2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines philosophical proposals for the just regulation of immigration that I classify as prescriptively nationalist. Prescriptive nationalism, as I characterize the position, holds that states ought to choose immigration policies in accordance with “the national interest.” Prescriptive nationalists conceive of the national interest differently among themselves, and while it would be too simple to understand any of these proposals as conceiving of the national interest merely as the aggregate of citizens' interests, all similarly hold that the state should prioritize the interests of citizens over those of foreigners in the selection of immigration policies. Cosmopolitan approaches to immigration justice (which I evaluate in the next chapter) hold, in contrast, that states may not show favor for citizens over foreigners (each group considered as such) in the selection of immigration policies.

Prescriptive nationalism is sometimes confused with a distinct position on immigration justice: the moral sovereignty of states view (as I call it). The moral sovereignty of states view holds that states have absolute moral discretion with respect to the selection of immigration policies. In contrast to the moral sovereignty of states view, prescriptive nationalism is a substantive moral position (a feature it shares with cosmopolitanism). That is, it holds that principles of political morality delimit what immigration policies states may justly adopt. Despite certain accidental similarities between the positions, I believe it is appropriate to distinguish conceptually between prescriptive nationalism and the moral sovereignty of states view.