The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Schweizer Monat Article on "Open Borders" Immigration
A Swiss publication invited me to write this article making the case for open borders.
The Swiss publication Schweizer Monat invited me to write an article making the case for "open borders" immigration policy, which I was happy to do. It came out today. There are both English language and German versions. Here is an excerpt from the English version:
I was born in the Soviet Union in 1973. The life of most residents of that totalitarian state was one of poverty and oppression. Several of my relatives had been victims of the government's repressive policies. In addition, as Jews they often felt the weight of the regime's institutionalized anti- Semitism. I was freed of all that because my parents and I were able to leave the USSR for the United States in 1979. I am, as a result, vastly better off than my peers who stayed in Russia. But virtually all of the difference between my life and theirs is the result of the difference between American institutions and Russian ones, not any merit of mine. Had I remained in Russia, I would likely still be poor, and might well have become a victim of Vladimir Putin's repressive policies, or been caught up in his brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. My life is just one of many transformed for the better by migration. More people should have the same opportunity.
The idea of "open borders" migration may seem impossibly radical. Most people take it for granted that governments have the right to restrict immigration. But more careful consideration shows that an "open borders" policy is a natural outgrowth of liberal democratic ideals of liberty and equality. Moreover, immigration has enormously beneficial effects for natives, as well as immigrants themselves. There can be negative side-effects of migration. But most can be dealt with through "keyhole solutions" that do not require migration restrictions.
The rest of the article summarizes the moral and economic advantages of free migration, and addresses several standard objections. I cover these and related issues in much greater detail in my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. See also my recent post on "What Milton Friedman Got Wrong About Immigration and the Welfare State," which gives a more extensive critique of an objection of special interest to many libertarians and conservatives.
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 appreciate your commitment to consistent principles.
But I assume that this post will go over like a lead-balloon with the usual suspects here.
(Personally, I think open borders is a wonderful idea in concept, but actual reality counsels against it. Immigration policy isn't just about making life better in some theoretical way, but has to take into account the concerns of the body politic, which counsel for an immigration policy that is more discerning. IMO. Of course, we will never get rational conversations about that.)
Yeah, this is my position as well – transition costs can last decades and are not to be shrugged off lightly, over and above the fact that we’re at an international nativist upswing at the moment.
Even the goal of policy reform to make the system more rational, predictable, and less hellish for those who go through it has zero chance of passage at the moment. But I'm young and optimistic enough I keep that wish in my back pocket.
But the crowd around here provide well enough low hanging fruit the fact that I’m not for open borders very rarely comes up (and when it does they just say I’m lying)
concerns of the body politic
The article opposes various "concerns," which include a lot of fiction. Realistically, in the short term, open borders won't be possible. But, that held for a range of things that now are possible.
The author's job basically is to discuss the possibilities and overall logic of the situation. Likewise, the middle path is more immigration than present now with fewer limits.
His arguments help reach that too.
I would vastly prefer an open-borders policy. However, I agree with Milton Friedman that such a policy is unsustainable for any welfare state. Until we can figure out how to back away from our government's redistributionist tendencies, it will never be practical to return to our open-borders roots.
Yes, the libertarian movement I joined back in the 70’s was much more intellectually sophisticated than today’s, understanding as they did concepts like path dependence.
Open borders was on the list, sure, but it was last on the list, for good reason. If you got it first, you’d never get the rest of the list.
The US is a considerably less libertarian society today, and mass immigration has contributed to that, I think, most of the immigrants being from much less libertarian societies than the US.
No, it wasn't. It was right up front like every other fundamental right.
Ilya's “academic” and Volokh appearances exists in an attention economy. Deny your attention, no clicks, on any subjects other than eminent domain or political ignorance.
I love a good heal but he is presenting as a serious person. He is no longer either.
Debate with him, even for the sake of others who may be persuaded by his drivel, does not serve the purpose it may have in the past.
Remain libertarian but fully tribal when it comes to U.S. citizenship, on many accounts.
Can anyone name a country, today, that has 'open borders' like Ilya the Lesser proposes?
What is reality...is any country doing this today?
To the best of my knowledge, Svalbard is the only current place with such a policy. Technically though it’s a … county? I don’t know the proper name for subsidiary entities of Norway. But yes it exercises independent immigration policy from the national parent. Something to do with the treaty under which Norway got sovereignty over the archipelago, I think.
Is that a good example to extrapolate to the US? Svalbard is north of the Arctic circle, smaller than RI. I am thinking there won't be too many people crossing that border. maybe polar bears.
Can anyone name a country today that has truly free markets?
The xyz policy would benefit those like me, so it should be universally adopted. Who cares if it is to the detriment of those unlike me?
Yours,
Ilya Somin
His writings provide evidence regarding how it is a net value to the community at large.
If a Sominide adds $3000 to Wall St, and deducts $2000 from everyone else, it's still a net positive right?
Yes, if you assume Prof. Somin is wrong and you are right, he sure does look bad!
Somin does not even look at the negatives. Open borders is a net negative.
I'll believe you're serious the second you demand open borders between Israel and Palestine because until then the defense of cultural suicide is just a matter of poisonous degree.
I don't recall any posts by Prof. Somin re: Israel. For all we know, he'd be fine with "open borders" there too.
(Of course, any sane person knows that "open borders" is a terrible idea, there or here.)
I appreciate the ideological consistency here but I do not think you understand the way much of the world works.
I have spent a fair bit of time in places like Nigeria. Che cheapest one way ticket from Lagos to New York that I could find just now costs USD 553. Nigeria has a population of 220MM people, most of whom are desperately poor, hard working, and willing to take pretty significant risks to better themselves and their families. 60MM of them speak English. Most of them could either raise USD 550 from friends and family or borrow it from loan sharks.
I would happily bet dollars to doughnuts that if you had real open immigration to the US, every flight from Lagos to the US (including with connections) would be totally packed with one way travelers heading to the US to take their chances. After all, if worst comes to worst, they know the US will not let them starve in the streets.
Nigeria, of course, is not the only country like this. I have not been to the DRC but I am sure tens of millions of Congolese would also jump at this chance, as would easily a hundred million and probably more people from other parts of Africa.
Now, why do you think Africa has the problems it has? Is it something in the water? Or is it a people issue?
I think we all know the answer. If somehow, magically, everyone in the US was dropped into southern Africa and everyone in southern Africa was transported to the US southern Africa would begin to develop like gangbusters while the former US would begin to fall apart in war, corruption, and economic chaos.
So what do you think happens if we allow hundreds of millions of people from Africa to come to the US?
Immigration has to be controlled to a level that lets us absorb newcomers and turn them into Americans.