[Editor’s note: This article was originally published by Liberalų sąjūdis (Liberals’ Movement) a center-right Lithuanian political party containing free-market and libertarian factions. In this context, “liberal” is roughly equivalent to what we call “classical liberal” in the English-speaking world. As I’ve noted here at mises.org more than once, the debate over immigration among libertarians tends to be dominated by American economics professors who routinely ignore the realities of geopolitics and look at immigration strictly through a lens of “how does immigration affect GDP?” In this article, Ms. Liachovic draws upon the broader political context of immigration (e.g., from Ludwig von Mises and from this article) providing a pragmatic look at the realities of immigration in a small country like Lithuania. The article has been machine translated from the original Lithuanian. -RM]
The economic benefits of mass immigration are obvious: more workers mean greater competition, lower production costs, new businesses and growing GDP per capita. However, for Lithuania, as a small country next to much higher and lower income countries, the issue of migration is not limited to economics. Ludwig von Mises, one of the most influential classical liberals, emphasized that open migration can pose serious cultural and geopolitical risks, so open borders cannot be considered a spontaneous expression of liberalism.
Today, GDP per capita in Lithuania is about 27 euros, while in Russia it is almost 14 euros. Such an income difference could encourage a mass migration flow if, according to a hypothetical scenario, the borders were completely opened. Lithuania has about 2.8 million people, in Russia – about 144 million. Just 1.5 percent of Russian emigration would be enough for Lithuanians to become a minority in their own country. Such demographic change would pose a direct threat to political freedoms and even create the preconditions for annexation, as happened in Crimea, where the change of the majority became a means of political takeover.
Having lost their majority, Lithuanians would find themselves in a vulnerable position, since the new majority would not necessarily care about the stability of Lithuanian institutions or the rights of local citizens. A similar danger would arise elsewhere, for example, if South Korea were to open its borders to China, whose population is several dozen times larger, which could quickly change the demographic structure.
Mises explained in detail in his works that mass migration can cause serious political and cultural tensions, since large flows of different national groups to certain territories often lead to constant competition for political influence, administrative decisions, and public speech. Under such conditions, minorities often no longer have a real opportunity to participate in state governance, while the majority can use the state apparatus to impose its own interests, which leads to constant distrust and friction.
As Mises states: “Transformed into the form of law, the outcome of [most] political debates acquires a direct meaning for the citizen who speaks another language because he is bound by the law, but who feels that he is excluded from effective participation in the formation of the will of the legislature, or is not allowed to contribute to its formation in the same way as those whose native language coincides with the language of the ruling majority. And when he stands before a judge or any administrative official as a party to a case or as a petitioner, he finds himself before people whose political thinking is alien to him, because it has been shaped by a different ideological influence. […] At every step, the member of a national minority is made to feel that he lives among strangers and, even if the letter of the law denies this, that he is still a second-class citizen.”
The formation of a national identity is not a simple process, because every person is born already belonging to a family, a language, a culture. We are all born into communities that shape our values. Therefore, large migration flows pose challenges: immigrants often have difficulty adapting to a new culture from generation to generation. They then become a vulnerable minority, and the local people begin to feel a threat to their rights and identity.
This conflict between different nations is inevitable, and as migration flows grow, it will only increase. Since the solutions recommended by Mises himself to reduce state intervention are not currently applicable, liberals face a difficult task: how to regulate migration flows in a way that minimizes the violation of a person’s fundamental right to property?
A good example of how private property rights are preserved can be found in Canada, where the sponsorship model is applied. In this case, the human right to invite someone to one’s estates operates while maintaining the taxpayer’s right not to finance the newcomer: an immigrant who is recognized as suitable must be supported for several years by a person or community committed to accepting him. This can lead to better integration and fewer violations of property rights.
I believe that the greatest tension arises when migrants become dependent on any form of state funding: this creates both economic and cultural problems and makes their integration more difficult. Therefore, policies should promote people’s autonomy by avoiding any state incentives for newcomers. In general, immigration policies should limit immigration, trying to preserve the right to private property, and further naturalization should remain difficult to achieve and perhaps even be tightened.
