On Immigration Now

The current administration in the US has what seems to me an obviously bad immigration policy. It is not only imposing greater limits on allowed entry but also forcibly removing many immigrants already here. (The increased funding for ICE in the “Big Beautiful Bill/Law” may have the biggest impact of anything in it.)

The freedom to migrate is, on my view, absolutely required by serious libertarianism. No serious libertarian can endorse forcibly constraining individuals acting peacefully and productively. To deny people elsewhere the right of entry is to forcibly constrain them from acting peacefully and productively. To deny people here the right to hire, marry, house, sell to, or otherwise engage with, people from elsewhere by bringing them here is to forcibly constrain them from acting peacefully and productively. (See Chandran Kukathas’s two latest books on the topic, here and here.)

Given that, I have always been a fan of open immigration, believing the only justified limits were those designed to keep out known criminals—those known to do actual harm, actively violating the legitimate rights of others (not merely breaking the law by entering the country). Still, there are arguments against allowing immigration.

The strongest anti-immigration argument I know of is that a large number of immigrants will not only change the culture of the receiving society, but also the political system. If you live in a liberal democratic republic and many of immigrants seeking entry to your country are illiberal or anti-democratic, preferring an authoritarian regime, they may be able to gain enough influence to change the political system to an authoritarian regime.

That argument is important. I am not concerned, on the other hand, with the possibility that immigrants will change “our culture.” They will. Liberal democratic regimes are dynamic, constantly changing. Seeking to hold them in stasis, so that some people can be comfortable in familiar cultural surroundings, is impossible without significant force to prevent people—native born or immigrant—from introducing new music, art, literature, food, science, etc. Maintaining cultural stasis requires authoritarianism—so is the death of any liberal democratic republic. Moreover, there is simply no argument that anyone has the right to require others maintain cultural stasis.

By contrast, there are good arguments that each of us has the right to live in a liberal democratic republic. The simplest way to think about that is that such a state is necessary for freedom and we all have a right to be free. That is why I take the argument that too much immigration can change a country’s political system (from liberal to authoritarian) seriously.

For some countries—those with small populations—having a large number of immigrants can have the worrisome result (for the argument see this from Hrishikesh Joshi). For example, if you live in a country with 10 million people and your country brings in 250,000 illiberal pro-authoritarian immigrants per year, in 8 years they would plausibly number 20% of your population. That may be enough to change the political structures. Is that the situation of the United States or any country with a 340+ million population? An affirmative answer is, I think, implausible.

It’s not just that we’d have to have many more millions of immigrants than we do (currently there are fewer than 50 million foreign-born people in the US in total). It’s also that most immigrants to the US are not pro-authoritarian. People leaving authoritarian regimes and coming to the US, generally do so because they want the freedom that is available, because they want to improve their lives and those or their families. They do not bring authoritarian desires; they do not seek to overthrow the government. (Of course, some terrorists can/do get in, but there is more domestic terrorism.) The idea that we would be changed from a liberal democratic republic to an authoritarian regime because of our peaceful and productive immigrants is, frankly, laughable. (Political scientists who believe we are shifting to authoritarianism do not think it is because of the desires of immigrants.)

Importantly, the current administration’s actions are not merely about immigration going forward. It’s about forcing out immigrants already here. It’s about sending them out of the country, in some cases sending them to war-torn countries they’ve never been in. None of this will help protect our country, certainly not from a shift to authoritarianism. Indeed, the funding increase for ICE in “the Big Beautiful Bill” that was made into law Friday, is itself an all-too-likely move to authoritarianism. ICE seems to be operating without significant oversight, regularly and happily ignoring habeas corpus and with the budget it’s now been allocated, we can’t dismiss the possibility that we may soon find ourselves in a police state.

(A note of hope: hiring takes time; perhaps the 2027 Congress will return to American values and cut ICE’s funding back down.)