ABSTRACT
Across the world, large numbers of people who wish to move to another country are prevented or deterred from doing so by immigration controls, and many have moved or attempted to move despite such controls. To what extent should states have a right to exclude would-be immigrants from taking up residence (rather than merely from entering, e.g., as tourists)? Is the widely accepted belief that states have an expansive right to exclude would-be immigrants from settling1
morally justifiable? In this chapter, we will explore four arguments in favour of the right to exclude: the freedom of association argument, the liberal nationalist argument, the Kantian argument and the special obligations argument. Our aim will be neither to provide a comprehensive survey of possible arguments for the right to exclude (there are, obviously, many more than four) nor a conclusive argument for or against any one of them. Rather, our aim is to canvass four of the arguments that we believe carry the most promise for establishing the right, and try to articulate their main strengths and weaknesses. Along the way, we will also make several distinctions that we believe require more attention than they have so far received, and that should help in bringing to light the main hurdles facing any argument for the right to exclude.
