I'm an advocate for open borders. I think it is the only moral immigration policy. It's the only policy that actually respects everyone's fundamental rights. Immigration restrictions violate the rights of citizens in the country that imposes restrictions. If I can't rent out an apartment to whomever I choose or hire whomever I choose to work at my business, my country has violated my property rights and my right to freedom of association. The would-be immigrant's rights are also violated, and to add injury to insult they are relegated to dire poverty (or horrifying civil war or corrupt institutions or political persecution).
But the term "open borders" freaks people out. I think some advocates brandish the term in a way that's deliberately provocative, like "Watch me bite this bullet!" It's like calling yourself an "atheist" just because the term sounds harsher than "agnostic", even when the second term gets the point across. If I were trying to make the case for open borders to someone who is very skeptical to the idea, I would frame it differently. I would try to frame it as: You need a reason to say "No" to this person. "Immigrants" aren't an undifferentiated mass of humanity. This is a person you're talking about. A migrant worker who wants to earn first-world wages and send remittances back to his family at home, or a mother who wants a better life for her children. If they want to come here, and someone who already lives here wants to host them and hire them (perhaps marry them, or be their colleague), then you need a reason to say "No" to this specific person. If you can't look that person in the eye and explain to them why your personal uneasiness with immigrants trumps their right to move here, you don't really have the right to tell them "No."
Folks in the anti-immigration crowd often point to crimes committed by immigrants as if that's a legitimate reason to restrict immigration (even though, by all accounts, immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives). Okay, if that's your reason, that's fine. Would you tell someone, to their face, "I'm sorry, but the social statistics imply that the probability that you will commit a crime is X%. I'm not willing to take that risk. Please return home to live in dire poverty." That's the policy decision we're making with immigration restrictions, so let's just be upfront and honest about it. We're effectively doing this millions of times over, but without the moral courage to actually say what we're doing.
Some anti-immigration folks are worried about, how should I say this, the "cultural makeup" of America (or whatever their home-country is). I don't particularly like it when people fling around loose accusations of racism, but in this case I can't help it. At least some people who are anti-immigration are worried that America will become "less Anglo" and become more Hispanic, Chinese, and Indian. (Scott Sumner has written insightfully on this point; restrictionists aren't worried about being swarmed by Canadians and Britons and Aussies, or even by Europeans. If you comment to tell me that you're in favor of immigration restrictions but you're not racist and the racial makeup thing doesn't bother you at all, that's fine, I believe you. I'm just pointing out that these people exist. I've literally heard them voice their concerns.) I still think you need a reason to tell someone "No." When faced with someone who would like to immigrate here, to work for a willing employer and rent from a willing land lord, you need to be able to say, "Your presence here pollutes a cultural ideal that I would like to preserve. I'm not willing to endure that cost."
Too often, immigration debates deal in aggregates. We need to do a better job of reminding people what the proposition is at the individual level. (Many open borders folks have actually been great on this point.) The crime and "cultural makeup" objections to immigration seem to be weighing insignificant costs against tremendous benefits. I don't see how these could yield a "No" answer for a typical immigrant in a fair process. (Saying "No" to a known criminal, on the other hand, might make sense, depending on the severity of the crime and recidivism risk.)
If "You need a reason to say 'No'" yields "We almost never actually say 'No'", and if "We never actually say 'No'" implies "Basically open borders", so be it. We followed a fair process to it's logical conclusion, even if the resulting policy is surprising to many people. Moral inquiry often leads to surprising conclusions. But I wouldn't start the conversation at "Open borders, or else you're an awful person."
With all that said, there are often more sensible solutions than just saying "No" and outright denying someone entry. "You can come here if you put up a bond, which you forfeit if you commit a crime." Or "You can come here if you secure employment and housing first." Or "You can come here if you forfeit your right to certain provisions of the welfare state." All of these conditions seem a little unfair and demeaning, but they are far better than an outright and unconditional "No!"
This Econtalk interview with Bryan Caplan made me an instant convert to open borders, without my having previously given the topic much thought. Caplan rests much of his argument on the unfairness of immigration restrictions to the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment