I believe that much of the frustration in this topic arises because it is not as clear cut as either side wishes to believe it is.
Hopefully I can present this case in a clear and unbiased manner.
In fact, there is much to gain by taking the libertarian perspective on either side of this issue, so while I do take the following position, I’m certainly no bigot on the matter (Unlike many other issues.)
I suspect that the underlying problem is simply semantics…
This argument goes as such:
The ability to own property means that a person may acquire and do with his property as he wishes only to the extent that he does not disfigure or harm the property of another person.
If a landowner excludes a person or people from his property he is not disfiguring or harming the property of another person. It follows that he has the freedom to do this.
Along any imaginary border are a series of landowners. These landowners, just like any other, have the freedom to exclude any person or people from their respective lands.
Part deuce:
If a person or people enter the property of another person uninvited they are aggressing against that land owner (Because they are disfiguring or harming the property.).
Any land owner has the freedom to forcefully expel any person or people from his property, or hire any person or people to provide this service for him.
Therefore, not only is an “anti immigration policy” an option for a land owner, it is the natural state of his property unless he takes action to revoke that status. (having an ungaurded/unsigned road running through his property being one such action.)
What if the people on the other side of htese property owners from the immigrants are ok with the immigrants coming, but the only way through is through the anti-immigrant property?
If this argument were valid it could be used for anyone to enter anyones property at any given time.
Suppose I am landowner A and I want to drive a tank to landowner C’s property. I have to go through landowner B’s property and there is absolutely no other way. Landowner B does not give me permission to cross his property, but landowner C says its ok. Therefore, I drive my tank through landowner B’s property.
In the end landower’s A and C are exercising rights over landowner B’s property!
Ironically, this argument is used the other way around, saying landowner B is preventing A and C from exercizing their property rights. This is wrong, however, simply due to the fact that landowner B does not have to perform any aggressive action against A or C to prevent either of them from entering his property. Landowner A must perform an aggressive action to get to landowner C, and its entirely irrelevant whether he has landowner C’s permission or not.
Right of way is a good to be bought and sold. Opportunity costs deter economically irrational behaviour. It’s unlikely everyone owning property along a “border” and coastline of any great length, as well as every owner of an airport, will value some nationalistic ghost to the extent that one of them won’t have their price for right-of-way satisfied eventually.
Borders aren’t and don’t, nationalism in the way which it exists today is nonsense, and excluding people because they were born in another country is ridiculous.
“It’s unlikely everyone owning property along a “border” and coastline of any great length, as well as every owner of an airport, will value some nationalistic ghost to the extent that one of them won’t have their price for right-of-way satisfied eventually.”
“…excluding people because they were born in another country is ridiculous.”
I agree that it is, I also agree that it’s unlikely that wide areas are going to barred from transit, but what I wanted to point out was that in the libertarian perspective it is not only permissable, but is the natural state of a persons personal property.
Conclusively, the point is that Libertarians aren’t exactly telling the whole story when they say that they are “for open borders”, in fact they are simply for, “People should be able to do with their property as they wish.” understanding that “borders” really wont exist out of simple economic sense…
I agree with that too, but that is still an open border policy. There is no real libertarian argument against immigration as such, only arguments for property which can be applied to people who are labeled as “immigrants”. I want to make it very clear that the government does not own property and so it cannot stop people from crossing its imaginary borders for the sole reason they are from another country.
In the real world of actual existing statism open borders is simply open season on the native property owners - that is the gist of the libertarian critique of actual existing immigration patterns.
The champions of domestic property owners tend to marshal facts about how current immigration patterns result in forcible wealth redistribution through the various public goods i.e. welfare, education and infrastructure as well as document coercive discrimination in cartelised labour, education and housing markets.
Furthermore the champions for domestic property owners argue that the reason employers favour migrants is because they can socialise a great deal of the cost of labour onto other domestic property owners. They can pay the immigrant a pittance knowing that someone else will be compelled to pay the difference via the state.
Absent these vast market distortions the immigration patterns in a free world will be markedly different.
the welfare argument is analogous to saying that we need drug/alcohol prohibition because of welfare. Since drugs may cause people to lose their jobs and go on welfare. And because people might spend their money on drugs. It is also analogous to saying that while you have foreign policy of war, it is necessary to also have laws that prevent blowback: torture, wiretapping, or even more wars, etc.
