Forthcoming Revised Edition of my Book "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom" [Updated with Corrected Oxford Univ. Press Discount Code]

The revised edition addresses several new issues including arguments that migration must be restricted to curtail the spread of dangerous diseases, such as Covid-19, claims that immigration might generate a political backlash that threatens democracy, and the impact of remote work on foot voting.

I am pleased to announce that the revised edition of my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom will be in print on December 1! It is already available for preordering on Amazon and the Oxford University Press website. If you purchase it at the Oxford UP site, you can use coupon code ALAUTHC4 to get a 30% discount. There will soon be a Kindle/e-book version of the revised edition, as well.

Why did the publisher and I decide to put out a revised edition only about 18 months after the first edition was published in May of last year? The biggest reason is that I ended up publishing a book on the value of freedom of movement just as the Covid-19 pandemic hit, and much of the world was trapped in lockdown. This tragic event raised issues that were not included in the first edition, but now clearly deserve attention: most notably claims that severe migration restrictions are needed to control the spread of Covid and other contagious diseases, and the implications of widespread remote work for foot voting.

The revised edition incorporates these two issues and more besides. Among other things, I also address the claim that too much immigration might generate a dangerous nativist backlash, which in turn could even threaten liberal democracy. This idea - which I really should have included in the original edition - is distinct from the argument that immigration threatens liberal institutions because immigrants themselves might turn out to be terrible voters who support illiberal politicians and parties. The latter issue was already extensively addressed in the original edition, and I have a added a few points related to it in this one.

The new edition also includes a number of other smaller additions and improvements, such as consideration of the issue of extraterritorial taxation - a problem that caught my attention because Yale Law School Prof. Jack Balkin raised it in an interview with me. Its importance was further highlighted by the abortive case of New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, which I think might be a harbinger of things to come.

I hereby extend my pledge to donate 50% of all royalties generated by Free to Move to causes benefiting refugees. That commitment now applies to any that come my way from this revised edition. The first edition raised several thousand dollars for refugees, and I hope this one might help, as well.

Here is the publisher's description of the revised edition:

Ballot box voting is often considered the essence of political freedom. But it has two major  shortcomings: individual voters have little chance of making a difference, and they face strong incentives to remain ignorant about the issues at stake. "Voting with your feet," however, avoids both these pitfalls and offers a wider range of choices.

In Free to Move, Ilya Somin explains how broadening opportunities for foot voting can greatly enhance political liberty for millions of people around the world. People can vote with their feet through international migration, choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector. Somin addresses a variety of common objections to expanded migration rights, including claims that the "self-determination" of natives requires giving them the power to exclude migrants, and arguments  that migration is likely to have harmful side effects, such as undermining political institutions, overburdening the welfare state, increasing crime and terrorism, and spreading undesirable cultural values. While these objections are usually directed at international migration, Somin shows how a consistent commitment to such theories would also justify severe restrictions on domestic freedom of movement.

By making a systematic case for a more open world, Free to Move challenges conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. This revised and expanded edition addresses key new issues, including fears that migration could spread dangerous diseases, such as Covid-19, claims that immigration might generate a political backlash that threatens democracy, and the impact of remote work.

And here are excerpts from some of the reviews and endorsements of the first edition:

"It is the best book on geographic mobility and exit that has been written to date, and… I am happy to recommend it heartily." -- Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution

"In this excellent book, Somin makes a compelling case that migration — or foot voting — provides far more political power than voting. Any one voter has a trivially small chance of altering an election, but any household can choose a new state and local government by simply moving. This insight implies that devolving power to local governments will generate far more political voice than any conceivable reform to national elections. Freer international migration would empower even more people to choose their own government. Somin's case is strong, his thinking is clear, and his writing is eloquent." -- Edward Glaeser, Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics, Harvard University and author of The Triumph of the City

"Ilya Somin shows that mobility-the freedom to move from here to there-might be the most underrated underpinning of a free society. It is especially important in America, where states can compete with one another to have social policies welcoming to enterprise and liberty. Voting is important; so is what Somin calls 'foot voting.'"--George F. Will, columnist, Washington Post, and author of The Conservative Sensibility

"First rate."—Robert Guest, Foreign Editor, the Economist, and author of Borderless Economics

"Free to Move shows that foot voting works better than we think, is more common than we think, and that there are many opportunities to improve political freedom by encouraging foot voting…. Chapter 5…. convincingly rejects both individualistic and communitarian arguments that self-determination can justify the exclusion of people. It offers as clear and convincing a rejection of discrimination based on parentage and place of birth as this author has ever seen… One of the outstanding features of the book is that it is robust to criticism. The reason is that Somin deals with potential critiques in a fair way. There are no straw person arguments." -- Ilia Murtazashvili, Public Choice

"A powerful book." -- Richard A. Epstein, New York University School of Law, author of The Classical Liberal Constitution.

