I, Citizenist
October 23, 2012 23 Comments
In case you were wondering here is a website apparently attempting to pull together and categorize arguments for and against open borders. I know this because apparently a bullet-point in a link roundup post of mine is being cited as the canonical an example of ‘citizenism‘. The idea being, I think, that my opposition to open borders comes from a belief the US government should be primarily concerned with the well-being of (per Sailer) US citizens – ‘nationalism without romance’.
Fair enough. Guilty as charged. But this strikes me as a two-dimensional characterization of my views. I think what’s being missed in labeling my view ‘citizenism’ is the ‘social-contract’ component for my thinking on this (like many other) subjects.
See, it’s not just that the US government should be primarily concerned with US citizens because that’s what my ‘intuition’ tells me, in a way that I have never examined. It’s because that’s what the founding document of the US government – which set it up, described its purpose, and provides the (only!) raison d’etre for its existence and the power that it wields – actually says it should concern itself with. If (due to whatever philosophical sophistry) the US government has gotten to a point that it isn’t primarily concerned with the well-being of US citizens, then I not-so-humbly suggest we don’t need or want it anymore, and all those people working for what we call the ‘US government’ need to go home, immediately, stop wielding the power that they wield, stop cashing the paychecks that they cash, and think about what they have done.
I can understand that it’s probably hard for Smart People to parse someone’s views as sincerely rooted in belief in a ‘social contract’ however. That’s because all Smart People think the ‘social contract’ is nonsense and couldn’t possibly imagine anyone with a brain believing in it. The whole idea that the basis and legitimacy of a government comes from anything resembling a ‘social contract’ is totally out of favor, and indeed is considered to have been long ago fully and definitively discredited by (whoever…some professor I think). So the possibility is just dismissed out of hand, and my views are read as some sort of inscrutable and unexamined belief in ‘citizenism’.
I understand.
P.S. Saying that the government is morally required to have open borders because (according to hand-waving; i.e. no one really proves this because no one can, first-order analyses notwithstanding) it would maximize the World Utility Function – which is what the open borders case usually boils down to – is kind of like saying the Board of Directors of a publicly held company should distribute profits equally to everyone in the world…because that, among their possible actions, would maximize the World Utility Function. In both cases someone is seriously Unclear On The Concept, i.e. an important point is being missed: it is not for that purpose that the institution exists. Indeed it would be dereliction, a breach of their fiduciary responsibility for a Board of Directors to intentionally not act in the best interest of stockholders. Well, same goes for a government and its citizens. This is not an ‘intuition’, rather it is a (naive? childlike?) belief in a legalistic or ‘contractual’ conception of what gives a government legitimacy. But again, to fully grasp this point of view requires the ability to understand that people could sincerely subscribe to it (or believe in the ‘social contract’ mythology, if you prefer). Few seem to. I get that, it comes through loud and clear.
I thought this was a mostly in-fight between the progressives and the libertarians.
Progressives: pro-social contract. Excuse for taxing the shit out of us.
Libertarians: no social contract…giving the government an excuse to scew us is bad.
You can’t seriously believe it is only ‘progressives’ who believe in a social contract. To clarify, I am not speaking of ‘social contract’ in the sense that socialists mean, but just in the legalistic sense: government rules by the consent of the governed; this consent was implicitly given historically at a solemn document-signing, and are implicitly/tacitly renewed with every generation that doesn’t revolt; the terms of the ‘consent’ are explicitly written in the document.
Try to picture a mainline, run-of-the-mill, ‘Jacksonian’ sort of throwback conservative: what does he talk about? The Founding Fathers and the Founding Documents. Those actually mean something to some people. Some people actually took middle-school civics seriously, at face value.
I know, it’s really really hard to imagine.
I don’t know anything about this “citizenist” business, but I see closed borders as being anti-market. There’s no reason the government should prevent me from hiring a citizen of Swaziland to work for my company, if I so choose.
