Among the arguments made in favour of controlling immigration\, there is one that appeals to the self-determination rights of the citizens of the receiving state. \; The intuitive thought is that in order to be politically self-determining\, citizens must be able to decide collectively who joins their society\, and in particular who will become citizens in future. \; But in recent political theory the self-determination argument (SDA) has faced a number of challenges. \; This paper considers and responds to five of these.
\n1. \;The SDA is a non-starter. \; Once we understand what self-determination means\, it is clear that it can provide no grounds for controlling immigration.
\n2. \;The SDA relies upon an unrealistic view of self-determination as involving authentic &lsquo\;self-creation&rsquo\;. \; On a more realistic view it could only provide grounds for controlling immigration in extreme circumstances.
\n3. \;The SDA overlooks the fact that\, at least for purpose of immigration policy\, the boundaries of the &lsquo\;self&rsquo\; cannot be regarded as pregiven\, but may need to be widened to include prospective immigrants.
\n4. \;The SDA assumes that the right of self-determination can justify not only restrictions on entry to the demos\, but also restrictions on entry to the territory that the demos claims to control\; but this is not so.
\n5. \;The SDA\, if it were valid\, would provide good reasons not only to control inward movement\, but also to expel innocent people who were already resident in the society. \; But since we know that such deportations are impermissible\, the SDA cannot be valid.
\n ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR