Comments (37)

• Barry Loberfeld

  Being a long-time defender of "open borders," I have a question I've been fairly dying to ask those on the opposite side of the divide: Do the reasons that grant government the power to identify and repel foreign "undesirables," also grant it the power to identify and expel domestic ones?
  Simply put:

  If you are anti-immigration,
  are you also pro-expatriation?

  READ "Keep 'Em Out? Kick 'Em Out!"

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:28 PM

• Byzantine

  So a quarter million leave--how many stay? How many continue to come in? And look at what drew them here to begin with: illusory, Fed-created booms, without which there would not have been a fraction of the demand for so much immigrant labor.

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:31 PM

• Robert Brager

  M. Loberfeld raises persuasively fine objections to the varying points of view that seems to comprise the standard anti-immigration "libertarian's" lament.

  I don't get it either, Bruce. None of the anti-immigration libertarian's arguments regarding immigration strike me as being particularly libertarian arguments.

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:41 PM

• Byzantine

  Barry,

  The answer is no, because the government's charter prohibits it.

  Is your objection to the expulsion of undesirables solely that it is the government doing it? Also, how many undesirables would you be willing to board on your property?

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:43 PM

• Robert Brager

  "Is your objection to the expulsion of undesirables solely that it is the government doing it? Also, how many undesirables would you be willing to board on your property?"

  Why does the distinction between favoring the removal of restrictions on the movement of people and the freedom to contractually rent or trade properties, regardless of their national origin and favoring squatters invading your property always seem to dissolve in the "libertarian immigration debate"?

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:51 PM

• John Brock

  "It seems that Mexicans are not so anxious to live in the great Obama utopia of debt, inflation, nationalization, bailouts, and regimentation."

  The fact is that regardless of who the president is or how large or small the government is, if there are no unskilled jobs, then there are less immigrants willing to hop-the-fence. Illegal immigrants care nothing of the host country they invade. They care nothing of who is in office. They care only of feeding themselves and/or their families. I am not judging whether this is right or wrong. But it's fact. Right now, if Canada started to see a housing boom, they would make their way right up to the snow covered fence and hope over that too.

  Mixing one's appearent political views with why immigrants invade or disengage from a country leads to a picture painted with watercolors that can be easily washed clean with a little liquid logic.

  As for "...a sign that something is going terribly wrong", this too is misleading. In an ideal economic situation we would have full employment. However, that too would lead to a drop in immigration (even though it would be considered a positive economic condition). A drop in Mexican immigration means nothing more than the fact that the nation is experiencing a decline within industries of which Mexicans make up a large part of the labor force.

  In conclusion, an immigration problem is just that, a problem. It does not accurately describe macroeconomic conditions and it is not a positive national economic indicator.
  

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:57 PM

• Byzantine

  Robert,

  Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, and countless state laws and regulations are devoted solely to the abolition of public and private discrimination on the basis of national origin. If you want to invite all and sundry, you will find no stauncher ally than democratic government.

  Published: May 18, 2009 3:57 PM

• Mac

  I wonder where the emigrants are off to or where immigration might be increasing. It would be interesting to see the data.

  Cheers

  Published: May 18, 2009 4:07 PM

• M

  So, how has the mass immigration that has taken place since 1965 been good for libertarianism? It's clearly been great for the welfare state, the Democrat party, and PC fanatics like the SPLC and La Raza. Not sure why libertarians should find this a good thing.

  Published: May 18, 2009 4:18 PM

• Scott Bieser

  I find it curious, or perhaps telling, that when it is noted that statist anti-discrimination laws and welfare-state issues combine with immigration to cause problems, some libertarians would rather shut down immigration than get rid of the anti-discrimination laws and welfare state.
  

  Published: May 18, 2009 6:15 PM

• Byzantine

  Scott,

  What do you think would happen if it was suddenly in the people's power to uproot and destroy the government's anti-discrimination regime and welfare state? I predict every federal bureaucracy devoted to such would be razed to the ground and every 4" binder of PC regulations would be tossed into bonfires quicker than you can say blood is thicker than water. Of course, this happy dream gets pretty remote given that the welfare state is constantly importing additional constituents.

  M's point bears repeating in more direct terms: post-1965 immigration has been cultural and political suicide for libertarians.

