Walzer's Arguments Against Open Borders

Constructing an argument opposing open borders is a difficult task. It requires one to consider the positive and negative implications such policies have, rather than basing their claims on superficial reasons that justify their country closing its borders. The latter view usually involves xenophobia, while the former incorporates realistic concerns involving the function of the chosen state and their ability to respond to this situation. In order to maintain objectivity, this paper will focus on the former arguments made against open borders, namely the idea of membership in communities, the preservation of culture in these [spaces], and the global issue off exponential human population growth. The following examination of these arguments …show more content…
In fact, Walzer draws a parallel between this situation and the parable of the Good Samaritan. He reasons that we must help people when we can, but he limits this responsibility to as far as it does not impede on our daily lives. He states that a person’s life cannot be “…shaped and determined by such chance encounters (encountering someone who is injured as in the Good Samaritan)” nor do they “need [to] care for him or even associate with him for the rest of [their] life” (Walzer 33). On the other hand, Miller reasons that states can allow free migration, but on the condition that this action does not result in significant changes made to the community. He even toys with the idea of giving precedence to those “whose cultural values are closer to the existing population… [And] who possess skills and talents that are needed…” in an attempt to solve the issue of conflicting cultures in one state (Miller 204). However, he set limits for this by excluding the use of discrimination based on race, sex, or religion on this decision (Miller 204). Regardless of their defense of close borders, it is clear that both Walzer are willing to extend a helping hand to people in need, but only to a certain