Is There a Libertarian Position on Citizenship?
It looks like the beltway libertarians at places like Reason and Cato have no interest in explaining the libertarian position on naturalization and citizenship.
Try an internet search of the phrase “libertarian position on naturalization and citizenship”—or some similar variation of those words. What you will find is a wide array of articles on immigration from the usual “libertarian” sources. But, that hardly answers our question since immigration and naturalization are two very different things. These articles often mention the words “citizenship” and “naturalization” in passing. But they never explain why, based on libertarian principles, we should be restrictionist or expansionist on granting citizenship to migrants.
Consider, for example the recent rash of articles on birthright citizenship at Reason. Every single article that I’ve seen is simply an article using legal positivist claims to support the status quo. See here, here, and here, for example. The “debate” is little more than lawyers stating what they think the written law says with the implied conclusion that birthright citizenship—and, presumably expanded naturalization—is good because the US Constitution says so. This is far cry from arguing in favor of expanded naturalization based on actual libertarian principles. The US Constitution is many things, but it’s certainly not a proxy for laissez-faire and libertarianism.
So, what is the libertarian position on naturalization and citizenship? It can’t be the same thing as the position on immigration. Immigration, after all, is closely tied to the matter of property rights. Citizenship and naturalization, on the other hand, aren’t about property rights at all. It is, therefore, not at all clear that we must favor more citizenship or more naturalization in the name of freedom or free markets. In fact, there is good reason to believe that an expansionist view on naturalization and citizenship increases state power at the expense of our freedoms.
Property Rights vs. Naturalization “Rights”
What is the difference between immigration and naturalization?
Immigration is the process of human beings moving from one place to another. In the current context, this nearly always means migration across an international boundary. Immigration policy, therefore, is the process of restricting—or not restricting—the movement of these persons. In practice, the question of immigration policy necessarily raises the question of whether or not government authorities ought to restrict migration by various regulations. Immigration regulation necessarily involves the regulation of property, whether we’re talking about the property of the migrant—in his physical person—or the property of landlords and employers (and other market participants) who seek to contract with migrants.
Naturalization is something different altogether. Naturalization is the process by which persons gain access to political institutions. This requires an administrative act of a government agency. Citizenship can bring with it greater access to taxpayer-funded amenities like the welfare state, but the most crucial aspect of ci
Article from LewRockwell
LewRockwell.com is a libertarian website that publishes articles, essays, and blog posts advocating for minimal government, free markets, and individual liberty. The site was founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian political commentator, activist, and former congressional staffer. The website often features content that is critical of mainstream politics, state intervention, and foreign policy, among other topics. It is a platform frequently used to disseminate Austrian economics, a school of economic thought that is popular among some libertarians.