  Published: May 18, 2009 7:46 PM

• Scott Bieser

  Actually, post-1965 immigration has been a colossal missed opportunity for libertarians. Here is a group that has no tribal ties to either the Democrats or Republicans, and is well-accustomed to ignoring both taxes and gun laws. Perhaps if libertarians had extended a welcoming hand rather than the finger, things might be different now.
  

  Published: May 18, 2009 8:45 PM

• Russ

  OK, I'll bite. I'm an anti-immigration classical liberal, and I guess that's "close enough for government work", as my dear old Dad used to say....

  @Scott Bieser: I would love to get rid of the anti-discrimination laws and welfare state. But I'm realistic enough to realize that's not going to happen anytime soon. The majority of our voters just voted in a hard-core socialist, after all. So, accepting the fact that we won't get rid of welfare for a while, I at least want policies that will ameliorate the bad effects of welfare socialism where I can get them. Tightening up immigration is much more likely to happen in today's political climate than getting rid of welfare.

  @Robert Brager :
  "None of the anti-immigration libertarian's arguments regarding immigration strike me as being particularly libertarian arguments."

  I don't worry particularly about how well my opinions comport with libertarian dogma. Rationalistic political theories aren't my thing. I care more about what is good for my country. Letting in multi-millions from south of the border who are uneducated, very slow to assimilate, and put a highly disproportionate drain on our welfare and penal systems, or letting in multi-millions who subscribe to a religion/culture that loathes everything classical liberalism stands for, don't seem to me to be good for my country.

  @Barry Loberfeld:

  "If you are anti-immigration, are you also pro-expatriation?"

  I would not be for mass expatriation or de-naturalization of group wholesale, based on race, religion, etc.

  Expatriation based on targeting of individuals is another thing. If a person is doing something like actively encouraging terrorist activity, or espousing the idea that our country be ruled by sharia law (under which atheists, Buddhists, gays, and others, would be killed), or belongs to a racist group that wants to take over the Southwest or a criminal gang, I would not cry over his being de-naturalized or expatriated, no. (Or just deported, if he's here illegally.)

  Heck, I might even be open to the idea that socialists, who want me to be a de facto slave to other citizens for a goodly portion of the year, also be denaturalized and forcibly expatriated. All those socialists would be happier in Europe, anyway, and getting rid of them would drastically improve the educational system, the media, and even the government. Which is why it will never happen. Oh well, they haven't illegalized fantasizing yet....

  Published: May 18, 2009 8:56 PM

• Gil

  I don't see why Libertarians are for 'open borders' since private equivalents would be 'closed'. Invariably people idealise about letting only 'productive' workers immigrate. It would be probably safe to say most aspiring immigrants aren't 'ideally productive'.

  By the way, I don't see why someone who's for immigration has to be pro-emigration, B. Loberfield (Even a great many Conservatives would love to pull citizenship and kick out of those they don't like.). If a Libertarian doesn't want outside chidren on his property doesn't mean he's a hypocrite if he won't disown his own children.

  Published: May 18, 2009 9:33 PM

• Byzantine

  "Perhaps if libertarians had extended a welcoming hand rather than the finger, things might be different now."

  What specific instances and individuals are you talking about? Mises, Rothbard, Sennholz and Blumert were all immigrant stock. So is Hoppe. Or maybe my PC credentials require burnishing with sympathy for immigrants of a more, uh, "vibrant" national origin.

  Published: May 18, 2009 9:59 PM

• Scott Bieser

  And thus Byzantine reveals the collectivist underpinnings of anti-immigration sentiments. Liberty, it seems, is deserved only by the members of the correct ethnic groups.
  

  Published: May 18, 2009 10:13 PM

• Byzantine

  You're the one who said "libertarians" gave post-1965 immigrants the middle finger. I want to know who and when, given that a number of the leading lights of the libertarian movement were immigrant or first-generation themselves.

  Or maybe Ashkenazim and German scholars just don't have enough street cred.

  Published: May 18, 2009 10:33 PM

• Gil

  Obviously, those who like the idea of unlimited immigation have this view of an aspiring hardworking larrikin looking for a chance to better themselves and aren't particularly concerned about the system itself except wanting to see it more capitalistic.

