A Case For Open Borders

Photo Credits to Wikimedia

I was reading a Forbes article last year, and one line really struck me: “More people have died trying to cross over from Mexico in the past decade than were killed on Sept. 11.” As someone who has known both a victim of 9/11 and a few illegal immigrants, this really made me rethink my view on immigration. I realized that my view on how to handle the border with Mexico was inconsistent with my belief in the free market and the non-aggression principle. I viewed the flow of illegals (which is what I called them at that time; now I believe that  ‘undocumented’ is a better word) into this country as something to be stopped or prevented. I would now like to make a libertarian case for open borders. The United States, or any other country for that matter, should not restrict immigration because opening borders would be beneficial to the economy, and be consistent with the American ideals of liberty and freedom.

Immigrants should be let in because it would be a profitable, free-market solution for both us and the immigrants. Some conservatives would be among the first to object to protectionism in trade. Blocking goods from other nations or imposing tariffs, they will say, interferes with the free market in two negative ways. First, a tariff of $500 on a foreign good just taxes the consumer that $500, as Henry Hazlitt explains splendidly in Economics in One Lesson (skip to Chapter 11 or watch this video). It shifts the cost from the producer, who through government has put in place laws protecting their special interests, to the consumer. Second, it interferes with price signals. One major benefit of capitalism that even socialists will admit is that competition drives down cost and up quality. To outcompete one’s competitors, the obvious solution is to make better quality goods, or to lower the price. Protectionism makes both options, especially the second option, the one to lower the prices, more difficult, and this both makes it costlier for the consumer, and does not give incentive for the American companies to innovate. Protectionism is nothing other than a limiting to whom you can trade with, and the whole point of capitalism is that you trade with whoever has the lowest prices and best products. I wrote more about the detriments of protectionism in this earlier post. So if the free flow of goods and services across borders is viewed by conservatives as favorable, why then do they disagree with the logically following conclusion that the free flow of providers of services across borders is also beneficial?

The fact is that immigration and open borders are economically desirable. The common conservative response is that “they’re stealing the jobs of hard-working Americans.” But the one who should decide who gets the job is the employer, so that job was not stolen by the immigrant, rather,  the foreigner offered better prices or better quality work than the American would. As economist Bryan Caplan notes, “immigration restrictions are akin to forcibly preventing a potential competitor from appearing at a job interview in order to increase one’s chances of getting a job.” To this, our conservative may say something along the lines of, “Well, they are working for lower wages than Americans would work for.” What this overlooks is that a) this will incentivize Americans to work more productively, to innovate more and raise capital accumulation, as to raise their wages, and b) that even if the employer does hire the immigrant for lower wages, the money that the employer saves is reinvested in different sections of the economy. One only needs to apply the broken window fallacy’s premise from Frédéric Bastiat’s famous essay, “What is Seen, and What is Unseen” to this situation to see how breaking the window that is immigrant labor negatively affects the American economy. I’m sure most of you reading this are libertarian, and are familiar with this logical fallacy, but for those who are not I will provide the parable here, paraphrased, of course:

A baker is in his bakery when a rock comes flying through is window. Everyone gathers around. At first they feel bad for him, but then they think, “Well, if this never happened, what would become of the glazier. Destruction is a blessing. The baker will pay $250 to the glazier, who will then buy from the the tailor, for example, and then the tailor from the shoemaker, and so on, and it will help the whole economy.” They, however, fail to see that if you follow this premise to its logical conclusion, it would be profitable to destroy everything one could get one’s hands on. They fail to see that had the window not been destroyed, the baker would have used that $250 dollars for something else. He would have bought from the tailor, who then would have bought from the shoemaker, and so on, helping the whole economy. What they fail to see is that with the window broken, the economy is now one window’s worth worse off. Hence the title, “What is Seen, and What is Unseen.” The people believe destruction is a blessing because they can see the benefits of that, but cannot see the disadvantages, nor can they see the even greater benefits of the absence of the destruction.

