Free Movement vs. Immigration

The former is a human right, the latter a legal construct. The conflation of these two is the basis for red-hot debate these days.

I was intrigued by a conversation reported on X yesterday between an American and an American citizen living in Germany. The American in Germany complained he just couldn’t return to America due to the rise of Fascism here. When asked why he just didn’t stay in Germany indefinitely, he replied that “You can’t just stay, that is illegal. They will kick you out, there are requirements to immigrate here!”

I’m not sure if that was a real exchange, but the irony of it sure is. Even if it was made up, it is unfortunately illustrative of the red-hot debate raging in America right now over immigration and illegal immigration.

A familiar argument appears whenever immigration enforcement becomes politically contentious: Human beings have a right to movement. From this premise, some conclude that borders themselves are immoral, and that any nation which limits entry is acting unjustly—if not outright cruel. But this argument quietly collapses two very different ideas into one: the right of movement is a human right, while immigration is not.

Every modern nation recognizes this distinction in practice, even if activists prefer not to. Canada does not prohibit its citizens from leaving. Mexico does not bar its people from traveling abroad. Neither does the United States. Freedom of exit is widely acknowledged as a basic human liberty, enshrined in international law and reflected in most democratic constitutions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own.

Yet Canada tightly regulates who may enter, and so does Mexico. Virtually every sovereign state on earth does the same. Are these countries evil? Of course not, they are doing what all legitimate governments do: they are exercising sovereignty.

Movement refers to the ability of individuals to travel, relocate, and seek opportunities. Immigration refers to the legal process by which a sovereign state grants permission to non-citizens to enter, reside, and participate in its civic and economic life —and to have the opportunity to become a citizen and fully participate in the duties and responsibilities as an assimilated citizen. The first is rooted in human dignity, while the second is rooted in political authority and conflating the two is a category error that all too many people make.

A person may have every moral right to leave Honduras, Haiti, or Venezuela, but that does not automatically generate a corresponding right to enter the United States. Those are separate claims governed by different principles.

This distinction is not controversial historically, it is embedded in philosophy, religion, and law. John Locke argued that governments exist to secure the rights of their people through consent. Thomas Aquinas recognized the legitimacy of political communities organizing themselves for the common good. Even biblical traditions distinguish between welcoming the stranger and dissolving national boundaries entirely. Hospitality is praised, but anarchy is not.

The modern international system is built on this understanding. Nations recognize one another’s sovereignty precisely because borders matter. A state without the ability to regulate entry is not fully sovereign. It cannot plan infrastructure, manage labor markets, provide social services, or maintain public order. It cannot meaningfully represent its citizens. To deny this is to deny the concept of self-government itself.

Yet in contemporary American discourse, immigration enforcement is often illegitimately framed as uniquely immoral. The United States is portrayed as exceptional in asserting border control, while activists speak as though open borders are the moral baseline and enforcement is some kind of deviation. This framing collapses under even casual scrutiny.

For example, Mexico deports hundreds of thousands of migrants annually. Canada maintains a points-based system that prioritizes skills, language ability, and economic contribution. European nations increasingly restrict asylum claims and reinstate internal controls. Japan remains famously selective. Australia intercepts boats at sea. America is not an outlier—it is the norm.

What is unusual is the insistence that only Americans are morally obligated to surrender sovereignty in the name of abstract universalism. Rights exist within political communities. They are secured by institutions. They require enforcement. Without borders, laws become optional and citizenship becomes meaningless. That does not mean compassion disappears. Nations can, and should, offer asylum, humanitarian aid, and legal pathways for immigration, but compassion does not require abandoning the rule of law, and charity does not require dissolving the social contract.

Movement may well be a human right—but immigration is not a right, it is a legal construct, it is admission granted by sovereign states. It is like a ticket to a movie; it comes at the behest of the authority issuing it and it is specific and time limited. Confusing or conflating the two doesn’t make us more humane, it makes us less honest, and it makes it far more difficult to have a productive conversation about the issue.

A country that controls its borders is not cruel; it is functioning by living up to its duties and responsibilities to its own citizens, upon whom its power and authority depend.