How would liberal democratic states respond to refugees if their actions were motivated solely by moral considerations? Would these states be justified in restricting the entrance of refugees, or, for that matter, other needy entrants, in order to protect the social, political and economic interests of their citizens? On what criteria would a morally defensible admissions policy for states rest? At least two sharply opposed responses to these questions can be gleaned from the major strands of contemporary political theory. One view, partialism, works with an ideal of states as distinct cultural communities possessing a right to self-determinination which justifies priority for the interests of citizens over those of refugees in entrance decisions.