An excellent Mises article today....
Mike
The Libertarian Immigration Condundrum
by Per Bylund
[Posted on Thursday, December 8, 2005] <http://www.mises.org/story/1980>
To receive the Daily Article in your inbox, go to email services
<http://www.mises.org/content/elist.asp> , and tell others too!
The pre-1914 world saw no immigration issues or policies, and no real
border controls. Instead, there was free movement in the real sense;
there were no questions asked, people were treated respectfully and one
did not even need official documents to enter or leave a country. This
all changed with the First World War, after which states seem to compete
with having the least humane view on foreigners seeking refuge within
its territory.
The "immigration policies" of modern states is yet another licensing
scheme of the 20th century: the state has enforced licensing of
movement. It is virtually impossible to move across the artificial
boundaries of the state's territory in the search for opportunity, love,
or work; one needs a state-issued license to move one's body, be it
across a river, over a mountain or through a forest. The Berlin Wall may
be gone, but the basic principle of it lives and thrives.
These days, with Bush's Americans First program and tightened borders at
taxpayers' expense, it seems the state is reaching its licensing climax.
To a nation built on immigration it should seem strange to have a
president investing in keeping foreigners out, and considering fines on
employers hiring immigrants, but the objective is not a healthy,
vigorous society: with border controls come easier surveillance,
regulation and control. The Europeans are leading the way in their
attempt to secure inbreeding and economic stagnation throughout the
continent, through what has become known as "Fort Europe." No one
enters, no one leaves.
Immigration is not different from other kinds of licensing even though
it has been awarded a special name. Licensing has the same result
regardless of what is licensed: licensing of physicians cause poor
health care at higher cost just as licensing taxi businesses cause poor
and untimely service at high cost - licensing on movement means
restricted freedom and higher taxes for people (whether "citizens" or
"foreigners"). From a libertarian point of view it should be clear that
all licensing needs to be done away with, including immigration.
Yet the immigration issue seems to be somewhat of a divide within
libertarianism, with two seemingly conflicting views
<http://www.mises.org/jlsDisplay.asp?action=sort&volume=13&number=2&subm
it=View> on how to deal with population growth through immigration. On
the one hand, it is not possible as a libertarian to support a regulated
immigration policy, since government itself is never legitimate. This is
the somewhat classical libertarian standpoint on immigration: open
borders.
On the other hand, the theory of natural rights and, especially, private
property rights tells us anyone could move anywhere - but they need
first to purchase their own piece of land on which to live or obtain
necessary permission from the owner. Otherwise immigration becomes a
violation of property rights, a trespass. This is an interpretation of a
libertarian-principled immigration policy presented by Hans-Hermann
Hoppe a few years ago, which since then has gained increasing
recognition and support.
To a non-libertarian bystander, the discussion of the two alternatives
must seem quite absurd. What is the use of this libertarian idea of
liberty, if people cannot agree on a simple issue such as immigration? I
intend to show that the libertarian idea is as powerful as we claim, and
that there is no reason we should not be able to reach consensus in the
immigration issue. Both sides in this debate, the anti-government-policy
as well as the pro-private-property, somehow fail to realize there is no
real contradiction in their views.
The anti-government-policy immigration standpoint (or, the open borders
argument) and the pro-private-property ditto are two sides of a coin;
their respective proponents have simply fallen pray to the devil in the
details. Let's go through the main arguments of both camps, and see to
their respective strengths and weaknesses, and I'll show you how this is
true.
The Open Borders Argument
The people advocating "open borders" in the immigration issue argue
state borders are artificial, they are creations based on the coercive
powers of the state, and therefore nothing about them can be legitimate.
As things are, we should not (or, rather: cannot) regulate immigration.
Everyone has a right to settle down and live wherever they wish. This is
a matter of natural right; no one enjoys the right to force his decision
upon me unless it is an act of self-defense when I am violating his
rights.
In a world order based on natural rights, this would be true. It is a
golden rule, a universal rule of thumb proscribing that I'll leave you
alone if you leave me alone; if you attack me or try to force something
or someone on me, I have a right to use force to defend myself and what
is mine. I guess we can agree that this is the fundamental agreement
summarizing the libertarian idea, a "libertarian social contract" if you
wish.
The problem with this idea is that it has too much of a macro
perspective. While arguing there should be no states and therefore no
state borders, it presents arguments with an intellectual point of
departure in the division of mankind into territorial nationalities and
ethnicity. It is simply not possible to make conclusions on immigration
to, e.g., the United States, if we start our argument from the
libertarian idea. What is "immigration" in a world with no states?
The Pro-Property Argument
A less macro view on immigration is taken for granted in the
pro-property argument. Here, the individual's natural right to make his
own choices and his right to personal property is the point of
departure. Since we all have in our power to create value through
putting our minds and bodies to work, we also enjoy a natural right to
do as we please with that which we have created and place ourselves
wherever we have property owners or guests. Or, as Hoppe puts it, "[i]n
a natural order, immigration is a person's migration from one
neighborhood-community into a different one."[1]
<http://www.mises.org/story/1980#_ftn1>
Consequently, the immigration issue is in real terms solved through the
many choices made by sovereign individuals; how they act and interact in
order to achieve their goals. There can simply be no immigration policy,
since there is no government - only individuals, their actions and their
rights (to property).