If one applies this to the effect of  the restriction of immigrants on the economy, one will come to the same result:

Smith hires Julio, who produces $50 an hour. But along comes Senator ‘Murica McFreedom!!1!11!! who passes a law which deports Julio, since he did not wait the 131 years that some Mexicans must wait for citizenship before crossing the border for a job. Smith must now hire John, who only produces $30 an hour (if John had been more productive than Julio, he would have been hired before the law went into effect). An American might say that this is good. An American has a job and will produce $30 an hour, which will be used to buy from the American tailor, who will buy from the American shoemaker. What these Americans, just like the ones who gathered around the bakery, fail to understand is that the same effect would have manifested, but to a greater extent, with Julio being employed. They fail to see that America is now $20 an hour worse off. And this is not just me making some guess as to what might happen with open borders; this has already happened. The recent arrival of many new “foreign workers between 1990 and 2004 has raised native-born Americans’ wages by 2%” according to research by Gianmarco Ottaviano of Bologna University and  Giovanni Peri of University of California, Davis. And Texas, whose economy during this recession is doing better perhaps than any other state, also enjoys the second highest undocumented immigrant population of any state. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that freeing up the economy by opening borders would be a fantastic choice. It would double, that’s right, double, the world GDP. And for those that still don’t want immigrants, then open borders advocates have some (counterintuitively) good news. It betters both the receiving and the sending countries. Remember that the Mexican Government, too, wants tax money. In a kind of international, somewhat-capitalistic way, the loss of workers would incentivize the Mexican government to better their country, as to keep people at home and draw back the Mexican-Americans. I think I’ve illustrated pretty well how open immigration would be favorable. But that’s just gravy. The real reason to free us from the rule of these arbitrary lines on a map is the moral reason.

The American Dream: the long-held traditional ethos that through hard work, no matter the color of skin, nationality, sex, creed, etc., one can become prosperous and live a happy, peaceful life. Why then, do we deny this dream to our friends to the south? They may be born in Mexico, but to risk one’s life to earn an honest day’s work in a foreign land, in my opinion, makes one an honorary ‘Murican. People should be free to immigrate/emigrate between not just the U.S. and Mexico, but every nation, because no one, whether a politician or just your average criminal, has any right to restrict or infringe upon one’s life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness.

To prove this I must first digress to the subject of property (in a moral sense, not a legal one). In principle, there are only two ways to acquire property. The first is purchasing previously owned property in voluntary exchange. The second is to homestead, improve, or develop upon unowned property. Although the papers all say that the Federal Government of the U.S. owns thousands upon thousands of acres of forests and fields, it does not, in a moral or philosophical sense, own anything at all. “The government spends millions on improving the nation and providing helpful services,” one might retort. But those millions (or billions or trillions) of dollars are property too. Did the government acquire them through voluntary exchange? I don’t think so.

So getting back to the original topic, the government has no right to restrict movement between countries because a government does not own the land it occupies, and must initiate force in order to keep one in or outside of its borders. All a border is, anarcho-capitalist philosopher Stefan Molyneux declares, is “where one violent, homicidal, psychopathic warlord ran up against another violent, homicidal, psychopathic warlord.” While this is taken to an extreme in a way (not that that’s a bad thing) it shows that the lines on a map are completely arbitrary. The fundamental cornerstone of philosophy of liberty is the non-aggression principle: the axiom that it is immoral to initiate an act of force or fraud against someone else. Nothing about crossing an imaginary line to work for a more prosperous life pursuing your dream violates this at all. To put this kind of thing in the same category as theft, rape, and murder is appalling. On the contrary, the act of shooting those who cross these lines is in direct conflict with the NAP. The fact that people support these kinds of measures show how detached people are from the results of government actions. Your average American would never kill someone based on the knowledge that this person is not authorized to be here, and yet somehow it makes it okay that we elect government officials to do these heinous crimes for us. Before I sign off I want to offer one (admittedly cliché hypothetical). Imagine you live in the southern part of Texas. Due to some serious governmental screw-ups in the State Department, Mexico now hates us and begins an invasion. You were born and raised in America, and yet now the lines shifted somewhat north and suddenly your cut off. To not be able to go to the newly-defined America and trade and work in their economy, you would object, would be unfair. How then, is this any different if the borders are pre-defined?

In conclusion, of all the things government should not have power over, immigration is one of them. The reason the basic human right of movement between different different places must not be restricted is that it would interfere with both the economic perks and with liberty, among other basic American values. And if I have not convinced all of you conservatives and small-government types (I’m looking at you, Friedmanites and Tea Partiers!) and you want more evidence that it’s beneficial: Paul Krugman is against it! No one should be able to tell you where you can and cannot go. And if you really believe illegal immigration is wrong, then go back to Europe, because we weren’t always here.



