Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

[Occam's Banana]

Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.

Yet Lew Rockwell is an anarchist who does not reject the NAP, as the OP article implies he must.
(Nor does this necessarily constitute a contradiction on Rockwell's part.)

And just for the record (so that no one makes a mistaken assumption about what my position on this matter is), I do not take either side of the so-called "open borders" issue. I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns and arguments on both sides of the debate. But within the context of a statist system, there is no viable solution to the problem. Indeed, such problems only manifest as "problems" in the first place because of the nature of the statist systems in which they occur.

To clarify what I mean by this, consider the analogous "problem" of whether evolution or creationism (or both, or neither, or something else) ought to be taught in so-called "public" schools. This "problem" only exists due to the "publicness" of those schools, with all the things that are necessarily and unavoidably involved with that "publicness" - things such as mandatory attendance laws or the forcible extraction of funding from those who do not agree with whatever is being taught (not to mention the extraction of such funding from those who do not even have any children at all). No matter what "side" of the "evolution vs. creationism in public schools" issue one might take, someone's gonna get screwed. The problem here is not with "evolution" or "creationism," but with "public schools" as such - thus, so long as the context remains that of "public" schools, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison." The only genuinely viable solution is to remove the issue entirely from the "public" sphere and place it where it belongs - in the realm of individual choice and private property. And likewise for immigration ...

So long as immigration remains a "public" issue in the context of a statist system, there can be no "solution" that isn't just as problematic as the "problem" it supposedly addresses. The "open borders" side of the issue involves the exacerbation of an already bloated and over-burdened welfare system, the dilution of social cohesion, and the further empowerment of the forces of political progressivism (among other things). The opposing side of the issue involves (among other things) systematic and extensive interferences in the economy (requiring, as it does, the policing of employer-employee relations, to give just one example) and the reinforcement, amplificiation and aggravation of the problems associated with an already overweening "security" state ("Papers, please!"). So once again, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison."

The only genuinely viable solution to the immigration "problem" is to remove the immigration issue entirely from the "public" sphere of "open borders vs. state controls" and place it where it belongs - in the realm of individual choice and private property (where "borders" may be as "open" or "closed" as the owners want them to be). This is, essentially, the Hoppean position on immigration (without Hoppe's concessions to "public" property, which I regard as problematic - in short, just as I am opposed to "public schools," I am also opposed to "public immigration," regardless of whether it involves more immigration or less).

Now, you may object that such a solution is not very likely to be implemented any time soon - and if so, I freely acknowledge that you are probably correct. I don't think that it's very likely, either - at least not under present circumstances. But that does not mean that I am incorrect - it merely means that under present circumstances, no satisfactory resolution of the issue is possible. (This absence of the possiblity of satisfactory solutions is a hallmark of the state. An inherent characteristic of all states is that they usurp the rightful authority of individuals to exercise their property rights in order to resolve ostensible "problems" via mutual, non-violent cooperation - and democratic states especially thrive on the artificial divisions that are fostered and encouraged by such usurpations. The immigration "debate" in America is a perfect example of this.)

 

[MelissaWV]

I don't think its the immigrants that people are really angry about. Its economic inequality perpetrated by the system. We have a cradle to grave system that is designed to manufacture human beings for use by government and business (youtube: "John Taylor Gatto"). I think immigration is more free than our economic system. I think they should be in balance otherwise doesn't harm come to those who can not game the system thus violating the no harm principle? Isn't that what people are really angry about?

They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."

 

[angelatc]

...Yes? Is that all you need? Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?

If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.

But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.

But doesn't that make you an Anarchist, or a freedomist or whatever.....as opposed to a constitutionalist Libertarian?

 

[angelatc]

They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."

I deal with those people every day in my job and I freaking hate them. Move to France and don't learn French, and you'll get much the same reception.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't want to turn this into yet another interminable argument over anarchism, but since you brought it up p), I would like to make just a few brief observations:

Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another form of government. [...] Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain anarchy and fights to keep it, would become the government they despise.

If by "government" you mean anything like "a group of people that coercively maintains a monopoly on the use and application of force, and which seeks to exert sole and exclusive authority to adjudge all other uses and applications of force," then none of what you said here necessarily follows.

One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't last very long.

One could as easily say the same regarding "limited" or "minimal" states - and to as little effect.

All historical situations are composed of unique constellations of myriad contingencies.

Thus, history does not and cannot "prove" anything regarding the alleged non-viability of anarchy, minarchy, maxarchy or whatever-archy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are an authoritarian so I don't really understand what your problem is with a one world government.

I am, am I? lol. I'm not a libertine, no. I believe people should be responsible for their actions.

Is it because you are worried that your postcards won't be delivered to your leaders? (Leaders who don't give a fuck about what you think regardless)

I believe in a very small, limited government. If in your mind, that is an authoritarian, I guess that means you are a pie in the sky anarchist.

 

[euphemia]

I don't mind open borders. It's the nanny state I despise. End the nanny state, equalize relations with our neighbors so we can retire in Mexico if we want, and then open the gates.

I will not support any kind of open borders, or much immigration at all until the nanny state ends.

 

[Rad]

They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."