  Hence the 2002 Libertarian Party view where their full views on immigration are elaborated:

  
  IMMIGRATION

  We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
  We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

  Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

  We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
  

  
  The Libertarian Party is wanting Hispanic immiigrants - not a free-for-all. They're presuming all Hispanics are hardworking or at least don't know how to get welfare and presume they can't be allowed to anyway. After all, who wants the Muslim immigration that's filling up Europe - people who stick to their own religion and culture, quick to use welfare services and are generallly the most umemployed(/-able) and want to change the law of the land to suit their own extreme views of Islam (sharia)?

  Published: May 19, 2009 1:19 AM

• M

  'Perhaps if libertarians had extended a welcoming hand rather than the finger, things might be different now.'

  The fact is that most libertarians over the past 40 years have been open borders enthusiasts. And the most mainstream libertarian organisations, like the Cato Institute, still are very pro-immigration. Yet those post-1965 immigrants haven't responded to this with any enthusiasm for libertarianism. They've embraced an increasingly left-wing Democrat party.

  Published: May 19, 2009 3:16 AM

• Franklin

  "Obviously, those who like the idea of unlimited immigation have this view of an aspiring hardworking larrikin looking for a chance to better themselves and aren't particularly concerned about the system itself except wanting to see it more capitalistic."

  Incorrect. Yet again. Further, "The Libertarian Party is wanting _Hispanic_ immigrants [only]" is completely discredited by the paragraphs you cite.

  Those who "like" the idea of unlimited immigration simply find it no business of theirs to tell someone else that they are disallowed from pursuing their own dream, whether that dream is lethargy or entrepreneurship.
  Period.

  It's all quite a simple concept, and implies no red herring of an ethnic preference.
  

  Published: May 19, 2009 11:19 AM

• gene

  I agree with Franklin.

  It is a matter of freedom, the freedom of others to do what they wish with their life, wherever they wish. You cannot continually gripe and complain about the State and then stand behind some arbitrary line the State drew in the sand mainly by force and fraud as if it was drawn by the Almighty himself!

  The welfare issue is a non-issue. To limit only citizens to non life threatening welfare is not a limit on freedom but simply a benefit upon becoming a citizen.

  Published: May 19, 2009 2:08 PM

• geniusiknowit

  Does anyone else welcome the illegals because they are an additional burden on the welfare state?

  The sooner the damn thing collapses, the better.

  Published: May 19, 2009 4:29 PM

• Nelson

  The main reason I'm for open borders is I believe in individual freedom. I fear losing the reason for our country's existence if we abandon that principle. But there's also a more self-serving interest. If we get a treaty with Mexico (and other countries) to allow cross migration, I'll have some place to go to if worse comes to worse here.

  Published: May 19, 2009 7:08 PM

• gene

  That's true! and it is always warm in mexico and the people are friendly [la gente son amables!].

  Published: May 19, 2009 8:15 PM

• Byzantine

  It is a matter of freedom, the freedom of others to do what they wish with their life, wherever they wish.

  Of course. Because In Libertarian Wonder Land, people don't take up space or generate waste.

  The statement that people have the "freedom" to do what they want with their lives "wherever they wish" is just sloppy thought. In a libertarian society, all travel would require the express permission of adjoining property owners, and the costs of travel would be borne solely by immigrants and their patrons. Currently, immigrants who bear their own costs die in the desert or get shot as trespassers. The government's roads and civil rights laws enable immigration on its present scale. And, as I noted earlier, the government's Fed-induced booms are what draw them in the first place. And likewise mandate that they be given non-creditworthy loans, but I digress.

  Published: May 19, 2009 8:42 PM

• gene

  Hi byzantine,

  We all take up space and generate waste, last time I checked.

  Many immigrants who don't die in the desert or get shot, bear their own costs. that fact is only obvious.

  Your other points are good points [fed, loans, welfare] but they do apply to everyone also.

  Granted the government is subsidizing everything, but how can restricting immigration fix the other governmental intrusions you mention?

  freedom is not sloppy thought, generalizing about immigrants is.

  Published: May 19, 2009 9:36 PM

• Byzantine

  If immigration is restricted, then the welfare state has less constituents and a smaller tax base to parasitize. The Marxists will be confronted with a choice they would not otherwise have to face.

  And I'm still looking for an answer to the posted question: how has post-1965 immigration benefitted the libertarian movement?

