Immigration and open borders

N

o country in the world operates an ‘open

borders’ policy. All control their borders.

But the extent to which immigrants are

welcomed and the criteria for citizenship vary

considerably between them. Two major princi-

ples govern citizenship laws: (a) jus sanguinis, or

determination through the family line; (b) jus

soli, or determination through place of birth.

The second principle also allows for the acquisi-

tion of citizenship by individuals who have no

family connection with the country, whereas the

first principle precludes this possibility.

Some political theorists argue for open

borders. Joseph Carens argues that if a person’s

gender, race or social class is rejected as a valid

ground for discrimination then it follows that

membership of a particular society should also

be treated as a morally irrelevant fact. Carens

acknowledges that there is a ‘general case for

decentralization of power’ which would justify

the existence of ‘autonomous political commu-

nities comparable to modern states’ (1995: 335).

The question is whether such communities

should have the right to limit entry and exit. If

free movement within a state is justified then it

follows that unhindered movement between

states must be legitimate.

Is Carens right? Should there be any

restrictions on immigration? If restrictions

are justified what should be the criteria for

citizenship? Should an individual have to prove

an historical family connection to the country?

Should only skilled workers be admitted? Should

the families of new citizens get automatic

citizenship? Is ethnicity ever a legitimate ground

for determining citizenship?

© Mike Kemp/In Pictures/Corbis