Immigration and Regulation

Some conservative anti-immigration writers have hit upon a novel argument for allowing fewer immigrants: immigration will lead to larger government. Here is the rationale. Immigration brings about a concomitant rise in population density. Some evidence suggests that increased population density is correlated with a rise in aggressive behavior and a paucity of manners. That rise in aggression and decrease in manners will make additional regulation necessary and, in the words of Mark Krikorian (the anti-immigration author linked above), "the more regulations you'll need, and more regulators to implement the regulations, and more laws to authorize the regulations, and more lawmakers to make the laws, and more legislative staff to write the laws, and more lobbyists to influence the laws. Thus does a libertarian approach to immigration lead to a bigger and bigger state."

There are a bunch of problems with this argument. First, the U.S. population density is currently 31 people per square kilometer. To put that in perspective, France's is 114, Germany's is 230, the UK's is 246, and Denmark's is 127. If we were to triple the population of the United States through immigration, we would still have a significantly lower population density than that of France. Since the European countries I mentioned do not have particularly less friendly (except France, maybe) or more crime-prone populations, a population density increase in the U.S. from immigration is not likely to drastically alter the behavior of our citizenry.

Even if we accept the idea that higher population density leads to more aggression, the suggestion that increased aggressiveness will make additional regulation necessary does not make a whole lot of sense. Acts of violence are already illegal, as are any of the other crimes that come about because of aggression. Would increased population density cause us to discover hitherto unknown categories of crime to regulate? One could argue more reasonably that more crimes might take place, but an increase in the amount of crime does not necessarily imply that new regulations would be put in place. The Massachusetts penal code is the same in Boston as it is everywhere else in the state despite the fact that there is more crime in Boston. At a fundamental level, the actions that are rightfully forbidden under the law should be logically the same actions everywhere the basic outlines of human nature remain the same.

Some conservatives have put forward an argument for restricting immigration for purely political reasons. More immigrants vote Democrat than Republican and Democrats will increase unnecessary and/or cumbersome regulations, so allowing more immigrants will surely lead to a larger state. That analysis, being entirely based on horse-race political calculation, is hard to refute 100%. It very well might be the case that restricting immigration would hurt the Dmocrats and thereby slow the expansion of government. There are still two problems with that kind of calculation. First, making laws (i.e. deciding what is acceptable in a rational human society) on the basis of political affiliation goes directly against the principle of individual rights. If that principle is the bedrock principle of the right, why would conservatives run in the first place? Second, the entire premise of republican democracy is that the people will eventually make the right decision. Immigrants, being as rational as the rest of us, will eventually come to support the party of individual liberty so long as the party treats them as the rational members of our society they become when they gain U.S. citizenship.

You can also view this post on the New Madisonian, where I'll be posting exclusively starting in eight days.