People have the right to live wherever they want
Cosmopolitan egalitarians argue that borders should stay open because people have the right to migrate to wherever they want. The desire to migrate and settle in a more prosperous country is a purely rational one. Open borders is a good response to the huge economic inequalities in the world.
<
(2 of 5)
Next argument >
The Argument
The cosmopolitan egalitarian argument for open borders rests on two related premises. The first is that all human beings—fellow countrymen and countrywomen as well as foreigners—are equally worthy of moral concern.[1] The second is twofold: If one is born in a prosperous country, then he will have many opportunities to prosper as an individual and lead a good life, but if one is born in a country already in turmoil or ruin, then his chances of prospering financially and leading a good life are slim.[1] One's country of birth does determine, to a significant extent, what one can expect to achieve in life.
Some people are born into prosperous countries with rewarding paths of education and work ahead of them, but others are born into unprosperous countries with no promising paths of learning or livelihood. For egalitarians, the former have done nothing whatsoever to earn their place in a prosperous country and the latter have done nothing whatsoever to earn their place in an unprosperous country.[1] The former are simply born into opportunity and sometimes affluence while the latter are simply born into hardship. The former are fortunate while the latter are unfortunate.
Cosmopolitan egalitarians object to this massive international inequality. The average Swede, they maintain, only has a better life than the average Chadian because he was born in a flourishing environment; only because of luck does he enjoy a comfortable life.[1] So what grounds can the Swedes give for turning Chadians away from their borders—Chadians who want to migrate north and settle in a better social, political and economic environment? Keeping borders open is, for cosmopolitan egalitarians, a necessary response to the serious economic inequalities that exist between different countries.[1]
Counter arguments
This argument for open borders presupposes a questionable kind of cosmopolitan egalitarianism. Those who put forward this argument are really "luck" egalitarians who believe that every inequality that emerges from luck needs to be fixed.[1] Those who reject this kind of egalitarianism will be unperturbed by this argument for open borders.[1] Those who hold that luck egalitarian concerns should stay within political borders will also be unperturbed by this argument.[1] For others, the real flaw in this argument is that its conclusion does not seem to follow from its ethical premises. The reason being that prosperous nations have many ways by which and through which they can meet their obligations of spreading justice.[1]
If Chad requests or stipulates a certain amount of wealth from Sweden and Sweden commits to giving it as an act of distributive justice, then as long as Sweden gives the required amount they can keep their borders closed.[1] This is how wealthy individuals fulfill their obligations of distributive justice. For example, as long as Jeff Bezos gives a portion of his wealth to the less fortunate, he has every right to keep others out of his home. If the domestic environment is like this, then why should the international one be any different?
Proponents
Premises
Rejecting the premises
Further Reading
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/case-for-open-borders/
https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/2015/01/joe-carens-the-ethics-of-immigration/