40 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 79 PART 1 JANUARY 2021
THE ETHICS OF IMMIGRATION
The philosopher David Miller has argued for the “ethical significance” of
national boundaries.14 When most people consider immigration, they think
every country has the right to decide who gets in and who does not. We owe
something to residents that we do not owe to others. Under the conventional
view, it is accepted that governments decide who will have the privilege
of becoming a citizen. Grounds for exclusion depend less on moral
considerations than on the economic impact that might result from an open
borders policy.
So, the conventional view is that states have the moral right to exclude
others. This view supports the case for closed borders with acceptance only
of those in need, or those whom the state prefers. Today, no one thinks that
the government has a right to decide whether native-born children of citizens
will become citizens. Citizenship in these circumstances is assumed.
However, this has not always been the case. There have been times in Canadian
and American history when, for example, ethnic Chinese could not
become citizens, or women lost their citizenship if they married non-
citizens. These were rules that did not conform to what we now think is
proper in granting citizenship. This invites the questions: Who ought to be
a citizen, and why?