ABSTRACT
The bad outcomes of open borders are so bad that they seem to outweigh the reasons in favor of open immigration. Necessity is also satisfied. There does not seem to be another way to prevent damage to political institutions and other bad consequences. This society just can’t adapt fast enough to offset the risks of immigration. Thus, immigration restrictions pass the lesser-evil test. Cosmopolitans think that there are strong moral reasons to refrain from interfering with the liberty of foreigners and that’s normally a decisive reason in favor of open borders. Yet both partialists and defenders of the self-determination account conclude that states should admit refugees and even some economic migrants. States still have duties to rescue foreigners in need. Immigration is unpopular. Overwhelming majorities oppose open borders and, in many countries, most citizens want less immigration than current levels.