I get that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate trade, I just don’t think regulating trade is *ever* a good idea. The only reason closing borders is objectionable is because a theoretically open-border nation would be forced to allow foreign military forces to enter the country unobstructed. That becomes a practical issue.
So maybe a true open-borders policy is impossible as a matter of sheer practicality, but at any rate simplifying and facilitating the immigration of peaceful people seems like a free lunch to me.
‘hiring a citizen of Swaziland to work for my company’ and ‘regulating trade’ are the sorts of canonical example of how (illegal) immigration works that open-borders folks like to give. It rings entirely false to me however.
Do you genuinely think that every single (illegal) immigrant who crosses the US border did so explicitly because he/she had an employment contract with some US citizen who ‘wanted to hire them’? That’s just not really how it works.
Now sure, I am totally on board with ‘simplifying and facilitating the immigration of peaceful people’. But realize what that presupposes: that you have an actual *immigration policy* consisting of *immigration laws* that you are enforcing. In other words, if you are sincerely making the case for ‘simplifying and facilitating the immigration of peaceful people’, you cannot be for anything resembling open borders, because open borders means no standards/restrictions (peaceful or not) whatsoever. Right?
Yeah, I can agree with that. The only caveat I’d add is that I think unemployed people should be able to enter into the country for the purposes of *looking for* work/education opportunities, I don’t think they should have to have a pre-existing contract.
But I think you have the thrust of it right. Well done. You convinced me.
“Now sure, I am totally on board with ‘simplifying and facilitating the immigration of peaceful people’. But realize what that presupposes: that you have an actual *immigration policy* consisting of *immigration laws* that you are enforcing. In other words, if you are sincerely making the case for ‘simplifying and facilitating the immigration of peaceful people’, you cannot be for anything resembling open borders, because open borders means no standards/restrictions (peaceful or not) whatsoever. Right?”
This is something of a strawman, I think. Attacking “open borders” because the total abolition of government authority to enforce border controls is unrealistic is tantamount to attacking “freedom of speech” because the abolition of libel laws and FCC regulations would be unrealistic, or attacking “freedom of association” because realistically, governments need to regulate the incorporation of legal entities.
The entire Open Borders website is devoted to:
1. The moral principle that borders should be open as far as possible
2. Explicating a policy framework that can translate this moral principle to reality as far as possible
Attacking the moral principle of freedom of movement for being unrealistic is like attacking the moral principle of freedom of speech for being unrealistic. In both cases, concessions must be made to practical realities when governments protect these freedoms. These concessions in no way invalidate the moral principles behind their intent, which is to broaden the span of human freedom.
I have to plead not guilty on this one. It genuinely appears to me that Bryan Caplan, and like-minded, wish for true and literal open borders. That is my honest sincere reading of his viewpoint and if that’s not correct then I have indeed misinterpreted.
I can’t speak for the author of the open-borders site because (to his credit) he appears more concerned with fastidiously cataloguing viewpoints and mapping out the state of the debate, than with putting forth his views. However, my assumption is that he too wants open borders or he wouldn’t be engaging in the endeavor, wouldn’t have reached out to Caplan, etc.
That said, if you’re saying that even Caplanites concede *some* border restrictions, then we’re just talking about where to draw the line, which criteria to use, etc. If that’s the case I feel like we’re 95% on my home turf already, and further discussion isn’t really worth it. But again, that’s simply not the impression I get from reading open-borders advocates.
“It genuinely appears to me that Bryan Caplan, and like-minded, wish for true and literal open borders. That is my honest sincere reading of his viewpoint and if that’s not correct then I have indeed misinterpreted.”
