Immigration and the Trustee State

Let me in
Immigration man
Can I cross the line and pray
I can stay another day
--Crosby & Nash

Several interesting points on the immigration issue made here by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Leftists generally advocate unrestricted, 'free' immigration as a right. But on what grounds should there be such a right?

No one has a legitimate right to move onto someone else's property unless invited. If all places are already owned, then migration is by invitation only. Unrestricted immigration only holds for virgin land and the open frontier--of which little exists today.

Leftists sometimes counter that occupation of global real estate often took place through previous acts of force rather than through voluntary exchange. While certainly true, aggressive acts of previous generations do not give migrants license to tread uninvited on someone else's ground today.

Another common counter is that so-called 'public property' under the control of local, state, or federal government is akin to open frontier and thus available to migrants for open, unrestricted access. But this assertion is false as well. Just because government has illegitimately expropriated property from others does not mean that government property is unowned and available to all. Because it has been funded by tax payments, the payers of these taxes are the rightful owners of public property.

Hoppe is obviously correct. His conclusion suggests that the proper role of the State under such circumstances is one of trustee of tax-payer funded property. What should the shape of immigration look like if the State properly executed its trustee role like the manager of jointly owned community property funded by a housing association or gated community?

The answer in principle is straightforward. The trustee's guideline regarding immigration would be the 'full cost' principle. The immigrant (or inviting resident) should pay the full cost of the immigrant's use of public goods and services. The cost of community property funded by taxpayers should not rise due to the presence of immigrants. On the contrary, the presence of immigrants should ideally yield residents a profit--perhaps in the form of lower tax burdens or higher property values.

Under conditions of high immigration pressure, then the trustee's role is to secure the border to control admission to ensure that the full cost principle will be upheld.

This is not what the State generally does, of course. Rather than enforcing a full cost principle that keeps residents whole or makes them richer, the State subsidizes immigration, thereby making taxpaying residents poorer.

ECON 101 tells us that when behavior is subsidized, more of it should be expected. As they flock to countries where their behavior is subsidized, immigrants increasingly stress economic systems toward the point of collapse. Hoppe speculates that this result is precisely the goal of some groups, including the cultural Marxists.