Abstract/Summary

This dissertation is a compilation of five published articles that together aim to develop an account of immigration from a statist perspective. It shares with other statist accounts the emphasis on the state as the primary site of justice, but unlike them, it argues that nothing in this picture justifies its right to exclude. The first part of the dissertation refutes two prominent cosmopolitan arguments in support of open borders. Against the global justice argument, I show that open borders as an instrument of global justice are at odds with the values underlying international freedom of movement. Against the immigration enforcement argument, I argue that the problematic nature of border controls does not provide so much a reason for open borders as a reason for immigration reform. The second part of the dissertation develops a new approach to immigration called inclusive statism. First, I make an indirect argument for open borders by showing that the same reasons that justify restrictions on mobility across borders also justify restrictions on mobility within borders. Second, I provide a direct argument for open borders; I argue that even if the grounds of freedom of movement are or should not be global in scope, freedom of movement must be. The last article develops a general framework for thinking about immigration justice from a statist perspective. By taking seriously the role of the state qua site of justice, this dissertation provides an alternative, more conciliatory, defense of open borders.