This paper, through an explanation of immigration ethics, briefly outlines the normative problems that states face when individuals are moving across borders. Emphasis is placed on issues related to the status, rights and life chances of immigrants, hence moral and rights hold a central position. Much of the debate on immigration ethics addresses the question of whether states have the right to restrict immigration and on what criteria and values such an immigration policy should be based. There are many theories that try to offer a solution to these problems, and they are mostly divided into those for closed borders and those for open borders. Among the arguments for closed borders, the following were singled out: preservation of culture, sustenance of the economy, distribution of state benefits, political functioning, establishment of security, political self-determination, democracy and jurisdiction. On the other hand, the arguments for open borders that were listed are: cosmopolitan egalitarianism, libertarianism, democracy and utilitarianism. Liberal realism is an approach that tries to offer a solution to the problems of immigration ethics as well. Although it is a seemingly contradictory theory, especially when it comes to moral, it is in fact a matter of balancing liberal theory on a realistic basis. Liberal realists are the only ones who have managed to put forward a coherent and consistent theory that justifies closing borders in order to preserve and protect liberal institutions. They believe that states should consider each other as potential threats and that the boundaries of morality extend only to national borders. Liberal realism advocates the view that states should be guided by their own national interest because that is also the interest of their citizens. It claims that states have a moral obligation to protect the interests of their citizens and that opening borders would do just the opposite, that is, harm the local population.