"Ilya Somin's book is terrific." -- Guy-Uriel Charles, Law professor at Duke Law School and the co-director of the Center on Law, Race, and Politics, Twitter

"Ilya Somin gives the reader a theory of Federalism writ (internationally) large: A great book." -- Professor Roderick Hills, NYU School of Law

"Somin offers a compelling and ingenious justification for free global movement … The book's combination of rigorous thought and engaging argument makes "Free to Move" a must-read for those interested in the future of immigration law and policy." -- Peter Margulies, Lawfare

UPDATE: The original version of this post had an incorrect  discount code for the Oxford University Press website. That problem has been corrected.

Comments

[jdgalt1]

A strong "backlash" reaction to large numbers of migrants is not always merely prejudice. Sometimes it reflects the fact that the migrants bring with them a massive crime wave -- either because it is their customary way to behave in their home countries (theft and assault are common and expected in some places) or because they consider our relatively tolerant police to be a joke. If you handwave the problem away as prejudice, don't expect widespread agreement.

[Ilya Somin]

The crime issue is addressed separately in Chapter 6 of the book (and already was included in the original edition).

[DaivdBehar]

Hey, Ilya, you snot nosed, Ivy indoctrinated, lawyer scumbag servant of the Dem Party and of the Chinese Commie Party. Does the second edition offer to end your ridiculous hypocrisy? Allow 100000 law profs from India to come to work for $25000 ayear, a stagering dim to them? Are you advocating the seizures of the homes on your street to house 8 illegals in each. They can say, good morning to your daughter as she walks to school. Are you saying, you will take 8 of them into your home?

Until you get personal this way, STFU you vile internal enemy to our way of life.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America has experienced successive waves of ignorance and intolerance, often related to immigration, religion, race, and perceived economic pressures. Those targeted have included Blacks, gays, Catholics, Jews, women, agnostics, Asians, Muslims, other Asians, atheists, other Hispanics -- most of America, at one time or another.

What makes our nation great is that in America our bigots do not win, at least not over time. The better voices defeat the lessers in America. Our liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to push our vestigial bigots -- the right-wing racists, the conservative misogynists, the superstitious gay-bashers, the Republican immigrant-haters -- into increasingly smaller and more desolate, less relevant spaces.

So carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, and so far as your ugly, obsolete, bigoted thinking could carry anyone in modern America.

[DaivdBehar]

OK, Boomer. You need to be replaced by an illegal diverse. Until that happens. STFU, you scumbag lawyer hypocrite. Diversity is the strength of our nation.

[Doug Heffernan]

The promo code is not working for me in the oxford cart.

[Ilya Somin]

I have fixed the code in the post. I originally had two of the letters switched.

[ReaderY]

Professor Somin has strong beliefs on this issue and, like so many judges and scholars, has tended to constitutionalize them, intuitively assuming that what seems so obviously right to him must somehow be in the constitution.

I have found myself repeatedly on the opposite end of the spectrum, agreeing with the Supreme Court that the US government has essentially unfettered control over immigration, with no process due, no equal protection obligation, and the ability to use immigration as a foreign policy tool, as free to deport prospective immigrants from disfavored countries as it is to expel their ambassadors, impose sanctions, or go to war.

Abortion has complicated things. My biggest issue with Roe and its progeny is that it equated the idea that fetuses lack due process rights with the idea that applying moral considerations to them is somehow mere religion or somehow inaappropriate for our society. In expeessing my disapproval, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that immigrants are in exactly the same boat as fetuses — they too lack due process rights, and are subject to a similar unfettered freedom of choice whether to allow them in or kick them out - and yet nobody would suggest that moral considerations in immigration matters are inappropriate, mere religion, or somehow against constitutional values.

Years ago, I satirized the arguments supporters of unfettered abortion rights make at the unfortunate expense of Professor Somin, characterizing him as a religious fanatic who seeks to impose his own narrow morality on others, as someone who obviously hated Americans and doesn’t want tohem to have autonomy or control over their own national life (what other motive could he have for denying them freedom of choice), etc., etc., etc.

This was probably a mistake, perhaps a big one. It was never my intention to denigrate Professor Somin or his values. To the contrary, my intent was to point out how absurd (in my view) similar castigations of the (in my view) similar values of opponents of abortion are. But I failed to recognize Poe’s law, how hard it often is distinguish satire from straight opinion in posts on the internet.

