Liberal nationalists like David Miller frequently argue that nations are mainly the political cultures that provides one of the main contexts of our lives and constitutes moral bases of political obligation. However, if the nations are merely political cultures, they would not give a good reason for controlling migrants as members of nations likes because in many countries people do not share a singular nation as population of Ontario and Quebec do not. In short, nations as political cultures do not necessarily coincide with territories and for formation of nations the existence of territories is not only unnecessary but insufficient conditions. More promising way for liberal nationalists to provide the basis of discretionary immigration control is appealing the moral significance of states’ territorial jurisdictions. Margaret Moore argues that states’ territorial jurisdictions are indispensable for the people as collective agent to make self-determination. Territories are geographical domains where people express their will through the states’ institutions, and people are the collective agents the members of which treat other members as compatriots through engaging common projects. To clarify whether Moore’s argument is successful or not, we must identify the contents of common projects and the conditions for engaging them, for example, migrants’ linguistic competences or skills. However, Moore’s bases for restricting immigration are basically successful because they grasp our fundamental condition of living, that is, our need for good residential environments and good relationship with neighbors. In my paper I will explain the reasons of my diagnosis.