Members Only? Why Associational Autonomy cannot justify closing state borders

The right to exclude is often considered a necessary component in protecting the associational autonomy of one particularly powerful association: the state. Indeed, unilateral border control is a fundamental element in the modern system of nation states. Defenders of the Associational View, argue that states are justified in closing their borders to immigrants because having the right to exclude is necessary for members to be able to control the character of their association. It is necessary to protect associational autonomy. Unlike in a domestic setting, however, individuals lack several other key components of associational autonomy internationally. Thus, excluded migrants lack both the ability to form new states, to refuse to join the state into which they were born, and the genuine possibility of giving up state membership entirely. On this background, the right to exclude merely seems to further the associational autonomy of current members at the expense of outsiders. It is not clear, therefore, that the right to exclude better protects associational autonomy under current circumstances. I explore three potential solutions to this problem, drawn from the theories by contemporary proponents of the Associational View. Although, they improve upon the status quo, the three solutions fall short since, ultimately, they do not provide sound justifications for the unilateral right to exclude migrants. Building on this discussion, I set out some institutional elements that should be present in a well-conceived instantiation of associational autonomy.