This is tangential to today’s Iowa pre-game show, but a few days ago, Ed Crane, president of Cato, wrote a piece on Ron Paul in the WSJ containing the following graf:
Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.
When did birthright citizenship become a tenet of libertarianism? I’m not being smarmy — I really have never heard a libertarian include preservation of our current citizenship rules as part of his agenda. Dan Griswold is Cato’s point man on immigration and in all the times we’ve shared a stage, I’ve never heard him even address the issue. Dan’s piece on today’s homepage, which recycles all the usual open-borders applause lines, doesn’t mention it. (BTW, NRO readers don’t seem to be buying what he’s selling; the comments to Dan’s piece are scathing.)
In fact, the only time I recall a libertarian addressing the citizenship issue (though not births to illegals) was Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation. During a panel we were both on, moderated by John Miller, if I recall, Hornberger was challenged that immigrants would vote for socialism; he responded that immigration and citizenship are separate issues, and that immigrants shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to naturalize and vote (essentially, the position of the Know-Nothing Party).
Is there a standard libertarian position on the issue of citizenship for the children of illegals? On the one hand, if people are free to move across borders unhindered, then all immigration would be legal, so no problem. On the other hand, if open immigration were to proceed on the Gingrich model of guest-worker visas (not leading to citizenship), then I could see a move to change the citizenship rules so the children of such workers wouldn’t get citizenship. (Linda Chavez has suggested as much, though she’s obviously not a libertarian.)
I’m not trying to score a political point here; I’m ambivalent about the birthright-citizenship issue and consider it of secondary importance. But if the head of the nation’s leading libertarian institution in the nation’s leading libertarian newspaper is criticizing the nation’s leading libertarian presidential candidate about it, there must be some principled explanation (beyond just wanting to maintain an open-borders united front with the Left).
If you think of libertarianism as generally requiring either the lack of or the minimization of government, there is less government in broadening the circumstances in which one is a citizen of a nation. At its broadest, for example, anyone who wants to can be a citizen of a nation; more narrowly would be those who happen to reside in the nation, etc.
So I'd think that amending the Constitution to reduce the circumstances under which one naturally (i.e., without affirmative government naturalization) was a citizen would slightly expand governmental power and be contrary to a "libertarian" view.
(Just be cautious when you're trying to do this, however. Just as those who like to think of themselves as "conservative", "liberal", "progressive", etc. have a tendency to define those terms so that they (and their views) fit comfortably within, one should be cautious about allowing someone else to tell you what "libertarianism" is when he has an interest in being perceived as a "libertarian" and is really just trying to tell you what he thinks about stuff.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe way Paul wants to go about ending birthright citizenship -- by specific amendment -- should satisfy even the most doctrinaire libertarians, unless for some reason they believe very, very strongly in the idea of it. In which case, it would be a personal belief, not one demanded by libertarian thought.
So, yeah, the idea that it goes against the mainstream of libertarianism is . . . odd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>there must be some principled explanation (beyond just wanting to maintain an open-borders united front with the Left).
"Principled explanation," no, I don't think so. But "wanting ot maintain an open-border united front with the Left," yeah, that sounds good to me. We should stick with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the writers and commentators at Reason.Com are any barometer of a Libertarian position on this, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant and all of the illegalities related to that topic are committed by law enforcement. Maybe you should check with Nick Gillespie after watching his appearance on PBS's Charlie Rose Show from a few years ago. He advocated wide open borders, no checks on entry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Crane is trying to keep an immigration party line together, as you imply--or he is just laundry-listing areas where libertarianism is silent, where Paul is "at odds with most libertarians." There is a libertarian case for a vigorous foreign policy--laying the smack down on foreigners is what the federal government is for, after all. There are also many libertarians who favor Paul's foreign policy. Most liberrtarians favor NAFTA and CAFTA, some consider them half-measures, a scam to write welfare-state measures into a "free trade treaty."
That paragraph reads as a "to-be-sure" paragraph, where the writer lists his disagreements with the figure he mostly agrees with. I think the phrase "mainstream libertarians" is a mistake--the later phrase "most libertarians" is more precise.
You haven't seen an "official libertarian" position on birthright citizenship because there isn't one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not ambivalent about it, and the open-borders fixation seems pretty common among Libertarians and with it, knee-jerk support for anchor-babies.
