denies individuals the opportunity to escape
poverty and improve their standard of living, perpetuating global inequality.) This is morally
wrong, because all people, regardless of where we are born, should have equal access.
Additionally, limiting immigration can lead to social divides, as such policies may contribute to
xenophobia and discrimination. Another reality check comes when attempting to balance the
actual enforcement of tight immigration controls (Miller, 2020). Deportations and detentions can
constitute violations of human rights, particularly when enforcement measures are severe or
arbitrary. According to Kukathas (2017), immigration caps can also raise labor costs and lower
productivity due to a tighter supply of labor, harming both businesses and consumers. Imposing
strict enforceable limits, they argue, is less sustainable than promoting social integration through
inclusive social policy. This helps to preserve social cohesion, but also allows for the positive
effects of cultural diversity. However, these challenges come during a time that highlights the
need for such immigration policies to balance the national interests of a country with its global
ethical responsibilities.
13
Poverty relief and moral equality undercut Miller’s case for tight immigration limits. But
the right to national self-determination, the idea that states can prioritize the well-being of their
own citizens, is complicated by the ethical implications of excluding people seeking better
opportunities. Such restrictions on immigration deprive individuals of their opportunity to rise
out of poverty, perpetuating ongoing global poverty (Kollar, 2017). This fall into conflict with
principle of moral equality which states that all men should have equal opportunity, regardless of
where in the world they are born. Critics argue that rich countries have a responsibility to
alleviate poverty around the world, through foreign aid as well as through a more
accommodating immigration policy. Restrictive immigration policies can also depress
economic growth, thus reducing the ability of a nation to support both citizens and immigrants
(Somin, 2020). Countries which open their doors to skilled and unskilled workers, therefore
allow an increase in productivity, innovation and social welfare. Unlimited immigration lowers
standard of living and undermines social cohesion, argues Miller (2016), and that making people
culturally different from the majority would make it difficult to maintain a stable and prosperous
society. Kollar (2017) assert that the challenge is to balance national self-determination and
rights with ethical global responsibility, through policies that foster social stability and
economic opportunity. In this light, immigration restrictions ought to be calibrated to protect
national interests without impeding efforts to alleviate global poverty and honor the norm of
moral equality.
IV. Chandran Kukathas: The Case for Open Immigration
Chandran Kukathas argues that people have a basic moral claim to cross borders freely.
This right is grounded in personal autonomy since the freedom to pursue better opportunities
and improve one’s life. Limiting immigration violates this sovereignty, curtailing a person’s
14
freedom to determine where to live and work. Freedom of movement is critical for personal
development, as it allows people to flee poverty, persecution and social constraints (Van der
Vossen, 2015). Restrictions on immigration thus violate a fundamental human right, the right of
people to pursue their well-being. In addition, open borders promote the cross-fertilization of
cultures that benefits both the economy and society (Miller, 2016). Open migration creates
diverse communities that spark creativity and mutual understanding; tearing down walls not only
helps ideas to cross borders but people as well, changing the lens in which we view the world. In
contrast, restrictive immigration policies represent roadblocks that shut down nations and slow
social progress (Menge, 2024). Freedom of movement is in harmony with the principles of
global justice, which feature the ethical responsibility to solve inequalities between countries. So
this is what Kukathas’ argument still highlights that there is the need to respect individual
independence and the social and economic benefits of open immigration.
Kukathas exposes the generally morally illegitimate nature of border control and its
frequent resulting human rights violations. Immigration enforcement includes deportation,
detention and surveillance practices that can cause psychological and physical suffering. These
measures often apply to marginalized groups, feeding harsh living conditions and stigmatization.