Filed under Political

5 responses to “A Case For Open Borders

  1. A lot depends upon where the immigrants come from and what they desire from the USA. Advertising, as Obama does in Mexico for free healthcare, housing and food could boost the number of freeloaders that are just looking for handouts and could be a huge drag on the system. Obama and the U.N. are bringing in tens of thousands of muslim refugees, many that do not even want to be in the USA, that are trying to implement sharia law into the laws of the USA. These muslims are succeeding in some areas where there are many progressive liberals.
    I have no objection to good immigration policies that help the USA with people that really want to work and integrate into the USA. I do object to those wanting grants to change the USA to their way of life, like sharia law.
    There are many things to consider when it comes to immigration. There is a lot of good for immigration and there are many bad things about just open immigration. It is a complex matter that needs to take all into account, IMHO. There is no “simple” answer.

    • Hello numb3rtech, nice to meet you and thanks for the feedback.

      You pointed out the concern “freeloaders that are just looking for handouts and could be a huge drag on the system.” Studies show that immigrants will contribute more in tax revenue than they take.

      Also, you say that immigrants from Islamic nations “are trying to implement sharia law into the laws of the USA.” Could I have a source for this? Some Islamic-Americans may follow Sharia law voluntarily, the way a Jew or Christian would follow the Ten Commandments even though not all of them are U.S. laws. If there ever actually was a case where sharia law was executed by a local government in the U.S., there would be higher courts the victim could go to and the ruling of the local government wouldn’t stand.

      But you’re definitely right about there being good and bad things about open immigration. If the borders were completely opened all at once, as someone pointed out to me on Reddit.com, it would be a shock to the system, and would be a logistics nightmare. Although if it were phased in I’m sure it would do fine.

      • Hello Milton. My name is Sonya Jones. Here are some of the references for my concerns with sharia law.


        There are many references in some of the articles. I try to take an over all look at the islam religion and muslims. I know there are “good” Muslims that are integrating into the USA wanting good for all. I know a great many that are radical and are enticing others to become islamic warriors for allah. There are at least 7 radical training camps in the USA training muslim fighters and some go to Syria for further training. This is one major caveat against open borders in my opinion. These terrorists could come into the USA thru any country or port.

        I live in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood along with African Americans. My neighbors that became citizens the legal way are totally against the open border and amnesty. We have had group discussions and while there is a short term improvement in the economy with open immigration, the long term outlook drops due to lack of resources like water, sanitation, quality education, housing, etc. They also fear for their children and grand children being able to get introductory jobs and learn work skills that will help them grow through life.

        Also, while the population in the USA is growing, quality water resources, droughts and resulting loss of farm crops, cattle / farm bred animals is dropping, which will be causing shortages in the near future. President Obama is shutting down coal electric plants instead of helping to retrofit them. This is causing the loss of many well paying jobs in these power plants along with the coal mines and coal transportation systems. Right now, Mr. President Obama and the EPA are looking at taking over all waterways which includes current dry creek beds and dry low lands that could hold water. This is part of the “Agenda 21” plan by the United Nations. It is also a fact being challenged in some courts as we speak.

        My worry is the legacy we are leaving for our children and grand children. The staggering debt. The lack of entry and later quality jobs. The USA is currently at a maximum population point in my opinion. Even the great Bill Gates thinks the world is over-populated. Yes, bring in qualified people that can improve the USA in any respect and bring their family. I do not want to tear apart families. But do it with a process and with laws that will be enforced. Not the “pick & choose” format that Mr. President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder use. They have failed their oath to uphold the Constitution. Let the USA be a nation of laws that are followed and respected. Thank you for letting me reply and give my opinion.
        Sonya Jones
        Odessa, TX
        aka @Numb3rTech

  2. Naginto

    From the NY Times, Feb 12,2013:
    Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent.

    This is the difference between philosophy and reality. Right now what is left of the middle class is living in its 40th year of wage stagnation. Thank you free market? We have unprecedented power in the hands of financial and corporate figures swaying our entire political process. We need campaign finance reform.

    That “free market” you mentioned almost collapsed the entire global economy just a few short years ago. How? Deregulation brought on by lobbyists, followed by corrupt and unscrupulous bankers taking advantage of that fact.

    I don’t mind immigration reform, I think it is necessary. Maybe we could take some wisdom from the rest of the developed world and mirror their stance. If you have marketable skills, come on in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s