Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective

Abstract

The question of whether there is a right to immigrate, and, if so, what limits may exist on that right, is a controversial one for rights theorists. Even thinkers sharing many fundamental normative principles can come to radically different policy conclusions on immigration. To illustrate some of the difficulties with the issue, we will examine the controversy over immigration among those who adhere to the classic liberal view on the primacy of property rights for normative politics - what is often, today, called libertarianism.

There are some who take the position that any compromise whatsoever with free and unrestricted immigration must perforce be ruled incompatible with libertarianism. After all, the immigrant, merely by appearing at our shores, particularly at the invitation of a citizen and property owner, cannot be said by that fact alone to have initiated violence against an innocent person. Not being guilty of a violation of the basic libertarian principle of not initiating aggression, there is no justification for visiting any violence upon him. Since forceful removal from our shores would indeed constitute an initiation of force against him, this would be improper.

A number of libertarians argue to the contrary. We will employ Hoppe (1995, 1998, 2001) as our paradigmatic example, both because of the clarity of his arguments and his prominence among those making this case. Hoppe maintains that there can no more be a libertarian defense for unrestricted immigration than there can be one for unrestricted trespass, or for forced integration, or for the violation of the law of free association, or for the elimination of property rights. Just as trespass and coerced integration violate private property rights, so does free immigration.