I analyze the democratic prescription that asks us to justify redistributive policies through the lens of emigration. What, if anything, does emigration tell us about the justifiability of social duties to at least some of its members? What can we learn from the fact that some members of the state seemingly opt against carrying out their duties in the realm of the state? Could we say that the state’s justification breaks down in the case of those who leave? If we believe that moral duties have to be adopted and appropriated by those who have to bear their burden, yet if we read emigration as a rejection of the justificatory project of the state, then an institutional account from necessity as a legitimate reason to restrict emigration is not convincing. I therefore argue that the institutional account does not provide sufficient grounds to justify emigration restrictions.
