This paper looks at the topic of immigration from a philosophical standpoint and concludes that an open border policy is morally obligatory. I first argue that immigration cannot act as a corrective to the problems of global poverty as many philosophers have suggested. I then look at two common defenses for restrictive borders, one resting on the cultural community and one on the political community, and conclude that these two defenses are inadequate. The fact that a restrictive policy is morally unjustifiable coupled with my argument that people ought to be able to enjoy a freedom of movement suggests that an open border policy is necessary.

This paper looks at the topic of immigration from a philosophical standpoint and concludes that an open border policy is morally obligatory. I first argue that immigration cannot act as a corrective to the problems of global poverty as many philosophers have suggested. I then look at two common defenses for restrictive borders, one resting on the cultural community and one on the political community, and conclude that these two defenses are inadequate. The fact that a restrictive policy is morally unjustifiable coupled with my argument that people ought to be able to enjoy a freedom of movement suggests that an open border policy is necessary.

During his presidential campaign and throughout his presidency Donald Trump’s dealings with illegal immigration have sparked global controversy. The election of Donald Trump has thus insinuated a debate within the academic field of International Relations and a reoccurring concept within said debate is populism. This thesis includes itself into said debate through considering the empirical case study of the Trump administration’s securitization of illegal immigration. More specifically, it investigates how Trump’s securitizing speech acts fuel populism in the US which challenges discourses of open borders and subsequently affects US-Mexico relations. The thesis analyzes polls to captivate the US’ general population as an audience and applies discourse analysis on speeches held by Donald Trump to grasp how the Trump administration’s securitization of illegal immigration fueled populism in the US. It studies the negative effects of the securitization on US-Mexico relations by examining the reactions of Mexican presidents, members of the Mexican Foreign Relations Department and members of the Mexican senate. It is found that Trump’s rhetoric employed throughout the securitization of illegal immigration fueled authoritarian populism and xenophobic populism in the US which captivates the negative sentiments of the predominantly conservative Republican voters towards illegal immigration. The employed rhetoric subsequently challenged discourses of open borders. The effects of said challenges had negative implications on US-Mexico relations as the investigations of the reactions of the Mexican presidents, the members of the Mexican Foreign Relations Department and the members of the Mexican senate have shown.

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.

Ce mémoire de maîtrise tente de répondre à deux questions interreliées : l’État a-t-il, d’un point de vue philosophique, un droit d’exclure et quelle est la réponse que l’État devrait donner, d’un point de vue moral, au phénomène migratoire? Pour ce faire, nous nous livrons à l’analyse critique du débat philosophique sur les frontières et l’immigration entre les défenseur.e.s du droit d’exclure de l’État et les tenant.e.s de l’ouverture des frontières. Adoptant une approche non idéale égalitariste libérale cosmopolitique et nous concentrant principalement sur la migration économique non qualifiée en provenance des pays pauvres et à destination des riches démocraties libérales dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, nous critiquons successivement les arguments sécuritaire, socio-économique et démocratique en faveur du droit d’exclure de l’État. De manière générale, nous visons à montrer que ces trois arguments exagèrent la menace que représente l’immigration pour la sécurité, l’ordre public, les emplois, les salaires, l’État-providence, la culture et l’autodétermination politique, et qu’ils n’accordent pas assez de poids aux intérêts des migrant.e.s en provenance de pays pauvres. Nous en concluons que l’État n’a pas, d’un point de vue philosophique, un droit d’exclure, et qu’il serait moralement préférable d’ouvrir davantage les frontières, tout en redéfinissant les pouvoirs et les responsabilités des États et des institutions internationales afin de permettre une gouvernance internationale multilatérale de la migration et de mieux répondre aux principaux problèmes qui amplifient le phénomène migratoire, c’est-à-dire les conflits armés, les inégalités socio-économiques criantes au niveau international et les changements climatiques. / This master’s thesis tries to answer two interrelated questions: does the state have, from a philosophical point of view, a right to exclude, and what is the answer the state should give, from a moral point of view, to the migratory phenomenon? To do this, we engage in a critical analysis of the philosophical debate on borders and immigration between the defenders of the state’s right to exclude and the defenders of open borders. Adopting a non-ideal cosmopolitan liberal egalitarian approach and focusing mainly on unskilled economic migration from poor countries to rich liberal democracies in today's world, we successively criticize the security, socio-economic and democratic arguments for the state’s right to exclude. In general, we aim to show that these three arguments exaggerate the threat of immigration for security, public order, jobs, wages, the welfare state, culture and political self-determination, and that they do not give enough weight to the interests of migrants from poor countries. We conclude that the state does not, from a philosophical point of view, have a right to exclude, and that it would be morally preferable to open the borders further, while redefining the powers and responsibilities of states and international institutions to enable an international multilateral governance of migration, and to better respond to the main problems that amplify the migratory phenomenon, i.e. armed conflicts, glaring global socio-economic inequalities, and climate change.