As a certain placque on a certain statue in an island in New York harbor illustrates, for much of its history the United States had an open door policy on immigration, and was not only proud of it, but saw it as a distinguishing national characteristic. Professor Somin extends that tradition to perhaps its logical extreme. I would not go so far as Professor Somin myself. But I used the immigration issue precisely to illustrate that the fact that the constitution sometimes doesn’t impose formal obligations towards others, sometimes even lets us go to war with and kill them, doesn’t relieve us of the need to acknowledge their humanity or the moral considerstions that come with it.

I do have one suggestion for Professor Somin if he wants to be more convincing towards moderates like myself. As one of several potential historical examples, Frederick the Great famously welcomed refugees from the religous conflicts of surrounding countries to Prussia, and this policy had a great deal to do with turning Prussia from a backwards country into a great power. Indeed, the United States’ own history illustrates the potential value of immigration for rising powers. Perhaps Professor Somin, rather than regarding nationalist considerations as the absolute enemy of liberal immigration, might want to compile some examples of cases where the two worked in harmony. I think the idea that immigration can be good for countries as well as individuals is not incompatible with his basic values. He might get further by placing greater emphasis on areas of harmony and less on ideologically based conflict between nations and worldwide humanity.

[DaivdBehar]

Somin is a servant of the Chinese Commie Party and an ingrate to the nation that rescued him legally from his shithole of origin.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Interesting comment, but if I understand you correctly, you seem to be arguing that their are no constitutional controls over the US Government's power over immigration, because the constitution doesn't confer any due process or equal protection rights to immigrants. But of course the constitution primarily acts as a limit to government action in all areas, including immigration. I don't think the constitution only applies to areas where affected individuals have due process or other individual enumerated rights. Rights conferred on individuals are only one way the constitution acts to limit governmental power.

[ReaderY]

The Constitution assigns Congress power over immigration, so “the government” has to follow statutes. Congress’ statutes set up procedures and confer a certain number of rights which have generally been taken for granted. But as Trump v. Hawaii held, the President can refuse to admit immigrants essentially indiscriminantly if Congress grants the President the necessary discretion. Trump v. Hawaii held in particular that the Establish Clause doesn’t prevent the President from excluding immigrants from countries that are entirely of one particular religion.

That’s the sort of thing I mean by not having constitutional rights.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ah, I see, thanks for the reply. But despite Trump v Hawaii, the executive couldn't ban all immigrants of a certain religion, regardless of the country of origin. If Congress were to pass such a statute, or explicitly grant the executive that authority, would such a restriction be constitutional? I would think not. Therefore the constitution would seem to restrict the US Government's power to act on immigration somewhat, even in the absence of individual rights being conferred. Perhaps I'm just making a meaningless quibble over your term "essentially indiscriminately."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Somin's perpetual issue is that he doesn't put any real limits on his pursuit of open borders. A true "open borders" strategy that welcomed all immigrants, instantly, regardless of number would rapidly result in the destruction of the American country.

Regulated, limited immigration is certainly useful and can be encouraged. This allows time for proper integration and assimilation into American culture.

However, a situation where tens to hundreds of millions of people immigrated into the US in a short time frame (under a couple years for example), would not allow for integration or assimilation. Instead you would see extreme stressing of resources, fracturing of the society, and much more conflict.

[WJack]

For sure, Somin persistently tries to make what he perceives to be in his personal interest seem to be in the National interest.

[Sarcastr0]

How is this in his personal interest?

[WJack]

Divide and rule.

[David Nieporent]

Who exactly do you think Prof. Somin is ruling?

[Armchair Lawyer]

As a counterpoint to Ilya's optimism... Belarus's current use of immigrant warfare.

For those who are interested, Belarus is running multiple flights to middle eastern countries, flying the immigrants to Minsk, then pushing the immigrants to the borders, so they can infiltrate into the EU. The concept here is that such a right of migrants will destabilize the EU countries, and that will be advantageous to Belarus.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/11/belaruss-weaponized-migrants-offer-primer-gray-zone-warfare/186590/

[Bill Godshall]

"In this excellent book, Somin makes a compelling case that migration — or foot voting — provides far more political power than voting.

Seems like Biden, Harris and other Democrat presidential candidates read the first version of this book before they all promised free food, housing, education, healthcare, daycare and covid checks to billions of the poorest people in the world if they simply walk across the Mexican border (after Democrat polsters found that most illegal immigrants would register as Democrats).

Nothing like destroying a great nation in order to maintain political power.

[David Nieporent]

What are you talking about? Illegal immigrants can’t register as anything.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not actually true.

In some places in the US, illegal immigrants can actually register to vote in local elections.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/san-francisco-allows-undocumented-immigrants-vote-school-elections-n893221

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Laboratories of Democracy.