This paper presents some of the most prevalent arguments for closed and open borders in the context of immigration ethics. Proponents of the closed border argument prioritize the right of a sovereign state to decide its immigration policy in order to protect its population and ensure the greatest possible welfare for its residents. On the other hand, the advocates of arguments for open borders give priority to individuals who want to or are forced to immigrate, and base their arguments on human rights that protect the human being and human dignity. In the context of considering closed borders, I identified and explained the following arguments: preservation of culture, sustainability of the economy, distribution of state goods, political functioning, establishment of security, political self-determination, democracy and jurisdiction. In the context of considering open borders, I identified and explained the following arguments: egalitarianism, libertarianism, global justice and utilitarianism. Both sides present strong arguments, and in the context of immigration ethics, they try to provide answers to questions such as: Do states have a moral obligation to the residents of other states? Can immigrants (and on what basis) unilaterally impose responsibility towards themselves on residents of other countries? How should a sovereign state treat immigrants? Why does the human right to freedom of movement include the right to emigrate, but not to immigrate? Are there moral reasons that we could use to justify banning certain people from entering the territory of a country?