Gene Callahan, in Private Domains and Immigration, in 2003, concluded, in a critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s views on immigration:
giving more power to the state, based on an arbitrary set of ideals as to who should be allowed to come to the US (or any other country), ideals that are divorced from any actual entrepreneurial judgment, is not the answer to these problems. True freedom is the only answer.
Callahan, in 2010, in The Nature of Ideology, drawing inspiration from cow-psychologist Temple Grandin and his “second stay in Switzerland,” now writes:
Spending more time there on trip two, I thought I was in the most naturally orderly and civic-minded place I had ever been – and, I realized, if the Swiss ever adopted the open border policy I had advocated until then, that place would be gone in a decade. Now, when I recently expressed some reservations about unrestricted immigration on a libertarian blog, I was immediately accused of being a ‘xenophobe.’
Interestingly, these latter observations are similar to those of Ralph Raico and Hoppe. Raico argued:
Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”
In other words, the argument is that relatively liberal societies would certainly soon become less libertarian if they opened their borders.
And Hoppe argues here (emphasis added):
It is not difficult to predict the consequences of an open border policy in the present world. If Switzerland, Austria, Germany or Italy, for instance, freely admitted everyone who made it to their borders and demanded entry, these countries would quickly be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants from Albania, Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, for example. As the more perceptive open-border advocates realize, the domestic state-welfare programs and provisions would collapse as a consequence. This would not be a reason for concern, for surely, in order to regain effective protection of person and property the welfare state must be abolished. But then there is the great leap—or the gaping hole—in the open border argument: out of the ruins of the democratic welfare states, we are led to believe, a new natural order will somehow emerge.
The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified. Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, the masses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. They have not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians or Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos, Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the number of immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigration occurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simply transport their own ethno-culture onto the new territory. Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little” (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naiveté to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war. There will be widespread plundering and squatterism leading to massive capital consumption, and civilization as we know it will disappear from Switzerland, Austria and Italy. Furthermore, the host population will quickly be outbred and, ultimately, physically displaced by their “guests.” There will still be Alps in Switzerland and Austria, but no Swiss or Austrians.
As for Callahan getting smeared as a “xenophobe” for having reservations about unrestricted immigration, this is common–from criticisms such as he himself leveled at Hoppe, and so on (followup). Make of this what you will.
(To be clear, I’m pro-immigration and opposed to state restrictions on immigration.)
Update: See some recent tweets:
It’s hard for an ancap to support the INS, or any other federal goonds. OTOH it’s hard to support mass subsidized immigration either. Hoppe himself sees the heart of the problem is one caused by state democracy, welfare, and intervention: if the state prevents a citizen from inviting some outsiders, that violates his rights; it is what Hoppe calls forced exclusion. He specifically criticizes state immigration policy when it violates the rights of its citizens to invite whoever they want to their property. OTOH if the state subsidizes mass immigration and forces people to support and associate with and employ and give voting rights to these outsiders by means of antidiscrimination laws, welfare, and public roads and transportation and other state owned public property and facilities, this violates the rights of citizens by way of forced integration. Both forced exclusion and forced integration violate property rights of the citizens, according to Hoppe. Hoppe’s solution–the “first best”–is to abolish the state so that neither forced exclusion nor forced integration occur. Barring that, his “second best” solution as to a reasonable way to minimize both, to reduce the rights violations from either forced exclusion or forced integration, is to deny outsiders the use of public resources owned by citizens (because given welfare and other legal rights, they will have access to this as soon as they are permitted access) unless they are invited by a citizen who takes responsibility for them. By prohibiting them from accessing public resources (without an invitation) you reduce forced integration and related costs and rights violations; by permitting someone who is invited by a citizen, you reduce the forced exclusion problem (and by making the invitee-citizen responsible, you further reduce the forced integration problem since presumably there is a lower chance the immigrant will be a criminal or on the dole, since a citizen has to vouch for and to some degree even be responsible him). Until we abolish the welfare state, voting, and the state itself, you can see why his solution has an appeal to some libertarians: it’s an attempt to reduce both types of rights violations perpetrated by the state: forced exclusion, and forced integration/mass-subsidized immigration. See relevant quotes here stephankinsella.com/2007/09/boudre n.b.
and
. Dave does a good job giving his take on the Hoppean-type view on this matter, on second-bests, and the like. I tried before to explain, myself, what this Hoppean position really is: see twitter.com/NSKinsella/sta and my article “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders” stephankinsella.com/2005/09/a-simp. In the Smith-Murphy discussion, go to around 37 minutes here, where they talk about Gramercy Park in NYC. This is a good hypo Dave gives but let me refine it a bit youtu.be/1EZ6-Pn9j88?si So imagine there is a private neighborhood that owns a park in NYC, Gramercy Park, and only the residents and owners have keys to use the park. So therefore it’s very nice since no outsiders, bums, vagrants can use it. Let’s say these residents all pay their HOA (I know, I know, unemployed libertine libertards hate HOAs, but let it pass) a fee to hire private security guards to make sure no outsiders or bums use the park. Now one day the state expropriates Gramercy Park so is now it’s official owner, and they tell the previous owners they have to pay a tax to the state and the state will provide its own police, but everything will continue as before. Of course, it will be more expensive and less efficient, but the residents grumble and move on. They still have their little park, and instead of paying HOA fees to pay for private security, they are now paying a special tax and the state is providing the security personnel. So they are worse off because they are paying more and getting worse services, but only so much damage has been done to them. But now comes along an open-borders libertard type who thinks state-owned property ought to be treated “as if” it is unowned. In other cases, like borders, or state schools, they say well the state has no right to stop an immigrant from coming in; he’s not committing aggression. The state has no right to stop a crackhead from walking into a public elementary school classroom; after all he’s not committing aggression, and the property is “unowned.” So by this logic, they would have to say that the government, as owner of Gramercy Park, has no right to stop bums from decamping there. So let’s say the government takes the advice of our helpful local libertarian and tells its cops “stop banning bums from using the park”. So now the local residents find their beautiful park ruined and unusable. Can you not see how this state change in its policy about who can use public property that it has seized, adds insult to injury? Actually it adds injury to injury. If the state commandeers my private park and makes me pay taxes for it and runs is less efficiently, I am harmed to a certain degree but I still have the use of my park. If the state then starts allowing all-comers in, then it harms me more. See? n.b.
So how would you address the conerns that Hoppe describes?
The problem of immigration is due to the state itself–democracy, welfare state. The state cannot use unjust institutions such as this as an excuse to issue yet another unjust interference with the property rights of citizens.
But you can ask Hans his take next month! 🙂
The problem is he just changed position. This has nothing to do with the inconsistecy of the paleo ideology..
? problem? Why is it a problem to change your mind? I just hope Gene doesn’t get unfairly attacked be fellow libertarians now. But they probably won’t do this–they tend to reserve that for those associated with the Mises Institute, acting as if it’s unheard of for someone to not be open-borders, even while a great number of libertarians are in favor of some limitations on immigration. I guess it’s okay to be for immigration restrictions if it’s for the right reasons.
It is a tough issue because of the state. Obviously, without states (and all the things they do), there should be no artificial “borders” restricting people’s movement. But this should be rather obvious to all libertarians.