FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.

posted on 28 March 2017

Free Immigration Is The Moderate, Common-Sense Position

by FEE,

-- this post authored by Bryan Kaplan

There are many complaints about governments, but the harshest is, "This government grossly violates human rights." The background assumption is that human beings have rights that everyone - including governments - is morally obliged to respect.


Please share this article - Go to very top of page, right hand side for social media buttons.

When looking at the grossest violators - Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Maoist China - almost no one denies the validity of the idea of human rights. But then you have to wonder: Do the governments we know, accept, and even love have clean hands? Or do they violate human rights, too?

When social scientists measure the consequences of immigration, they're not clearly awful. In fact, the consequences look totally awesome.

To answer, we normally apply a simple test: If an individual treated other people the same way the government does, would he clearly be a horrible criminal? If an individual deliberately kills innocent people, he's a murderer; if an individual imprisons innocent people, he's a kidnapper. A government that does the same violates basic human rights - and it can't justify its actions by calling innocent people "criminals." If someone is peacefully living his life, he's innocent - whatever the government says.

What does this have to do with immigration? Lots. Since we're in San Diego, we've seen illegal immigrants. What are the vast majority of them doing? Working for willing employers. Renting apartments from willing landlords. Buying stuff from willing merchants. Sending money home to their families. Maybe even sitting next to you in class. They sure look innocent - even admirable. But the U.S. government can and does forcibly arrest and exile them to the Third World. Why can't they all just come legally? Because exile is the default; they're all exiled unless the U.S. government makes a rare exception. This is far less bad than killing or imprisoning them, but it sure looks like a severe human rights violation. If the U.S. government forbade you to live and work here, wouldn't that be a severe violation of your human rights?

You could reasonably object that human rights are not absolute. While there's a strong moral presumption against killing, imprisoning, or exiling innocent people, it's okay to do so if the overall consequences of respecting human rights are clearly awful. The main problem with this objection is that when social scientists measure the overall consequences of immigration, they're not clearly awful. In fact, the overall consequences look totally awesome. Most notably, standard economic estimates say that letting all the world's talent flow to wherever it's most productive would roughly DOUBLE global prosperity. That's an extra $75 TRILLION of extra wealth per year. How is this possible? Because even the world's lowest-skill workers produce far more in the First World than they do at home. Even if all other fears about immigration were bulletproof - which they aren't - they're dwarfed by this gargantuan economic gain. This isn't trickle-down economics; it's Niagara Falls economics.

The Trespassing Argument

To effectively defend immigration restrictions, then, saying "Human rights are not absolute" is insufficient. You need to flatly deny that immigration is a human right - to say that while the illegal immigrants you meet on the street may look innocent, they're actually guilty as hell. The most popular argument analogizes illegal immigrants to trespassers. No one has any right to be here without government permission; it's our country, so we set the rules.

We don't really face a choice between two freedoms of association, but between free association and forced association.

The obvious problem with this position is that it justifies a vast range of blatant human rights abuses. If it's our country and we set the rules, why can't we exile citizens, too? Why can't we imprison people for saying the wrong thing, practicing the wrong religion, or having kids without government permission? Saying, "That won't happen," dodges the question: If the U.S. government did this to you, would it be violating your human rights or not?

Prof. Wellman offers a more sophisticated version of this story. He defends immigration restrictions for "legitimate states" only, on the grounds that immigration restrictions are vital for "freedom of association." Unfortunately, we have two conflicting freedoms of association. I want to be free to associate with foreigners; lots of foreigners want to associate with me. Immigration restrictions deny us this freedom in the name of all the Americans who don't want my associates breathing American air.

Who should prevail? In his work, Wellman concedes a crucial premise, freely admitting that the popular notion that we all consent to government is a "fiction," and that "the coercion states invariably employ is nonconsensual and, as such, is extremely difficult to justify." We don't really face a choice between two freedoms of association, but between freedom for real associations we choose to join and freedom for fictional "associations" we're forced to join. Unless the overall consequences are clearly awful, the fictional ones should lose. Freedom of association is only for free associations.

My critics often tease me, "Should everyone on Earth be free to immigrate into Bryan's house?" Their point: Treating immigration as a human right is utopian nonsense. My reply: There are three competing moral positions on immigration.

  1. Foreigners should be free to live in my house even if I don't consent - a view held by almost no one.

  2. Foreigners should be free to live in my house if I consent - my view.

  3. Foreigners shouldn't be free to live in my house even if I do consent - the standard view I'm criticizing.

Far from being utopian, saying "Immigration is a human right" is just the moderate, common-sense position that when natives and foreigners voluntarily interact, strangers are morally obliged to leave them alone unless the overall consequences are clearly awful. Even if the stranger happens to be the government - and the government happens to be popular.

Editor's note: The above is the author's opening statement for a debate with Christopher Wellman titled, "Is Immigration a Human Right?" For the full video, see below:

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing

Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.

Econintersect Opinion

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF

The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.

Keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government



Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved