Libertarian position on immigration and border control

[Catatonic]

I've done some reading about the libertarian argument for wide open borders, but I've never seen it addressed as a national security issue.

Are libertarians okay with letting people with criminal records in and out of the county whenever they wish? How is this justified?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've done some reading about the libertarian argument for wide open borders, but I've never seen it addressed as a national security issue.

Are libertarians okay with letting people with criminal records in and out of the county whenever they wish? How is this justified?

The reason we cannot secure the borders now is that much of the land is government-owned. If it were privately owned, people could develop it and defend the borders themselves. This would also diminish the power of the State and prevent criminals from entering (people would defend their property from criminals).

[emazur]

YouTube - Bob Barr on Immigration 5/24/2008

The reason we cannot secure the borders now is that much of the land is government-owned. If it were privately owned, people could develop it and defend the borders themselves. This would also diminish the power of the State and prevent criminals from entering (people would defend their property from criminals).

This wouldn't work if there were people who owned land along the borders who decided they could make a very comfortable living by taking bribes from the illegals so that they would look the other way when crossing the borders onto their land and then into the rest of the US. If not bribery, Mexican sympathizers could purchase land along the borders and not only look away, but perhaps actively help the Mexicans. Hell, Mexican sympathizers could create a whole town next to the border.

I suppose you could say there could be vigilantes patrolling the areas adjacent to these hypothetical towns and smuggling areas, but that would quickly devolve into vigilantes demanding "your papers, please" every time they saw a brown skinned person, even from Asians who just happened to look Hispanic.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Immigration and border control are two different issues. You can have unlimited immigration and still know who is coming and going.

[heavenlyboy34]

YouTube - Bob Barr on Immigration 5/24/2008



This wouldn't work if there were people who owned land along the borders who decided they could make a very comfortable living by taking bribes from the illegals so that they would look the other way when crossing the borders onto their land and then into the rest of the US. If not bribery, Mexican sympathizers could purchase land along the borders and not only look away, but perhaps actively help the Mexicans. Hell, Mexican sympathizers could create a whole town next to the border.

I suppose you could say there could be vigilantes patrolling the areas adjacent to these hypothetical towns and smuggling areas, but that would quickly devolve into vigilantes demanding "your papers, please" every time they saw a brown skinned person, even from Asians who just happened to look Hispanic.

This doesn't change or defeat anything I said, as anyone can purchase sufficient protection in a libertarian society. Even if illegal alien sympathizers purchased a whole town, anti-illegal folks can purchase whole towns too and keep them out. Whoever owns the land can do whatever they want with it. The current system will never totally defeat the illegal alien problem because there is economic demand for them on both sides of the border.

Since all property is privately owned in a libertarian society, this provides disincentive for illegals to commit crimes-as people will defend their lives and property to the fullest extent possible. w00t for freedom!

[emazur]

We don't have a libertarian society now, and we do have public property like roads. We have anti-illegal immigration laws too. Given all this, do you believe it's acceptable for a person to purchase land next to the border, and deliberately allow illegals to cross onto his land and then use the public roads to make their way into the rest of the United States? Or should the local or federal government take action against such an individual?

Furthermore, let's suppose all public roads were abolished and were private. An American facilitates illegal aliens who cross the border onto his property, loads the illegals into his van and then drives down this private road so he can dump them into the next city, or county, or state, or whatever. Would you recommend some sort of check point so that ALL people who drive down this private road are subject to searches by the road owner, who is concerned about illegal immigration? At such a checkpoint, let's suppose the checkers thought one of the persons in the car was an illegal, but in actuality was not, and as a US citizen doesn't think he/she should have to prove her American citizenship to anyone when traveling within her own country, and just wants to be left the $#@! alone so she can continue on her merry way. And let's suppose that this is just the checkpoint of one private road, there's another by the owner of the next private road, and another and another after that. Who would possibly want to live in such a society? Having to be subject to prove one's citizenship within one's own country at one checkpoint is bad enough, but being subject to such checkpoints throughout the state, if not the entire country, would be damn nightmare of a society to live in.

[Deborah K]

The reason we cannot secure the borders now is that much of the land is government-owned. If it were privately owned, people could develop it and defend the borders themselves. This would also diminish the power of the State and prevent criminals from entering (people would defend their property from criminals).

There are plenty of ranch owners who have tried to defend their land that butts up against Mexico. They regularly get sued for millions for doing it.

[tremendoustie]

There are plenty of ranch owners who have tried to defend their land that butts up against Mexico. They regularly get sued for millions for doing it.

Well, we're not exactly free, are we. They should be able to defend their property. Borders are not important -- property rights are.

[Bradley in DC]

Immigration and border control are two different issues. You can have unlimited immigration and still know who is coming and going.