If Bryan (or any of the Open Borders bloggers, myself included — there’s me, Vipul, and Nathan Smith) has ever said that’s what he wants, I’ve not seen it. There is no doubt some disagreement at the margins about what specific policies we desire, but in general we are all signed on to any policy changes that make it easier for people to move — that does not imply we are all signed on to the total abolition of border control regimes. See e.g., my post: http://openborders.info/blog/what-do-open-borders-advocates-really-want/
I think you may be taking Bryan’s (and other Open Borders bloggers’) tendency to moralise about the injustice of the immigration status quo as implying that the only moral world is one where all border controls are abolished. As far as I know, none of us have ever said that is what we want to accomplish, even though it is desirable as a moral theoretic end state. Or are opponents of the PATRIOT Act all anarchists who want people to be able to say or do anything without any government monitoring, ever?
“That said, if you’re saying that even Caplanites concede *some* border restrictions, then we’re just talking about where to draw the line, which criteria to use, etc. If that’s the case I feel like we’re 95% on my home turf already, and further discussion isn’t really worth it. But again, that’s simply not the impression I get from reading open-borders advocates.”
Funny thing is, I would say if you concede that immigration restrictions have to be justified, we’re 95% on *my* home turf. Because the immigration regime in most countries, especially the US, is arbitrary and totally unjustifiable.
Ok, I’ll try to differentiate your/other Open Borders bloggers’ views from Caplan’s as/when I familiarize myself better with them (my interpretation of Caplan’s viewpoint, after reading dozens if not hundreds of his blog posts, remains what it is).
I think you’re right that what leads me to interpret open-borders advocacy as absolutist is the moralism behind (most of) the arguments for them. If immigration restrictions are simply immoral then how am I not to infer that the moralist thinks that none should exist. Maybe it would help if, in the process of ‘advocating for open borders’, you or others would outline which sort of immigration restrictions and laws and enforcements would still exist, in your ideal future?
Which sorts of immigrants would be disallowed under your ideal regime of “open borders”? What numerical quota would exist in a perfect “open borders” society? Genuinely curious.
Because my honest impression is that the only answer to that open-borders folks have in mind is “none”. You do call your cause “open borders”, after all. I think one can be forgiven for getting this impression. But do feel free to correct me in more detail….
best
“If immigration restrictions are simply immoral then how am I not to infer that the moralist thinks that none should exist.”
Restricting free speech is immoral, no? Restricting freedom of association is immoral, no? Yet people in developed countries, the US included, accept restrictions on these freedoms as necessary concessions to reality. That does not mean that they would regard sedition legislation or public order laws banning public gatherings as moral.
Framing freedom of movement as all-or-nothing is tantamount to saying civil libertarians who oppose the Patriot Act must also be opposed to search warrants or any clandestine surveillance.
“Which sorts of immigrants would be disallowed under your ideal regime of “open borders”? What numerical quota would exist in a perfect “open borders” society? Genuinely curious.”
Refer again to the post I linked to above.
“Because my honest impression is that the only answer to that open-borders folks have in mind is “none”. You do call your cause “open borders”, after all. I think one can be forgiven for getting this impression. But do feel free to correct me in more detail….”
Under ideal circumstances, yes, none. But we do not live in an ideal world. That is no excuse for governments saying “We’ll take 50,000 immigrants per year, because we feel like it.” That is like saying “We’ll execute 5,000 people per year, because we feel like it” or “We’ll wiretap a million people this year, because we feel like it.”
Ok I’ve read your post, and I see that your views are a little different than I’m used to encountering. I question whether Caplan or most other open-borders advocates would agree with your statements like ‘Governments do have the right to refuse entry to people; they do and should have control over their own borders.’
Again, faced with such a concession, and once we get into what sort of immigration restrictions are administratively possible, which criteria can be used to keep out people who would be burdens on the state, etc., I can only feel like the argument is suddenly, and happily, much further downfield than the territory I thought I was fighting for.
“I question whether Caplan or most other open-borders advocates would agree with your statements like ‘Governments do have the right to refuse entry to people; they do and should have control over their own borders.’”
