Free immigration, like free trade, is a moral issue. Government’s restriction of immigration violates natural rights, creates immoral results, and deprives us of morally positive benefits.
States draw borders to define the territory they claim to control. Since states are criminal enterprises, the lines they draw, and the restrictions on immigration they impose, are illegitimate.
When we are rid of states, we will be free of national borders. In the meantime, as a matter of morality and compassion, we should advocate all nations open their borders.
Migration Is a Natural Right
As Judge Andrew P. Napolitano observes, “the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right.” Judge Napolitano discusses the religious basis for natural rights; there is also a philosophical basis — natural rights are grounded in morality.
Natural rights are universal and precede government. The existence of natural rights logically compels anarchy (no ruler), since the state violates the rights through its existence.
However, even in the classical liberal conception of limited government, natural rights limit government’s power. Thus, as Judge Napolitano notes, the founding documents of the United States recognize natural rights. The Declaration of Independence cites the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and the Constitution protects natural rights through the Bill of Rights.
Restriction of immigration violates the natural rights not only of migrants but also those of natives. The government stands in the way of those who wish to hire, contract with, rent to, sell to, marry, or otherwise associate with migrants.
Since migration is a natural right, restrictions on immigration are inconsistent with limited government. The positions of politicians and the opinions of natives have no bearing on the right to migrate. The question is whether states will continue to violate the right.
Restricting Immigration Is Immoral
Restriction of immigration is immoral since it infringes on natural rights. States use violence and the threat of violence to prevent migrants and natives from exercising their rights.
Restriction also creates immoral results. While individuals have a right to travel for any reason, restriction prevents people from escaping war, tyranny, crime, poverty, persecution, and natural disasters. It also leads to the death of many migrants who have to endure the risks of irregular travel to avoid border controls.
Restriction, Not Immigration, Is Unlawful
Opponents of immigration claim to object to “illegal immigration.” However, what is unlawful is the restriction of migration, since this violates natural rights.
Further, in the United States, the general restriction of immigration, as opposed to the control of naturalization, lacks constitutional authority. Ilya Somin writes, “[T]here is a strong case that the original meaning of the Constitution restricts Congress’ power to limit migration, though it does give Congress broad power to deny citizenship to migrants.” He further notes, “[T]here is no general enumerated power giving Congress the authority to ban the entry of people simply because they are foreign nationals.”
If the real concern in any country were the “illegality” of immigration, there would be a simple remedy. The remedy would be to remove the restrictions, making immigration “legal.”
Restricting Immigration Deprives Societies of the Benefits of Migration
Freedom is its own virtue, and freeing immigration is inherently virtuous. While immigration freedom needs no justification, it promises economic and cultural benefits.
Bryan Caplan discusses the global economic effect of restrictions: “Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third World misery. Economists’ consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP [gross domestic product], enough to virtually eliminate global poverty ….”
Vipul Naik finds that even a conservative estimate of the increase in GDP with open borders is in the range of 20-60%. He notes,
The pessimistic end of the estimate, 20%, is still more than three times the total of the highest literature estimate of the gains from removing trade barriers and the gains from removing barriers to capital … among the papers cited by [Michael] Clemens. So, free labor mobility still has higher upside — even with these pessimistic assumptions — than free trade.
Michael Clemens explains the economic power of mobility:
The reason migration packs such economic punch is both simple and mysterious: a worker’s economic productivity depends much more on location than skill. A taxi driver in Ethiopia’s capital, no matter how talented and industrious, cannot earn more than a few thousand dollars a year. The same person doing the same job in New York City can easily earn $35,000 a year. The reason people will pay him that much is that his driving adds more than $35,000 of value to the New York economy, more value than his actions can add to the Ethiopian economy.
This has puzzled economists since Adam Smith in the 18th century. It is related to international differences in legal systems and geographic traits, and to pure proximity to other high-productivity workers. But regardless of the reason, the fact remains that simply changing a worker’s location can massively enrich the world economy. And stopping such movement massively impoverishes it.
Free movement economically benefits natives as well as migrants. People are a resource wherever they happen to have been born. Immigrants contribute to the economy as workers, entrepreneurs, innovators, savers, and investors.
Immigration also allows for cultural enrichment. Immigrants bring their heritage — language, customs, ideas, skills, music, art, and literature. Like free trade, free immigration will make life more “vibrant and variegated.”
Societal openness to immigration is an expression of the most important cultural trait, respect for humanity. This respect calls for valuing liberty for all people, including the freedom to migrate. It also calls for going beyond tolerance and embracing the freedom of people to live as they see fit.
Bigotry Is an Obstacle
Many of us who advocate open borders, or simply the liberalization of immigration, find that opponents, while decrying “illegal immigration,” actually oppose immigration. Some of us have also concluded that, in view of the virulence of the opposition, the tendency to cling to myths and misconceptions, and the rejection of any proffered solutions to objections to immigration, the aversion toward immigration is often based on bigotry. It is necessary to acknowledge this bigotry in order to overcome its influence.