Sundman (2019) notes that most immigration detention facilities do not comply with minimum
humanitarian standards and experience overcrowding, malnutrition and inadequate healthcare,
excessive use of restraining and prolonged confinement. These conditions are in violation of
universal human rights and dehumanize those who are being held without charges. The lives of
other individuals are upended even further when deportation separates them from families and
forces them to leave their communities behind (Spring, 2018). Additionally, border control
disproportionately targets marginalized populations, reinforcing structures of social inequality
15
and perpetuating systemic oppression. The colonial basis of immigration controls, which
historically were used to preserve social and economic hierarchies, is highlighted by Menge
(2024). Modern border regimes continue doing so by restricting movement which inevitably
privileges certain populations and excludes others. Such practices, argues Kukathas, are contrary
to concepts of justice and fairness because individuals are unable to leave situations of poverty
and violence. So opposing border enforcement serves the larger goal of advancing human rights
and social equity.
Open immigration should be embraced as it will drive labor markets, bolster economies,
and better facilitate diversity in our society. The aforementioned sectors allow immigrants to take
part in the workforce by bridging labor shortages, be it in skilled or unskilled positions. Aside
from being the largest source of employment in the country, they are also considered the
influential party. Immigration is the fuel of the consumer demand and sustenance of local
businesses, driving the creation of jobs and expanding the field of the economy. Van der Vossen
(2015) says diverse workforces enhance creativity and problem-solving by uniting people with
different perspectives and experiences. In addition to economic benefits, open immigration leads
to cultural enrichment, where immigrants bring diversity in languages, traditions and art forms
that add to the social fabric. Also, multicultural societies are also more adaptable to global
challenges, as they have access to a more extensive array of skills and knowledge (Lepoutre,
2016). On the other hand, some claim immigration might lead to social tensions, but studies
have shown that diverse societies tend to be more resilient and innovative. So not only does open
immigration lead to greater economic output, it also makes societies richer, in every sense of the
word, by promoting cross cultural exchanges and social integration.
16
Kukathas appeals to the moral duty of rich countries to help people from poor and
conflict-ravaged countries. For global justice, one must tackle the structural inequalities that
drive people to migrate to secure safety and opportunity. These inequalities are compounded by
restrictive immigration and asylum policies in states that serve as the destination for many
people fleeing poverty. Immigrants typically send remittances, and this is a tool that relieves
global poverty. Wealthy countries could ease poverty and raise global living standards simply
by letting people move around. Moreover, free immigration serves as a haven for those escaping
persecution, violence, and ecological catastrophes (Spring, 2018). This is a blatant one of
International principles of humanitarianism, which aims at the relief of suffering cutting across
national boundaries. Reiterating previous work (Menge, 2024), they say limiting immigration
upholds past injustices based in colonialism and exploitation that create and deepen inequity at a
global scale. Therefore, to promote justice and human flourishing, people should be able to move
freely. Human beings have a moral duty as wealthy countries to open up our borders, but it is
also likely to provide economic and social evidence to both migrants and to those who find
themselves in host societies.
Advocates of open immigration argue that it challenges social integration, cultural
differences and the demand on public services. It can be difficult to integrate large numbers of
immigrants into a society, especially when language and cultural differences isolate immigrant
communities and prevent communication and social cohesion. If rapid demographic changes lead
to perceptions of immigrant and native-born citizen clashes in culture (Sundman 2019), tensions
will occur if differences in culture and values are seen as a threat to national identity.
Immigrants and refugees may suffer from discrimination and social exclusion which impairs
their abilities to integrate into and participate fully in society. There are also economic concerns
17
that immigration can place a strain on public services, such as healthcare, education, and
housing. The burden may create stress on government budgets, and lead to a shortage of services
for domestic citizens (Van der Vossen, 2015) Additionally, there are concerns that open
immigration might compromise national security by enabling malicious enemies to gain entry
into a country. Kukathas also acknowledges the potential challenges of multiculturalism
(Kukathas, 2010), but asserts that they can be addressed through the implementation of inclusive
policies that encourage social cohesion (Miller, 2016). This can allow them to benefit from the
rich tapestry of cultural diversity, as well as economic growth, while avoiding the potential
tensions that may arise from the presence of immigrants.
