Here's a remarkably sensible -- and very Libertarian -- solution to the immigration issue. I'm surprised that it took this long for an economist to come up with a market-based solution to the problem and place a value on American Citizenship.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21689
I really like this idea. Perhaps if it can be promoted sensibly, it might make immigration less of a "third rail" topic in the political arena.
Ah, who am I kidding? It will never catch on...
Terry Floyd
Terry,
Some governments already do sell citizenship. But that's just the beginning of the possibilities that border controls enable! Charging people to cross national borders, and selling various rights to those who are not granted them automatically, is a huge potential money-maker for governments. People want to enter and leave countries for various reasons (vacations, work, migration, temporary residence, medical visits, etc.), and many of them are no doubt willing to pay a substantial fee for these "privileges". Large numbers of governments already force visitors to buy special documents (visas) in order to enter the countries they control. Sometimes there are different fees for different privileges -- so much to come here as a student, so much to come here to work, etc. The Cuban regime simply forces people entering the country to buy a certain amount of their grossly over-valued currency.
But for the government of a large, wealthy country, charging entry is certainly not the only way that border controls and citizenship rules can be profitable. The U.S. government appears to be slowly realizing this. They have now effectively made it mandatory to have a U.S. passport in order to leave the country. You can still physically get out without one in some cases, by going into Canada or Mexico, but you can't readily get back in without one. My understanding is they have the cooperation of other governments in this -- i.e. you may be able to get on an international flight without one, but you wouldn't be allowed to disembark at the other end.
Barring major pro-freedom political change, I expect that simply going into Canada or Mexico without a passport will become illegal sometime soon. How quickly this happens may depend on how much the nationalists' desire for border controls to be ramped up is fulfilled -- the more money and personnel are put into controlling borders, the more readily such a rule could be conveniently enforced.
Before 1941, U.S. citizens generally did not have to have a passport in order to travel outside the country (see http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/passport/). Since then, the cost of obtaining and renewing a passport has been steadily increasing. A new adult passport now costs $165, and if you want one more quickly, there are higher fees you can pay to help make that happen (see http://travel.state.gov/passport/fees/fees_837.html).
Raising the cost of passports has an advantage for governments beyond the direct revenue stream from people buying them -- it helps keep tourism dollars, and therefore tax revenue, inside the country. Just think of it as a massive "buy local" program. Heck, they could even sell it as a way to help the environment, by reducing consumption of jet fuel and reducing the impact on natural habitats overseas that may not be as well protected as those within the United States.
When it gets expensive enough, and therefore desirable enough, to get permission to leave the United States -- perhaps a passport good for several years will cost $10,000 instead of $165 -- the U.S. government will theoretically be able to regulate the effects of immigration relatively simply, by letting a certain number of poor people exit for free or at reduced rates, in order to balance the number of people arriving. If promoted sensibly, this might make immigration less of a "third rail" topic in the political arena.
Perhaps future Libertarians in popular tourism destination countries, like France and Spain, will see the U.S. government charging people massive amounts of money to leave the United States as a sensible, market-based solution to the problem of "their" countries being overrun by budget tourists, ensuring that most of those entering "their" countries bring lots of money to spend without having to get "their own" hands dirty by turning away the poor. Heck, as Derek's recent California border control encounter illustrates, such rules could also be profitably implemented between U.S. states. "You're free to enter California, but you can't bring your vehicle or any baggage with you unless you obtain a release from an inspector. There is a $100 per person inspection fee."
Or maybe (dare I hope?) people around the world will eventually start to realize what a racket and a threat to freedom it is for governments to maintain border controls in order charge people fees (taxes) in order to enter or leave the areas they control or to enjoy equal rights in those areas, no matter which groups of people are initially targeted or burdened.
But who am I kidding? Those who are wealthy or privileged enough that the controls don't negatively impact them very much will readily find classist and xenophobic rationalizations to support them, and generally speaking those are the people who have the political power to influence what rules governments set. The rest of us will have the choice of staying where we are, or taking the risky option of breaking the rules.
Oh wait, I forgot we on this list are still relatively wealthy and privileged and aren't part of "the rest of us" yet. The really tough, expensive choices are currently for those "south of the border", not "us" who fortunately live "north of the border". Never mind, carry on.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - Another possibility, if nationalists were to succeed in repealing the 14th Amendment -- or if the federal government simply starts selectively ignoring it, as they do so much of the Constitution -- is that citizenship, instead of being a birthright and guaranteed for life, could be made renewable for a fee every few years. Not only could this be a major source of revenue, but it would help catch criminals, make it easier to prevent undesirable people from voting, etc. You don't want child molesters and terrorists voting, do you? Then let's start working to erode the concept of birthright citizenship!
Starchild;
I'm with you on this one: selling immigration would lead both to a black market and increase corruption in our already hopelessly corrupt immigration system.
The way to end immigration problems would be to end the system completely; but it would take a world-wide consensus to do it. I touched on it in the last post; the UN, for example, could eliminate all tariffs, visa requirements, and a institute a uniform currency standard connected to gold/silver. Of course, the UN as it exists today, is completely useless and would never do anything like this; but those three measures alone would probably eliminate most poverty and wars worldwide.
Selling immigration is the wrong idea. What you need to do is correct the current system of incentives.
The current system incentivizes cheating (illegal immigration) and punishes hard work (legal immig). What you need to do is re-arrange the incentives so ANYONE that wants to be legal can be so, yet those that are illegal choose to do so voluntarily as well.