The "open borders" argument is therefore not only irrelevant, since it
has a macro point of view; it also fails to realize property rights as a
natural regulation of movement. Since all property must be owned and
created by the individual, government cannot own property. Furthermore,
the property currently in government control was once stolen from
individuals - and should be returned the second the state is abolished
since property rights are absolute. There is consequently no unowned
land to be homesteaded in the Western world, and so "open borders" is in
essence a meaningless concept.
Libertarian Utopia
Immigration will thus be naturally restricted in a free society, since
all landed property (at least in the Western world) is rightfully owned
by self-owning individuals. Just like Nozick argues in his magnum opus
Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a society based on natural rights should
honor property rights in absolute terms, and therefore the rightful
owners of each piece of property should be identified despite the fact
that humankind has been plundered by a parasitic class for centuries.
This view is, though philosophically proper, also utopian, just like
Nozick showed, since it is not possible to identify who has a right to
what through original acquisition. First of all, it is not possible to
distinguish private property correctly simply because rightful and
stolen properties have been mixed over and over again through the
centuries. Who is the rightful owner of property being 9/10 the product
of one's labor and the remaining 1/10 (perhaps the land on which I have
built a house) acquired in good faith from someone not being a rightful
owner? Imagine that sort of thing happening over and over for
generations.
Also, there is no one to say what the rightful but long-since-deceased
original property owners would have wanted with their property if they
had been allowed to keep it or if their lives' product were not legally
inherited by their families. It is not reasonable to suppose all of
them, in every generation, would have had their sons (and daughters)
inherit everything were it not for state and church coercion.
What is to be considered just property when the welfare-warfare state is
eventually abolished is not at all clear. Can one take for granted the
subjects (citizens) of a certain state have the right to an equal share
of what is currently controlled by the government? Are they, at all, the
rightful owners to what they currently control with the state's legal
protection? If we intend to seek the just origin of property, we need to
roll back all transactions until the times before the modern state,
before the monarchies and feudalism, and probably to a time before the
city states of ancient Greece. If we do, how should we consider the
produced values of the generations we've effectively dismissed?
There is probably no way to sort out this unbelievable mess along the
lines of absolute property rights. It should be dealt with this way, but
I dare say it will be a practical issue when we get to that point,
rather than a philosophical one.
A State Immigration Problem
Another problem of immigration and property arises from the social
welfare system financed by money extorted from citizens. With the open
borders argument, private property rights might be undermined even
further if immigrants are entitled to special rights such as housing,
social security, minority status and rights, etc. Also, immigrants will
automatically become part of the parasitic masses through enjoying the
common right to use public roads, public schooling, and public health
care - while not paying for it (yet).
The concept of private property rights seems to offer a solution to
this, but it is not really a way out: it is not as simple as "private
property rights - yes or no?" Private property rights is a philosophical
position offering a morally superior fundamental framework for how to
structure society, but it does not offer guidance in what to do with
non-property such as that currently controlled by government.
It is deceivingly simple to claim all of the state's subjects have just
claims to "state property" since they are entitled to retribution for
years of rights violations. This is, however, only part of the truth. It
is also a matter of fact that all private production to some degree is
part of the rights violation process, with direct state support through
subsidies, tax breaks, patent laws, police protection etc., or
indirectly through state meddling with currency exchange rates,
"protective" state legislation, through using publicly owned and
maintained property and services for transportation, and so on. There is
simply no such thing as just private property anymore in the
philosophical sense.
Therefore, it is impossible to say immigrants would be parasites to a
greater degree than, e.g., Bill Gates: the Microsoft Corporation has
benefited greatly thanks to state regulation of the market, but has also
been severely punished in a number of ways. We are all both victims and
beneficiaries. Of course, one might argue that forced benefits are not
really benefits, but only one aspect of oppression. Well, in that case
it would also be true for immigrants, who too are or will be victims of
the state (but perhaps not for as long as you and I).
A Libertarian Stand on Immigration
We must not forget libertarianism is not a teleological dogma striving
for a certain end; it rather sees individual freedom and rights as the
natural point of departure for a just society. When people are truly
free, whatever will be will be. Hence, the question is not what the
effects of a certain immigration policy would be, but whether there
should be one at all.
From a libertarian point of view, it is not relevant to discuss whether
to support immigration policy A, B, or C. The answer is not open borders
but no borders; the libertarian case is not whether private property
rights restrict immigration or not, but that a free society is based on
private property. Both of these views are equally libertarian - but they
apply the libertarian idea from different points of view. The open
borders argument provides the libertarian stand on immigration from a
macro view, and therefore stresses the libertarian values of tolerance
and openness.[2] <http://www.mises.org/story/1980#_ftn2> The private
property argument assumes the micro view and therefore stresses the
individual and natural rights.
There is no conflict between these views, except when each perspective
is presented as a policy to be enforced by the state. With the state as
it is today, should we as libertarians champion open borders or enforced
property rights (with citizens' claims on "state property")? Both views
are equally troublesome when applied within the framework of the state,
but they do not contradict each other; they are not opposites.
(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)