The debate over whether, and if so, when, political communities have the right to restrict immigration has largely focused on the U.S. and Europe. In this paper I attempt to broaden this debate by interrogating the implications of three families of open borders arguments for historical cases of settler colonialism. These arguments, I show, support a great deal of historical settler colonialism and also have problematic implications for the rights of contemporary indigenous peoples, which should not be surprising since the historical defenders of settler colonialism themselves made arguments in the three families I discuss. Appealing to this history, I provide a republican justification for some restrictions on immigration as being necessary to prevent domination. Whether or not they are convinced by my specific proposals regarding when immigration may be restricted, I hope that advocates for immigrant rights become more cautious regarding the implications of their arguments for indigenous rights.