Open Letter on Immigration
As noted on the notorious Liberty and Power blog (well, notorious for having banned me once, anyway, and for letting me back in; usually only Objectivists, Catonians, or other types of neocons ban me, cough-cough-PALMER-cough, cough-NOODLEFOOD-cough),
The Independent Institute has just released its Open Letter on Immigration to President Bush and Congress on the economics of immigration. The Open Letter on Immigration has been signed by 500+ American economists and other scholars, including five Nobel Laureates, plus more than 40 scholars from other countries.
As I noted on a previous L&P post about this:
I read the letter and I must say I am not sure what the point is. The letter appears not to specifically call for open borders or even increasing immigration quotas; it does not seem to oppose cracking down on immigration; I cannot tell what it is for, other than not "penalizing even poorer immigrants," whatever that means. The only substantive point I can read is that "we should promote policies, such as improving our education system, that enable Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills", which to me sounds like standard mainstream central planning and state-spending on and control of public education. Why would even a pro-immigration/pro-open borders libertarian sign this?
Apparently I was not the only one scratching their head about this letter. Aeon Skoble--the Skoble-ator (editor of Reason Papers) replied:
Actually, although I am what Stephan describes as a "pro-immigration/pro-open borders libertarian," I confess I had the same reaction he did -- to note that the letter doesn't actually advocate any specific policy. I kept waiting for something like "the undersigned call on the govt to ___ (or to stop____)" but it never came.
I was a bit surprised Higgs signed it, since he's so sound and great on so many things, and this didn't quite seem like his style. Higgs's reply was therefore interesting:
Although I had no part in drafting this letter, I am willing to maintain that one must understand its import, if any, in the context of the present immigration debate and the ongoing political actions with regard to immigration legislation. Viewed in context, the letter would seem to oppose many of the more vicious proposals now being considered.One might also bear in mind that such letters are intended to be displayed somehow before the general public, to sway ordinary people in a certain direction. If a letter simply announced the anarcho-capitalist position on this or any other topic, it would not have any practical effect on the readers.
On the other hand, on the probably sound principle that 1,000 economists can't be right, one might wish to dismiss the letter on that ground alone.
I will say, in case anybody cares, that despite permitting my name to appear on the letter, it does not represent my own views accurately. I am not for (or against) open (or closed) borders; I am against borders and the organized criminal gangs who draw them in the dirt and then threaten with violence anyone who crosses the line. Of course, my ideal world is not about the erupt.
Several Misesians also signed the letter, including our own Bill Anderson, whom I greatly like and respect. In addition to the letter's vagueness and apparent pointlessness, someone else pointed out to me that the letter initially characterizes the debate on immigration as healthy and purports to be purely value-free and scientific, addressing only fundamental misconceptions about the economics of immigration that have cropped up in the debate. In this way, it avoids engagement with the cultural and especially the political aspects of the debate. And that is all well and good. But then the last few paragraphs are prescriptive and normative--as if to imply that the economic
effects are the only ones worth considering, which, of course, is the flaw of narrow, Chicago-style economistic reasoning.
Some of my own substantive views on immigration can be found here.
Comments (19)
Stephan Kinsella
A correspondent sent me an interesting note (which I do not necessarily endorse, but found interesting):
One argument I hate is this one: It doesn't make sense to enforce THE CURRENT LAWS.
Let's assume we have four options for a law:
(1) Admit a limited number of "right" people (e.g. hardworking libertarian geniuses who can hit curveballs and sing the blues)
(2) Admit a limited number of random people
(3) Admit a limited number of "wrong" people (e.g. hippies and al qaeda terrorists)
(4) Admit everyone
A fifth option could be, Admit no one
Now, refusal to enforce a law amounts to de facto endorsement of option #4.
The current law, I will concede, is basically option #2. Option #1 is preferable to option #2 is preferable to option #3.
The only issue, then, is where option #4 fits into the picture. Now, as far as I am concerned, #4 is the worst of all the options. "If only we got rid of the welfare state", open borders types like to argue, "then we could truly open the borders." And once hundreds of millions of poor people arrive and decide they want to re-instate welfare? What, then? When they take to the streets to express the view that maybe "freedom from blasphemy" is more important than "freedom of speech"?
