There is something worse than everybody wanting to come to your country: that’s if everybody tried to avoid it. America is not at this point, but there is a play about that in a theater of the absurd near you.
Official figures show a significant drop in foreign tourists coming to America this year compared to the same period last year. The Economist writes (“Have Foreign Tourists Really Avoided America This Year?” August 26, 2025):
Foreign arrivals at [20 major] American airports are down by 3.8% compared with 2024, or 1.3m fewer people. The slump was steepest between May and July, when arrivals fell by 5.5% year on year. That bucked the global trend as tourism finally recovered to pre-pandemic levels.
The drop was especially steep from Canada at 7.4%, or 13.2% if we consider only the summer (May to July, year on year). Trips by road fell even more. Air arrivals from Europe are down more than 2%.
Interestingly, more Americans have traveled abroad. The conjunction of the two trends will have caused a reduction in the international balance of tourist trade and, thus, in the international balance of goods and services compared to what it would otherwise have been. For protectionists, this should be a matter of great concern. Perhaps another emergency decree is needed to subsidize foreign tourists and intimidate Americans into staying here?
I suspect that many supporters of protectionism don’t realize that what foreign tourists spend in America is an American export. Just like for exports of goods, receiving tourists from abroad (whether for business, pleasure, study, or medical reasons) uses resources belonging to American residents in order to produce goods and services for foreigners. Indeed, foreign tourism in America is entered as exports in official statistics.
American residents travelling abroad provide the mirror image: they use resources belonging to foreigners—hotel rooms, Airbnb accommodations, food, entertainment, and so forth. Of course, they pay for that: any trade is a two-way street. This simply confirms the benefits of exchange: each party gives away what he values less for something he values more. It is not surprising that the expenditures of American tourists abroad are recorded as imports in official figures. A prohibition of American travel abroad would “save” an estimated $248 billion in the annual balance of international trade.
This elementary analysis suggests that the whole protectionist doctrine is a sham or an absurdity. So is the fixation of having foreign corporations invest in the US—which they will do anyway voluntarily in a free country. Moreover, foreign investment is the mirror image of trade deficits, but let’s ignore this to focus on another contradiction. If the police start raiding foreign companies’ factories as happened last Thursday in Georgia, the dystopia imagined at the beginning of this post will get closer (see “Hundreds Arrested in Immigration Raid at Hyundai Site in Georgia,” Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2025).
The raided battery factory under construction is part of a joint venture between Hyundai and LG Energy Solution, two South Korean companies. The majority of the 475 individuals arrested were South Korean nationals, including about 50 LG employees (the others were employed by contractors). Are the arrested individuals “the worst of the worst”? Not necessarily, it seems:
Asked about the raid, Trump said that the people arrested were immigrants who entered the country illegally. “We had as I understand it a lot of illegal aliens,” he said. “Some not the best of people. But we had a lot of illegal aliens working there.”
Another Wall Street Journal story (“How the Immigration Raid at Hyundai’s Factory Complex Unfolded,” September 6, 2025) reports on some consequences:
LG Energy said Saturday it was suspending most business trips to the U.S. and directing employees on assignment in the U.S. to return home immediately or stay put in their accommodations.
It would be another matter, of course, if there had been ongoing murders, rapes, torture, and other real crimes in the raided factory. The story also quotes a few other phrases that have deep significance:
“We have a warrant for this entire construction site, OK?” said an officer who wore a neck gaiter and sunglasses. “We’re Homeland Security. We have a search warrant for the whole site. We need construction to cease immediately.”
For one thing, it is as if the immigration police were proudly saying that, this time, they are not doing anything illegal. At any rate, the image of masked police raiding factories isn’t how people used to think about America.
The South Korean nationals arrested—some of whom were shackled!—had committed such unspeakable crimes that, we learned on Sunday, a “deal” with the US government will allow them to be repatriated by their government (“South Korea Charters Plane to Repatriate Workers After US Battery Factory Raid,” Financial Times, September 7, 2025).
An objection to my argument could be that, as much as trade deficits are a matter of “national emergency,” repelling foreigners represents a more pressing one. Note that, following James Buchanan and Friedrich Hayek, I am not arguing for totally free immigration; see my post “The Strangers Who Live Among You.” What I am arguing, against both the left and the right, is this: if the glorification of state power doesn’t verge on tyranny, it certainly tips into the absurd.
One might think that the absurd is not a concept belonging to public choice theory, but this is not sure. Politicians and bureaucrats pursuing mainly their own self-interest, while rationally ignorant and Condorcet-handicapped voters stagger for “the public interest,” can produce a chaotic walk into policy space. “Anything can happen” (emphasis in original), wrote political scientist Richard McKelvey and economist Norman Schofield. “Anything” includes absurdities but also possibly revolutions and civil wars. (See William Riker’s classic book Liberalism Again Populism or my Regulation review [pp. 54-57], a poor but more accessible second-best.)
******************************

Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot,” with the two leading characters changed into little kings (with the help of ChatGPT)
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Sep 8 2025 at 10:55am
Well, typically libertarians tend to argue for open borders and from that pov I could see how any immigration enforcement would be repugnant. But you write: “I am not arguing for totally free immigration” and then of course you’re taking issue with the mode of enforcement of a limited immigration policy.
How would you enforce it then?
An open borders advocate I feel is at least being consistent but honestly it seems that immigration debate and its enforcement starts to get a bit pedantic. Want to stop it at the border? Can’t do that? Want to make them apply for asylum from a third country, don’t want that. Want to enforce it internally at places of employment? Well, can’t do that either, right? (At an (auto plant?) in GA and difficult to argue Americans wouldn’t want those jobs)
Old adage which is that if I’ll let you write the law as long as I get to write the procedure, I’ll win every time. That seems to be the tactic, the law is the law and the enforcement is procedurally strained so as to preclude genuine enforcement.
If they enforce the tax code initially the enforcement starts with more courteous mailings of course. Might escalate to something like a lis pendens on your home as the government starts filing tax liens on your home or other property. Eventually it’ll go Wesley Snipes and they’ll come after you with the full force of the police state to enforce the tax laws.
Its probably not different here, these Koreans were probably not illegal aliens, ab initio, they probably overstayed visas and they likely ignored the ‘courteous mailings’ that came prior to this enforcement. Of course the history of enforcement is so poor many see these mailings as mere suggestions, so they get ignored.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 8 2025 at 12:45pm
Craig: You raise real problems, but the solution is not a further drift into tyranny. For a start, remember Jouvenel:
If the government had mentioned to LG that there might be a problem at the Georgia plant (Koreans eating pets?), it is likely that the company would have solved it. Or perhaps people might have realized that mounting “laws” (read: arbitrary decrees) are incompatible with foreign investment by private companies. This would have pointed to a real path to solution.
Under an illiberal state, raw force (and cruelty) are necessary incentive tools. But a police state is a remedy worse than the disease. The ignorant underlings who organized the Georgia raid were just doing what they thought would win them the praise of the worst of the worst above them (“You are filling your deportation quota, congratulations, good patriot!”).
This is the sort of problem that Hayek or Buchanan were trying to prevent.
steve
Sep 8 2025 at 5:12pm
Why cant we do at work? That has always puzzled me. Nothing ever happens to employers who hire illegal immigrants. If they get caught they just go one to hire more. Rarely is an employer prosecuted. I think we could stop more at the border but we need to figure out what our ROI will be be and how much we are willing to spend. The whole idea of a wall, except in populated areas, is dumb as they are easy to climb or go under. It would require a huge number of troops deployed around the clock. Maybe as AI improves could be augmented by drones. However, it still feels a lot like the war on drugs. As long as employers have a demand I suspect the supply will arrive.
Steve
Craig
Sep 8 2025 at 5:45pm
When discussing law one will often hear of things like intent, negligence, recklessness, gross negligence, etc. And when discussing general intent, which is a bit different from specific intent, but general intent typically means that individuals are assumed to intend the natural consequences of their actions. And when I look at the state of illegal immigration in the US today I have to assume that reflects an intention.
