This thesis examines the question of migration as a fundamental human right. To determine the normative force of human rights, I begin by distinguishing several accounts of human rights. I identify a conception of human rights to apply to the case of migration, namely a contemporary conception of human rights, and examine the relationship between this conception and its ethical foundation. Following this discussion, I analyze the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to show the human right to migration is implicit within the two documents. I argue that the principles of freedom, moral equality, and equal autonomy support the right to migration, and these principles provide ample reason to implement open borders. I also look at arguments for implementing porous borders, and I argue that porous borders grant nations the right to exclude certain migrants and forcibly exercise their sovereignty. I assert that the reasons provided for the implementation of closed borders and porous borders are not ethically justifiable because they hinder access to freedoms protected by the UDHR and ICCPR and impede the fulfillment of moral equality and equal autonomy. I show that nations are morally obliged to respect and protect the human right to migrate. I explore the responsibilities this obligation entails, in particular, receiving nations extending economic, social, and cultural rights and services to a migrant. I aim to show open borders are the most morally defensible solution to the case of migration. I then consider various counter-arguments: security, culture preservation, self-determination, economy, brain-drain, and population control. I conclude that current migration policies are incompatible with human rights and in need of significant modifications and suggest several ways in which a human rights approach to migration can be upheld and protected.