In short, over the last couple of years, I have come around to a form of American Exceptionalism. Do I think our political system is perfect? Far from it. Do I think our political system would become indescribably worse? Without question.
Published: June 20, 2006 1:44 PM
quasibill
Which seems all fine and good as long as you're admitting that you're sacrificing principle for practical concerns, and not trying to justify your position as one based on principle.
I have no problem with sacrificing principle in this fashion, as we all have to do it one way or another, just to survive in the current state dominated system. However, it is important to note when you are violating principle. Further, it is useful to use such situations to show how the state forces you to partake in coercion just to protect yourself from further state coercion.
Me, personally, I'm a bit of an open borders kind of guy, mostly because I think its going to get indescribably worse regardless, and that "bottoming out" is necessary before western civilization kicks its addiction to the nation-state. Not that I want it to happen, or wish to accelerate the process, but I'm not sure anything I do is at all relevant to either concern.
Published: June 20, 2006 2:34 PM
J. H. Huebert
Mr. Kinsella's follow-up comment analyzes the issue well. I think the best we can do, short of a pure private-property regime, is advocate making the present #2 situation as close to #1 as possible, to maximize the ability of peaceful people to freely associate.
Still, it's not clear to me why #4 is worse than #3. Presumably under #4 the "right" people would mitigate to some extent the negative influence of the "wrong" people (though the wrongs would vastly outnumber the others).
Published: June 20, 2006 2:50 PM
Rick White
I am totally confused. I have no idea what the point of that letter is. Did Lindsay Lohan's publicist write it? Obviously, they wouldn't have gotten so many economists to sign the letter if it wasn't so vague. Robert Higgs writes: "I am not for (or against) open (or closed) borders; I am against borders and the organized criminal gangs who draw them in the dirt and then threaten with violence anyone who crosses the line." But, then signs a letter calling for government policies to improve education!? The letter states "we should not let exaggerated fears" dim the qualities that make America a beacon to the world. What exaggerated fears? What do they have a problem with? The Minutemen Project? The Senate's amnesty program? The administration's policy of scaling back by 95 percent the illegal alien work-site enforcement operations? I am saddened by the fact that signees included Dominick Armentano,William L. Anderson, Scott Beaulier, David Beito, Peter Boettke, Donald Boudreaux, Bruce Caldwell, Chris Coyne, Richard Ebeling, Lowell Gallaway, Gary Galles, James Gwartney, David Henderson, Robert Higgs, Randall Holcombe, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Roger Koppl, Yuri Maltsev, Benjamin Powell, Mario Rizzo, George Selgin, Vernon Smith, Russ Sobel, Ed Stringham, Alexander Tabarrok, Richard Vedder, Lawrence White. I hope they clarify their views.
Published: June 20, 2006 5:20 PM
Sione
In not so many years time the US will be screaming for immigrants; desparate to get them. All those retired boomers will want someone to do the work and look after them. What then? I reckon there will be some long memories. There may even be some utu.
Sione
Published: June 20, 2006 5:34 PM
tarran
Did I read this right? Mr Kinsella, are you seriously advocating aggressing against others by denying them the freedom to purchase property and enter into rental or employment agreements because they may aggress against you in the future?
Wow, how wonderfully anti-libertarian and collectivist of you! Statesmen draw an arbitrary line in the ground demarcating their zones of monopoly on violence, and we shouldn't allow people to cross those lines because they may commit crimes? Let's apply your logic to other areas. People should not be allowed to make digital copies of copyrighted works, because they might violate the monopoly privilege granted by statesmen to "content creators". Mothers should be required to pass state administered examination prior to conceiving to prevent "bad" mothers from spawning future criminals with their bad parenting. People should not be permitted to manufacture and own weapons, because the bad weapons owners may commit crimes with them.
This notion of preventative violence, of "doing unto others before they do unto you" was, I had thought, pretty much discredited by Murray Rothbard when he wrote:
I have far more to fear from people living in certain crime-ridden enclaves in Boston than from people who take the trouble to travel long distances in search of a better life. Should we wall them into ghettos and impose curfews on them so that they cannot possibly aggress against us? Should we lock up teenage males who wear those ridiculous pants that verge precariously close to falling off of their butts, since they are by their clothing style emulating prisoners whose belts have been confiscated by the police? After all, those young men are consciously trying to look criminal.
