"The welfare state does not legitimise limited immigration" - Taxes, nations and rights.
Photo by Humberto Chavez via Unsplash
In 2016, Jacob Lundberg, a liberal opinion-maker and co-worker at the market-liberal think-tank Timbro, wrote an article regarding migration, the welfare state and rights. This post is my translation and I will write another article about Lundberg’s arguments and opinions about migration, mobility and movement.
"I'm for free immigration, but..." That's how it sometimes sounds when immigration is discussed. For liberals, free migration is an inviolable universal principle. With this text, I want to show that there is no "but", even in a welfare state.
The classic liberal rights tradition comes from writers such as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and Robert Nozick. It says that humans are self-possessing, as intelligent beings. From this derives the right to life, liberty and property. The right to move across national borders is part of the right to freedom.
If we feel uncomfortable with this derivation, moral intuition often works well. Most people intuitively feel that murder, slavery and theft are wrong. It is not because the Swedish parliament has decided it, but it comes from universal values.
As Johan Norberg and Fredrik Segerfeldt write in the book “The Power of Migration” (Migrationens kraft), most of us would also think it would be wrong if barbed wire fences were erected at the Dalriver (Dalälven, part of Sweden) and migration from southern to northern Sweden was limited. The Berlin Wall and the migration restrictions it represented are for many the image of oppression.
Sometimes you hear the argument that a country is a club with the right to decide on the common property and set membership rules. It is of course an opinion one can have, but it has nothing to do with liberalism. Suppose a country is a club where unrestricted majority rule prevails. In that case, it can be used as an argument against all individual rights: "In our club you can only buy alcohol at Systembolaget (government alcohol store chain)." "We have decided that you are not allowed to be homosexual in our club." For a liberal, a country is not a club.
Someone may object that the state only needs to respect the rights of its own citizens. It is a strange attitude if you see rights as inviolable. Does the state have the right to confiscate foreigners' property in Sweden? Shouldn't the state care about the right to life of foreign citizens in war? In addition, immigration restrictions restrict the right of citizens of their own country to interact with foreigners as customers, employees, tenants or partners.
A common argument is that there is a conflict between free immigration and property rights, and that it is right to limit immigration as long as it risks leading to the native population having to pay higher taxes.
Such reasoning does not hold up to a closer rights-ethical analysis. Rights are inviolable. One restriction of rights does not entitle another. This is how you can see it: The immigrant is doing a completely legitimate and permitted act (immigrating to Sweden). This potentially causes the government to violate the taxpayer's rights through higher taxes. But it is not the immigrant's fault that the state violates the taxpayers' rights. You cannot limit the immigrant's rights regarding someone else's actions (the state, in this case).
Or imagine a mother who gives birth to a child she cannot provide for. As a result, the state restricts the property rights of taxpayers. But the mother has done nothing wrong to the taxpayers. It is immoral to restrict a woman's right to give birth to a child. In civilized countries, the right to decide over one's body and reproduction is absolute.
Anyone who argues that the risk of higher taxes legitimizes rights restrictions has in practice given up the opportunity to argue for liberal reforms on a principled basis. In that case, tax-funded health care can justify alcohol taxes, tobacco guardianship and seat belt laws. The pension system would legitimize the Public Health Authority. It would be difficult to conduct liberal opinion formation.
That free migration is a universal right means that it is illegitimate for politicians to decide on immigration restrictions, regardless of how big a majority they have behind them. The individual's right to free movement across national borders should be guaranteed by a constitution and a Supreme Court, which invalidates any law that restricts immigration - just as the US Supreme Court invalidates any law that restricts the right to have an abortion or to be gay.
Opinion work for increased opportunities for immigration should be pursued on all fronts: Increased labor immigration. More quota refugees. More generous asylum rules. Introduction of a green card lottery. Abolition of dependency requirements for dependent immigration. Permanent residence permits. Investor visa. Possibility of family immigration for people other than the nuclear family. Amnesty for the undocumented. Any liberalization of immigration policy is a victory.
Thanks for reading. You can support and reward my writing via:
Pay Pal – lauvlad89@gmail.com
Seeds – vladlausevic
Skycoin – ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
Swish – 0762345677
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM
Cardano – addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz