Arguments For And Against Open Immigration Essay

There are many arguments for and against open immigration. Many of the argument for free movement are theoretical in nature but are still very useful for further policy considerations (Kukathas 219). Matthias Risse and Chandran Kukathas both give arguments for open immigration and why they should be considered, even if currently it is politically unattainable. They both have a similar conclusion but have slightly different means of getting there. We will first look at both of their arguments individually and then compare them. Out of the many who have contributed to the ideological viewpoint of open immigration, Matthias Risse has given us the view of egalitarian ownership. He claims that everyone is entitled to a share of the world’s overall resources (Risse 28). His argument is that people should be allowed to freely move across borders for the sake of maximising the earth’s space. He gives a hypothetical example of 2 people in the United States because they are underusing the space they are given they should allow immigration. Using a quote from Rousseau he points out the ridiculousness of land ownership in general. Questioning the legitimacy of the system.

Generally, those who are already in the society get to choose who joins. His view is that it is their moral responsibility to allow people inside their borders. This is where he brings in his idea of egalitarian ownership. People should not be excluded from a land just because of accidents of space and time (Risse 28). So essentially he is arguing that since we are all entitled to an equal portion of the earth resources, from a moral standpoint, we should allow people from higher populated spaces to immigrate to lower populated