The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Institute of Economic Affairs Paper on Immigration and the Economic Liberty of Natives
The paper explains how immigration restrictions severely undermine both the "negative" and "positive" economic liberty of receiving-country natives. It also adapts my analysis of this topic for a British audience.
The Institute of Economic Affairs, a prominent UK think thank, has published my paper on "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives." Here is a summary of the main points:
• Immigration restrictions severely undermine the economic freedom of receiving-country citizens, as well as that of potential migrants.
• This impact affects both the 'negative' economic freedom valued by libertarians, classical liberals and many conservatives, and the 'positive' freedom most valued by many on the political left.
• Immigration restrictions harm negative economic freedom by depriving UK citizens of the opportunity to engage in valuable transactions with migrants, such as employing them, renting property to them, buying goods and services they produce, working for businesses established by immigrants, and more.
• Restrictions harm natives' positive freedom by depriving citizens of the production and innovation created by migrants, and especially their contributions to advances in technology and health care.
• These effects are exacerbated by the fact that immigrants disproportionately contribute to entrepreneurship and scientific innovation.
• When it comes to both positive and negative freedom, the effects of immigration restrictions are enormous – undermining both to a greater extent than virtually any other government policies adopted by liberal democracies such as the UK and US.
• Some argue that immigration actually threatens the economic freedom of natives. These concerns are largely overblown. Where valid, they can be addressed by 'keyhole solutions' less onerous than large-scale migration restrictions.
The paper expands on arguments developed in my 2023 Public Affairs Quarterly article on the same topic, and adapts them for a British audience.
IEA has also published a substack post (currently available only to subscribers) in which I summarize the key themes of the paper. In July, I published an article in the Spectator on the economic benefits of immigration for Britain.
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
Economic freedom to work more hours for less money.
This is right out of Lochner and an era that I thought our more enlightened society had rejected.
Bleep you, Ilya — go back to where you came from if you wish to destroy a country.
You forgot the freedom of higher taxes or lower purchasing power to pay their benefits plus the freedom to spend more for housing and necessities due to increased demand plus the longer waits and diminished services. What's not to love if you're looking to destroy the West.
Somin is a modern day slavery apologist. Banning slavery limited the economic freedom of the slave-owners.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/rudy-giuliani-bankruptcy-georgia-election-workers/index.html
As usual, defamation laws are only ever applied against whites.
It is pretty crazy that he has to pay $150 million to a couple of poll workers. Usually people on this blog favor free speech.
Right, but when NBC edits the George Zimmerman 911 call to make it look like he said that Thugvon looked like he was up to no good because he was black, and when Nicholas Sandmann is falsely accused of being a racist, nary a peep from these people.
Lies. When someone lists proposed pros without recognizing cons, you know you can't trust them. Immigration CAN be a net positive - when it's the right kind of immigrants. Somalis in the United States are not starting new tech companies and creating thousands of new jobs. Pakistanis in the UK who keep their women at home and pregnant, and are the product of generations of cousin marriages and the resulting lowering of IQ. Those people and their children are not and will not contribute to sciencific innovation.
We have LEGAL immigration already. Open borders are no different than leaving your doors unlocked at night, and letting strangers move in with you. The only benefit to open borders accrues to the capitalist class, whose investments are built on the backs of workers. Their children will never compete for jobs with Third World immigrants, and they will never live anywhere near where immigrant criminal gangs prey on the poor.
The capitalist class looking to socialize losses and and leftists looking for Democrat Party votes.
When someone lists proposed pros without recognizing cons, you know you can’t trust them.
Advocates are not usually expected to present their opponents' arguments.
If you disagree with Somin you could present those arguments yourself, instead of joining the general ignorant howling.
"Advocates are not usually expected to present their opponents’ arguments."
Depends on how and to who you're presenting, really.
If you're presenting to a hostile audience, you absoutely should, and then argue why they're wrong, mistaken, overblown, etc. You would expect your viewers/readers to already be familiar with such arguments, so ignoring them will either make you look like an idiot or make you look like you think they're idiots for not noticing.