What is the key? Citizenship.
Citizenship today is a frebie that is basically awarded for no other reason than coming out of a womb. That's a silly and economically inneficient way to award benefits.
Specifically, the free state constitution spells it out in great detail, but I will summarize here: anyone (ie immigrant) can come into the country and
-work
-rent
-start businesses
...All tax-free.
However, an immigrant would not have any of the following priviledges unless he/she attains citizenship:
-own a home/durable goods, such as a car or Land.
-vote
-run for office
-open a bank account.
-hold any government job
So how do you earn the priviledges of a citizen?
-voluntarily pay taxes
-join the military OR
This system accomplishes many things at once:
*Ensures people don't "waste" their vote. Because every vote has an economic value, (you earn it by either paying taxes or thru military service), you are unlikely to cast an uninformed vote for some corrupt politician that is going to increase your taxes. Voting then becomes a scarce commodity that is not wasted. Suddenly the electorate becomes really aware of their choices.
*Allows for a guest worker system that is really that. People can come as they please, but if they want to be a part of the country, they have to pay up. Many disinterested folk will likely stay out of the system to live tax free, but it is better to have them living tax free than having those same people run for govt positions or otherwise give their votes away.
*system prevents asset bubbles and inflation. As not citizens are not allowed to own property, "hot-capital" from investors abroad etc becomes harmless. That means, anyone that is shopping for a home a) is a prospective home owner or b) a citizen investor, in which case his profits are taxable, and his income will flow back into the local economy.
Inflation as a whole would be kept in check, for the same reasons as above.
*ensures country does not get entangled in meaningless wars: as a large % of the voters would be military, and their quality of life is directly affected by military misadventures, they are interested in making sure any sitting president does not engage another nation in armed combat unless completely necessary.
*ensures a self sustaining democracy. Government tax base is not fixed. If govt raises taxes too high, people have the choice of selling assets and "exiting" the tax grab. Accordingly, any public sector employees seeking more money will feel the proportional hit, so govt employees are not as likely to support tax raises.
Anyone interested in this should do a google search for the "free state constitution". It is a project by many peoplen, and it is an enlightening document.
Harry Browne had the best idea on this problem of all: end welfare. Anti-immigration forces always complain that immigrants put a burden on the system; so if there were no system to exploit, who would care if immigrants came here? They would either have to be self-supporting or have a private concern voluntarily supporting them.
The same is true of the so-called 'criminals' coming here. If they broke some law in their own country, what is that to us? Ending all our military/corporate imperialism would severely curtail the number of terrorists/enemy operatives coming here.
The point made, though, about nationality obtained through birth is likewise addressed. Birthright nationality guarantees constitutional protection: eliminating financial benefits and entitlements would restrict rights to political and civil benefits.
Eric,
Thanks for your comments. I assume you meant *the U.S. government's* hopelessly corrupt immigration system rather than "ours". 
I definitely agree that getting rid of border controls world-wide is the ultimate solution to migration problems, but certainly not one that is likely to happen any time soon.
Of course insisting that the United States end welfare before opening borders is Exhibit A of what Thomas Knapp called "Stockholm libertarianism" -- holding one reform hostage to another (see http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/06/against-stockholm-libertarianism.html).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Kurt,
Interesting ideas. Not being allowed to own a home, vehicle, or land, or open a bank account, unless one is a citizen, and not being allowed to become a citizen without voluntarily paying taxes or joining the (presumably U.S. government) military strikes me as a much better system than what exists now. If applied to people coming out of wombs as well as crossing less tangible borders, it has the distinct advantage of not discriminating on the basis of nationality. The claims you make about what the system would accomplish also seem fairly reasonable, except perhaps the parts about a vote having economic value, and inflation being prevented. I don't see how the former would be true much more than at present, unless one could buy and sell votes, and with regard to the latter, that occurs as a function of government printing money, which your description of the system does not appear to address.
However -- as I'm surprised Michael Edelstein hasn't asked already... -- where does any government get the right to tell you that you can't sell me a car or a house, or that I can't buy these items from you, if I'm not a citizen? Or to tell me that I can't open a bank account? If this is being proposed for the United States, such rules would clearly be stretching the U.S. government's current constitutional authority to regulate naturalization beyond any reasonable interpretation. Also, if people could "earn" the right to vote by paying taxes, this would politically discriminate in favor of the wealthy, which could lead to their domination of government (plutocracy). On the other hand, I suppose one could argue that the wealthy already dominate government.
Personally I favor letting people cross borders freely, as well as letting everyone live free from coercive taxation and otherwise enjoy full legal rights wherever they happen to be living, and therefore lean toward simply abolishing the concept of citizenship. An open-source "free state constitution" sounds kind of interesting though. If you supply a link I will check it out.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild:
It wouldn't be necessary to put one reform on hold waiting for another; for example if welfare reform was held up, immigration could still be reformed by abolishing workplace restrictions on hiring immigrants for example.
Knapp is really describing a Republican Party tactic moreso than a libertarian one. This has been the standard stock-in-trade excuse of every Republican apologizing to his constituents during a re-election bid: 'I wanted to, but the Liberals wouldn't agree to what we needed to do first!'
Although, I guess, in fairness, the LP and GOP have become so indistinguishable over the last decade that a criticism of one might as well apply to the other.