Are closed borders/immigration restrictions morally defensible?

[parochial boy]

Well, the nation-state isn't actually artificial. For America on the other hand...

Well in many respects it is, the modern concept of nationalism is pretty much a 19th century invention. Ethnic identities existed before that, of course, but there wasn't really much of a concept of basing the political state on ethnic groups, or self identifying "nations".

Before the 19th century, there was really no concept of being German, or Estonian, or Slovakian or many of the "Nation States" that we now take as being natural and inevitable.

[parochial boy]

Well, from a utilitarian point of view, if something, on average, hurts people, then restructing it can hardly be immoral.

Nationalism was an outgrowth of the French Revolution. But prior to that you had states, they just weren't nation states. Those states were far more restrictive of immigration and far more protectionist than the era of nation states that followed it. Because those states, practiced mercantlism and aimed to horde money, figuring that was how you enriched your country.

I know, but pre 19th century states took their legitimacy from something that was not national or ethnic solidarity. The concept of a state taking its legitimacy from nationalism was a construct largely used for political purposes. All I was saying was that the Nation State isn't a "natural" phenomena.

[parochial boy]

Well, from a utilitarian point of view, if something, on average, hurts people, then restructing it can hardly be immoral.

Nationalism was an outgrowth of the French Revolution. But prior to that you had states, they just weren't nation states. Those states were far more restrictive of immigration and far more protectionist than the era of nation states that followed it. Because those states, practiced mercantlism and aimed to horde money, figuring that was how you enriched your country.

I know, but pre 19th century states took their legitimacy from something that was not national or ethnic solidarity. The concept of a state taking its legitimacy from nationalism was a construct largely used for political purposes. All I was saying was that the Nation State isn't a "natural" phenomena.

The pre-19th century states did limit the access to its territory, not just as much but even more than the national states which replaced them. A national state is in fact often more open than the dynastic and regional states which came before them. Of course with the development of the non-discriminatory welfare state, the state had to protect its territory from outsiders again.

That's not really the point I was making.

But in any case, it is not entirely true that all pre 19th C states did restrict access to their territory, I mean for a start, the Mongol or Moorish empires were so conceptually different to a modern state that you almost couldn't compare them in any meaningful way.

And in much of medieval Europe, the institutions of state were often so weak as to be practically irrelevant. Look at the Holy Roman Empire and the way it completely fell apart in the thirty years war. There wan't much control of migration going on at that point in time.