Caplan is almost an anarcho-libertarian, whereas I think most other open borders advocates or sympathisers have all other kinds of political leanings; see Michael Clemens, for instance. Clemens strongly condemns the immorality of the immigration status quo (he literally compares it to apartheid), but most of his openly preferred solutions are things like guest worker programmes.
Caplan is not representative of the open borders movement in all his views, even if all of us fundamentally agree the status quo is immoral. A 19th-century contemporary opponent of John Adams’s Sedition Act would not be very moved by the claim that if libel laws are moral, so is the Sedition Act, even though there are radicals who argue that any restriction of speech is immoral.
“Again, faced with such a concession, and once we get into what sort of immigration restrictions are administratively possible, which criteria can be used to keep out people who would be burdens on the state, etc., I can only feel like the argument is suddenly, and happily, much further downfield than the territory I thought I was fighting for.”
That’s because it’s not just anarcho-libertarians who view the immigration status quo as immoral. Under virtually any moral or political worldview (except one which derives great utility from avoiding interaction with out-groups), the immigration status quo is unjustifiable. Moving the argument into “What immigration restrictions are justified?” forces restrictionists to explain what is just about a world where jailing immigrants backfires because immigrants prefer life in jail to where they came from (as is the case for thousands of Indonesians sitting in Australian jails), or what is just about a world where there are legal immigrants (as of today, right now) who have literally been waiting for their US visas since 1989.
Re: Caplan not representative of your views – got it.
Re: the unjust situations you mention. Agree they sound unjust (but more importantly, pointless, i.e. they do not really benefit the host population). Disagree that it requires open borders (or even ‘moving in a direction of more freedom of movement’) to address them.
“Re: the unjust situations you mention. Agree they sound unjust (but more importantly, pointless, i.e. they do not really benefit the host population).”
Precisely.
“Disagree that it requires open borders (or even ‘moving in a direction of more freedom of movement’) to address them.”
Maybe so for open borders, although again, I would not waste much time attacking the strawman of a theoretical ideal. I would define the Open Borders movement as one that aims to broaden freedom of movement — focusing on a theoretical Open Borders ideal detracts from the cause in exactly the same way focusing on freedom of speech edge cases like “fire in a crowded theatre” would detract from that cause.
Certainly not for “freedom of movement”. The whole reason there are Indonesians in Australian jails is because Australia denies these Indonesians freedom to find work in Australia. The whole reason there are people who have been waiting nearly 25 years for their US visas is because the US denies these people their freedom to be with their families. It is impossible to solve these problems without broadening freedom of movement.
Saying that these problems are resolvable without broadening freedom of movement is like suggesting that ending the censorship of people’s letters to their families is doable without expanding the freedom of speech. Definitionally, it seems impossible without redefining your terms so broadly that they become near useless.
Not a big expert on whatever the situation with Indonesians is in Australia, but I’m just saying, if you don’t let Indonesians-with-dubious-status come to Australia in the first place, the question of jailing them later never arises. Similarly, the issue of someone ‘waiting 25 years for a visa’ to be reunited with a family member who has come to the US does not arise if that family member doesn’t come to the US first. Another way to resolve the 25-year-wait is to just say “No” in Year 1 and let the person get on with their life.
My point is there are ways to address or obviate the situations you complain about that don’t move in a direction of more-open borders. Hence I don’t find them persuasive as part of a case for more-open borders.
Pingback: » How persuasive are open borders advocates? The case of Bryan Caplan Open Borders: The Case
Dear Sonic Charmer,
I’m the author of the blog post that you refer to. Let me begin by saying that I really appreciate this thoughtful critique and welcome your link back to my post. That said, I think my wording in the original blog post was unclear and I’d like to clarify a few points:
(1) The blog post that you refer to is a 3100+ word blog post and it was emphatically not about citizenism — it was about Bryan Caplan’s persuasiveness and shortcomings as an open borders advocate. In that, I had one sentence that made a passing reference to citizenism and related nationalistic ideologies. Specifically, my reference to these ideologies was _not_ intended to be a critique of these ideologies, but rather, a critique of Caplan for failing to adequately bridge the divide between his own moral notions and the more widely held citizenist (or similar) moral notions.