Social order and public safety is another concern with open immigration. Movements
across borders will be more difficult to monitor, and crime rates could soar, critics argue. Miller
(2018) asserts that uncontrolled immigration can allow criminal organizations to exploit gaps in
legislation, thus aiding in human trafficking and drug smuggling. Moreover, fast population
growth puts a pressure on infrastructure that causes overcrowded cities and increasing
competition for homes and employment. These pressures may lead to social tensions, especially
if native-born citizens view immigrants as economic competitors (Spring, 2018). In addition,
due to cultural variances, clashes over social practices and principles may arise, creating
challenges for the upkeep of social harmony. Nevertheless, Kukathas argues that social order in
fact does not have a natural enemy in open immigration (Menge, 2024). And societies with
inclusive policies and strong social institutions can integrate diverse populations without
compromising public safety. Implementing policies that mitigate the socio-economic roots of
animosity will help in promoting a sense of belonging not just to immigrants but also to native
18
citizens. The associated difficulties of open migration can be mitigated by proper governance
and the provision of social support systems.
Though the case for open immigration is strong, this model will only succeed if both
ethical and practical hurdles are effectively addressed. Integration into the wider society has also
emerged as a key area of concern with social obligations often taking a back seat to economic
participation, with different ethnic groups settling in different locations and cultural differences
often preventing full engagement with the community. Fostering mutual understanding and
respect is a critical component of promoting social cohesion in diverse societies (Van der
Vossen 2015). Funding for public services must be adequate, accessible to immigrants, and
native citizens, should not result to competition for scarce resources (Sundman, 2019).
Governments also have to consider national security and take measures to protect us from
criminal activity. Nevertheless, these measures must not violate the people’s rights or create
unequal mobility (Lepoutre, 2016). Kukathas argues that the benefits of open immigration, such
as economic growth, cultural enrichment, and less global inequality, eclipse such challenges.
Through the development of inclusive policies and investing in social infrastructure, nations can
foster a society which is prosperous for citizens both foreign and local. Therefore, open
immigration is both morally and economically defensible and embodies the values of personal
freedom, social equality, and global equity.
V. Comparative Analysis: National Limits vs. Open Borders
Miller and Kukathas approach the perspectives on national self-determination and
individual liberty from opposite angles. National communities have the right to restrict
immigration so that they can maintain social cohesion (Miller, 2023). He argues that states must
put their citizens’ interests first, but also respect immigrants’ basic rights. This view is stage
19
with social contract theory, which stresses mutual obligations between the state and its
constituents. By contrast, Kukathas (2024) contends that the freedom of movement is core to
individual liberty. He poses the legitimacy of border measures limiting personal freedom.
Kukathas stance emphasises the moral personhood of the individual above all else, a position
that Andrew (2024) has noted. These ideas of shared identity and preserving culture are
thoroughly emphasized by Miller but Kukathas counters this argument by telling us to leave
these ideas of culture and identity, to make a global framework where we can respect human
mobility. This is regarded as an ethical dilemma between sovereignty and individual rights
within the country. These values are on the opposite sides of the spectrum and have now come to
define the contemporary immigration discourses. They also relate to discussions on justice,
freedom and belonging a more so in the contemporary society where boundaries of countries are
diminishing.
The diverging reactions on border enforcement are rooted in opposing ethical
frameworks. States are obliged to enforce borders to ensure social stability, but they must do so
in a way that respects the dignity of immigrants (Miller, 2023). He argues that border control is
one of the building blocks of protecting citizens’ welfare and social stability. Kukathas (2024),
however, argues that border enforcement frequently undermines foundational freedoms by
limiting the ability of individuals to pursue better opportunities. According to their work
Donnan and Wilson (2021), rigid borderlines can ultimately bifurcate society, compromising the
values of human rights and cross-cultual ties. Kukathas finds these restrictions morally
concerning, in that they violate individual freedom with inadequate grounds. So on the one
hand Miller thinks immigration can be morally permissible if it does not lead to social disruption.
