Abstract

The paper defends the following two claims. First, emigrants did have a right to stay in their country of origin. They did not waive or lose this right, and, as a consequence, even though they chose to leave, they suffered a specific kind of wrong, namely, the wrong of expatriation. Migration provokes an additional injustice, the wrong of emigrants failing to satisfy their interest in staying in their own country. Second, given certain features of actual migratory trends, once they leave their country, immigrants acquire a new right, a forward-looking right of residence, protecting their interests in entering and staying in the host country. Immigrants hav the same interests in specific places that residents and citizens have. Therefore, they have the same sort of right to residence which residents and citizens had. If so, immigrants have the right to entry, at least ceteris paribus. If this view is true, then there is no logical route from the right of residence of residents and citizens to the right to exclude immigrants. Immigrants, residents and citizens have the same kind of place-related right because they have the same kind of interests which are protected by this right. Indeed, if the states should protect the right to residence of residents and citizens, they should protect the right of residence in their territory owned by immigrants at their borders too.