Immigration Restrictions Are a Form of Harm

Blocking voluntary association reduces agency

Immigration restrictions are widely accepted, but a crucial ethical dimension is routinely overlooked: restrictions inherently reduce the agency of individuals on both sides of borders. Under our ethical framework, harm is explicitly defined as a reduction of agency through coercion or imposed constraints. By this measure, immigration laws cause direct and substantial harm.

Consider first the would-be immigrant who seeks better economic prospects or safety from oppression. Such an individual, by attempting to migrate, reveals a clear preference and willingness to sacrifice significantly for the opportunity. When immigration laws forcibly prevent this voluntary movement, the individual's agency is explicitly diminished. Their freedom to act on their clearly demonstrated preferences is coercively blocked.

Simultaneously, immigration restrictions harm individuals within the host nation. Employers, landlords, consumers, and communities who would voluntarily benefit from interaction with immigrants are denied these beneficial exchanges. The restrictions coercively override their preferences, limiting their agency and freedom of association.

Moreover, from the perspective of the Quantum Branching Universe (QBU), immigration restrictions significantly narrow the measure of flourishing futures available. Each coercive restriction prunes branches of potential reality in which voluntary and mutually beneficial associations lead to increased prosperity and well-being.

Critics often argue immigration restrictions protect domestic interests or cultural cohesion. However, unless these purported harms demonstrably reduce net agency—such as through coercion or systemic violence—these arguments fail the ethical test of agency preservation. Aesthetic preferences or vague discomfort with cultural differences do not constitute legitimate grounds for coercive policy.

In short, immigration restrictions, viewed through the lens of agency and voluntary interaction, represent clear and significant harm. Ethical consistency demands a policy of openness, subject only to constraints necessary for genuine preservation of agency, not cultural or nationalist aesthetics.