“Borders have Guards and Guards have Guns” (Joseph Caren): The Ethics of Immigration

7 Feb 2026

By: Alarice Pow Ian Ning

Editor/Editor-in-Chief: Grace Samuel

"A small number of right wing anti-immigration protesters, escorted by police, take an afternoon stroll along Dover's seafront." by alisdare1 is licensed under CC

In today’s world, ethics challenge the conventional structure of power-based realpolitik, dictating not what states should be, but rather what they ought to be. As a constituent reflection of morality, this article argues the need for the precedence of ethics in the discussions of immigration. It will not prevent answering to what extent these systems are being exploited and misused.

Practised partiality in state decision-making remains a familiar though controversial cornerstone of international ethics today, especially when it concerns which persons fall inside or outside the scope of moral concern. What justifies the exclusion of immigrants from borders? Answering this question from a generalistic worldview seems obvious: sovereignty. The notion that a country holds the power to admit or exclude non-citizens then presumably becomes a recognised norm of self-determination. Furthermore, if these policies are said in the name of a country’s national interests and state capacity, who is to dispute the prohibited entry of foreigners, whether or not they come as peaceful beings? With this reasoning from a political perspective, then, opening up a country’s borders inadvertently becomes a nonstarter.

Immigration has since become central in modern political discourse across the UK. Amongst

issues such as climate change, poverty, the cost of living and the NHS (National Health Service), immigration was voted the top priority amongst all British voters in a recent poll released in January 2026, totalling to 23%. Furthermore, 115,990 hate crimes were recorded in March 2025 in England and Wales, with a 6% increase in race hate crimes. Statistics alone reflect the public’s role in placing immigration at the heart of the country’s lawmaking concerns.

In discussions of the legitimacy of immigration control, political philosophers often tend to assert the argument of whether or not states can ever have the right to dictate who can or cannot have the right to enter their territories. The answer to this question remains simply the set of moral values a state attributes to itself. Lawmaking policies are often backed by the notion of legality. However, it is to be established that legality does not always equate to morality. As HLA Hart maintained throughout The Concept of Law, any law, even after being legitimised by a legislature, has no obligation to uphold any particular set of moral ideals.

Though there is no consensus on the definition of a migrant, it is often defined by an individual’s foreign citizenship. Many overlook that an individual’s birthright is ultimately a product of historical contingency. Many also do not account for the exuded class privilege and enhanced life opportunities that come from citizenship in Western democracies. This complacency runs deep in the Western superiority complex. Should an individual’s path be limited just because they are born in a different country?

Another prominent idea in immigration discourse is the separation of “legal” and “illegal”

immigrants. With the surge of anti-immigration policies across the globe, politicians argue that

these restrictions are simply put in place to regulate the lawful entry of foreigners into the state. The term “illegal” then effectively functions in their favour as a safeguard for a country’s

sovereignty. However, immigration policies implemented by the Home Office indefinitely impact “legal” and “illegal” immigrants alike.

One of the most notable proposals by the Home Secretary in 2025 was the increase in the

qualifying period for permanent residency in the UK. The initial period of 5 years was doubled to 10, while the period for migrants who relied on benefits was extended to 20. In regard to

education, ministers are abandoning the initially implemented “international student recruitment targets” and are instead expanding British educational providers overseas in efforts to reduce immigration. The Graduate Route Visa too has shortened from 24 to 18 months, while maintenance thresholds continue to rise. Though London has long been cited as an international talent hub. These increased restrictions on migration processes have ignited a wave of insecurity amongst immigrants for their future settlement plans. Furthermore, an inculcated culture of the “race against the clock” for international postgraduates searching for jobs.

What institutions fail to recognise is the opportunities that migration brings, not only for the individual but for the country. In a study published by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and Together with Refugees, research conducted by the London School of Economics (LSE) shows that every refugee accepted in the UK has the capacity to contribute £266,000 to the economy with fair and humane changes within the asylum system. The report analysed overall benefits and potential savings that come with the expansion and modification of the UK’s current asylum system.

Migration is movement, and movement is humanity. This article acknowledges that structurally

induced interests play a significant role in the lawmaking of migration processes. However, it in no way gives it a moral philosophical seal, and does not prevent us from asking to what extent these policies are self-serving and linked to material benefits and opportunities that are only offered to some individuals and not others.