Frédéric Bastiat and immigration – The Future of Freedom Foundation

In his famous “Candlemaker Petition,” the famous 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat did not address the issue of immigration, but wrote about the treatment of Polish refugees who had fled persecution and were harassed and deported by the French authorities. Bastiat wrote:

One of Bastiat's most famous essays was about candle makers who wanted to banish the light and heat of the sun to protect local industry. Why not protect workers in a similar way?
[Click to Tweet]

…the most fervent wish of a refugee, after his exile ends, is to engage in a trade in order to acquire some means of survival. But to do this, he must choose where he lives; those who can be useful in commercial enterprises should be able to go to cities where such enterprises exist; those who wish to engage in industrial activity should be able to go to industrial areas; those who have talent should go to cities that promote these talents. Moreover, they should not be expelled at any time, nor should they have to live with the sword of arbitrary measures hanging over their heads.1

In loving memory of Frédéric Bastiat, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of his birth, I would like to parody this theme in a way that Bastiat might like. One of Bastiat's most famous essays was about candle makers who wanted to banish the light and heat of the sun to protect local industry. Why not protect the workers in a similar way?

The Candlemakers’ Request, Part Two

From the makers of candles, candlesticks, lanterns, candelabra, street lamps, light tubes and fire extinguishers and from the producers of tallow, oil, resin, alcohol and generally everything related to work.

To the honourable members of the Chamber of Deputies. Gentlemen:

We suffer ruinous competition from competitors who seem to work so much better that they flood the home market with great industry and incredibly low prices. As soon as they begin to work, our work stops, all consumers turn to them, and a branch of French labor, the ramifications of which are innumerable, is at once brought to complete stagnation. These competitors are cropping up all over the United States, they are nothing but millions of newcomers — infants born into our midst, destined to take away our jobs and our industry.

We ask you to be so kind as to pass a law requiring the closure of all openings through which they could enter and destroy our livelihoods – in short, seal all wombs and secure these passageways by employing all necessary guards and patrols.

Please be so kind, honourable Members, as to take our request seriously and not reject it without at least listening to the reasons we put forward for supporting it.

First, if you deny access to natural births and thereby create a greater demand for existing labor, which workers who toil in France today are not ultimately encouraged? We would certainly see demand so high that workers would receive higher wages well into their 100th year!

You must know what a drain these newcomers are on the creative energies of society. They come to this country without knowing our customs or our language. These children lack decency and not even the rudiments of good manners.

These new arrivals have no skills, no ability whatsoever to earn a living and, worse still, they will almost certainly be a drain on our national and cultural resources for twenty years before they can provide any meaningful compensation to society.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of human rights activists. Are you saying that the labour of birthing new arrivals is a free gift of nature, and that to reject such gifts is to reject wealth itself under the pretext of promoting the means of acquiring it?

If you take this position, you will be dealing a fatal blow to your own policy. Remember that you have always excluded foreign workers for similar reasons.

Hypocrisy regarding emigration

While researching this topic, I was amazed to learn that there is one country that tolerates an extraordinary level of emigration more than any other. It's hard to believe, but this nation-state allows four to ten million of its citizens to move and live abroad. That's right, four to ten million citizens live outside its borders.

These people leave their country for a variety of political and economic reasons. Some criminal and political elements are fleeing the government of their home country, which would imprison them for crimes such as drug trafficking or tax evasion. Most of them, however, are economic refugees who have moved abroad solely to improve their economic situation. Sometimes they hand over a lifetime's worth of savings to clever agents who organize their journey in closed compartments through hot deserts and shark-infested seas.

This invasion of foreign countries has resulted in significant displacement, where they undoubtedly perform jobs that would otherwise be done by the locals. Most of these newcomers are unfamiliar with the language, customs and traditions of their new homeland and cling stubbornly to the language, customs and eating habits of their Old World – and typically congregate at McDonald's restaurants worldwide.

Their families often live in isolated ethnic enclaves; they are reluctant to mix with the local population. In fact, they are mostly busy sending money home and organizing the reunification of relatives.

They have strong ties to their homeland and their loyalty to their adopted home is always questionable. Worse still, these newcomers are parasites on the services and amenities created by countless generations of taxpayers who built the infrastructure before they arrived.

And yet hardly anyone is protesting against this exodus of four to ten million business people and their families from the United States of America. Why not?

Americans' migration abroad is generally perceived as an economic benefit to the host countries and is openly courted. In fact, people in the wealthier countries of America, Asia and Europe expect to be allowed to travel the world as they please, but they are far less tolerant of people from poorer areas.

As if people were as valuable as oil

The President has just declared a national emergency in response to the recent press release from the Organization of Human Exporting Countries (OPEC) meeting. OPEC announced today that it will reduce the number of people allowed to leave its country by 10 percent in order to keep labor prices abroad at historically high levels.

A joint session of Congress was called to hear the President's full address. A copy of his speech was distributed to the press in advance. In his speech, the President strongly warns OPEC countries that this development of restricting people from entering the United States should be viewed as the “moral equivalent of war” due to the negative impact it will have on the American economy and international economic competitiveness.

“This nation,” the president warned in prepared remarks, “has dedicated the lives and fortunes of our fellow Americans to ensuring the free flow of petroleum from around the world because we recognize the value of raw fuels to the development opportunities of our economy. If we do all this to import the most basic of raw materials, do you think we would do less for history's most sophisticated manufacturing miracles – the ever more valuable human beings?

“Every human being is a marvel of the self-propelled, self-sustaining miracle of production, innovation, ingenuity and reproduction! We will not tolerate OPEC's efforts to control and cripple our nation's potential!”

At the same time, the President has instructed his Special Negotiator for Immigration (SIN) to file a complaint with the World Immigration Organization (WIO) accusing OPEC of violating the multilateral treaty on the free movement of people across borders. The SIN has previously accused OPEC of interfering in international competition for labor.