In July and August 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested approximately 50,000 immigrants, many of whom had no criminal records. This large-scale enforcement action marked a shift in policy, as the Trump administration had changed the previous approach under the Biden administration, which had not anticipated migrants leaving the country while their visa renewals were being processed. ICE has defended these detentions by stating that they are simply enforcing federal immigration law, but immigrant rights advocates have raised concerns about the lack of oversight and the potential overreach of such actions. The large number of arrests has sparked deeper philosophical and ethical questions about the role of governments in migration. Specifically, it raises the issue of what ethical responsibilities governments have toward prospective migrants and whether migrants have a right to be admitted into a country. As a scholar of migration ethics, political philosophers have long debated the moral implications of immigration policies. One prominent argument in favor of migration is that it should be considered a human right. Philosophers like Kieran Oberman argue that people have a basic interest in being able to move to countries where they have important personal connections, such as family or job opportunities. This aligns with the views of philosophers like John Stuart Mill and John Rawls, who emphasize that individuals should be free to pursue their own life plans, which are essential for self-realization. This argument draws a parallel between movement within a country and across borders, suggesting that the same principles that allow citizens to move freely within their nation should also apply internationally. Critics of this view argue that societies need a degree of cultural cohesion and shared values to remain stable. Philosophers like Sarah Song and Michael Walzer suggest that controlling migration is essential for national self-determination, allowing states to shape their societies as they see fit. They argue that without migration control, states cannot maintain "communities of character" — social groups that share a way of life they wish to pass on to future generations. At the same time, other philosophers, such as Darrel Moellendorf, argue that migration is essential for achieving global equality of opportunity. They suggest that people should not be denied the chance to access better opportunities simply because of where they were born. Migration, in this view, can help reduce global economic inequality by allowing individuals from poorer countries to access better jobs, healthcare, and education in wealthier nations. However, this argument is not without its critics, who argue that different societies value different opportunities, making it difficult to establish a universal standard for equality of opportunity.