The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Article on "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives"
It explains how immigration restrictions massively diminish both the "negative" and "positive" economic liberty of natives of receiving countries.

A draft version of new article on "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives" (forthcoming in a symposium in Public Affairs Quarterly) is now available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Much of the debate over the justice of immigration restrictions properly focuses on their impact on would-be migrants. For their part, restrictionists often focus on the potentially harmful effects of immigration on residents of receiving countries. This article cuts across this longstanding debate by focusing on ways in which immigration restrictions inflict harm on natives, specifically by undermining their economic liberty. The idea that such effects exist is far from a new one. But this article examines them in greater detail, and illustrates their truly massive scale. It covers both the libertarian "negative" view of economic freedom, and the more "positive" version advanced by left-liberal political theorists.
Part I focuses on libertarian approaches to economic freedom. It shows that migration restrictions severely restrict the negative economic liberty of natives, probably more than any other government policy enacted by liberal democracies. That is true both on libertarian views that value such freedom for its own sake, and those that assign value to it for more instrumental reasons, such as promoting human autonomy and enabling individuals to realize their personal goals and projects.
In Part II, I take up left-liberal "positive" theories of economic freedom, which primarily focus on enhancing individuals' access to important goods and services, and enabling them to have the resources necessary to live an autonomous life. Some also focus on expanding human capacities generally, or give special emphasis to enhancing the economic prospects of the poor. Here too, migration restrictions impose severe costs on natives. To the extent migration can sometimes harm the economic prospects of natives, the issue is better dealt with by "keyhole solutions" that address specific problems by means other than restricting migration.
Finally, Part III describes how to address situations where potentially harmful side effects of migration might undermine either negative or positive economic liberty of natives, without actually restricting migration. I have addressed such issues in greater detail in previous work, and here provide only a short summary of my approach and its relevance for economic liberty issues.
I am looking for some alternative to "natives" as a concise, non-clunky way to refer to "current citizens of destination countries." I welcome any suggestions readers might come up with. E-mail me if you have one!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am looking for some alternative to "natives" as a concise, non-clunky way to refer to "current citizens of destination countries."
Gee, how about: citizen.
Or how about just not being afraid of using a word based on its literal meaning. Natives is the precise word to use, but every word choice these days has to be examined against the possible blowback from complete assholes. (Because government and leftists and totalitarians decided to empower assholes instead of telling them no.)
If he wants a non-clunky way to refer to 'current citizens', "citizens" is unambiguously it. It's not even close. "Natives" excludes naturalized citizens, after all.
I'm curious why he'd be reluctant to just go ahead and use it. He doesn't like acknowledging the concept of "citizenship", or that citizens stand in a different relationship to a country than random people?
Exactly.
The "current" is just a weasel word.
Isn't the point about how immigrants may become citizens?
So you must distinguish between current citizens and future citizens.
The word "citizens" literally distinguishes between current citizens and future citizens.
I waiting for the sequel on how a slave trade helps the economic freedom of slave owners.
"… migration restrictions severely restrict the negative economic liberty of natives, probably more than any other government policy enacted by liberal democracies"
Nice to see credibility thrown away in the intro. A real time-saver.
The rest argues that a true Libertarian should be willing to let strangers defecate on his lawn.
So did none of you do the homework?
Need you ask?
If history has any indication part 3 is a long winded explanation on how having a permanent underclass of immigrants and their descendants that can't vote is a totally stable and politically viable situation.
...What history?