Privatize the Borders!

From Liberty Chat.


By Robert P. contributor

Bryan Caplan has become perhaps the leading libertarian spokesman for “open borders,” the term that many people are using to mean that national governments do not place restrictions on the movement of people across the outer boundary of a country. Although I agree with the economics of Bryan’s analysis, I strongly disagree with his rhetoric. In particular, I think the very term “open borders” is awful on two counts: It incorrectly states what the libertarian position actually is, and–perhaps more serious–it concedes the nationalist framing of the immigration question in a way that will hasten the transformation of the U.S. into a giant police state.

First let me deal with the question of the libertarian ideal. If politics weren’t an issue, and we could get the society we really want, I think both Bryan and I would want all real estate held in private hands. There would be no such thing as “immigration policy” or “border control,” except for what each landowner decided for his or her property boundary. If the current border between the U.S. and Mexico ended up being divided among 2,870 different people, owning contiguous plots of land that collectively reached from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, then those individuals would have the legal right to decide whether to build a fence to keep out Mexicans or whether to have a giant neon sign saying, “Hola Amigos!”

In a truly free society of the type that Bryan and I desire, we wouldn’t need to worry about “free loaders” coming in and getting welfare or overwhelming the “public” school system and hospitals, because all charity would be voluntarily funded, and all schools and medical facilities would be privately run.

Now to be sure, my ideal world is currently politically impossible. I don’t think the United States will ever look anything close to this vision during my lifetime. However, I still think it’s worth spelling out what the ideal actually is. That’s why I dislike the term “open borders.” I imagine that Bryan and his colleagues who embrace this term do so thinking they are the modern-day abolitionists, holding up a radical goal as a beacon to guide the messy political squabbles. But as I’ve shown, Bryan actually isn’t holding up the ideal. In effect, he’s giving us the worst of both worlds: Holding up something politically impossible–there’s no way the U.S. government is going to completely drop border enforcement and just let anybody walk into the country–while not actually championing the ideal outcome.

In short, if we’re going to hold up radical proposals as a way to frame the spectrum of the debate, then don’t stop short with “open borders,” which still concedes that the national government has to do something and so might as well let anybody in. Instead, go full board freedom and advocate, “Privatize the borders!”

In case the reader thinks my proposal is just too ridiculous, try this one: “Let the border states set their own policies for immigration.” That would throw most Americans for a loop, wouldn’t it? Instead of thinking about a guy crossing into Texas as being “a Mexican entering the United States,” instead it would be, “This guy entering Texas.” I would much rather get Americans to think through the political implications of decentralization and States rights, rather than the (admittedly also interesting and important) issue of workers’ wages and how they respond to an increase in unskilled immigrants.

Second, besides an argument from purity, let me now make the empirical claim that in practice, having a bunch of libertarians try to adopt “open borders” as the policy goal for immigration will end up giving us much less liberty. This is because Bryan et al. have conceded that it’s appropriate for the federal government to pick some policy for “the border,” and they are saying, “Don’t stop anyone.” But that stance is unrealistic; there are many reasons that Americans can understandably think, “It’s surely too extreme to have no type of barrier around thousands of miles of border.” If libertarians continue to debate the “immigration question” on nationalist grounds, then they will lose; it actually is crazy if the entire continental U.S. remains without any way to “regulate” the flow of people; that would be like building a giant shopping mall with no doors.

As I spelled out in this YouTube video, the long-run threat to liberty even for Americans is that a government fence will keep people in the country against their will. With terrorism, welfare abuse, and roving drug gangs, the American people will be manipulated into supporting a crackdown on “illegal immigration.” But the system that is put in place will ultimately be turned against them, as the U.S. continues its slide into an outright police state.

In conclusion, for both pure and pragmatic reasons, I urge libertarians to drop the term “open borders.” If they want to make empirical arguments about wages and so forth from within the current paradigm, fair enough, but then phrase it as “liberalized immigration” or something that doesn’t make it sound like a surrender. But if libertarians want to be bold and broaden the parameters of the debate, then don’t concede that the federal government has any business setting “immigration policy.” Either call for a devolution to the states, or better yet make the call to Privatize the Borders!

3 replies »

  1. Its a great idea, some people that want to helped Central Americans and Mexicans would let them through their land while others will not. A step would be on the state level. San Diego may opposed or support them while more internal Latino areas of California would let them in. Same goes for Texas or Arizona. Many come currently through private Rancher land.

  2. The president’s idea was a revolutionary one in a country whose modern identity was forged thanks to the nationalization of its black gold in 1938. Critics, unsurprisingly, were quick to argue that Peña Nieto’s reform was nothing less than a wholesale dismantling of Mexico’s heritage. But the president knew that, without a shock to the system, his country could soon turn into a net importer of oil. That meant giving up, at least in part, the keys to the energy industry.

    Mexico, along with Russia, has long been a poster child for resource nationalism, or the tendency for governments to claim outright ownership of all mineral resources and to monopolize pretty much all parts of the energy sphere. Nearly 80 percent of global oil reserves are under the control of national oil companies, according to a 2007 report by the Baker Institute at Rice University, leaving relatively little energy in the hands of multinational corporations. Mexico’s southern neighbors in Latin America are no exception: Over the past decade or so, these countries have moved to nationalize their industries, undoing what progress came after a bout of liberalism in the 1990s. Although that has played well with populist publics, such moves have kneecapped energy-producing potential.

    Now, Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela have little choice but to track Mexico’s experiment closely, considering that they all compete for the same investment dollars and that Big Oil will go where it sees the best prospects with the best terms. What’s more, these countries have an even stronger, inescapable reason to follow Mexico’s lead: Resource nationalism is a long-term recipe for disaster.

    Take Argentina. It has the world’s second-largest shale reserves but is currently a net energy importer after nearly a century of whipsawing between nationalism and an open market. Foreign capital created windfalls in the 1920s and 1930s, but greedy governments snatched back those oil wells in the 1940s, until production dwindled; they then returned, cap in hand, to wildcatters and oil majors just a decade later—a Groundhog Day pattern that continues today. Most recently, in 2012, Argentina lurched toward nationalism again, expropriating its former national oil company from Spain’s Repsol. Argentina now has the unenviable task of trying to lure foreign money and know-how to help tap Vaca Muerta (Dead Cow), a shale formation roughly the size of Belgium that it cannot develop on its own. The next wave of Argentina’s leadership is undeniably watching to see whether Mexico has found the formula to keep foreign investment steady and to maximize both production and the government’s cut.


    When, in 2013, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced a broad reform package that would end the government’s monopoly over the country’s oil sector, his argument was fairly straightforward: Foreign investment could be just the thing to reverse a decade of production declines and revitalize a state that has historically relied heavily on oil for its income. Dazzled by the promise of numbers, Peña Nieto suggested that, by wrenching open the long-closed sector, Mexico could attract more than $60 billion in investment within just a few years, while adding at least a percentage point to its annual GDP growth and creating 2 million jobs.
    This is the main problem, Latin Countries have too much government control over oil and natural gas. If they really reform this the end of thousands wanting to come over. Oil is cyclical but cyclical is better than nothing.

  3. Bob Murphy’s position on immigration is basically the same as mine, except he’d likely be more dismissive of the “cost of labor” argument against immigration than I would as I’m not an Austrian or orthodox liberal economist.

Leave a Reply