The “open season” argument is similar to the one that says that having children is the same. For instance, we must have mandatory checks on birth rates if we have things like public schools. It would not be unreasonable, in this scenario, to have a two-child limit in order to keep class sizes down. Or keep property taxes down. Or maybe some punishment for having kids and forcing costs on others for these schools: fines, higher taxes, etc.
Both of them seem to be arguments that involve sacrificing freedom. It is really no different to Marxists who are for anarchism as a very final stage based on acceptable conditions (when all things have been bred out, and ideology has been purified and utopia has arrived). But god knows what in the in-between.
In the extremely rare case that a person has to cross a specific piece of owned land to get to where they are going without prior knowledge of the person who currently owns the land, the person must attempt to contact the owner before setting foot on the other’s land. If the owner cannot be reached the person should cross the area that would leave the least amount of change to the land being crossed.
Also, if the people on the other side are okay with the immigrants, they could contact the owner of the land first, or inform the owner that they have a standing rule of accepting all newcomers onto their land and would appreciate the owner giving them unhindered passing.
John, my post was in regards to whether libertarians should consider the actual existing pattern of migration in todays worlds as legitimate or ilegitimate. You have not given your opinion on this.
Your anology regarding drugs and alcohol is a pretty weak one. Drugs and Alcohol are goods, not people. A pack of heroin is not entiled to medicare, it doesn’t vote for socialist parties and does not live off food stamps.
I’m afraid your comments about torture in war don’t make sense. Surely a limited war in which there is no torture is preferable to total war in which torture is an instrument of war.
I’m not sure how you read in my post that I am sacrificing freedom - where have I advocated this in my post? I have simply given my reasons to view the actual existing patterns of immigration as contrary to libertiarian ethics.
The answer is clear cut to me. anti-immigrations is a rights violation. Stemming from governments welfare rights violations. Basically goverment creating problems. The source of the problem is welfare, no need to inact more rights violations to protect other rights violations.
If you read up on immigration, it is based on racism.
I don’t think owning certain property is a requirement for protecting said property. One of the reasons the government exists is to protect the personal property of its consumers. That is actually very legitimate*, and it would not take a majority vote to keep people from crossing uninvited onto anothers land, it should only take one voice: That of the land owner in question.
Of course, the likelyhood of everyone across a border of a country wanting to expel everyone off of said property is ludicrous solely because the opportunity cost involved.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it’s entirely illegitimate for the government, or any other agency, to usher people across other people’s property with or without the land owners permission. (Which is a very common practice today.)
*Assuming that the government is otherwise legitimate: Consent of the governed.
Well strictly speaking it is the state that is the problem. If you abolish the state then immigration as a social problem disapears. But how likely is that to happen? The state is far from being abolished and likely will not be within our lifetimes so under the state immigration is just another government policy, one that ratchets up already existing violations of liberty and further undermines the natives property and liberty in the long run.
I agree that “anti immigration” policy is seemingly an option for a land owner to consider. However, immigration legislation also carries a blow to private property rights, such as forcing business owners how to run their establishment a certain way. By telling them they’re not allowed to hire immigrants nor allowed to rent them land/property. For example, in Arizona, such legislation passed - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alabama-immigration-20110610,0,4204688.story
The state appartus is illegitmate and does not own any property. Therefore, like the state itself, such immigration policy is not needed. In addition, land owners may not revoke legislation without facing penalties such as fines or jail time, which makes it coercive and invasive.
In a free(d) society there are only property owners, and nothing can be said of an individual willing to sell, rent, or even give away property in a voluntary exchange with another person. This may also be said of a property owner not willing to rent, sell, or give away property for no one may force that individual to do so. This is nothing more than two consenting adults engaging in voluntary exchange.
Immigraton is not a policy. It is simply the act of moving from one nation to another. “anti-immigration” is a policy. One that seeks to prevent people from engaging in voluntary actions. This policy is a much more direct violation of property rights:
violation of the immigrant’s right voluntarily associate with whom he sees fit
violation of the landowner’s right to rent to whomever he sees fit
violation of the employer’s right to hire whomever he sees fit.
Your argument is basically saying: “I don’t like that my money is taken from me and given away to certain people, so I’m going to support a policy of restricting the rights of those people, and many others”. Completely anti-libertarian.