• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

November 5, 2015|Immigration, Libertarians, Open Borders

Libertarians Can Believe in Borders: Pat Lynch Responds to His Critics

by Patrick Lynch|1 Comment

At Bleeding Heart Libertarianism Chris Freiman has written a thoughtful reply to my post exploring why libertarianism might be consistent with closed borders.  David Henderson at our sister site, EconLib, has agreed with one of Freiman’s points.  I wanted to briefly respond to both of them.

First off, the phrase “open borders” is understood differently among libertarians.  Some individuals support the idea that anyone can move freely across national borders.  Others would place limits based on security risks, health risks, or perhaps criminal records (how such information would be processed and who decides such a thing is unclear).  Bryan Caplan argues that individuals should be allowed to migrate anywhere but not receive host country welfare benefits.  Considering his research on democratic government it’s a surprising argument.

I define open borders as the free movement and settlement of anyone to whatever nation she chooses to live in without limits or exclusions.  Any restrictions on immigration for say security, now puts the camel’s nose under the tent and gives the government discretion, and this makes my point that libertarians may not agree on how much immigration and mobility should exist.

Second, both Freiman and Henderson use the analogy of American states to illustrate how adjoining borders can exist and still be open.  I find this puzzling.  Setting aside the historical and contextual circumstances of how U.S. states came to be required to be open under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. states are not nations.  The political boundaries represent nothing more than bundles of public services and living options.  However both Virginians and West Virginians are Americans and receive the benefits as well as pay the costs of being part of that national political community.  Neighboring nations might agree bilaterally to allow citizens to move freely between the two jurisdictions, but that is a sovereign choice negotiated nationally.

Third, Freiman claims that when nations refuse to accept an immigrant they “do not simply withhold benefits from would-be immigrants—they actively and coercively interfere with them. Closed borders forcibly exclude immigrants from working for employers who want to hire them and buying housing from willing sellers.”

Most countries happily allow foreigners to purchase property.  This is irrelevant to the point about immigration.  Regarding work, to begin I’d argue technology is creating more transnational opportunities that don’t require migration.  In the spirit of debate I’ll accept the claim that the state is the one doing the coercion (although in my previous piece I did not).  On this point, Freiman and others have diverse views.  Freiman’s concern is the limits placed on individuals and businesses to individually contract.  Caplan and Tabarrok claim that withholding access to a better labor market is a moral wrong.  Those are different positions with different implications.

If we accept Freiman’s position that the state is coercing people from employing others by limiting access to the nation by immigrants, I would say that libertarians (although not anarchists) do accept some collectively agreed upon limits on contracting, such as selling someone into slavery or paying for heart transplants among the living.  If the labor is say in a factory or a landscaping business a libertarian state could simply create a migrant worker program or match low skill workers to businesses without granting a path to citizenship.

If the focus is on skilled workers who are superior to other citizen applicants I don’t see how the morality argument holds.  In that instance I assume we are discussing highly educated and qualified individuals who I would guess do not desperately need access to international labor markets.  Besides as competition for educated workers increases, most nations are moving towards granting greater mobility to highly skilled individuals.  The Swiss have just a system which I noted in my earlier piece.

Finally Freiman argues that my analogy to HOA’s is faulty because while I would voluntarily allow the HOA to threaten me over an unkept lawn, “private organizations to which people expressly consent can be justified in restricting liberties in ways that the state is not—and this goes for the liberty to enter, too.”

First off, many localities have laws requiring maintenance of property because property owners understand that they themselves suffer when their neighbors ignore basic upkeep.  The demand for such laws is not from some shadowy bureaucrat holed up in an office.  It comes from individuals who don’t want abandoned homes and absentee homeowners ruining neighborhoods with overgrown lawns and dead trees.

Second, to say the state can’t tell you how to cut your lawn doesn’t mean the state can’t limit entrance.  A libertarian state might well have more compelling reasons for not allowing the free flow of immigrants into a country than it would for yard management.  Such a policy would not necessarily hinder “night watchman state” responsibilities we commonly associate with libertarianism nor create an unbearable burden to citizens.  If it did, a self-governing polity could easily pressure the government to alter the policy, as easily as it could impose limits on welfare recipients, the view of my detractors.

Patrick Lynch

Dr. G. Patrick Lynch is a Senior Fellow at Liberty Fund. He is currently working on a book length manuscript focusing on the "state of nature" in political theory.

About the Author

Unconstitutional at Any Speed: Assessing the Legacy of Obama
Reforming the Abuse of Agency Authority

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Founding Financial Father April 23, 2018
  • Pope Francis's Mess April 24, 2018
  • Academic Freedom Won't Survive Carnival Act Universities April 25, 2018
  • Trump's Travel Ban and the Constitution April 24, 2018
  • Constitutional Amendment as a Path to Avoiding Robed Masters April 24, 2018
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. gabe says

    November 5, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    ” Any restrictions on immigration for say security, now puts the camel’s nose under the tent and gives the government discretion”

    Whose nose should be under the tent?

    I would think Art I Sect. 8, tells us that it is precisely the governments nose that *ought* to be under it – in fact, in front of it’s entrance.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

The Ford Restoration

by Kirk Emmert

Occupying the White House in unfavorable circumstances can make a President fall back on his best friend: the U.S. Constitution.

Read More

John C. Calhoun, Madisonian Manqué

by Thomas W. Merrill

His institutional innovations were geared toward preserving slavery.

Read More

Podcasts

The Solid Ground of Mere Civility: A Conversation with Teresa Bejan

A discussion with Teresa M. Bejan

Teresa Bejan discusses with us how early modern debates over religious toleration are an example of how we can disagree well.

Read More

Leading a Worthy Life in a Scattered Time: A Conversation with Leon Kass

A discussion with Leon Kass

Leon Kass discusses Leading a Worthy Life.

Read More

Eric Voegelin Studies: A Conversation with Charles Embry

A discussion with Charles Embry

What did “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” really mean? An intro podcast on the formidable mind of Eric Voegelin.

Read More

Republican Virtue, Interrupted: A Conversation with Frank Buckley

A discussion with F.H. Buckley

The real conflict in our politics centers on reforming massive levels of public corruption.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Academic Freedom Won’t Survive Carnival Act Universities

    Public institutions of supposedly liberal learning, which are increasingly alienating mainstream Americans, have no entitlement to public support.
    by Greg Weiner

  • Constitutional Amendment as a Path to Avoiding Robed Masters

    Tocqueville gives us good reasons to think that constitutional amendment is the best path to avoiding judicial supremacy.
    by James R. Rogers

  • Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Strategy

    Defending the entire free world requires a robust nuclear posture.
    by Matthew Kroenig

  • Pope Francis’s Mess

    Pope Francis has succeeded in making a mess for his Church.
    by Paul Seaton

  • Trump’s Travel Ban and the Constitution

    If the Supreme Court were to accept the plaintiffs' logic in Trump v. Hawaii, the judicial branch will gain new powers over defense policy.
    by Thomas Ascik

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks