Abstract

Some claim that state borders should be (widely or completely) open to migrants. In order to justify this position, it is often argued that open borders would reduce or eliminate some inequalities between individuals, and particularly between citizens of different states. Here, I identify the principles according to which those inequalities can be considered unjust and analyze whether these principles really imply a (widely or completely) open borders position. My conclusion is that only one of these principles imply such a position, and that to accept the state control on immigration does not necessarily mean to oppose individual freedom or the protection of fundamental rights or some sort of economic global equality.