Many conservatives exhibit a peculiar tendency to be pro-liberty when es to business, trade, and wages, but protectionist when es to the economic effectsof immigration.

It’s an odd disconnect, and yet, as we’ve begun to see with figures like Donald Trump and Rick Santorum, one side is bound to eventually give way. They’ll gush aboutthe glories petition, but the second immigration gets brought up, they seem to defer tolabor-union talking points fromages past.

When pressed on this in a recent podcast, immigration protectionist Mark Krikorian argued that the difference is that immigrants are people not products, and thus theymake things a bit more problematic. It’s plicated and disruptive, he argues, when you’re dealing with actual people who have diverse and ever-shifting dreams.

Thedifference is surelymeaningful, but it would seem to support precisely the opposite conclusion. A free flow of humans means a free flow not of static objects but of creative beings with capacity to love and sacrifice, innovate and explore, cultivate and multiply the fruits of civilization. Thismay indeed be plicated” and “disruptive”than manymight prefer, but that is how authentic mobility and prosperity works. One man’s hassle is another man’s mosaic.

It reminds me of this LearnLiberty video from a while back, in which Bryan Caplan connects the dots quite well.

If we focus on the economic arguments alone, the point sheet for a supporter of free markets is far clearer than the latest crop of presidential candidates would indicate.

Free-flowing trade, whether of products or labor, empowers us to give and receive, to share our gifts with neighbors old and new, near and distant, and weave our work into the fabric of civilization. The more partners, the more dreams — and where humans are allowedto partner and dream together, flourishing is bound to follow.