Mark Twain is attributed with the quote, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." While this quote may seem cryptic at first, I find it best explained with an example.
For example, in 1914, the Komagata Maru, a ship carrying 376 mostly Punjabi Sikh passengers, was escorted from Vancouver's Coal Harbor by the naval cruiser HMCS Rainbow. At least 20 of these immigrants would later be killed, and many more would be jailed after a riot ensued upon the ship's return to India.
In May 1939, more than 900 Jews fled Nazi Germany aboard the cruise ship SS St. Louis. They would also be turned away, this time in a harbor in Havana. More than 250 were later killed by Nazis after returning to Europe.
More recently, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas gave a stern warning to Cuban refugees fleeing recent turmoil in their home country: "Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States."
Clearly, in the case of immigration policy in the Western Hemisphere, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The particular circumstances may have changed, but even in 2021, refugees fleeing persecution, political and otherwise, are being faced with the threat of not being able to enter a safe haven. What will happen to these refugees?
Why is this important? Shouldn't these immigrants come here "the right way" instead of illegally? This would be a sound argument were it not for the overly tedious, and in some cases literally impossible, process to become an immigrant. Indeed, some people can literally die waiting in line.
Still others may say, "Shouldn't these people try to improve their lives where they are? Why is this our job?" Again, this would be a decent line of argumentation if these migrants were asking for welfare, but they aren't. Bryan Caplan mentions in his graphic novel Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.
More importantly, denying immigrants entry into wealthy countries; like the U.S.; with good institutions; like effective and impartial courts, laws that encourage business creation and innovation, and norms that encourage peaceful interaction; withholds a key tool from would-be immigrants to create a better institutional environment in their home country: immigration! Charles Tiebout explained this process in his famous paper "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." According to Tiebout, governments compete much the same way businesses compete. For example, if a certain jurisdiction taxes its citizens too much or does not provide enough parks and effective courts for its citizens, those individuals can simply move to a jurisdiction that will. The story sounds nice, but there are a variety of flaws with this theory. Still, we do see examples of Tiebout competition, and a high profile example is the current flight of Californians to nearby Texas because of high taxes and housing costs. However, if movement costs are prohibitively high, individuals cannot express their dissatisfaction with their local government by moving.
This is exactly what immigration restrictions in rich countries do: these restrictions make it more difficult for citizens in countries with corrupt governments to express their dissatisfaction by moving to countries with better institutional environments. When would-be immigrants are not able to immigrate, they are not able to force their own corrupt governments to compete in the "marketplace for citizens," and when governments are forced to compete, there is evidence they improve their institutions. This shouldn't be surprising. It's intuitive, and the actions of dictators throughout history have shown these dictators appreciate the potential impacts of Tiebout competition, even if there are fundamental problems with Tiebout's model. The Berlin Wall wasn't built on a lack of appreciation of Tiebout competition, even if Nikita Khrushchev had no idea who Charles Tiebout was.
That's why the Biden administration's stance is problematic. It's why it was problematic when Jews were turned away in Havana in 1939 and when the Canadian government escorted a ship full of Sikhs by gunpoint out of a harbor in 1914. In many ways, these actions enabled the British Raj, the Nazis, and the currant Cuban government as they committed human rights violations. These actions in many ways hinder the development of poor countries.
In his book on development in Peru titled The Other Path, Hernando De Soto writes, "When they arrived in the cities, however, migrants encountered a hostile world. They soon realized that, while formal society had a bucolic vision of Peru's rural world and acknowledged its right to happiness, no one wanted that other world to descend on the cities. Assistance and development programs for rural areas were designed to ensure that the peasants improved their lot where they were, well away from cities. Civilization was expected to go to the countryside; the peasants were not expected to come looking for it." In writing the above, De Soto was criticizing how the legal system in Peru made migration from the countryside to cities in search of better living conditions difficult. Hopefully I've argued convincingly the problem runs much deeper in the case of international migration restrictions in rich countries. These restrictions limit the ability of "civilization...to go to the countryside."
These Cubans don't want a welfare handout. They want to leave a repressive regime. Maybe we should get out of their way and stop preventing them from holding their government accountable.
Comments