Abstract
The paper evaluates arguments presented in favor of immigration that are based on normative demands of distributive justice: the liberal egalitarian argument, the compensation argument, the argument of the common possession of the earth, and the utilitarian argument. It argues that migration is not the most effective way to achieve the goals of global distributive justice and that therefore these approaches have less to say in favor of migration, although they are very relevant in certain circumstances.
Keywords
immigration; distributive global justice; egalitarianism; compensation; common possession of the earth; open borders