Addressing the full range of these moral considerations, Diener and Hagen (2024) emphasize the
20
dynamic tension that emerges when national security needs are placed in conflict with
humanitarian responsibilities in the context of ongoing border enforcement (Moreau 2020).
Miller favours limited immigration, to protect social cohesion; Kukathas prefers less
bureaucracy, for the sake of human freedom, which he considers a moral imperative.
The debates over limited and open immigration systems are driven by their potential
economic and social impact. According to Miller (2023), regulated immigration allows for
economic boost without placing strain on public services. He argues that open immigration can
lead to wage competition, perpetuating inequality and social friction. As per Kukathas (2024), he
stresses the economic advantages of immigration, such as labor force expansion and diversity.
Open borders to address labor shortages and promote innovation contribute to long term
economic prosperity (Bauder, 2012). In this context, Newman (2016) determined that fears of
resource competition among the public drive restrictive immigration policy decisions. Socially,
he contends, uncontrolled immigration can rip through the fabric of cultural cohesion, diluting
national identity. Kukathas makes the case that such diversity can better withstand competition
and stimulate creativity and dynamism. The open immigration promotes social integration
through cross-cultural understanding (Basik, 2013). Miller is focused on national welfare
whereas Kukathas has inclusive policies that maximize both economic and social benefits. The
testimonies reveal understanding of ongoing disputes which face governments as they work to
harmonize economic expansion with societal unity through migration laws.
Miller and Kukathas also disagree on humanitarian obligations and the protection of
refugees. Miller (2023) recognizes that states have moral responsibilities to help refugees facing
persecution, but that these obligations are constrained by national interests. While humanitarian
assistance is important, he contends, if states open their doors too wide, societies is likely to be
21
torn apart. By contrast, Kukathas (2024) argues that respecting human dignity obliges more
liberal refugee policies. According to Jones (2019), "States are using restrictive borders to create
a spectrum of migration routes for those traversing them, violating their basic rights" (p. 3).
Kukathas sees that as indefensible, morally speaking, and believes people should have the right
to escape persecution and seek a better life. According to Lenard (2010), open immigration
systems can promote social justice through the minimization of global inequalities. But Miller
argues that prioritizing refugees should not come at the expense of citizens’ welfare. In a similar
vein, Donnan and Wilson (2021) point to the ethical problem of balancing compassion with
national security. Miller endorses selective refugee admission for the sake of social stability,
whereas Kukathas promotes a more inclusive approach based on universal human rights.
Possible trade-offs between national boundaries and free borders would reconcile long-
term collective rights with individual rights. The focus on social cohesion suggests to Miller that
immigration must be regulated so as not to disrupt society. But Kukathas’ emphasis on
individual freedom suggests the importance of limiting unjustified constraints. Flexible
immigration systems are a proposal by Newman (2016), who suggests a way to change quotas
according to economic demand, such as labor market needs and social integration. From this
perspective, a way of approaching the skills gap is to implement temporary work permits, a
suggestion made by Bauder (2012), which, in this context, could serve as a compromise,
allowing people to search for a job, but preventing their permanent settlement in the nation.
Diener and Hagen (2024) argue for regional mobility zones that allow for cross-border
movement without sacrificing national sovereignty. Such solutions might allay Miller’s concerns
about social cohesion without infringing on Kukathas’ insistence on human freedom. Inclusive
citizenship policies that encourage long-term integration Scholars have pointed out that
22
citizenship policies strongly affect immigrant integration (Lenard, 2010). Thus, they need to
reconcile both of the views in the creation of ethical immigration policies that prioritize national
wellbeing and ensure that individuals are afforded the opportunity to seek a better life in new
territories.
