Free Immigration or Forced Integration?rnby Hans-Hermann HoppernThe classical argument in favor of free immigration runs asrnfollows. Other things being equal, businesses go to lowwagernareas, and labor moves to high-wage areas, thus effectingrna tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the samernkind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital. Anrninflux of migrants into a high-wage area will lower nominalrnwage rates. However, it will not lower real wage rates if the populationrnis below its optimum size (and surely the United States,rnas a whole, is well below its optimum size). To the contrary, ifrnthis is the case, the produced output will increase and real incomesrnwill actually rise. Thus, restrictions on immigration willrndo greater harm to the protected domestic workers as consumersrnthan whatever such restrictions might gain them as producers.rnMoreover, immigration restrictions will increase thern”flight” of capital abroad (the export of capital which otherwisernmight have stayed), causing an equalization of wage rates (althoughrnsomewhat more slowly) but leading to a less than optimalrnallocation of capital, thereby harming world living standards.rnAs stated above, the argument in favor of free immigration isrnirrefutable and correct. It would be as foolish to attack it as torndeny that free trade leads to higher living standards than protectionismrndoes. It would also be wrongheaded to attack therncase for free immigration by pointing out that because of thernexistence of a welfare state, immigration has become, to a significantrnextent, the immigration of welfare-bums, who, even ifrnthe United States is below the optimal population point, do notrnincrease but rather decrease average living standards. For this isrnnot an argument against immigration but against the welfarernstate, l b be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, rootrnand branch. However, the problems of immigration and welfarernare analytically distinct problems, and they must be treatedrnaccordingly.rnThe problem with the above argument is that it suffers fromrntwo interrelated shortcomings which invalidate its uncondi-rnHans-Hermann Hoppe is a professor of economics at the Universityrnof Nevada, Las Vegas. This article was originally given as arnspeech at the 1994 meeting of the John Randolph Club.rntional pro-immigration conclusion and/or which render the argumentrnapplicable only to a highly unrealistic—long bygonernsituation—in human history.rnThe first shortcoming will only be touched upon. To libertariansrnof the Austrian school, it should be clear that what constitutesrn”wealth” (well-being) is subjective. Material welfare isrnnot the only thing that counts. Even if real incomes rise becausernof immigration, it does not follow that immigration mustrnbe considered “good,” for one might prefer lower living standardsrnand a lower population over higher living standards and arndenser population.rnThe second shortcoming will be the focus here. With regardrnto a given territory into which people immigrate, it is left unanalyzedrnwho, if anyone, owns (controls) this territory. In fact, inrnorder to render the above argument applicable, it is—implicitlyrn—assumed that the territory in question is unowned, andrnthat the immigrants enter virgin territory (open frontier). Obviously,rnthis can no longer be assumed. If this assumption isrndropped, however, the problem of immigration takes on an entirelyrnnew meaning and requires fundamental rethinking.rnFor the purpose of illustration, let us first assume an anarchocapitalistrnsociety. Though convinced that such a society is thernonly social order that can be defended as just, I do not want tornexplain here why this is the case. Instead, I will employ it as arnconceptual benchmark, because this will help clear up the fundamentalrnmisconception of most contemporary free immigrationrnadvocates.rnAll land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports,rnharbors, etc. With respect to some pieces of land, thernproperty title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permittedrnto do with his property whatever he pleases as long as herndoes not physically damage the property owned by others.rnWith respect to other territories, the property title may be morernor less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housingrndevelopments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitationsrnon what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning),rnwhich might include residential versus commercial use,rnno buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews,rnGermans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with orrnlULY 1995/25rnrnrn