A closed border is defined as a border that prevents the movement of persons from one jurisdiction into another, with limited or no exceptions associated with the movement. Such a border would be equipped with fences, walls, and gates to be opened for extreme circumstances. This goes steps further than what would be a controlled border where movement of persons is allowed, though with great restrictions. The political realist argues that nation states are not constrained by any one particular morality in dealing with foreign nations and foreigners. This develops from the Hobbesian perception that morality consists solely of contracts that are binding only in the presence of a sovereign who is able to enforce penalties. With a situation where …show more content…
This is with the aim of conserving order. States limit entrance even at the cost of total freedom of citizens as they are unable to invite foreigners at will to their property. This is simply the cost of preventing anarchy. There is a price to order which must be paid. For states, this price is limiting its citizens to who they are able to invite onto their property. The state is able to justify this action by asking the question of proportionality. That is if citizens are free to invite whomever they wish, and grant entrance, is the overall burden on the state greater than the burden that would be on individuals if the same freedom is prevented or limited? Wellman argues that there is a general misconception of individual right being perfect and absolute and that being limited in certain aspects is still compatible with the general concept of right (Wellman and Cole, Debating the Ethics of Immigration 87). Within the context of a right, the best conditions must be provided for one to exercise that right, and in the case of the right to invite foreigners, the state must limit this right for the collective good. He further argues that immigration laws place a greater restriction on foreigners than it does on locals. Thus, the state is not violating the right of its citizen, rather, just not extending the right to an outsider, and as earlier stated, there is no moral obligation for this to be allowed by a