20 July 2010
By Jacob G. Hornberger In my recent posts calling for open borders, I have
talked about how Americans are free to travel across
state lines without encountering immigration officials
at state borders. We all take this freedom for
granted. But that’s only because we’ve grown up with
it. If we had been born and raised under a regime in
which each state could erect immigration controls, the
thought of opening the state borders would be as
shocking as the thought of opening international
borders. What is a border? It’s simply an artificial line
demarking a particular government’s jurisdiction. Each
government has the authority to enact laws that
regulate the conduct of people within that
jurisdiction. If a person commits a crime within a
certain jurisdiction, he can be criminally prosecuted
by that jurisdiction even if he is a citizen of
another jurisdiction. Simply because people are free to cross borders
doesn’t mean that borders disappear or that
governments disappear. It simply means that when
people cross a border, they are then subject to the
laws of the new jurisdiction. Consider Italy and France. Suppose one day, the
governments of both countries mutually agree to
dismantle their respective checkpoints on both sides
of the border. It is agreed that the citizens of each
country will be free to cross the border to tour,
visit, invest, work, open businesses, and, well, just
live life as everyone else. The only condition is that
everyone will retain his respective citizenship,
unless he chooses to follow the approved application
process for change of citizenship. Immediately, countless Italians begin crossing into
France, and countless French begin crossing into
Italy, in much the same way that countless Marylanders
and Virginians cross back and forth between their two
states. If an Italian breaks the law in France, he is
subject to French law. If a Frenchman breaks the law
in Italy, he is subject to being prosecuted by Italian
officials. Not too shocking, right? Now, apply those principles to the United States
and, say, Mexico. Admittedly, it’s more difficult but
that’s only because it is so ingrained in us that
border checkpoints are a necessary part of American
life. One humorous irony in all this is how people in two
different countries are so fearful of being subjected
to the unrestricted flow of people from the other
country. For example, consider Mexico and the United
States, both of whom have checkpoints on both sides of
the border. In Mexico, the entire populace is free to
travel around the country. In the United States, the
entire populace is free to travel around the country.
But suggest opening the border between the two
countries and officials in both countries are suddenly
stricken with fear that all those terrorists, drug
dealers, and job-stealers who are freely traveling
around the other country are going to enter their
country. Here’s another way to look at it. Suppose the U.S.
government announced that it was going to permit an
unrestricted number of tourists into the United States
but only during the summer months. At the end of the
summer, all foreign tourists would be required to
return to their respective countries. While some Americans would be alarmed at such a
prospect, my hunch is that more Americans would say,
“Fantastic! Let them in!” They would recognize the
tremendous economic boon that a temporary influx of
foreign tourists would bring to the United States.
Does this mean that the entire world would come? Not
likely because it costs money to travel to the United
States, and it costs money once you get here, such as
hotel, meals, transportation, and entertainment. As
demand for such things goes up, so will the price,
which will tend to inhibit others from coming. In other words, the price system would serve to
regulate the flow of summer tourists and also allocate
where they travel within the United States. As prices
of New York hotels began soaring, other summer
tourists would choose to visit San Antonio to get a
taste of Texas life. Now, simply extend that principle to tourists who
would be free to tour the United States for as long as
they wanted, even for twelve months. Then, simply extend that principle to tourists
being free to get a job while they’re here. Or open a
business. But all the while, the foreign tourists would
retain their foreign citizenship, unless they chose to
follow the normal application process for becoming an
American citizen. Not so shocking after all, uh? A world mired in socialism, interventionism,
conflict, and war is desperately in need of leadership
toward peace, prosperity, harmony, and liberty.
Americans themselves can remain mired in this statist
muck or we can lead the world to freedom and free
markets, not to mention to religious and ethical
principles regarding man’s relationship to man. What
better place to start than by opening our borders to
the free movements of goods, services, and people? Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Comments 💬 التعليقات |