Make Immigration Restrictionists Pay For Their Own Borders

When I hear immigration-restrictionists describe the problems immigrants bring with them, I want to reply with "That's great. Build your own damn borders. Stop conscripting me to pay for a 'border' that I don't want."

In a previous post, I make the point that someone can't just "come here" even under an open borders regime. They can't just walk across the border and merely exist. They have to somehow link themselves into the existing society. They have to acquire housing. They have to either acquire a job or plead for mercy from someone who will bankroll their stay here. They have to obey the norms and formal rules of any establishment they enter. Or else they will get kicked out. All of this entails convincing someone who is already here that you're worth dealing with as a human being. "Yes, I will rent to you" or "Yes, I will give you a job" or "Yes, I will marry you." I called that post "There Are Adequate Borders Inside Our Borders." Someone who considers coming here not really intending to follow the rules will foresee that the entire venture will not be worthwhile and forego the trip altogether. People know that there are internal borders, and they'll have to cooperate with their neighbors, co-workers, etc. in order to navigate those borders.

I'd actually like to see existing policy flipped. Currently it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin for someone who lives here legally, but getting legal permission to come here is a bit of a legal/bureaucratic nightmare. I'd like to see almost no discrimination at the national border, aside from perhaps some minimal vetting to keep out known criminals. But I'd like to give property owners and private organizations more freedom to decide who they will or won't take as members or customers. If some bigot wants to put up a "no immigrants" sign on his store front, let him. I think the concern, that this kind of discrimination would be widespread, is vastly overblown. A bigoted store owner knows that an immigrant's money is as green as anyone else's, so he's likely to keep his petty prejudices to himself, perhaps even rethink them. Even if there are store owners who are truly committed bigots, their shops will end up being owned by people who aren't so arbitrarily discriminating. Productive resources tend to end up owned by those individuals who will coax the greatest productivity out of them. Someone without hangups about immigrants will buy the store from the bigoted owner and turn a higher profit, or simply open a store across the street and drive the bigot out of business.

At any rate, a "no national borders, but you're free to discriminate" regime forces immigration restrictionists to pay the cost of building their own borders. The foregone revenue of potential customers, the added security and enforcement mechanisms, the social stigma and potential boycotts for treading on our society's sacred anti-discrimination norms. I think it's cowardly to unload these costs on other people. I want to say, Do your own dirty work, buddy. You get to enter a private booth every two years and secretly mark a little box for the "anti-immigrant" policy. I'd love to see that veil of secrecy taken away. Private policy suffices here; there is no need to make "keep immigrants out of my life" a matter of public policy. Despite the name, private "anti-immigration policy" would actually be more visible and subject to greater scrutiny. And the discriminators would have to pay the costs themselves. I think that would be true justice.