ABSTRACT
A popular argument for open borders claims that the same moral reasons supporting a legal right to free movement within state borders also support a right of free movement across state borders; it would be inconsistent to be committed to the former but not the latter. However, international law and human rights documents only grant those persons a right to freely move within state borders who are lawfully present in the state. Therefore, the argument can be turned around: the same reasons supporting a right to restrict the free internal movement of those illegally present within the borders of a state also apply to restricting illegal movement across borders. A second argument claims that our commitment to the right to exit a state cannot consistently be had without also granting a right to enter states. This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the rights involved. Open border theorists also fail to appreciate the difference between overriding a right and limiting it. Once this difference is understood, it becomes clear that freedom of movement can be restricted not only under extreme circumstances but also in quotidian ones. This opens the possibility for an argument for closed borders based on cultural preservation.
