Does a country have a moral right to limit its population (count)?

Political Philosophy
1

The New York Times

BERLIN — Switzerland will hold a referendum in June on whether to cap its population at 10 million until 2050 by limiting immigration, sharply illustrating how antiforeigner sentiment in Europe has hardened since the continent’s migration crisis a decade ago.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/world/switzerland-to-vote-on-capping-population-at-10-million/

Immigration is mentioned, but what is not mentioned is the birthrate, too.

Nevertheless, by what moral principle (other than democratic process) does a society, in this case a country, have the right to do this? And then, if democracy is the justification, is that in fact moral?

If there is “un-owned” land that could become productive or high-demand vacancies in the labor market that need to be filled, from a utilitarian sense, it is a recipe for increased prices for everyone. In terms of missed opportunity. Which, in that sense, is “bad”, unwanted, immoral. But even putting that aside, the question of some individuals not wanting other individuals to have their loved ones, family, etc., from entering the territory is a better demonstration of the aggression of the state over an individual. 

This Swiss formulation is about a number, not the merits of the person. Currently, many countries have a rule that if you invest a million dollars in a business, then you can get residency. With this rule voted in, even that would not be possible. It also speaks to the quota system that we have. Where does the objective moral limit come from, specifically in a non-emergency situation?

In a welfare state, or a state with public institutions, like free, unowned roads, schools, etc., it can be argued that the system will be strained. So then the question becomes: Is the prevention of movement due to socialist policies? Would the need to limit still exist if roads were owned, welfare did not exist, and public schools did not exist? The whole country would, in a sense, be an HOA (home owners association)?

It seems to me to be about tradition or the will of the majority, infringing on the freedom of movement that would be part of the right to life. If you decide that you should move somewhere where you will not be initiating force against anyone else, you should have that freedom. 

2

Would the state wither away if no force was ever initiated? Agreeing to banish force  within society is one thing, consistently relinquishing the ability to use force another.

Without a state , anywhere, it’d be migration.

3

I suspect any state would put in fewer and fewer resources into policing, etc., if the need went away. I suppose that would qualify as “withering away”. But I don’t know what you are getting at because in the Swiss case, the state is forcing something.

As far as migration goes, people migrate from city to city and state to state, and the state exists. So I’m not sure what you are getting at.

4

Immigration is a ‘legal’ thing and presupposes jurisdiction. Migration describes a relocation of biological entities.

Does the State have any ‘rights’ , regardless the morality of any possible one ?

5

On 2/16/2026 at 9:48 AM, tadmjones said:

Migration describes a relocation of biological entities.

I’m talking about freedom of movement. Not sure why that was not clear. I also don’t know what you are advocating, that a government does have a right to limit its population (when there is no emergency).

In the Swiss context, limiting the population has two components: immigration and the birth rate. In what sense does a government attain the moral right to set a limit, ultimately an arbitrary limit on population? In fact, if a limit is proper, what is the objective method of determining it when there is no emergency?

Let us say 1 million Swiss go outside the country and get married, and want to bring their significant others back. Well, gee, that’s against the law in this case. Wouldn’t the government be infringing on these citizens’ innocent/non-criminal actions?

There is also the chinese one child policy. Was that moral?

On 2/16/2026 at 9:48 AM, tadmjones said:

Immigration is a ‘legal’ thing and presupposes jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over procreation and/or walking across the border to have a drink. Limiting population effects in both cases (procreation and walking across the border) and treating them as illegal based on a single law.

Jurisdiction doesn’t determine the answer to this question; it could presuppose legalities that may in fact be immoral.

6

Analogous to freedom of movement in an immigration sense , I can swing my fist wherever I like but…