Where would this rate among core beliefs? I never really pondered it much and sort of put figured that Libertarians cared most about personal property rights, free markets, and government not interfering with personal liberties as their core values and all else are secondary (the rest sort of happen naturally if the first three are taken care of), but this Arizona thing has me curious. I’m not a supporter of open borders, though I’m not strongly opposed to them either. They don’t rate too highly in my list of priority issues, but I lean toward the ‘closed border’ camp or whatever you call those who reject the idea of totally open and free borders.
Where does this fall in the Libertarian plank? Are they divided? Can you call yourself a Libertarian if you don’t support open borders (like being pro-choice and calling yourself the Religious Right) or is there division amongst Libertarians on this issue? I know Ron Paul isn’t for open borders but it might just be part of a political calculus.
I probably should have done a search before posting. What I found seems to be a solid concensus for the open borders plank. So is a Libertarian who opposes open borders not a Libertarian or is this not one of the defining issues? Just curious as I didn’t know much about this position with Libertarians. I’m more interested in Austrian Economics than the nitty gritty of Libertarian philosophy.
So there’s some difference of opinion on the matter? Was Hoppe a Libertarian? I’ll do some searching. I’ve already found some good posts and all seem to fall in the open borders camp for some pretty well thought out reasons. I think the tea party crowd wouldn’t fall in line on this one (and probably a few other Libertarian views as well). Interesting.
On the one hand, you don’t have to let anyone onto your private property. In this sense, closed “borders” are legitimate so long as they are property borders.
On the other hand, if you stop someone from peacefully moving to an unowned plot of land, or going with permission to someone’s property, you can’t stop them. You’d be guilty of forestalling homesteading/free association.
Open borders are not necessarily Libertarian. If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to have their own “Mighty whitey” gated community where only Caucasians were allowed, they would be free to do so, assuming they wouldn’t try to attack people outside of their little commune. That’s my understanding, anyway.
Because here we thrive for a thorough discussion of the facts, I’m interested in which particular sections of the Arizona Immigration Bill (now law) are particularly offensive.
Why should this particular law be any more offensive than any other Federal or State law?
To the point of a libertarian position. I think there are a variety of opinions. In a true libertarian society the conditions for an influx of immigrants would be much different. The Federal and State governments, along with businesses and individuals, have provided significant incentives for illegal immigration. Such incentives would not be available in a true libertarian society.
There is no consensus. A lot of anti open borders libertarians but I think they are wrong.
Restrictions on immigration are morally wrong because:
Anyone who restricts my freedom to bring a Latino onto my own property is restricting my property rights.
Immigration laws are enforced with confiscated taxpayer dollars. One who supports border enforcement is a collaborator(though perhaps not an accomplice) with state criminals.
Most of the anti-immigration arguments construct some kind of framework about how taxpayers “sort of” own government property, even though it was stolen in the first place. This is the kind of compromise with statism we don’t need. Land belongs to the legitimate title holder. The government has no moral authority manage the land it occupies.
Nor do I buy any kind of consequentialist argument against immigration:
I don’t buy the argument that Mexican immigrants are bad for the economy. I like getting my home remodeled at 40% of the cost of what a native would pay. Most studies seem to support the idea that immigrants are a net gain for society.
Nor do I buy the argument that they will lead to a collapse of society. Maybe if they were Muslims, but come on here. We’re talking about a group that likes working hard, Jesus, drinking a beer and fucking. They will fit in here.
I don’t think Latinos are bad for the white man either. If you look throughout the Latin American world, light skinned elites are at the top of the social hierarchy. So us gabachos can rest assured, our descendants will probably be at the top of the social structure, no matter how many Latinos come in.
I’ve always taken this to be the kind of thing libertarians can all agree about, in some ideal world. In the real world, there seem to be arguments on both sides, or else it’s just not really clear what the libertarian position is. I’m open borders, myself.
Immigration wouldn’t even be a topic worthy of discussion without the welfare state. The main reason it’s contentious is because immigrants are typically able to receive the benefit of government subsidies and transfer payments (even if indirectly, like through public schooling). In the absence of government, it just comes down to property rights. Don’t forget that labor has historically been the scarcest factor of production, so a larger labor force - in the absence of regulation - is typically a good thing.
That is backward. Per capita income is increased by higher labour productivity, not more labourers floating around. Higher labour productivity comes from more capital.
I think that nations in general are terrible things, and closed borders are but an extention of this corruption. I think that if possible it should be impossible for any first generation immagrants in the country to recieve welfare benefits… Hell no one should get welfare benefits but if this is not enacted then I don’t see how huge abuse wouldn’t take place.