I'm against birthright citizenship for everybody. I'd prefer if EVERYONE had to apply for it. But, that's me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think he's suggesting that it's the sort of red meat you'd generally get from a "rightwing" Republican rather than a doctrinaire libertarian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you can be "[out of] sync with mainstream libertarians" without it being a matter of doctrine. Based on nothing in the way of evidence, I would guess that a poll of libertarians would show that most are opposed to ending birthright citizenship. Would you disagree? Not because they've used logic to arrive at that position from libertarian principles, but because it feels wrong for some reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInformally speaking, most libertarians I've discussed it with support it at present because it's in the Constitution, but wouldn't necessarily oppose changing it by amendment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If you think of libertarianism as generally requiring either the lack of or the minimization of government"
Libertarianism in the Cato sense isn't anarchism, so it doesn't require the "lack of" government. The confusion on this issue likely stems from the fact that the term "libertarian" was first used by anarcho-socialists [sic]. "Libertarianism" as understood by the Cato Institute is Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment liberalism, which contemplates defining a strict, and very narrow, sphere into which the state intrudes into one's life, i.e., only as much as necessary to allow for a functioning, free society. As such, the definition of citizenship is certainly part of that sphere.
"At its broadest, for example, anyone who wants to can be a citizen of a nation; more narrowly would be those who happen to reside in the nation, etc."
That wouldn't really have anything to do with birthright citizenship. And I don't think any but the most extreme of libertarians would agree that someone all the way around the world can decide one day that he's a citizen of this country and that the state can't tell him he's not, which is what your "broadest" scenario would encompass.
"So I'd think that amending the Constitution to reduce the circumstances under which one naturally (i.e., without affirmative government naturalization) was a citizen would slightly expand governmental power and be contrary to a "libertarian" view."
It wouldn't. It's a legitimate state concern. It would no more offend the libertarian view than would a change in the makeup of Congress, especially when you consider that birthright citizenship was created by amendment in the first place.
As I said, there may be those who believe strongly in birthright citizenship, but it's not required by libertarian thought.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(This was in response to Bart below.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"'Libertarianism' as understood by the Cato Institute"?
Why does it matter in the least, to what "libertarianism" or some other "ism" is, what some goofy little sorority's "understanding" of that "ism" is?
You're making the same error about which I wrote: allowing someone who likes to think of himself as "libertarian" (or whatever) to define that "ism" so he and his views fall comfortably within.
Which is why, weirdly, you describe the most extreme view of citizenship (anyone can just say he's a citizen) as one that would be held by only the "most extreme of libertarians" in order to argue that it's NOT the libertarian view. It's not intended to be the "mainstream" libertarian view - just the one that is furthest on the scale.
Which is why I used it to try to answer Mr. Krikorian's question - which wasn't one about what "most" or "average" libertarians think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I was separating "libertarianism" as claimed (originally) by anarcho-socialists [sic] and "libertarianism" in the modern American sense. Because the words are the same, a lot of people think modern American libertarianism is anarchism. It's not, and it's a misconception you appear to be under.
I'm not making any error. I'm describing the philosophy accurately. It has nothing to do with my own views. And the error YOU seem to be making is that I must be describing my own take. Here's a hint: I do not support open borders, but libertarian thought does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI support Ron Paul since he's the only candidate with libertarian principles AND significant traction for the presidential nomination. The author is right in saying that Paul's constitutional amendment isn't very libertarian, but I think it is used by him to gain traction with conservatives. Truth being that the main purpose of that amendment would be to prevent children of illegal aliens from acquiring the privilege of our vast welfare system. Eliminate welfare and make legal immigration more free and the issue would be solved. @Bart Immigrants tend to be more libertarian in general if they don't get attached on welfare since they typically come from countries with few welfare programs and come willing to work as hard as possible to make an honest living. Evidence of this type of attitude can be seen by many studies done showing that towns with high rates of immigration tend to have less crime (contrary to what you hear on news). Ron Paul 2012! If he doesn't take the Oval Office, I think I be leaving the country as I can only see crap really hitting the fan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot all libertarians have the same view on immigration. The libertarians at Liberty magazine are different from the libertarians on Fox. Check out Stephen Cox's The Fallacy of
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOpen Immigration
Paul IS different from Libertarians in this regard, because the Libertarian position on immigration is essentially a pro-open borders idealism. Libertarians are generally against any flow of people across borders at all, because they view it as a market issue, not a national sovereignty issue. Paul is more like Pat Buchanan in this instance than the Cato Institute.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGrrrr... quick edit note here... I meant to type "any RESTRICTIONS of flow of people".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImmigration/open borders is a separate issue.
Citizenship -- birthright or by naturalization -- isn't required for any "market" approach to immigration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul's position here is in the minority compared to "open borders idealism" (thanks for the phrase Douglas), but it's not unprecedented and certainly not unprincipled. He represents a significant minority of libertarians who take Milton Friedman's point that "it's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state", and if the welfare state isn't going anywhere, then border control and citizenship limitation become a practical necessity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think Ed Crane is saying that the position itself is a matter of libertarian purity, just that most libertarians disagree with Ron Paul. And I would say anecdotally that is accurate.
Of course, libertarians aren't really into the idea that borders and states matter that much anyway. So squabbling over who belongs to which government is going to be distasteful to people who are skeptical of overemphasis on states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse