Wellman's Argument Analysis

In his essay, Wellman attempts to argue that legitimate states, ones that protect the rights of their citizens, through self determination have the right to close their borders to unwanted immigrants. This extends to the idea that states cannot morally be subjected to include anyone in their community and, concurrently, have the right to exclude any unwanted person. Wellman demonstrates that such states have this right on the basis of freedom of association, his second premise. Wellman’s third premise states that freedom of association includes the right to associate and to disassociate as well. Combined, the three premises Wellman’s provides develop into his argument that any legitimate state can morally refuse to allow immigrants into its territory even if they are in serious need. Due to the shortcomings of his premises and therefore his argument, I argue that Wellman fails to properly establish the right by states to exclude potential members due to freedom of association. Wellman’s various analogies paired with his claim of freedom of association in fact supports the idea that individuals can migrate

States do not sufficiently mirror private associations, therefore they cannot be used as examples of groups that have the right to exclude similar to that of nations. I additionally claim that there is an extreme conflict between a state’s right to exclude and a general right of association among individuals. An individual’s right to associate has greater moral significance than the right of states to elect who to include. This being true, individual freedom of association actually supports the idea that individuals can migrate across national boundaries. However, even if one does not agree with this stance, Wellman’s premises fail to establish a strong enough argument for the right of states to exclude potential migrants