I agree there is fear of change in there. I think a lot of it is fear of competition for the menial task that America's corporate masters hand out. What options do they have but to compete for those jobs? I maybe wrong and the root of the problem may be more racism instead of anger from economic inequality due to a rigged system. There is a lot of lashing out and the illegal immigrants have suffered at the hands of Empire. If they don't want immigrants to come they would get rid of corporate friendly trade deals such as NATO. That is something the left and right could get behind. It is far too easy to blame "the other" and scapegoat them for what the American people time and time again voted for with money and ballots.

"Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hate, and hate leads to violence. This is the equation." - Averroes. Does this make Yoda Islamic?

 

[LibertyEagle]

They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."

So, Americans should want people entering the country illegally who have no interest in assimilating or in communicating with other Americans? Gotcha.

 

[euphemia]

I love it when people play the race card when Americans stand against the open door to the nanny state.

What do your neighbors look like? What kind of art is on your walls? Who wrote the books on your shelves?

 

[Zippyjuan]

I am, am I? lol. I'm not a libertine, no. I believe people should be responsible for their actions.


I believe in a very small, limited government. If in your mind, that is an authoritarian, I guess that means you are a pie in the sky anarchist.

A very small, limited government with a very large military/ security apparatus to completely seal the border (which is an impossible task).

If one is opposed to a 100% sealed border one must therefore be in favor of 100% unlimited immigration. False dichotomy.

There is a trade-off between freedom of citizens and restrictions on immigration. The question is how much of one you are willing to give up in exchange for the other.

 

[LibertyEagle]

A very small, limited government with a very large military/ security apparatus to completely seal the border (which is an impossible task).

If one is opposed to a 100% sealed border one must therefore be in favor of 100% unlimited immigration. False dichotomy.

There is a trade-off between freedom of citizens and restrictions on immigration. The question is how much of one you are willing to give up in exchange for the other.

When did I ever say I was for a "100% sealed border"? Hint: I didn't.

Your dichotomy is bullshit, zippo. It's nothing new to care about who entered the country, whether they were carrying any diseases, whether they could support themselves or were sponsored by another American, etc. It used to be law.

 

[MelissaWV]

I love it when people play the race card when Americans stand against the open door to the nanny state.

What do your neighbors look like? What kind of art is on your walls? Who wrote the books on your shelves?

There are a lot of reasons to want to restrict or track immigration, or at least limit the welfare/benefits that a noncitizen can get. My point was merely in response to the person seeming to think that no one on this forum is repeating those reasons out of one side of their mouth while talking about issues they have with immigrants merely because they are different. The latter scenario is always curious to me since it doesn't magically go away once someone becomes a legal immigrant. Someone who's spoken another language their entire life so far, is going to be more comfortable in that language among peers, family, and anyone who's going to speak that language with them. They should also be able to speak in the language of the land when called to do so, but not ridiculed for accent, or looked at with disgust.

Just my two cents, though.

 

[Zippyjuan]

or at least limit the welfare/benefits that a noncitizen can get.

Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for federal benefits. Legal immigrants are not eligible for their first five years.

 

[Zippyjuan]

When did I ever say I was for a "100% sealed border"? Hint: I didn't.

Your dichotomy is bullshit, zippo. It's nothing new to care about who entered the country, whether they were carrying any diseases, whether they could support themselves or were sponsored by another American, etc. It used to be law.

If you want to stop all illegal immigration, that requires a 100% sealed border. But even that is not enough. About 45% of all those currently in the country illegally came here legally- they overstayed their visas. So we need to issue zero visas and have a 100% sealed border if we want zero illegal immigrants coming here.

Or instead of zero visas, we need tracking chips on people entering the country even for vacation and a large police- type force to track and round up all those who over-stay their visas and then deport them. Papers please!

Or you don't mind having a few illegal immigrants in the country.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, more or less.

The reason which would allow a libertarian to accept immigration restrictions (security considerations) are known only to sensible minarchists.

But, generally speaking, immigration should be unrestricted.

...now, nationalists, my shrift for you is about as short as for the bolsheviks.

 

[Dianne]

Hell No !! I've never heard of libertarians in any country, other than the United States. I've never heard of a Constitution in any other country. So why the hell do we allow millions and millions from dictatorships enter this country in hopes of destroying our constitution. Obama and Paul Ryan are doing a damn good job of that themselves, they don't need multi millions more aiding them.

If anyone believes 9/11 was not an inside job, then you have to acknowledge all the perps were from Saudi Arabia and entered this country on Visas.. Look at how that event has changed the entire make up of the U.S. Now you have to go through naked body scans at the airport just to get in or out of this hell hole, formerly known as America?

 

[erowe1]

But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.

By "the country" you mean the federal government.

Yeah, I want that to fail.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

By "the country" you mean the federal government.

Yeah, I want that to fail.

The country, as led by the natives, with their voting habits, is doing just swell, amiright?

Donald Trump is about to be nominated by the white Anglo-Saxon protestant worthies of our party.

..while don Hillary'll be nominated by the donkey party.

Freedom..................................................................

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Yes, libertarians must believe in open borders.

If you don't "believe in open borders," and oppose them based on the reasons typically given on these forums, you are generally going to be a conservative of some stripe (I'd venture to say not even "constitutional," since the Constitution does not provide any explicit directions for policing national borders) and not a libertarian. This is strictly speaking in terms of 90% of the membership on these forums; it's possible to oppose them and be a liberal, though I don't think we have any people of that particular persuasion on these forums currently.