  Published: May 19, 2009 10:45 PM

• Byzantine

  Also, immigrants are mostly net consumers of government services. As Hoppe points out, it is perfectly reasonable for citizen-subjects to demand that their government discriminate in favor of net producers, as any self-interested property owner would.

  The open-borders advocates rely on politically correct appeals to emotion, not logic.

  Published: May 19, 2009 10:50 PM

• Gil

  Thank you, Byzantine. I'd argue that people are go from land to land but are not free to 'immigrate' in the sense they have the right to settle on someone else's land without their permission.

  But the half-hearted replies show that a lot of Libertarians are pro-immigration idealists - they still hope that all aspiring immigrants are honest, hard-working types. Hence the replies still meandered right back to notion that Mexicans are looking for a better, honest life ("free immigration from Mexico but that's it"). None seemed to look at the 'what if' of non-Mexican immigrants who have no intentions being honest nor hardworking.

  Published: May 20, 2009 1:02 AM

• BT

  I generally consider myself to be a libertarian/classical liberal with a couple of slight modifications - immigration being one of them. No libertarian argument that I have heard/read (including those written here) really answer the question as to why open borders are so great. Many say "It boils down to freedom of movement, opportunity, etc." My question is this: at the cost of what? Many of you are saying that welfare, increased crime, etc. is a moot point; I say these issues are not moot points! The ideas you people espouse are exactly the reason why a classical liberal will never be voted into office!! Your mindset is too far gone to be considered reasonable! Thus, you will forever be bound to the state...that evil, maniacal institution that has done more harm than good to the human race. This strikes me as humorous because you people want ultimate freedom so bad, but will probably never have it because you just can't seem to communicate why you think your system would work so well. You people need to remember one thing: earth has never and will never be utopia, and your system (or any system) will never bring us to that point.
  I think I am going to have to agree with Byzantine on this one..."Libertarian Wonderland" is fine for thought, but sometimes lacks merit for reality!

  Published: May 20, 2009 1:28 PM

• gene

  Immigration doesn't have to have a "cost". No one said immigrants should receive the same welfare that citizens do. I would think life saving welfare would be reasonable, but beyond that is unreasonable.

  People should be free to travel and live where they want as long as they are responsible for their own sustainence. To think otherwise is definately a "Libertarian Wonderland". That doesn't negate the right to "take up the space" you wish to take up [and compensate the owner for], regardless of borders.

  Crime, by the way, is not a problem rooted in immigration. We have an absurd number of people in prisons for legalities. If we devoted our effort to preventing true harm and injury and not legislating morality, we would have a much better handle on crime.

  Sorry, you just can't blame all our problems on immigrants, that wives tale is as old as the hills.

  We should respect anyone's opinion, but resentment of immigration is the crusade of the neo-conservative, not the libertarian.

  Published: May 20, 2009 2:23 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  For anti- or controlled-immigration people, it's usually about the welfare benefits. But you know, restricting immigration isn't going to end government welfare or corporate welfare. On the other hand, ending or severely restricting government welfare IS going to end the immigration of those who just come to America seeking handouts (it doesn't matter if you think that's most of them or just a minority of them), leaving those hard-working immigrants who truly are seeking a better life as the only ones who would want to come here.
  
  Alternately, we could say that only legal immigrants and/or citizens are the only ones entitled to welfare. The advantage of this is that it requires admitting that welfare is a privilege, not a right, and thus undercutting part of the justification for government welfare.
  
  Either way, it seems to me that we should be working harder to end or restrict welfare more than we should end or restrict immigration.
  
  Also, cynically, a patchwork immigration system (not completely open or completely closed) is in the politicians' best interests, because it gives them more to bargain with when dealing with special interests. A closed system still gives power over to the government--only an open immigration system weakens the government.

  Published: May 20, 2009 3:10 PM

• Nelson

  BT - Perhaps what you want is a final solution?

  Published: May 20, 2009 3:15 PM

• Franklin

  "The open-borders advocates rely on politically correct appeals to emotion, not logic."

  I disagree with you here, Byzantine. Since when does a libertarian apply a blanket judgment on everyone because of a few bad apples?

  Firstly, open borders, or simply borders, by their nature are not "great," nor are they "evil." Several of you are troubled by symptoms rather than root cause.
  Who said welfare is a moot point?
  If the cost of welfare is too high, then address the cost of welfare, its provisions, and guarantees.

