This study examines the coherency of David Miller’s immigration argument in favour of a state regulated immigration policy. It is an internal critique where Miller’s empirical understanding of immigration is questioned by an empirical analysis using external concepts taken from the substantive realist thinker’s Bonnie Honig and Marc Stears as well as Raymond Geuss. From Honig and Stears the theoretical tool of framing “the real” is used to claim that there are many national identity narratives. According to Clara Sandelind’s empirical research institutional narratives are more compatible with immigration than cultural ones. Miller on the other hand asserts that a liberal national identity that is culturally based is compatible with regulated immigration. Then according to the analysis with the second theoretical tool self-interest, which assumes a strife for power and security, the alleged problem of Miller’s theory is that it underestimates the conflict between national identity and immigration. The vertical relationship of power between insiders and immigrants gives insiders a national self-interest to exclude outsiders in order to preserve their national privilege. Miller’s conception of a quite allowing immigration policy therefore does not cohere with a more realistic interpretation of the political reality.