If you're presenting to a friendly audience --aka preaching to the choir-- then no, you don't need to bother with such, because they're already on your side. You aren't really trying to persuade anyone, you're just trying to jazz them up. Acknowledging flaws would be counter-productive.
If your audience is more neutral on the topic, neither hostile nor friendly, then it's more nuanced, but some amount of acknowledging the flaws --and then arguing them smaller or away-- is probably called for.
All of which is to say, sometimes it's wise to include such, sometimes it's not, it really just depends on your audience and your objective.
In this particular case? I don't know enough about this UK journal's general views to guess at Somin's aim here. And while Somin could safely assume that Reason commentators would be hostile, he didn't write it for you. He also could have included such a takedown, but not included it in the excerpt here.
OK, enforce the border with machine guns and land mines.
I appreciate the fact that you don't even pretend not to be a racist asshole.
By the way, the largest company in the world was founded by the son of a Syrian immigrant.
The largest terror network in the world was founded by a Saudi Arabian immigrant.
"We clearly need a policy that allows for individuals to practice law without restrictions on it. Things like the requirement to pass a bar exam, or have an expensive law degree, both impair our economic freedom.
When it comes to both positive and negative freedom, the effects of restricting the legal practice with such barriers are enormous – undermining both to a greater extent than virtually any other government policies adopted by liberal democracies such as the UK and US."
For those who believe this is a poor argument, please explain why.
We have a legal system based on the lawyer being an effective advocate for the client. If we allow incompetent lawyers, then those assumptions are not valid.
The client should be allowed to decide whether the lawyer is competent and effective. You and the bar/court complex are just restricting the economic freedoms of the client and would-be lawyer.
"We have an immigration system based on the immigrant being an effective worker. If we allow incompetent immigrants, then those assumptions are not valid."
Alternatively One:
People should be able to choose their own lawyers. Plenty of perfectly capable lawyers are priced out by high barriers designed to restrict competition.
Alternatively Two:
There are plenty of incompetent lawyers out there now. People whose only virtue was being able to pass the bar 30+ years ago on their third attempt.
"The Institute of Economic Affairs, a prominent UK think thank, has published my paper on "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives.""
From this blurb, I was expecting an article about how the British caused the Irish Potato Famine.
Prof. Somin has a modest proposal for you.
The Irish claim they exacerbated it by exporting food from Ireland.
Why don't we just get back to imperialism and kick the hell out of dictators and corruptions, and create new US states around the world?
We're going about this wrong. There is no right to be a dictator, this is not a local population "practicing self-determination."
What do you mean "get back to"? We never stopped. We just hide it better now.
Eisenhower didn't have a problem with Iran.
Or Mexico for that matter.
Because the white man used to acknowledge that he was sent by God to run the world. He now feels guilty for his moral and intellectual superiority.
If they have the economic freedom to move here then they have the freedom to starve here. They have no right to government assistance.
Speaking from a US (not UK) perspective...
You do realize that's he deal illegal immigrants are already getting, right?
Of course he doesn't.
To the howlers immigrants are doing the following:
Driving down wages by working for less than American workers.
At the same time creating a housing problem by outbidding American homebuyers, while having no effect on other prices.
Lounging around, living on welfare, while stealing American jobs.
What a bunch of idiocy in the comments here. Bigotry makes people stupid.
Some Somin threads, I don’t bother.
Just let the howlers cook and see how far they get to blood and soil
Be careful, Gaslighto — we aren’t that far from a Wiemar Republic.
I'd prefer not to repeat what happened next...
You make the dumbest threats.
You mean, people of your ilk being hung after trials at Nuremberg?
If are looking toward the betterment of mankind globally, instead of lining your local pockets, then you would focus on the reasons why immigrants are better at entrepreneurship and scientific innovation in western nations than they are back in their native countries. Maybe we should prioritize fixing THAT problem, instead of encouraging everyone to flee their countries, because first world nations can’t take migrants forever.
Environmental resources may be infinite in a theoretical economics classroom exercise, but not in the real world.