It is widely assumed that states have the right to exclude non-citizens through systems and mechanisms of border control. States routinely enact and enforce migration policies designed to control their borders. In recent years, there has been mounting pressure for states to make their immigration policies more restrictive than ever before. In this chapter, I discuss the ethical standards that states should be held to while exercising their right to exclude, especially with regard to migration policies that are widely regarded as uncontroversial, even desirable. While it may be argued that states do not have a right to exclude non-citizens, I will assume what Joseph Carens refers to as “the conventional view”, under which states do have such rights (2008). In particular, I am concerned with the ethics of selection (how states select non-citizens for admission) and the ethics of enforcement (how states enforce the exclusion of non-citizens who have not been granted admission). In the first case, I consider the permissibility of various forms of discrimination, including racial, health, and skill-based discrimination, the prioritisation of family migrants, and citizenship-by-investment schemes. In the second case, I examine states’ use of detention and deportation and how they stand in need of ethical justification, particularly because of, especially with regard to the coercive force they subject non-citizens to. I conclude by suggesting that theorists pay closer critical attention to concrete processes of immigration selection and enforcement.