(2) I definitely did _not_ intend to call your blog post a “canonical” (your term) example of citizenism. I did link to your post as an example of an “intuitively correct” ideology that is _like_ citizenism, which is not quite the same as calling it a canonical example of citizenism. I have discussed citizenism extensively at the page openborders.info/citizenism, which I’m sure you’ve already read, since you quote from and paraphrase it. The links from that page _are_ what I would call canonical examples — links to Sailer’s writings. [I think it would also be nice if you link to that page from your own blog post, so people can see for themselves that I haven't shied from attempting a fair and clear description of citizenism]. The reason I linked to your writing from the post was that I wanted to give an example of a person who subscribes to an ideology sufficiently similar to citizenism and has specifically expressed his/her dissatisfaction with Caplan’s addressing of the issue. I could have linked to Sailer, of course, but I wanted to introduce some variety.
(3) Since you’ve already read my citizenism page, you’ll note that I quote Sailer making an argument quite similar to the one you make in the PS. You’ve added a little more to the arguments for citizenism in that PS, and I’ll be adding a link to your blog post from the citizenism page soon.
(4) Neither I nor any of the other Open Borders bloggers are dismissive of citizenism. In fact, we consider citizenism one of the most sophisticated intellectual tools in the restrictionist toolkit, and we take it very seriously. I’ve had extensive email discussions with other Open Borders bloggers on the issue. Expect to see blog posts on the issue soon. Citizenism is definitely not something that I plan to dodge. I’ll be addressing it head on, and I’ll definitely be addressing all the arguments/variants that you offer.
(5) My choice of the term “intuitively correct” — unfortunate in hindsight — was not meant as a putdown of citizenism or of your position. I’m sure *you* have given this position plenty of thought. But, as you point out in the relevant passage in your earlier blog post, the ideas that you refer to _are_ intuitively appealing to large numbers of people. I was trying to make the point that Caplan needs to show more work if he wishes to convince people who subscribe to this worldview.
Although this is a little off-topic, I _do_ believe that intuition offers a good first step toward discovering truths about the world, so calling something “intuitively correct” means that I am arguing that the burden of proof shifts onto those who make the counter-intuitive claim. Thus, calling citizenism (or your citizenism-like) “intuitively correct” is a compliment, not a putdown.
Once again, I’m extremely sorry for the confusion caused by my cavalier language. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, ‘the canonical’ was just hyperbole. I’ve linked to your citizenism post now (was just lazy).
I think if you read my post in the best possible light (i.e. mentally factor out the snark
) what I’m attempting to convey is *a reason* that Caplan fails to reach me. In other words, my post is on point with your aim in that post, as I understood it. His arguments fail to reach me because he fails (IMHO of course) to fully confront/apprehend the ‘legalistic’ conception of government’s constitution, purpose, and legitimacy that I hold; my ‘citizenist’ views *appear* to be dismissed as some kind of mere ‘intuition’, preference, taste, instinct, etc.
It may not actually be the case that he fails to understand that of course. Nevertheless I did not see that dimension really explored/mapped out in his writings, nor in your post. So that was my intended point.
P.S. I will say I admire/envy the rigor & completeness & care with which you’re putting together the site and its writings. If only it would be in the service of a cause I approved of!
Best,
I’m not sure why people feel the need to ‘advocate’ for Open Borders in the US. We already have it. The door is open, and will never be shut. It’s like complaining that American women aren’t having enough pre-marital sex.
You have a point there…
Pingback: » The citizenist case for open borders Open Borders: The Case
Pingback: » Citizenism versus collective property rights, and voters versus representatives Open Borders: The Case
Pingback: » Citizenism and open borders Open Borders: The Case