VI. Contemporary Case Studies
Practical Applications of Immigration Theories
Nowhere is this conflict better illustrated than in the United States. Tight immigration
restrictions serve the dual purposes of national security and economic steadiness. But those
measures frequently run counter to humanitarian commitments. Based on such evidence, Sager
(2016) suggests that restrictive policies can push immigrants to the sidelines by limiting their
social mobility. With the U.S. refugee system, aimed at providing safe haven, receiving scrutiny
for slow processing and capped admission quotas. According to O’Reilly (2022), “Border
enforcement (i.e., physical barriers, surveillance, etc.) is recoiling gaining traction under the
broader trend of securitizing migration.” This mode can form social bifurcations, shattering the
warmth of a society. Ehrenberg, Smith and Hallock (2021) note that there are economic
arguments against unauthorized immigration, such as wage suppression and greater competition
for low-skilled jobs. Immigrants continuously expand the labor force by taking up essential
positions in both healthcare and agricultural sectors alongside other industries. Comprehensive
policies need to balance security with integration and address their economic and humanitarian
dimensions. Finding this balance is key to creating tolerant societies, while allowing for national
self-determination.
The European Union provides an example of tensions between the free movement of
people within a bloc and restrictions on people at its outside borders. It allows you to work,
23
study and live in any one of the 27 EU member states. But open as they may be, restrictive
policies on non-EU immigrants demonstrate the limits of such openness. My Espon study also
focuses on internal mobility because internal mobility is a reversible process and therefore the
most "interesting" type of migration to be analyzed from the point of view of its impacts on the
sending regions. However, external border control, carried out by agencies such as Frontex, is
supposed to stop unauthorized migration. Such measures, which tend to prioritize security over
humanitarian consideration, complicate the asylum process (O’Reilly, 2022). According to
Natter (2018), this puts the EU at an ethical crossroads, keeping borders open to (wealthy)
individuals from other European countries and controlling access to (poorer) nations in the
Global South. This kind of a selective strategy has found its way in the global discourse on how
nations ought to balance their national priorities with international responsibilities. Policy
harmonization related to migration at the member state level could also be useful given its
positive impacts on economic benefits and social inclusion. But rival national interests have
continued to be a hurdle, lubricating the workings of a more exclusive system inside the EU.
In Australia, strict immigration practices show a greater value placed on national self-
determination than on open borders. Offshore detention centers, in places such as Nauru and
Papua New Guinea, are designed to discourage unauthorized arrivals by preventing asylum
seekers from reaching mainland Australia. These policies lean towards a securitized approach to
migration, which prioritize border control because they view migration as a threat to a country's
sovereignty (Collins, 2022). O’Reilly (2022) contends that offshore detention raises serious
ethical issues, with prolonged detention producing stress and social isolation. Mental health
effects of indefinite detention can take the form of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress
disorder. Berzoff, Flanagan, and Hertz (2021) note that these measures are aimed at deterring
24
irregular migration, but they have also been controversial, calling into question Australia’s
humanitarian obligations under international law. As Sager (2016) states that restrictive policies
can reduce social cohesion by stressing negative perceptions regarding immigrants Facebook
Twitter. The resolution of this moral issue demands policies which block unlawful entrance
points while maintaining respect for border-crossers' dignity. These security measures should
protect the physical needs of security while respecting basic human rights.
Canada’s immigration system is an example of how open policies have fostered
multicultural integration alongside positive economic outcomes. Unlike many countries that take
a restrictive approach to immigration, Canada emphasizes skilled immigration, family
reunification and refugee resettlement. The function of the skilled immigrant in the labor market
Ministry of Manpower (MOM, 2019), collaboration with the BCG said that skilled migrants
contribute to innovation within labor market, accounting for workforce shortages in many
sectors, including healthcare and technology (Ehrenberg, Smith & Hallock, 2021). O’Reilly
(2022) notes that inclusive policies promote social integration by increasing cultural diversity
and decreasing discrimination. Unlike border-control countries, Canada’s emphasis on long-
term settlement means that immigrants play a role in economic, and social, life. Supportive
services are crucial for immigrant well-being (Berzoff, Flanagan, & Hertz, 2021), including
language training and employment assistance. This is in line with theories that argue that open
borders would benefit both people and the societies that host them. Hitherto, integration
outcomes in certain regions are much worse than in others, and there are public concerns about
social cohesion. Through policies that offset economic realities with humanitarian
responsibilities, Canada provides a template for developing national wealth while including all
people.
