Libertarians on Restrictions on Immigration

Abstract

It is generally understood that libertarians support free immigration and oppose closed borders. There are, however, a not insubstantial number of libertarians or classical liberals who argue for restrictions on immigration. They include such eminent figures as Friedrich Hayek and later Murray Rothbard. In this paper, I examine typical arguments among libertarians both for and against such restrictions. While a standard libertarian case for open borders appeals to prospective immigrantsʼ freedom of movement as well as economic considerations, some libertarians argue for restrictions on immigration for such reasons as the host stateʼs property rights in its territory, social or cultural integrity and the citizensʼ desire not to associate with immigrants. Those alleged reasons are, however, incoherent and/or unconvincing. First, while a state has legitimate property rights in its land, it cannot justifiably exclude foreigners as far as it permits its citizens to use it. Public property should be open to all. Second, since a state or nation is not a private voluntary community based upon its membersʼ agreement, but rather, an involuntary community whose membership is usually difficult to change, the application of freedom of association to citizenship is misconceived. Third, while some citizens are reluctant to associate with immigrants, they are not forced to do so even when immigrants enter the state, and perhaps other citizens are quite happy to associate with or hire them. Fourth, from a libertarian perspective, it is not a stateʼs business to preserve its cultural or social integrity. Though my conclusion that those libertariansʼ arguments for restrictions on immigration are unsuccessful ̶ unlike the standard libertarian case for open borders ̶ is hardly surprising, it is still worth demonstrating, if only because libertarianism is often confused with conservatism in popular or partisan political discourse.