Open Borders, Sovereignty, and Travelers

• In Event: Beyond, Within and Across States: Considerations on Immigration and Migration

Abstract

The philosophical debate on open borders focuses exclusively on migration. The normative justifications defending border controls assume that the movement of people across political borders, independent of its purpose and the length of stay, refers to immigration. “Movement internationally,” “global mobility,” and “immigration” are often used interchangeably. However, global mobility also refers to movements of people across international borders for short length of time: traveling. Sojourn, religious pilgrimage, medical tourism -including abortion travel-, education, international political advocacy, family visits -including weddings and funerals-, civil marriage and divorce, and many other significant interests motivate and force people to travel across political borders without intention to settle.

The existing literature offers normative arguments for and against open borders. However, the arguments against open borders -which concern about brain drain, welfare state, duty to compatriots, political membership, freedom of disassociation, sovereignty and so forth- do not apply to travel; hence, they do not provide strong justification against open borders in the context of traveling.

In this paper, I examine statist arguments against open borders, namely; sovereignty, freedom of association, the right to self-determination. I argue that the right to travel internationally does not necessarily contradict with statist reasons. In other words, statist reasons do not provide strong justification against international travel (as it arguably does against migration). I support my argument by expanding on the type of duties international travelers impose on the state; and I question the territorial rights of states and it limits.

Author

• Ugur Altundal, Syracuse University