25
VII. Conclusion
Similar to refugees, the moral and political aspects of immigration debates show the
frictions between the concepts of national sovereignty, economic stability, and human rights.
While nations are entitled to manage their borders and defend their citizenry, it must be done in a
manner that is aligned with the fundamental moral imperative to uphold human dignity and
freedom. Immigration policies are often restrictive, crimping the basic right to seek safety and
opportunity and curtailing a person's agency. Reichel (2019) notes that when human rights
abuses occur as part of border enforcement, they undermine international human rights
standards. The socioeconomic practices create excessive disadvantages among targeted
population groups thus intensifying worldwide inequality and societal segregation. Immigration
analysis fails to consider its lasting advantages which include labor market development together
with cultural progress and creative advances (Woolcock, 2022). Immigration supports social
resilience and adaptability by building diverse, multicultural communities. Nonetheless, from a
social cohesion perspective, harnessing these benefits needs to be accompanied by policies that
support not only immigrants but also the recipients of these immigrants. As per Woocok (2022),
for immigrants to thrive, they must be granted access to education, healthcare, and employment
opportunities, which helps prevent social tensions and allows immigrant cultural and economic
contributions to flourish. This should mean that the perverted incentive of individual freedom
through economic precaution must correspond with some action on the dispositional level, as
first-hand experience of an ethical question.
Immigration policy is a difficult issue that touches on identity, freedom and social
justice. National identity not only plays an important role in political decision-making and social
cohesion, but also has great impact on public opinions towards migration (Dempsey et al 2020;
26
Richard et al 2018). Bridges of inclusionary policies that allow for mutual understanding and
respect are needed in order to mitigate the tensions that exist between cultures. However, liberal
nationalism is a delicate balancing act between cultural diversity and common bonds that
maintain a sense of belonging without excluding newcomers (Çiçek, 2024). This is a guide to
integration, not assimilation: immigrants can (and do) integrate into society while still retaining
their cultural identities. This means that individual liberty is at stake in the defense of the rights
of immigrants, including the freedom to move and be free of discrimination (Favell, 2022). But
reconciling these perspectives poses a challenge, particularly in environments where economic
considerations and security risks contribute to anti-immigration sentiments. This narrative
situates immigration in the context of a social order where it occurs, diminishing the positives
while perpetuating xenophobic sentiments (Reichel, 2019). Policymakers can deter these
narratives by reinterpreting support, focusing on the contributions of immigrants in spurring
economic growth, cultural innovation and social resilience. In short, societies can mediate the
tensions inherent in a national culture with a patriotic one by fostering the consideration of
others' differences and constructive conversations that yields communities receptive to each
other's diversity.
The systems of global economic governance profoundly influence the dynamics of
immigration, and the social and economic ramifications of immigrating. Economic inequalities
across countries provoke immigration, as people search for better opportunities and escape in
poverty and conflict. Resolving these underlying issues will need international collaboration to
foster sustainable economic growth, diminish inequality and aid precarious groups. "Leal-Arcas
(2025) says that trade, sustainability and social justice need to be balanced to achieve a fair
global economy that minimizes the incentive for the involuntary movement of people." If we
27
look at it at the national level, immigration helps drive the economy at home by filling a labor
shortage, helping drive innovation, and provide taxation and support to public services. The
integration of immigrants into the workforce also demands policies that guarantee a fair wage,
prevent the exploitation of immigrants, and provide access to social benefits (Woolcock, 2022).