Craig
Sep 8 2025 at 5:50pm
“Why cant we do at work?” <–I am sorry let me tie my comment back to your question, the point is that illegal immigration is ubiquitous, its everywhere, we often times know precisely where to look for it, say on construction sites, farms, car washes, restaurants, etc, but it persists and I’d suggest the reason it persists is because there is an intention to permit it by procedurally hamstringing any effort to genuinely enforce the law.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 8 2025 at 7:58pm
Steve and Craig: There is one thing we should not forget, though. In a free society, there are things that government agents may not do; indeed, that is how a free society is defined. In Hayekian terms, there are means the state may not use.
A short excerpt from Rose Wilder Lane’s 1936 book Give Me Liberty illustrates, mutatis mudandis of course:
steve
Sep 8 2025 at 9:42pm
Good point Pierre, there needs to be limits and we need to be rational. In particular the use of masked ICE agents without any ID is very problematic. There are too many examples of anonymous and accountable law enforcement people abusing their powers and the people they detain. It makes it easier for their superiors to abuse those anonymous agents. There are way too many well documented cases of abuse and false claims by ICE agents. However, it’s pretty clear that Trump supporters largely dont care. I think that immigrants have been so successfully turned into the “other” that Trump supporters seem to believe that the abuse is deserved. When that abuse is done to Americans thy also dont care as they mostly look like immigrants ie they are also brown, or they assume it was lefties trying to interfere.
Recalls your post on cruelty. I think that the hate campaigns directed at immigrants (and others like trans people) have reached a very receptive audience so performative cruelty is lauded. Reminds me of a crucial difference between libertarians and conservatives ie conservatives and libertarians both want to pay less taxes but conservatives are willing to grant total power to government as long as that power is used against outgrips they dont like.
Steve
Craig
Sep 8 2025 at 11:25pm
They still wear body cams. You can see images of the Mexican police or the Brazilian police who need to go into the favelas and they mask because their families will be threatened. Here ICE agents are specifically being doxxed.
steve
Sep 9 2025 at 11:45am
it appears some have been doxxed but it also appears that the claims about ICE agents being attacked was greatly inflated. Certainly trying to turn the sandwich incident into a felony is illustrative as also has been the case with a number of other incidents people have got on video. However, we figured this out a long time ago. Our police wear badges with names and numbers. They dont go around masked and anonymous as we know that leads to abuses by the police.
So we are promoting a policy that might protect the govt worker but definitely increases risks for the general public. Note that we, along with the rest of the first world made this decision regarding our police a long time ago but for some reason we have regressed on this issue for ICE, again noting the claims about increased violence against ICE agents is fairly weak and mostly the result of arresting a lot more people and any kind of resistance is considered an assault, up to and including taking videos of the arrests.
Steve
Craig
Sep 8 2025 at 11:07am
“Lower Trade Deficits and More Foreign Investment?” <– also if my memory serves me correctly here Trump also threatened a tariff for anybody moving against the US dollar as a reserve currency as well.
Andrea Mays
Sep 8 2025 at 2:00pm
While Waiting for Godot is certainly on point, might I also suggest Ionesco’s “Exit the King” for future consideration? King Bérenger I awaits his own death (he is informed that his death will occur on that very day) as his kingdom falls apart around him: the population has shrunk, infrastructure is crumbling and there is disorder in the land. The king clings to power, refusing to accept he is dying. Queen Melania (ooops! I mean Marie…) initially shields him from the truth, but eventually she allows him to see what is inevitable.
David Seltzer
Sep 8 2025 at 2:32pm
Dear Andrea, “Queen Melania (ooops! I mean Marie…)”…A bit cheeky! I love it!
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 8 2025 at 7:15pm
Andréa: I have never read nor seen this Ionesco play, but the symbolism seems to be pregnant. Perhaps that’s what happened to the Genius of the Carpathians?
David Seltzer
Sep 8 2025 at 2:29pm
Pierre: I recently re-read Kafka’s The Trial. The absurd universe of The Trial is completely deaf to any individual’s attempt to understand it. The legal system is not grounded in any logical or predictable justice system. Agreed, politicians and bureaucrats pursue their own self-interest. The more grand absurdity; those Kafkaesque functionaries keep getting elected, re-elected or appointed.
Jon Murphy
Sep 9 2025 at 11:19am
Great line. I’d also add it tips into the ridiculous (in its original meaning: deserving of ridicule).