The bigotry may be rooted in xenophobia, nativism, or ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious prejudice. Some mask their prejudice with an appeal to nationalism, but nationalism is itself a form of bigotry.
The bigotry is reflected in the dehumanization of immigrants. In the United States, we see this in the aggressive use of the derogatory terms “illegal aliens,” “illegal immigrants,” and “illegals.” Jose Antonio Vargas explains the unfairness:
[D]escribing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. … In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal. The term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people … their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted.
Mr. Vargas continues:
[T]he term dehumanizes and marginalizes the people it seeks to describe. Think of it this way: In what other contexts do we call someone illegal? If someone is driving a car at 14, we say ‘underage driver,’ not ‘illegal driver.’
Referring to migrants as “illegals” is even worse. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists, in a 2009 media release, wrote,
NAHJ is concerned with the increasing use of pejorative terms like ‘illegals’ – which is shorthand for ‘illegal aliens,’ another term NAHJ objects to using – to describe the estimated 12 million undocumented people living in the United States. Using ‘illegals’ in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by dehumanizing and criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed.
The term “illegal,” whether used as an adjective or a noun, falsely suggests not only criminality but also immorality. As Professor Somin discusses, conduct that is unlawful, including immigrating without authorization, may well be moral.
The bigotry is also displayed in fear-mongering, as in references to migration as “invasion.” Immigrants are not enemies, and they are not a threat. They are people seeking better lives.
The bigotry is additionally exhibited in the scapegoating of immigrants for economic problems. Wherever this scapegoating takes place, whether in the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere, the real problem is weak economic freedom, not immigration. Depriving a country of immigrants deprives its economy of resources.
Finally, the bigotry is manifested in the willingness of opponents of immigration to sacrifice natives’ economic well-being and liberty in order to persecute immigrants. For example, in the United States, state-level anti-immigrant legislation (some provisions of which were ultimately stricken by courts or repealed through legal settlements) led to economic decline in Arizona and crops rotting in farmers’ fields in Alabama and Georgia. Contrary to some commentary, these were not unintended consequences; they were the obvious and inevitable results of malicious policies.
We see the sacrifice of liberty in the growth of the police state that necessarily comes with securing borders and deporting immigrants. In the United States, the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled since 2004, to 21,000. The agency has the power to search for unauthorized immigrants within 100 miles of the border. The New York Times reports that it “operates 34 permanent checkpoints along the southern border and it is capable of operating 182 tactical, or temporary, checkpoints ….”
The checkpoints are inherently abusive, as an infringement of travel, but the agents also allegedly engage in violations of civil liberties. The ACLU of Arizona, in announcing a lawsuit earlier this year seeking public records, stated,
The ACLU has documented numerous cases of civil liberties abuses by Border Patrol agents at checkpoints and in roving patrols in southern Arizona: unlawful vehicle stops and searches, excessive use of force, racial profiling, destruction of private property and trespassing.
Past public information requests, in Washington and New York, have uncovered widespread abuses by Border Patrol agents, including racial profiling and detention of lawfully present individuals.
We also see the sacrifice of liberty in the United States in the requirement that employers serve as “deputy immigration agents.” The United States will lose more freedom if the federal government imposes national use of the E-Verify system. Jim Harper warns, “E-Verify will ultimately be a cardless national ID system.”
E-Verify also will bring economic costs. Alex Nowrasteh notes that the costs will include “mak[ing] it harder for hundreds of thousands of legal Americans to get a job” due to errors in the system.
Bigotry is darkness. People of conscience will open their hearts to what is moral and compassionate.
Advocating Open Borders Is the Moral and Compassionate Path
Morality leads us to do what is right. The moral path is to call for opening all borders, honoring the right of migration. Opening borders means freeing migrants from the restrictions of states, the exploitation of politicians, the torment of bureaucrats, and the bullying of border agents.
Compassion leads us to be concerned with the suffering of others and to act to alleviate this suffering. The compassionate path is the same as the moral path, calling for opening borders. Open borders will allow those fleeing danger to find safety, those escaping oppression to enjoy freedom, and those enduring poverty to prosper.
Who deserves our compassion? Jesus addresses the question “Who is my neighbor?” through the Parable of the Good Samaritan:
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And [the lawyer] said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
In Works of Love (p.22), Søren Kierkegaard explains,
Christ does not speak about knowing the neighbor but about becoming a neighbor oneself, about showing oneself to be a neighbor just as the Samaritan showed it by his mercy. By this he did not show that the assaulted man was his neighbor but that he was a neighbor of the one assaulted.
Whether guided by faith or philosophy, we will be better people, and make a better world, if we show that we are neighbors to immigrants. We must call for open borders and welcome our neighbors when they arrive.
Conclusion
Ken Schoolland, in “Immigration: An Abolitionist’s Cause,” writes, “[A]s history passes before us, we will be judged one day by our descendants on whether or not we have advanced the cause of liberty or whether we have stood in the way.”
Let us advance liberty, not stand in the way.
[Updated links and polished text: Sept. 8, 2020]
