Open Borders is a Fine Slogan

I recently ran a guest post from my friend Dan Klein arguing that “Open borders is a terrible slogan.” As you might guess, I disagree. Here’s my point-by-point reply to Dan. He’s in blockquotes; I’m not.

---

Everyone knows that only so many words fit on a flag, button, bumper-sticker, or headline. Three flags I am happy to wave and defend:

‘Free markets’

‘Free trade’

‘Free enterprise’

Those slogans are worthy.

I don’t feel that way about ‘Open borders.’

What’s the difference?

[…]

It’s natural to think free, freer, freest.

It’s not so natural to think open, opener, openest. A door can be only half-way open, but, as a practical matter, open is open for any physical object that can fit through the opening. Indeed, being able to get through is generally what we mean by ‘open.’ It is much more binary. Basically, a door is either open or closed, as a light is either on or off.

Grammatically, Dan is correct. In English, we can say “free, freer, freest,” but not “open, opener, openest.” But this merely reflects the peculiarities of English superlatives. In English, we say open, more open, most open. But German, they say offen, offener, offeneste.

At the same time, in ordinary language, both “free” and “open” often mean “approximately or exactly 100% free” and “approximately or exactly 100% open.” It depends on context.

So, it doesn’t make sense to say that ‘Open borders’ merely means freer immigration — such as, 20 percent more. Why should 20 percent more be called ‘open’? For those wanting in but not making it into that 20 percent, the border is not open. It is closed. It could well be that even with a ’20 percent more’ reform, there are far more people who find border closed than who find it open.

Depending on context, you could easily say the same about “free markets, “free trade,” and even “free enterprise.”

So, what does the slogan ‘Open borders’ mean to the person who hears it? The only other option is that it means what it sounds like: Open borders—as a general announcement, to anyone who may be listening, anyone in the whole wide world. Any who wants to immigrate may do so. The border door is open to you. Come on in.

Many who hear the slogans of “free markets, “free trade,” and “free enterprise” have the same reaction.

What’s more, ‘Open borders’ is not about 100,000 issues or varieties. It is about immigration.

If you can embrace the slogan of “free trade” while opposing the free international shipment of plutonium, you can embrace the slogan of “open borders” while opposing the free migration of ax murderers.

I’ve heard high-IQ economists say that open borders is but an application of free trade — just that it is people, as opposed to inanimate goods, that cross the border. The differences between a human being and an inanimate object, however, provide the basis for separating the issue of immigration and the issue of trade quite fundamentally.

I agree there are differences. Most notably, restrictions on immigration are, empirically, vastly more harmful and vastly more oppressive than restrictions on ordinary commodities. Still, the logic of these high-IQ economists is sound. As usual, because high-IQ economists are the salt of the Earth.

‘Open borders’ is a terrible slogan. Who came up with it? Who started it? Curious minds would like to know.

To me, waving an ‘Open borders’ flag is like waving a ‘Legalize all weapons’ flag.

Like immigration, weapons policy is an issue in and of itself. And like ‘Open borders,’ ‘Legalize all weapons’ communicates the extremum among positions — ‘all’ includes everything from bazookas to machine guns to nuclear bombs. ‘Open borders’ is like ‘Legalize all weapons,’ and not like ‘Free markets,’ ‘Free trade,’ or ‘Free enterprise.’

Finally, we get to the crux of the issue. Dan doesn’t mind extreme slogans if he thinks extreme policies are a good idea. He opposes extreme slogans if he thinks extreme policies are a bad idea.

Yes, “free trade” could just mean “cut tariffs.” Most listeners, however, hear “get rid of tariffs.” Which doesn’t bother Dan. Why not? Because even if 100% tariff abolition goes a little too far, Dan views it as good approximation of the right policy.

I’m like Dan. I don’t mind extreme slogans if I think extreme policies are a good idea. And one extreme policy I have been vocally defending for the last two decades is open borders. I’m not absolutist; I don’t say “Let’s have open borders even if it’s a complete disaster.” Nor do I say, “I refuse to consider the slightest exception.” But yes, I think immigration restrictions are (a) a monstrous injustice and, (b) the most economically harmful government regulations on the books.

I grasp that Dan views immigration less favorably. What I can’t grasp, though, is why he complains about the slogan of open borders when it’s obviously the substance of open borders that troubles him. In case there’s any doubt about this, I ask Dan two simple questions: “If you agreed with me on the substance of open borders, would you still oppose the slogan? If so, what would be a better slogan?”

“Free migration” is the obvious response, but I fail to see how this relabeling would change anyone’s mind. If Dan wants to say, “I favor free migration, but not open borders,” I’ve love to hear him say so.

The ‘Open borders’ slogan has enabled some libertarians to blandish leftists, who, after all, dominate the cultural world in which most professional libertarians operate. By declaring ‘Open borders,’ libertarians assure them that they are not of the enemy, the Republicans. The extremum really does the trick.

I wish you were right, Dan. Sadly, very few leftist thought leaders hailed my work on this issue. They didn’t attack me, but they largely ignored me. The harsh reality is that while the American left supports more immigration, most assign the issue a very low priority.

Those libertarians have damaged the sound and healthy sense that has long stood behind ‘Free markets,’ ‘Free trade,’ and ‘Free enterprise,’ because suddenly they sport a slogan — ‘Open borders’ — that announces an extremum, and on a particular issue. That creates openings for anti-liberals to treat ‘Free markets,’ ‘Free trade,’ and ‘Free enterprise’ as though those slogans necessarily stake out the most extreme position for every market or on every issue.

When Republicans speak such slogans, they rarely mean the most extreme positions. When libertarians speak such slogans, in contrast, they often do. You could fairly accuse leftists of miscasting Republicans as libertarians. But by and large, self-identified libertarians are the free-market extremists that leftists perceive us to be. The fact that some libertarians also talk about open borders changes next to nothing about how anti-liberals perceive us. If anything, it slightly mutes accusations of free-market hypocrisy that leftists properly make against pro-market immigration skeptics.

Leftists no doubt enjoy seeing libertarians paint themselves into untenable corners. ‘Open borders’ assures them: “Really, I’m harmless!”

And on the particular issue of immigration, the extremum is irresponsible, as a policy position, just as legalizing all weapons would be.

I did write a whole book arguing that the extreme position on immigration is correct. I understand that Dan disagrees, but he really should engage my arguments instead of just dismissing the conclusion as “irresponsible.”

To close, let’s step back and ponder what makes a slogan good or bad. Good slogans…

1. Are clear. People basically know what you’re talking about, even if the slogan oversimplifies a little.

2. Sound good to the undecided. You’ll never persuade your opponents with snazzier packaging, but perhaps the undecided could be so swayed.

By these standards, “open borders” is a fine slogan. When I speak the words, listeners basically know what I mean. They know I’m not just arguing for more immigration, but for radical deregulation. Which is what I favor. And while the slogan horrifies people who oppose immigration, the undecided are usually mildly intrigued.

Qua slogan, “open borders” stands in stark contrast to the slogan that Dan Klein continues to champion: “liberalism.” In the modern world, the term is normally a synonym for “left-wing,” so it’s preposterously confusing when free-marketeers use the same label! Furthermore, “liberalism” sounds bad to most plausible undecided audiences. Calling yourself a “liberal” immediately alienates conservative audiences, and probably moderate audiences as well. I understand the historical motivations behind Dan’s crusade to reclaim this word, but this is a veritable archetype of terrible marketing.

I am only a messenger.