It becoming easier to administration of economic stability, social justice, the needs of the host
community and immigrants. When people support better communication between different
border populations it reduces social tension which leads to better social cohesion and enables
immigration advantages. Woolcock (2022) conclude that harmonizing immigration policies with
systems of economic viability and social justice is vital for establishing inclusive and thriving
societies.
Immigration policy must then balance the needs of the individual with those of social
cohesion, integrating immigrants while protecting the national polity. This balance remains
elusive, requiring comprehensive approaches that create bridges, protect rights, and foster
economic opportunity. Access to education, employment, and healthcare for immigrants is
crucial to promoting social cohesion, reducing inequalities, and preventing marginalization
(Favell, 2022). Policies also need to stress cultural inclusivity and intercultural dialogue so that
there can be respect and understanding of the cultural ways of immigrants by native citizens.
Security concerns must be tackled through fair and transparent measures that respect human
rights, prioritizing public safety while avoiding any propensity towards discrimination or
exclusion (Wibisono, 2024). International coordination is critical as well since migration flows
span across continents and are determined by economic disparities, political instability, and
environmental change. Multiple agencies working together can reduce forced migration since
this global stability issue demands solutions which respect the human right to migrate for
28
improved opportunities. And when national policies are rooted in justice, equity and human
dignity, societies help build the conditions in which both immigrants and host societies flourish,
refusing to allow immigration to be a wedge that divides but enabling pro-immigrant policies to
be a force for social and economic progress.
29
References
Andrew, E. (2024). Immigration and Freedom: by Chandran Kukathas, Princeton, NJ, Princeton
University Press, 2021, xvi+ 364 pp., $35.00 (cloth), ISBN no: 9780691189680.
Arango, J. (2017). Theories of international migration. In International migration in the new
millennium (pp. 25-45). Routledge.
Balch, A., & Balabanova, E. (2016). Ethics, politics and migration: Public debates on the free
movement of Romanians and Bulgarians in the UK, 2006–2013. Politics, 36(1), 19-35.
Banks, C. (2018). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
Basik, N. (2013). Open minds on open borders. Journal of International Migration and
Integration, 14, 401-417.
Bauder, H. (2012). The possibilities of open and no borders. Social Justice, 76-96.
Berzoff, J., Flanagan, L. M., & Hertz, P. (Eds.). (2021). Inside out and outside in:
Psychodynamic clinical theory and psychopathology in contemporary multicultural
contexts. Rowman & Littlefield.
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of
symbolic interactionism. Current sociology, 64(6), 931-961.
Çiçek, A. (2024). Balancing Identity and Liberty: A Comprehensive Analysis of Liberal
Nationalism. Milliyetçilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 237-270.
Collins, A. (Ed.). (2022). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
De Genova, N., Mezzadra, S., & Pickles, J. (2015). New keywords: Migration and
borders. Cultural studies, 29(1), 55-87.
Diener, A. C., & Hagen, J. (2024). Borders: A very short introduction (Vol. 328). Oxford
University Press.
30
Donnan, H., & Wilson, T. M. (2021). Borders: Frontiers of identity, nation and state. Routledge.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Smith, R. S., & Hallock, K. F. (2021). Modern labor economics: Theory and
public policy. Routledge.
Favell, A. (2015). Immigration, integration and mobility: New agendas in migration studies,
essays 1998–2014. Ecpr Press.
Favell, A. (2022). The integration nation: Immigration and colonial power in liberal
democracies. John Wiley & Sons.
Foner, N., & Simon, P. (Eds.). (2015). Fear, anxiety, and national identity: Immigration and
belonging in North America and Western Europe. Russell Sage Foundation.
Hultgren, J. (2015). Border walls gone green: nature and anti-immigrant politics in America. U
of Minnesota Press.
Ip, K. (2023). Self-determination and immigration control*: A critique. In Can Human Rights
and National Sovereignty Coexist? (pp. 54-72). Routledge.
