There are different kinds of rights, which humans from all over the world are able to exercise, e.g. freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association. All of mentioned are supposed to be exercised in order to maintain the socio-economic development of any country. One of the most important rights is the right of people to migrate (move from their neighbourhood or country). There are a lot of debates held on the issue whether it would be appropriate to open borders and give people the right for freedom of movement not only within their country of origin, but also across international borders. Quite sufficient number of theories and studies exist, which are discussing the pros and cons of accepting the freedom of movement the basic moral right of an individual. There are multiple reasons for individuals to immigrate from their country of origin, such as need for escape from violence and/or opression, search for better economic situations and opportunities, intention to reunite with their families or people, who share the same religion or language etc. Others argue, that there is quite a persuasive sense to restraint free movements, such as: boundaries of accepting opportunities of the receiving countries, moral difficulties in distinguishing the importance of immigration of other people (political asylum versus an exotic cultural experience). The author will survey the main theories and studies behind freedom of movement and as well as raise the ethical issue on if migration restrictions violate basic human rights.
2. Should freedom of movement across borders be considered as human basic right
One of the most significant questions for stable developed democratic countries is if they do have the strict moral obligations to admit immigrants from other countries. If they This issue is being raised more often since the end of the 20th century. The conventional view of migration states, that the individuals, whose characteristics, knowledge and talents can contribute to the society prosperity should be admitted to better developed countries, on the other hand, people with lower skills and knowledge should be restricted from immigration. This may sound morally free, but in many cases this can be the reality, when receiving countries only accept people, who are considered to be of high national interest. This view claims that countries have a vast right to control their borders, as well as regulate the immigration flow with account of the country’s national priorities. Recently, the conventional view of migration started to be highly questioned and challenged by Joseph Carens and Frederik Whelan, who stated several arguments on the topic of open borders and the necessity of international migration. The first argument stresses, that immigration restrictions are inconsistent with basic liberal ideals, which include freedom, equal opportunities, and moral equality of people; the main duty of democratic states is to...