In the thousands of years of human existence, until recently, global migration was a common occurrence on every continent. Humans were not labelled as “illegally” for simply being alive. “Despite the rise of nationalism, the nineteenth century (1815–1914) has been characterized as the century of free movement and fairly unlimited migration” (Bader, 334). In today’s world, humans all over the planet are constantly being stigmatized with terms such as illegal, undocumented, refugee, asylum seeker, etcetera. This stigmatism is the result of national borders and barriers being associated with people from outside invisible, humanmade, arbitrary lines on Earth’s surface in a particular geographic region—national boundaries. National terms such as American, German, and British have created the Other—a person not associated with the national identity of the primary group. The group most inflicted with the terrible disease that is nationalism is the subaltern. The subaltern is the lowest class of the Other, and, as Gayatri Spivak says, “cannot be heard or read” (Cahoone, 338). The human rights of the subaltern are consistently violated. Therefore, to save the subaltern’s body we must try to hear the subaltern. We must try to read the subaltern. It is a moral requirement to humanity that we develop an ethical system that protects not just the rights of the affluent members of humanity but of all people regardless of race, nationality, religion, and geographical location, but especially the subaltern. National boundaries are arbitrary and lead to human rights violations. Using the universalist approach to ethics, this paper will argue that an open borders policy is the best immigration policy by examining the universal law of freedom of movement, the challenge to freedom of movement, the atonement of the sins committed by colonialism and the Cold War, the responsibility powerful nations have to promote global happiness, and the responsibilities all nations have to their citizens.   

             Internationally open borders allow for the most freedom of movement enabling the right to exit a geographical area. “The freedom to leave imposes three correlative, demanding duties on states: not to hinder emigration, not to make return impossible, and to further admission elsewhere, because a right to leave without being able to enter somewhere else is actually ineffective” (Bader, 338) In other words, if humans have the freedom to leave an area, they have to also have the freedom to enter somewhere else. This can be compared to Kant’s categorical imperative and the destruction of a universal law. “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 217). By Kant’s logic, if the maxim of people exiting an area were to become a universal law, then everyone could exit an area. However, if the maxim of people not being able to enter into a different area were to become a universal law, it would destroy itself. This is because if a person exits an area they must, by the very definition of the word exit, enter into a different area. In other words, if no one could enter into a different area, no one could leave the area they wish to leave. Two competing universal laws arise: the first, is that people can freely move, or the second, is that no one can move. If we are to follow the logic of individual liberty and contractarianism, both of which were formulated during the Enlightenment period when Kant was formulating his theory of ethics, we find that freedom of movement cannot be hindered by governments or other societal agents. This is because if a person exercises agency over him or herself and decides to no longer be in contract with their society, they must be able to leave. The universal law that no one can move has thus self-destructed, and the universal law of free movement stands. With absolute individual liberty, contractarianism, and the universal law of free movement, closed borders cannot be a universal law. It is required then, according to the Categorical Imperative, that open borders across all countries that permits total freedom of movement is the only universal law.

            The universal law of free movement is likely to be challenged by citizens of the most affluent countries such as the United States and much of Europe. They will proclaim “state sovereignty.” However, John Stuart Mill has the best rebuttal to this claim, “He who save a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 181). Wealthy countries opening their borders is, sometimes in the very literal sense of the words, saving fellow creatures from drowning. Wealthy nations cannot expect repayment and act from a place of duty because of the exploitation of poor countries for the last four hundred years. After European colonialism ended, the West took a hands-off approach and left much of the developing countries in economic, societal, and cultural chaos. European colonialism may have ended politically, but the ramifications of four centuries of colonialism has left many parts of the world in shambles, most notably Africa. The U.S. and, at the time, the U.S.S.R. engaged in proxy wars that devastated entire regions such as the Horn of Africa. It is the ethical duty of the rich nations to open their borders and save their fellow creature from drowning. If the governments of rich countries wish not to open their borders for repayment of the sins of colonialism and the Cold War, perhaps Mill could convince them that “…the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action…” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 181). If rich countries open their borders with the hopes that they can get cheaper (but not exploited) labor, it is still better than a closed border policy.

            A world with open borders has implications beyond cheaper labor, forgiveness of sins, and the universal law of free movement, but that of the happiness of citizens of Earth. According to Mill, “the multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue: the occasions on which any person [or government] has it in his power to do this on an extended scale” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 181). Wealthy countries have the capabilities, and thus the power to do this on an extended scale to be called a “public benefactor” on the international stage (Dell’Olio and Simon, 181). In other words, the most affluent countries hold the power to enact policies that can increase the total happiness around the world. Furthermore, “In every other case, private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons, is all has to attend to” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 181). Poor nations, without the capabilities to support mass migration, have the ethical duty to do as much as they can with their limited resources. “As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 180). Universalism requires all countries to be ethically bound to treat everyone’s happiness and welfare equally and be as impartial as possibly. Impartiality would eliminate the particularistic question of “is the happiness of one compatriot less important than that of five of the Other?” To a universalist, all happiness would be equally important.

All nations have two ethical responsibilities to their citizens: to keep them safe and promote the general well-being and happiness. According to Mill, “it is quite compatible with the principles of utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 174). According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, actions are ethical if they “promote happiness…and the absence of pain” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 174). Death is the final state of suffering and pain. This is because no amount of pain inflicted on the living is in a final state, eventually the pain will subside. However, when pain has reached its final intensity the living are no more. Thus, if death of the final state of pain, the final state of pleasure must be living. Therefore, of the two ethical responsibilities the first is to ensure the most valuable pleasure, life, is preserved. After the preservation of life has been established the lower, albeit not much lower, pleasures of clean drinking water, shelter, and food must promptly be administered. At this stage the pleasures of societal connections such as family ties can be focused on. The state thus has an ethical responsibility to dimmish pain, especially death, and promote the absolute pleasure, life. To quote Kant again, “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 217). In the case of nations, no nation should act in a way that it does not want that action to become a universal law. If one nation violates human rights, then all nations could violate human rights, including the rights of the citizens of the aforementioned nation. Nations may will bad practices against immigrants, but they cannot will it to be a universal law. If such a law existed, no immigrant, or any other person, would be safe from human rights violations. As Kant says, the “maxim, as soon as it should be made a universal law, would necessarily destroy itself” (Dell’Olio and Simon, 218). This means that if human rights violations cannot be a universal law, the alternative universal law is the promotion of absolute pleasure, life.

To conclude, it is clear by now that a global open borders policy is the most ethical policy. Two important universal laws require open borders: the universal law of free movement and the universal law of the promotion of absolute pleasure. After the tragedy that was colonialism and the Cold War, affluent countries have a duty to open their borders and allow the freedom of movement, particularly for those of the countries that were (and still are) effected. For Mill, the reason for the affluent countries to act is irrelevant, but it is the act that matters. An open borders policy would help to increase the total happiness of the citizens of Earth and the rich and powerful countries around the world have the greatest responsibly to promote said happiness. In reviewing the book Unjust Borders: Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration, Peter Higgins, of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, quotes the author, Javier S. Hidalgo, stating, “most people can understand, evaluate, and appreciate the argument for open borders. If these arguments are sound, then people should be able to recognize that broadly open borders are morally mandatory” (Higgins). Universalism makes the best argument for open borders and the promotion of happiness for all citizens of Earth.

Works Cited

Bader, Veit. “The Ethics of Immigration.” Constellations, vol. 12, no. 3, Oct. 2005, pp. 331–361, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1351-0487.2005.00420.x, 10.1111/j.1351-0487.2005.00420.x. Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.

Dell’Olio, Andrew J, and Caroline Simon. Introduction to Ethics: A Reader. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.

From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Edited by Lawrence E Cahoone, 2nd ed., Malden, MA, Blackwell Pub, 2003.

Higgins, Peter W. “Unjust Borders: Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration.” Ethics & International Affairs, 3 Dec. 2019, www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2019/unjust-borders-individuals-and-the-ethics-of-immigration/. Accessed 18 Mar. 2021.

‌