Within the normative framework of the Universal Declaration and the International Covenants on human rights the chapter lays out the principal arguments for and against a right to enter a country and settle with the exception of persons who constitute a threat to public health, safety, morality, or national security. The author demonstrates, for instance, that freedom of association can be invoked by both supporters of open borders and supporters of a sovereign right to determine who may enter and on what conditions. He notes, however, that a state has special moral obligations to potential migrants from countries whose toxic conditions driving migration are at least partially attributable to past behavior by the receiving state in that country’s territory. Colonial exploitation would be an example. Refugees, persons fleeing persecution or natural disasters or armed conflicts, the author argues, have a particularly powerful moral claim to enter and an indisputable claim under international law. However, just how far the moral claim extends is not entirely clear. The chapter concludes by examining and endorsing the proposal of Betts and Collier to convert refugee camps outside the West into real communities.