Your argument, sir, is based on an immoral foundation, and I hope that it will die an ignominious death along with the other nationalist/collectivist ideas that are its fellow travelers.
Published: June 20, 2006 9:40 PM
Stephan Kinsella
tarran: Sorry, what was the question?
Published: June 20, 2006 10:35 PM
Paul Edwards
“Did I read this right? Mr Kinsella, are you seriously advocating aggressing against others by denying them the freedom to purchase property and enter into rental or employment agreements because they may aggress against you in the future?�
tarran, it is not that you mis-read Kinsella’s position; you simply neglected to read it all.
Try reading this first: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18.html which you should have been able to stumble over for yourself with very little effort… and then start over.
Published: June 20, 2006 10:49 PM
Radical Sceptic
In his extended presentation of his views on immigration Stephan Kinsella makes much of this point:
"Libertarians who righteously assume that their open borders view is the only principled one can only maintain this stance if they argue that the state should not ever establish any rules on property it asserts ownership of. Once they grant that some rules should be set, then they can not assume that discriminatory rules are automatically unlibertarian; all rules are "discriminatory.""
This is merely the 'slippery slope' fallacy, nothing in Kinsella's piece is an adequate reponse to the criticisms made by tarran.
Regarding Paul Edward's comment, it is better in debate to actually answer a critic's specific points, not patronisingly refer them to some magnum opus elsewhere for enlightenment, we can all do that and the debate would soon lose all interest.
Published: June 21, 2006 6:22 AM
tarran
Okay,
I see the argument, but it is a rather weak one and leaves me wholly unconvinced.
It's not that the various governments are doing anything like limiting access to their property, though, is it?
Let us look at how the whole thing works. A gang seizes a bunch of land and establishes a monopoly on the use of force. They use that monopoly to extort protection money. When they set up immigration restrictions, they do one of two things.
1) Forbid immigrants from crossing the lands and assets they have siezed, such as ports and public border crossings unless so authorized. This is the mode that Mr Kinsella is saying they are allowed to do since they "own" those facilities.
2) Forbid them from crossing the borders at points that they do not own, such as crossing privately owned land where the owner has permitted them to do so. This of course is immoral.
Since the federal government makes no such distinction, I view its prohibition and the act of unauthorized immigration to be a rights violation.
Now let us turn to the prohibition of trespassers using the public roads. The only problem here is that there is no such prohibition. The roads are provided officially to the "public," a fuzzy, imprecisely defined group of people and protection money is extorted to pay for it, in the form of gasoline taxes and I think the federal income tax. Now, not one of those taxes is levied uniquely on "authorized" immigrants or natives. Rather any person who pumps a gallon of tax, or has the misfortune to work for someone "on the books" ends up paying for them. Thus they have as much of a right to the asset as any other victim of the expropriation. Certainly the government is not making any attempt to limit their access to these public roads etc (and for the record, I think that if they did, it would be a major totalitarian advance, because in effect one could not travel anywhere without internal passports of some sort).
So, what is the government doing? Well, they pass laws forbidding people from doing business with unauthorized immigrants. If you hire a person, they must show papers proving they are allowed to work for you. This is a pure violation of the freedom to contract. I may not like my neighbor's choice of workmen on his home. Perhaps they play the wrong sort of music too loudly. Perhaps they scare me. There are remedies to the situation; I can talk to my neighbor. I could take him to court over the aggression of the noise levels. I could get soundproofing and better locks. I could sell my property and move somewhere quieter and safer. But one thing I could not do is to point a gun at my neighbor and tell him that if he hires another guy from Southie I'm going to kidnap him and possibly seize his house.
Even if the government actually prohibited unauthorized immigrants from using "public" facilities and left them alone otherwise. I would be opposed, since the monstrous police state required to enforce such a law would inevitably lead to oppression of internal dissidents.
However since the government does no such thing, and even goes so far as to victimize those unauthorized immigrants just as much as the authorized immigrants or citizenry while aggressing against them, I find the notion that they are somehow legitimately exercising their illegitimate ownership to be a flight of fancy ungrounded in reality. Having read and recommended Mr Kinsella's attacks on "intellectual property," I think he is too intelligent and perceptive to have made such a mistake genuinely.
So, Mr Kinsella, even though you seemed to miss my question (it was the topic sentence of my previous post. I thought the rest were obviously rhetorical), I think the answer seems to be that yes, I did read right, that you do seriously argue for aggression against people who may aggress against you in the future. I must say that I am very disappointed. Of course, I am sure that you are hurt to the quick by the disapproval of some total stranger expressed over the internet.
Published: June 21, 2006 6:30 AM
Keith Preston
When it comes to the matter of illegal immigrants, the question I have to ask myself is this: Who would I rather side with, the immigrants or the band of federal stormtroopers known as the INS who comprise one of the many factions of the US police state?
I'll side with the immigrants.
Death to the INS. Death to the DEA. Death to the FBI. Death to the BATF. Death to the SWAT police. Death to the narcotics police. Death to the vice police. Death to them all.
Published: June 21, 2006 10:01 AM
Vince Daliessio
tarran and Keith;
After reading Stephan's referenced previous essay on the topic, I'll summarize what he said.
His argument is, essentially, that since government prevents roads and other government lands from being owned, its dereliction of the duties of ownership in regard to regulating traffic theron is harmful to current residents.
Further, that the Federal government should have no role at all in immigration, but that it should be dealth with solely at the local (personal, private) level, and that the current regime makes this impossible.
I am basically an open-borders libertarian, but I can still understand that there are many, many things that have a priority of elimination over border controls, such as government-owned lands, roads, and welfare programs.
Published: June 21, 2006 11:08 AM
Keith Preston
Vince,
I'm aware of the issues that anti-immigration libertarians will point to when making their arguments and I actually agree, or at least sympathize, with them in this respect. My views on this question are actually more nuanced than my previous post might have seemed to indicate. Indeed, some of my closest political collaborators adhere to a tendency called "national-anarchism", some of whom espouse white separatism and are involved in anti-immigration activism. That's not really my perspective but I understand "the other side".
My main point of contention with Kinsella, whom I respect as an important libertarian commentator, has more to do with strategic priorities than with the issue of immigration per se. It is foolish (and I repeat, FOOLISH!)to side with the federal government against a bunch of lettuce pickers from the perspective of libertarian strategy. This brings me to the main criticism I have of libertarians or anarchists of most types and that is the utter lack of attention to strategic matters. That Rothbardians fall into this trap is particularly amazing, given the importance that Rothbard assigned to strategy and his many important insights on the matter.
To get to the point: If we side with the INS against immigration, why not side with the DEA given that some illegal immigrants are also drug traffickers? Why not side with the BATF given that some illegal immigrants are also armed? One of the main things that many pro-claimed "anti-statists" (libertarian, anarchist or otherwise) lack is what I called a "hierarchy of priorities".
If we take our hostility to the state seriously, then it makes sense that our first order of business should be to stand against the imperialist police state that has overtaken the US in recent decades, not retreat into pieties like a libertarian version of "American exceptionalism". This means that our first enemies are the feds and their "New World Order" empire and the layers of stormtrooper forces who serve as their attack dogs.
In an article on today's LRC, Doug French quotes Tom DiLorenzo as saying:"The US should be split into 7 or 8 republics and then get rid of them one by one."
On yesterday's LRC, Dmitry Chernikov said: "Let me tell you of a dream I had last night. In it the entire US federal government, including (1) Washington, D.C., (2) foreign embassies, (3) overseas military bases, and (4) the military itself, suddenly disappeared. D.C. reverted back to a swamp, the soldiers all somehow became plumbers and real estate agents, and so on."
Doug, Tom and Dmitry, I'm with you!! But we aren't going to get there by getting a hair up our respective poop-chutes about a bunch of Mexicans and Guatemalans dying of thirst in the New Mexico desert. That's treating the symptons rather than the disease. Massive immigration is only a problem in gargantuan Leviathan states who have a stake in fostering such immigration. In a system organized along optimal lines, things like citizenship and naturalization are local community matters dealt with according to local customs and needs. If that's not the kind of system we have now then we need to get that more militant in our opposition to the present system.
