“I read the Rothbard quote in context, and it’s clear that he can correctly be characterized as anti-immigration”
Nay, he is against “compulsory opening by the central state.”
“This is what Rothbard’s argument boils down to: Legally unrestricted immigration is indeed the libertarian position, but it should not be implemented until every other plank of the libertarian program is first put into effect.”
That isn’t his position at all. Exact opposite in fact.
"Neither are our middle-class liberals very fond of illegal working-class Mexican immigrants, and so [the ticket] has maintained that illegal Mexican immigration should continue to be restricted until welfare disappears. But then, of course, that has to stay until full employment, etc. So: No Mexicans.
But this is what happens when opportunists begin to sanction the idea of structured destatization, of saying that we can’t repeal Statist Law A until B is repealed, and we can’t repeal B until we get rid of C, etc. To the media, this of course seems very “responsible” and respectable. Sure, it’s respectable; and for the very same reason, it means that we, as libertarians, are advocating the indefinite and hence the permanent freezing in place of the statist structure. The quick victory model turns out, on analysis, to be a quick victory only for the power and income of the opportunists themselves; for the cause of liberty, it means a permanent burial." - MNR
This is what immediately follows the quote of Rothbards “re-thinking”:
"However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.
Under total privatization [..] With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area.
While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second best” solution that most people might be willing to live with." - Nations by Consent.
What is wrong with that?
Regardless, Kinsella imo leads the way.
Also: Rothbard Vindicated - Lew
He changed his view of immigration. Actually, Rothbard held the same position his whole life: there is no right to immigrate (as he writes in Ethics of Liberty) but rather immigration should be by invitation, not invasion, as consistent private-property rights economics would dictate. In the exact opposite of what a market policy would be, the state forbids invited people to immigrate, but permits hordes who have no invitation to come on down.
Notice… “rethink my views on immigration”… that does not mean “change” ! OP has it wrong, as do many others. Essentially confirmed by a similar sentence stating (“However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model”). So I’d say JT’s analysis is correct. He previously thought of it in economic terms.