Immigration is a hot issue these days. The Bush administration has been floating a trial balloon giving amnesty to all "illegals" with jobs.
Libertarians are divided on the question. Previous to 9-11, it may have been our second most divisive issue after abortion. Being a libertarian didn't necessarily mean you embraced Emma Lazarus' wonderful Statue of Liberty poem welcoming the huddled masses.
In "Migrating to Libertarianism," philosophy instructor Marcus Verhaegh wrote an astute yet complex article for the libertarian site LewRockwell.com which argues, that on the issue of immigration, libertarianism can only prevail after embracing a little statism. If one is going to dismantle a state, it's important that they do it the right order.
Should we embrace state-enforced, closed borders to get more freedom?
What's next, will wealth lead to poverty or intelligence to stupidity? Should we propose a tax increase to reduce the size of government?
Libertarians have heard it before. In these days of terrorism, for example, we're told that a few civil liberties have to be sacrificed to protect our "way of life." Put another way, you sometimes have to shred the Constitution to save it.
During the Vietnam War Americans were told that villages needed to be destroyed in order to save them from the Viet Kong. It's an awkward argument.
The particular form of statism Verhaegh wants libertarians to embrace involves protecting a "negative property right." Immigrants are a drain on our system getting a piece of the pie you and I baked. Verhaegh conceded that one may still embrace the recent Bush trial-balloon on the grounds of moral compassion, but not if they embraced reason (it's unreasonable to dangle welfare-like incentives in front of hungry foreigners).
Verhaegh believes that liberty-loving people should oppose the right to cross borders freely because then they will get stuck with a bill for things like increased social service expenses, more public schools, and more people using our roads. CATO Libertarians, along with the Libertarian Party, who support "open borders" are the dupes in Verhaegh's theory because the big government politicians use immigrants to their political advantage, and the more of them there are, the less likely we are to ever have smaller government.
If order is important then I would argue Verhaegh has some things backward.
First, Verhaegh can blame who he wants but welfare agencies, government ownership of roads and schools, and other statist apparatus, are generally creations of American-born, white liberals, not immigrants nor libertarians. Libertarians of any stripe would join Verhaegh foursquare in saying, "No" to an even bigger government. Heck, we're uncomfortable with the size of the domestic government we've got now.
Perhaps instead, Verhaegh should be more motivated to create a program to deport white liberals, rather than exercise even an ounce of energy on stopping poor immigrants.
Second, for a libertarian, no one has a right to so-called "social services" which are paid for by taxpayers. Welfare services are an illegitimate use of civil government and should be the private function of communities (neighbors), churches, and charities.
Third, while Verhaegh would leave you believing that it's unreasonable to dismantle government programs in the wrong order, there is a thoroughly reasonable argument to be made for dismantling them in any random order.
One way or the other, big government programs will come to an end. Big government programs are inefficient and expensive. Politicians are crafty at dragging out the death process over a period of decades, but the result is inevitable they run out of money. Such a thing has happened to empires throughout history, and it will eventually happen to the United States.
Verhaegh still embraces the concept of "no state," and therefore no borders. But perhaps the coming financial collapse of the government will make such a new dawn of freedom possible. Bush's Amnesty proposal could do what Verhaegh suggests put greater strain on the system. If it did, we should welcome it. Still, there's that pesky "moral compassion" question. Are immigrants bad for our country?
Traditionally immigrants came to our shores yearning to breath free. They were coming to a land of opportunity. We should surely embrace such individuals. Many of them understand all- too-well the dangers of statism. Is it possible that all of the social services are attracting the wrong kind of immigrant someone looking for a free lunch?
If so, is the real problem immigration, or is it really all the social policies that Verhaegh believes we'll need more of to deal with these folks?
It's clear that Marcus Verhaegh is opposed to the bloated size of government. Therefore he should focus on reducing it where he can, not keeping out immigrants. Either way, he shouldn't expect the rest of us libertarians to waste much time considering which liberty must be destroyed to save the rest.