If residents along the US border think illegal immigrants are causing them trouble, then maybe something like the Minutemen is the solution. Personally, I care no more about that than I do about the latest war between the Crips and Bloods or the Outlaws and Hell's Angels. Given the Hispanic domination of the US Southwest already, I suspect that area would be become a de facto Hispanic republic or northern branch of Mexico if the US were splintered into smaller states like DiLorenzo advoctates. Let 'em have it. That region is only a part of the US because of the Mexican War, anywhere.
If you want more of my views on this, click on this article and scroll down to the section "Culture and Demographics":
http://wwww.attackthesystem.com/philo.html
Published: June 21, 2006 12:22 PM
quasibill
Vince,
As I noted above, I too tend to side with the "open borders" camp. However, I do understand Kinsella's argument, even though I think it strays from principle.
While reading your post, I thought of a way you might possibly be able to make a principled defense of "closed borders":
The state, as it exists, is in fact a continuous aggressor against your property and person. And since the state is a democracy, everyone who is capable of voting is part of the corpus of the aggressor. Therefore, one is, in fact, justified in exercising self-defense against anyone seeking to become part of the corpus of the state that aggresses against you.
I think it stretches some definitions a bit too much for my comfort, but it is plausibly derived from principle. I think it allows for too much coercion on innocents.
Published: June 21, 2006 12:29 PM
Vince Daliessio
Keith said;
"If residents along the US border think illegal immigrants are causing them trouble, then maybe something like the Minutemen is the solution."
Now I think we are getting somewhere. Except the Minutemen should be guarding their own properties, separately or by mutual voluntary agreement, NOT some vaguely-defined "National" or "State" territory. If the people on up the (Federal) road are too lazy to do so, and allow themselves to be overrun, then so be it - it isn't the Minutemen's or the Fed's problem!
With tongue planted somewhat less firmly in cheek, we can reconsider that the majority of immigrants into a truly free "Aggregated, Dissolving Republics Of North America" (to suggest a situation hinted at by Prof. DiLorenzo) would have no choice but to be fully productive, self-sufficient, contributing members of their own families, trading their labor freely and otherwise leaving the rest of the citizens of the ADRNAs the hell alone.
Sure, we are far, far from such a situation, and its sad that the interests of immigrants currently clash with the interests of natives. People will always seek their own self-interest as they perceive it. Currently, immigrants see such an upside that they will do anything to move. Present residents see the additional burdens immigrants place on them through an already onerous welfare (and medicaid, and public schools, etc, etc) system and protest it, rightly, from their point of view.
Let's look at it from an Austrian economic(value-free)point of view. If the welfare state in all its forms disappeared, it would be a good, regardless of its utility. But I'm willing to wager at least 2 things would happen that would have the positive result of aligning the self-interests of immigrants and natives; 1) The labor pool in this country would suddenly be full of low-skilled, native-born labor, and; 2) The governments of countries south of the border would face demands to allow more pervasive property rights, leading to more widespread prosperity.
Published: June 21, 2006 4:28 PM
tarran
Kinsella,
seems I owe you an apology. Having reread the first comments post it is clear that the phrase that set me off,
The despicable notion contained therein, that people should be aggressed against on the chance that they might aggress against us is what enraged me. I apologize for having put words in your mouth.
Might I suggest use of the blockquotes tag in the future to avoid this sort of misunderstanding?
Published: June 22, 2006 5:57 AM
tarran
Mr Kinsella,
It seems I owe you an apology. Having reread the first comments post it is clear that the phrase that set me off,
The despicable notion contained therein, that people should be aggressed against on the chance that they might aggress against us is what enraged me. I apologize for having put words in your mouth.
Might I suggest use of the blockquotes tag in the future to avoid this sort of misunderstanding?
Published: June 22, 2006 5:59 AM
tarran
What the hey?
Folks, I apologize, somehow I posted my rough drafts and not the final letter.
The latter post is almost correct, the only thing missing was the tail end of the second sentence which should have read "was written by your correspondant and not by you."
Published: June 22, 2006 6:09 AM
Quoteth
A Libertarian is a hippy with property to lose.
Published: June 24, 2006 2:15 PM