Jones, R. (Ed.). (2019). Open borders: In defense of free movement. University of Georgia Press
Kollar, E. (2017). Global equality of opportunity and self-determination in the context of
immigration. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(6),
726-735.
Kukathas, C. (2012). Why open borders?. Ethical Perspectives, 19(4), 649-675.
Kukathas, C. (2017). On David Miller on immigration control. Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy, 20(6), 712-718.
Kukathas, C. (2021). Immigration and freedom. Princeton University Press.
Kukathas, C. (2024). Immigration and liberal freedom. In Research Handbook on
Liberalism (pp. 210-224). Edward Elgar Publishing.
31
Leal-Arcas, R. (2025). The Future of Global Economic Governance: Balancing Trade,
Sustainability, and Social Justice. Sustainability, and Social Justice (February 16, 2025).
Lenard, P. T. (2010). Culture, free movement, and open borders. The Review of politics, 72(4),
627-652.
Lepoutre, M. (2016). Immigration controls: Why the self-determination argument is self-
defeating. Journal of Social Philosophy, 47(3).
Macedo, S. (2023). Immigration and Freedom, by Chandran Kukathas.
Menge, T. (2024). Colonial Genealogies of Immigration Controls, Self-Determination, and the
Nation-State. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 27(5),
859-875.
Miller, D. (2016). Neo-Kantian theories of self-determination: a critique. Review of International
Studies, 42(5), 858-875.
Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration. Harvard
University Press.
Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration. Harvard
University Press.
Miller, D. (2018). Selecting immigrants.
Miller, D. (2020). Is self-determination a dangerous illusion?. John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, D. (2022). What Kant might have said about immigration: an alternative view. Studi
Kantiani: XXXV, 2022, 177-186.
Miller, D. (2023). Kant, the Nation-State, and Immigration. Kantian Review, 1-17.
Natter, K. (2018). Rethinking immigration policy theory beyond ‘Western liberal
democracies’. Comparative migration studies, 6(1), 4.
32
Newman, D. (2016). Contemporary research agendas in border studies: An overview. The
Routledge Research Companion to Border Studies, 55-70.
O’reilly, K. (2022). Migration theories: A critical overview. Routledge handbook of immigration
and refugee studies, 3-12.
Parekh, S. (2018). Book Review: Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of
Immigration, by David Miller.
Reichel, E. (2019). Navigating between Refugee Protection and State Sovereignty. International
Organizations Under Pressure: Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times,
195-231.
Rheindorf, M., & Wodak, R. (2018). Borders, fences, and limits—Protecting Austria from
refugees: Metadiscursive negotiation of meaning in the current refugee crisis. Journal of
Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(1-2), 15-38.
Rubin, R. E., & Rubin, R. G. (2020). Foundations of library and information science. American
Library Association.
Sager, A. (2016). Methodological nationalism, migration and political theory. Political
studies, 64(1), 42-59.
Somin, I. (2020). Migration and Self-Determination. Geo. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 18, 805.
Song, S. (2018). Immigration and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Spickard, P., Beltrán, F., & Hooton, L. (2022). Almost all aliens: Immigration, race, and
colonialism in American history and identity. Routledge.
Spring, J. (2018). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration: David Miller
Harvard University Press, 2016, 218pp., ISBN: 9780674088900.
Sundman, H. (2019). David Miller's Theory of Immigration: A Realist Critique.
33
Swain, C. M. (Ed.). (2018). Debating immigration. Cambridge University Press.
Van der Vossen, B. (2015). Immigration and self-determination. Politics, Philosophy &
Economics, 14(3), 270-290.
Wibisono, R. B. (2024). Migration, Security, and Human Rights: The Struggle for Refugee
Protection. The Sunan Ampel Review of Political and Social Sciences, 4(1), 61-82.
Wolff, J. (2019). Ethics and public policy: a philosophical inquiry. Routledge.
Woolcock, M. (2022). International development: navigating humanity's greatest challenge.
John Wiley & Sons.
