Immigration is an important mechanism to eradicate poverty since it permits movement from region where there are few labor opportunities to regions where there are many opportunities to improve living standards. However, although one has a right to freedom of movement, they ought to adhere to the State’s procedures of immigration. The aim of this paper is to summarize and analyze Kukathas’s and Risse’s arguments in favor of immigration and to evaluate differences in their defenses.

Risse’s argument on egalitarianism is based on the fact that everyone across the globe is entitled to an equal share of exploiting natural resources in the world. He argues that the existence of natural resources was not achieved through the efforts of an individual thus no one has the authority to prevent others from exploiting them (Risse 28). This argument holds that human beings have the right to sharing natural resources equally regardless of their origin. The staggering level of inequality among different countries would therefore not be a reason to bar someone from getting to a foreign land. Human beings are born into the world independently and equally and therefore no one made choice on where to be born. Therefore, a citizen from a third world country cannot be held responsible for the fact they were born in a poor country since they never choose where to be born. Based on this fact, it follows that they are morally permitted to enter into a foreign country provided they are going to acquire anything that is rightly theirs.

In his argument, Risse purports that since countries such as the United States and Germany are rich in natural resources compared to other countries. They are obliged to permit entry of residence from poor countries in order to enhance the equal distribution of natural resources since they are perceived as universally owned (Risse 25). Additionally, he suggests that people should consider immigration as a global rather than a national issue in order to understand morality of allowing open borders.