The most basic features of United States immigration law generate continuing controversy. Public debate over federal statutory limits on entry into the United States is ongoing and frequently passionate. The practical importance of the subject seems undeniable. The lives or welfare of many people are directly implicated. Many legal and political philosophers, as well as immigration specialists, however, shy away from some of the most fundamental issues of moral limits on immigration. A possible explanation for this inattention may be that many students of basic immigration policy half-consciously perceive that broad legal restrictions on entry into the United States cannot be morally justified. These persons also assume that opening legal entry into the United States would require current United States residents to endure a painful sacrifice of important interests and privileges. Admittedly, academic calls for collective self-sacrifice are not unknown. In the immigration context, however, the direct beneficiaries of an open entry policy do not currently vote or maintain an organized presence in the United States. Calls for an open entry policy are therefore understandably not particularly common. This Article seeks to broaden the debate not only by arguing for an open entry policy, but also, perhaps surprisingly, by arguing that a carefully crafted version of an open entry policy need not involve costs to current citizens so substantial as to practically disqualify such a policy.