  Who said crime is a moot point?
  Far as I know, we had laws to punish trespassers. And I think the innocent until proven guilty thing is still a nice approach.
  So an immigrant commits a crime? Arrest him then.

  To Gil's comments, re an immigrant's "intentions," I've not a clue whether my neighbor (non-immigrant) nor his pending off-spring (still in his wife's womb) have any "intention" whatsoever of being hardworking. That's none of my damn business. Nor is it anybody else's.
  Sort out the problem rather than trying to get inside the minds of the human beings that wish to immigrate.
  Their "intentions"... Feh.

  Prevention of immigration, on the basis that welfare is too expensive, is an implicit acceptance that welfare is a just and appropriate benefit for all.

  Finally the usage of terms in the Hoppe attribution gives me the chills. ".....citizen-subjects to demand that their government discriminate in favor of net producers, as any self-interested property owner would."

  Government "discriminate"?
  Government implied as property "owner"?
  Citizen "subjects"?
  Citizen "subjects"?!!

  Oh, my, where the heck is this going?

  Published: May 20, 2009 6:35 PM

• Telpeurion

  The point of free movement of persons and property is so that the the factors of production, land, labor, and capital, can be shifted towards whatever may be optimal. You guys can lark on about immigrants, but it is the state social services that are at issue here. The 1800's, and early 1900's were full of anti-immigration ranters, yet did the Irish and Chinese "destroy" everything? No. I am sorry that the world cannot be maintained in the image that some may deem wonderful, at the expense of others. I work at Target in the overnight flow of boxes, and over half of my coworkers do not speak english, yet I survive. Trade brings us together. =]

  Published: May 20, 2009 9:50 PM

• BT

  To Gene:

  Why doesn't immigration have to have a cost? If the services produced by ILLEGAL immigrants are less than the "services" they consume, then there is a cost that I end up paying for with my tax dollars! And, Mr. Gene, you need to read my posts more carefully. I NEVER said or suggested that crime was a problem rooted in immigration, nor did I try to "blame all our problems on immigrants." My POINT is that many illegals are INCREASING our crime rates and problems! Furthermore, no one (to my knowledge) is saying "keep immigrants out." What they are saying is "go through the right channels." I have personally heard LEGAL immigrants complain about ILLEGAL immigrants. Why is it so bad and difficult to have immigrants follow the law to get into the country? Of course, I am sure you will answer: we should not have laws, everybody should do as they please. Well, as long as there is the state, there will be laws...so maybe you would like to do away with the state altogether? Not a bad idea, I could be for it.

  To Michael:

  Very well put. I hope you do not think that I want a welfare program for citizens or illegal immigrants because I don't - never have, never will.

  To Nelson:

  Well, Mr. Nelson, I will say this...again. This is earth; there never has and never will be utopia. To that extent, no solution will ever be perfect, but the only way I can ever see "freedom of movement to the nth degree" is to do away with the state...totally. Let everybody be an individual - no nationalities, no burdening state, no identity whatsoever except that of human being (good luck with that).

  To Franklin:

  I don't think people are "troubled by the symptoms." This is an oversimplification.

  Proposal:

  Since libertarians are so unique in their thought process, why haven't they all banded together, pooled their money, and bought an island somewhere in the Pacific? You could then incorporate the whole island (no need to make it a state with a functioning government), and live in perfect freedom with no rules and no laws (except for natural law). If your system is so great, then you will no doubt be the richest nation on the planet with the span of a few decades! Sounds good to me! (Please be sure to post the evolution of this undertaking on the Mises web site).

  Published: May 21, 2009 7:53 PM

• markb

  It is very disappointing and more than a little troubling that Rockwell's dogmatic libertarianism prompts him to ignore - he surely knows it is true - the fact that the boom that attracted so many illegals was the creation of the Fed printing presses, and had nothing to do with true Misean economic growth. It will continue to be completely impossible to get people to accept the arguments for sound money when they are inter-woven into the cloth of extreme libertarianism. Leavening our Misean bread with some Russell Kirk yeast would give rise to actual progress and peace and prosperity our grandchildren could actually enjoy. Demanding a Puritanical Liberartianism is just howling in the wind, and just as productive of real progress.

  Very disappointing.

  Published: May 31, 2009 11:54 PM