ABSTRACT
There are limits on how expansive the right to exclude migrants is. In particular, it might not extend to the exclusion of people who would face imminent severe harm if one prevented them from crossing the border. Nonetheless, the many persons the state may permissibly exclude can be excluded for any reason whatsoever, including racial and religious reasons. A permissible action does not become impermissible only because the underlying reasons are dubious or reflect badly on your character. A particularly good reason for exclusion, however, is the goal to safeguard one’s own liberal-democratic institutions, culture, and the safety and liberal way of life of one’s citizens against threats posed by migrants. Terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg. There are also threats in terms of compromising liberal values like freedom of speech, academic freedom, the teaching of critical thinking in school, gender equality, the protection of children from abuse, and ordinary crime. While “multiculturalism” tends to ignore such threats, they are real and often pervasive. Thus, citizens of liberal-democratic states have reason to value a liberal culture over incompatible others and to act accordingly when designing policies of admission and integration and, indeed, exclusion.
