Manuel Lora y yo hemos coescrito y publicado un ensayo a favor de la libertad de inmigración en el último número del Journal of Libertarian Studies, editado por el Mises Institute.
Es una crítica a las tesis anti-inmigración de Hans Hoppe y al desarrollo que hace Stephan Kinsella de éstas (aunque el pensamiento de Kinsella ha evolucionado desde entonces y ahora se declara favorable a la libertad de movimientos). Nuestros argumentos son fundamentalmente de tipo ético, para lectores de convicciones liberales.
Copio la conclusión:
An individual has the right to choose who can live on, work on, buy or rent his property but not the right to decide who can live, work or buy in his country. Migratory barriers hinder voluntary interaction between people, employers and workers, landlords and tenants, and sellers and consumers. As long as employers, landlords or sellers accept immigrants on their property, immigrants are not intruders but guests. It is true that the welfare state makes immigration more attractive in the same way it makes other types of behaviors attractive, but this does not mean that immigration (or these behaviors) amounts to aggression and, thus, is worthy of defensive force. The only measures that libertarians qua libertarians can defend are the suppression of all subsidies to immigrants (and to anyone else for that matter), the privatization of public
spaces, the abolition of protectionism that perpetuates poverty in the countries of origin, the repealing of anti-discrimination laws and the denial of voting rights, perhaps until the foreigner has assimilated. As for the migration barriers, tear them down!
Nótese que en este artículo para el IJM disputo el argumento, defendido en el ensayo, de que el Estado del Bienestar hace la inmigración artificialmente atractiva.
