LIBERTARIAN SUS: Open immigration – let’s do it!

This post arises from a question in reply to a comment I made at "Crusader Rabbit" last week on this post.  It also serves to address concerns raised by CR author 'KG' on Libertarianz immigration policy:

Q:  What's your solution to open immigration in light of Muslim terrorism?

The question of the ramifications of open immigration in this age of global terrorism is one that arises from otherwise libertarian-leaning folk from the blue corner in particular, (albeit not exclusively), and I understand their concerns.


Our philosophy is one of individual freedom with responsibility for one's actions.  This requires the existence of a state in order to protect citizens' rights, in stark opposition thereby to a state of anarchy. 
As such, we believe in a limited state, comprised solely of police and defence forces and the justice system.  All other services currently administered by the state would be run privately.  Making exceptions as to the role of the state automatically begs the question as to where the line is drawn.  This is where I believe ACT goes wrong and compromises itself, but that's for another time.

A supporter of the free market and capitalism understands the concept of supply meeting demand, no
matter the subject/issue. As with any other service currently controlled by the state, (except those three as mentioned), we would abolish the Immigration Department, allowing private organisations to fill the gap, creating competition, efficiency and better outcomes for the client.  Organisations may include both those for profit and non-profit.

In accordance with our policy of more freedom and less government, we welcome any peaceful person who wishes to make a life in New Zealand, subject to their waiving any rights to whatever remains of transitional state welfare programmes (prior to the latter being abolished for good).  Immigrants will either provide for themselves or find sponsors -– who will be expected to take some degree of responsibility for those they recommend. 

Sponsorship allows the likes of religious and secular humanitarian groups to step forward and practice the charity in which they believe.

It will be up to organising bodies such as these to sort immigrant background checks, employment (or pre-employment training if need be), housing and educational arrangements, etc.  In other words, they will do exactly what the Immigration Department now does, but with total accountability. The individual organisations will be accountable if they screw up, adversely affecting their reputations and business in the case of commercial entities, as a result.

The free market, whether dealing with products, services or in this case, people seeking employment, naturally balances itself when left alone.  The numbers will sort themselves out.  Think about it:  Church and humanitarian groups do not want to be sponsoring people for long periods, so it will be
in their best interests to find the immigrants suitable employment, and to have them self-sufficient as quickly as possible.

Contrast that to the current scenario where the Immigration Department hands large numbers of unskilled immigrants directly over to Social Welfare – and they then stay there as a financial burden to the taxpayer for who knows how long.  They are undoubtedly useful for the socialist left vote every three years, though . . . but I digress.

"But we'll be overrun!"  Will we?  Only a tiny proportion of New Zealand's land is technically urbanised, according to Owen McShane.  The UK and Japan each have a similarly sized landmass to New Zealand. The UK has some 65 million inhabitants, Japan around 130 million.  There is plenty of room for more people, but, importantly, growth would be slowly consistent with employment opportunities.  Stories akin to "the mongol hordes" are patently alarmist and xenophobic, but nothing new.  People were saying that when the Chinese arrived in numbers during the 19th century gold rush.

However, as for the very real danger of the growth of anti-western Islamofascism as seen in the UK and Europe, I draw your attention to two significant differences between a libertarian system of government and our current scenario:

1. 1)    In a libertarian society there would be no special treatment for any group or groups of people via the social engineering that routinely occurs in western socialist/statist countries at both national and local level.
2. 2)    As already noted, there would be no state welfare, housing, medical or educational services to immediately walk into as a matter of right at public expense.

I put it to you that the above encompasses the essence of the migrant troubles found in much of the western world today.  Irrational social policy has encouraged open milking of the public purse, together with an appetite for favourable policies.  Agitators will always exist, of course, but agitation of any persuasion is much less attractive when participants have to both fund and action it themselves, in their own time.

Additionally, the libertarian fundamental of enshrining the individual's right to free speech remains the most effective tool to combat the 'terrorism by stealth' that has occurred in the UK.  In other words, the crucial importance of protecting individual rights -– which naturally includes his right to free speech -- is the best way to attack political correctness.  There are those who mistakenly believe in the subjugation of the individual to the wishes of the majority.  Aside from the immorality of exerting force, it is a dangerous trap in which to fall, based as it is upon the presumption that the majority must be in the right. Benjamin Franklin said it best:  Those who give up essential liberty for
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I find it puzzling why someone would dismiss the idea of privatisation because of the odd point of which they are uncertain, thereby ensuring the continued existence of the centrally controlled status quo they profess to oppose.  Definitive "solutions" are best left to neo-Nazis and socialists. They seem to be fond of those.  The truth is that no system guarantees perfection.  There is no utopia. You'll be waiting a long time to hold out for universal success because errors will always be made where people are concerned.

But a privately-run service subject to competition and accountability is always going to be superior to one controlled by a one-size-fits-all state bureaucracy, where there is no accountability to either client or employer (the taxpayer) and which is almost always obscenely politicised -- or in very real danger of being so.

SEE ALSO:

• Cue Card Libertarianism: Immigration – NOT PC
• 'Immigration and the 'Statue of Bigotry’ (some facts) - NOT PC
• 'Immigration plus Welfare State equals Police State' - George Reisman
• 'Fighting terrorism requires legalizing immigration' - James Valliant
• 'The solution to 'illegal immigration'' - Harry Binswanger
• 'Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration' - Harry Binswanger