In my paper I make a case for why more countries ought to adopt reciprocal free movement of people policies. Looking at the EU as an example of successful implementation of reciprocal free movement of people policies, I establish a model for such an agreement between countries. I consider the American countries as an example of a region that could benefit from adopting a reciprocal free movement of people policy. For the ethical basis of the argument I look at the eight principles for free and democratic peoples – focusing on the first, sixth, and eighth principles – John Rawls sets out in his book The Law of Peoples (1999). I use his principles as the groundwork for establishing the rights of citizens of a country, the obligations a government has to those people, and how nations ought to interact with one another. Rawls uses an Egalitarian framework for establishing the eight principles of justice. Further using Joseph Carens' analysis in "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders" (1987) in which he applies Rawls' theory of the Original Position to a global scale to argue for open borders. Carens argues for completely open borders and states there is rarely a justifiable reason to restrict movement. While Carens' argument is more radical than what I'm arguing, it serves as a good base for the ethical case to remove restrictions to movement. My argument recognizes reasons why nations might want to maintain a degree of control over who enters their country and recognizes the practical obstacles to a country embracing open borders. A regionally based freedom of movement policy allows countries to recognize its citizens' right and the rights of citizens of member states to move freely while maintaining a level of national sovereignty by being selective about the countries they enter into an agreement with. I used American countries as a case study – granted a case could be made for many other countries to have such an agreement – because they resemble Europe around the time of adopting Article 45 in the level of market integration, shared identity and history, and on-going political tensions surrounding issues of immigration. The conversation of immigration shifts to one of free movement under a free movement of people policy. Immigration grants a person the full status of citizens, whereas, free movement grants a person a range of rights as a legal resident while still maintaining citizenship in their country of origin.

As European governments rapidly turn their attention to the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement, this thesis raises significant questions regarding refugees’ access to international protection. At its core, the agreement aims to address the flow of irregular migrants and asylum seekers traveling across the Mediterranean from Turkey to Greece, by allowing returns of “all irregular migrants”. The aim of this thesis has been to examine if these actions limit two fundamental refugee rights; the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. If so, are these restrictions legitimate according to Seyla Benhabib’s and Joseph Carens’ theory? These two theoreticians have been chosen because they problematize the conflicting view of state sovereignty in relation to refugees’ rights. This is significant when the state maintains border control and is responsible to prevent refugees from entering the state. This thesis shows that the EU-Turkey agreement is not compatible with the practical obligations of states under international law and the European Union asylum policy, simply because Turkey is not a safe third country for refugees to be sent back to. Thus, the actions within the agreement does restrict refugees’ right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. These restrictions cannot be considered legitimate, based on the thesis’ theoretical approach. To study the EU-Turkey agreement involves addressing one of the most urgent topics in international law and political theory, as well as providing normative grounds for future migration agreements between states.