From Free Life, Issue 19, November 1993
ISSN: 0260 5112

Belief in free migration is a basic part of being a libertarian. Freedom to leave somewhere, in the sense of no other person's using the threat of violence to prevent one from leaving, is a basic part of being a free man.

An Anarcho-Capitalist might question the notion of freedom of entry on the grounds that under Anarcho-Capitalism there would be no countries as such, but only private property - and questions of entry would be for the owners to decide. But in present circumstances, freedom of entry into a country would seem to be clearly the correct position for a libertarian.

The trouble is that libertarians have the habit of arguing that free migration, as well as being morally correct, would be economically beneficial for everyone. A classic example of this is the recent pamphlet by Adam Chacksfield,[1] quoted as gospel in a subsequent pamphet by Tim Evans.[2]

In Mr Chacksfield's pamphlet, the economy is treated as a unified lump. He assumes that, because the economy would grow if free immigration were allowed, all individuals who comprise this country would benefit. This is almost certainly false.

The basic economic point is correct. Free movement of people would mean a more efficient allocation of resources and therefore, over the world as a whole, higher living standards. But this ignores the essential Austrian insight that collectives like "the world" or "Britain" are made up of individuals, some of whom would benefit from free migration, and some of whom would be hurt by it.

Mr Chacksfield rightly points out that there must be no state welfare for new immigrants, otherwise the millions of near starving people who would beg, borrow or steal to get the fare here would bankrupt the government - although some libertarians might argue that this would be a good thing. But what will these millions of unskilled people do instead of getting state welfare?

"They will work in unskilled jobs." Fine, but this means that those people already working in unskilled jobs will face greater competition for these jobs and hence lower living standards.

Take my own case. I stand for twelve hourse a day in a bank as a security guard. Sure, the economy as a whole would benefit from having cheaper security guards. My employer, Chubb Wardens, would make bigger profits, and so on. But how would I benefit from getting, say, 50p per hour, instead of £3 per hour?

Perhaps this change would mean that, as the economy improved, I should stand a better chance of getting a grant from state or private sources to do my Ph.D. But what about the man who stands next to me, Mr Thomas Rice, the tough but not highly educated man from Bethnal Green? What of the millions like him? Certainly wages over all would be higher. Fewer people would be starving in the "third world". But would Tommy Rice shake Mr Chacksfield warmly by the hand for this? I rather suspect that he would shake Mr Chacksfield warmly by the throat.

People do not always oppose free migration because they are morons. They oppose it because for them, it would mean lower incomes, worse housing, and a diminution of all those other things that make up their standard of living.

As for the oft repeated charge of racism, many people do oppose being surrounded by newcomers of a different culture, and - yes, let us admit - different skin colour, to themselves. But many of those who condemn them for this live in areas where, due to the high cost of housing or poor mass transport links, the newcomers are very unlikely to live.

If libertarians go around saying things that are obviously false, such as that capitalism is triumphant (which seems to be the general line of the Tim Evans pamphlet and of the whole Madsen Pirie/Adam Smith Institute school), people are likely to say: "Well, why are we in such a mess, with all this unemployment and poverty and taxes higher than ever; capitalism must be a very bad thing." And if we say that free immigration will make everyone better off, people are likely to say: "Nonsense!" - which it manifestly is.

There is no substitute for hard thinking. Such practices as selling citizenship would reduce greatly the active opposition of the low paid, for if the price of citizenship were high enough, the newcomers would not be people likely to compete for the jobs and houses of the existing low paid. Also, selling citizenship would mean that the government might become rather dependent on attracting wealthy people, which means that it would be pushed towards following policies of low taxation, non-interference in private education, and of general laissez-faire.

I know from long dealings with the low paid (being one myself) that capitalism would be popular. They want lower taxes, clean (which means privately owned) mass transport, and cheap rented accomodation (which means no more zoning and planning and rent contrl laws). What they do want, what turns them against "capitalism", is higher taxes that are proclaimed as lower taxes, and people like Mrs Thatcher - who did not improve their circumstances - described as great leaders. Nor do they want patronising middle class claims that policies like free immigration will improve their lot and that they are irrational morons to oppose them.

NOTES

1. Adam Chacksfield, Open The Door! The Case For Abolishing All Immigration Controls, Political Notes No. 61, Libertarian Alliance, London, 1991.

2. Tim Evans, The Globalisation of Capitalism: A Celebration of the Triumph of Free Market Sophistication, Sociological Notes No. 16, Libertarian Alliance, London, 1992. This pamphlet contains a large number of factual inaccuracies; and I may return to them in a later article.