Many of us think that's the only what to know who's coming and going--look at the drug war for analogies.

[Sandman33]

There are plenty of ranch owners who have tried to defend their land that butts up against Mexico. They regularly get sued for millions for doing it.

You should legally be able to shoot them if they are on YOUR property. And the border should absolutely be sealed. It should have been done 20 years ago.

[tremendoustie]

You should legally be able to shoot them if they are on YOUR property. And the border should absolutely be sealed. It should have been done 20 years ago.

People have a right to let anyone on their property they choose. If the border folks, or a guy in nebraska for that matter, want to let someone from Mexico on their property, that's their business. If they don't, they have a right to use force if necessary to keep them off. The government has no right to say who you can or cannot allow on your property.

[LibertyEagle]

People have a right to let anyone on their property they choose. If the border folks, or a guy in nebraska for that matter, want to let someone from Mexico on their property, that's their business. If they don't, they have a right to use force if necessary to keep them off. The government has no right to say who you can or cannot allow on your property.

True enough. But, just make sure they STAY on your property.

[heavenlyboy34]

We don't have a libertarian society now, and we do have public property like roads. We have anti-illegal immigration laws too. Given all this, do you believe it's acceptable for a person to purchase land next to the border, and deliberately allow illegals to cross onto his land and then use the public roads to make their way into the rest of the United States? Or should the local or federal government take action against such an individual?

Furthermore, let's suppose all public roads were abolished and were private. An American facilitates illegal aliens who cross the border onto his property, loads the illegals into his van and then drives down this private road so he can dump them into the next city, or county, or state, or whatever. Would you recommend some sort of check point so that ALL people who drive down this private road are subject to searches by the road owner, who is concerned about illegal immigration? At such a checkpoint, let's suppose the checkers thought one of the persons in the car was an illegal, but in actuality was not, and as a US citizen doesn't think he/she should have to prove her American citizenship to anyone when traveling within her own country, and just wants to be left the $#@! alone so she can continue on her merry way. And let's suppose that this is just the checkpoint of one private road, there's another by the owner of the next private road, and another and another after that. Who would possibly want to live in such a society? Having to be subject to prove one's citizenship within one's own country at one checkpoint is bad enough, but being subject to such checkpoints throughout the state, if not the entire country, would be damn nightmare of a society to live in.

This is not at all how this would pan out. You must have missed the thread where I posted Walter Block's discussion about private roads and we all debated it at length.

There would likely be no checkpoints in a private road system, because people who need to be checked (i.e. "criminals") wouldn't want to pay the fee to use the roads. Further, the owners would have incentive to keep the roads safe and could sell billboard space, etc. to further profit.

Your argument fails also in that having the right to travel does not give you the right to roads at others' expense. This is simple morality. (Just as the right to eat does not give you the right to food at others' expense) If you want to travel for free in a private road system, you can always be a pedestrian and plan your life accordingly.

Like other things, the free market would help us find the most practical way of managing the roads. It seems most likely that a subscription-type system would arise, where the drivers pay a flat subscription fee to the owners.


Further reading-
A Future of Private Roads and Highways


Private Roads Work

[constituent]

True enough. But, just make sure they STAY on your property.

that's fair.

[erowe1]

People have a right to let anyone on their property they choose. If the border folks, or a guy in nebraska for that matter, want to let someone from Mexico on their property, that's their business. If they don't, they have a right to use force if necessary to keep them off. The government has no right to say who you can or cannot allow on your property.

That's true. But they would also have to be allowed on anyone else's property who welcomes them. And there should be no government owned property, such as roads, on which it would ever be necessary to travel between the privately owned properties on which these people are welcome. There also should be no laws affecting what kinds of economic exchanges can be made between any two parties while these people are on these privately owned properties, such as them having jobs.

[constituent]

That's true. But they would also have to be allowed on anyone else's property who welcomes them. And there should be no government owned property, such as roads, on which it would ever be necessary to travel between the privately owned properties on which these people are welcome. There also should be no laws affecting what kinds of economic exchanges can be made between any two parties while these people are on these privately owned properties, such as them having jobs.

agreed, but in lieu of that...

[Brian4Liberty]

I've done some reading about the libertarian argument for wide open borders, but I've never seen it addressed as a national security issue.

Are libertarians okay with letting people with criminal records in and out of the county whenever they wish? How is this justified?

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

http://www.lp.org/platform

[erowe1]

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

That's the position of the Libertarian Party. But it isn't the small-l libertarian position, which, as the OP correctly observed, is the position that national borders are just imaginary lines. The word libertarian gets thrown around awfully casually by Ron Paul supporters, most of whom (myself included) are not small-l libertarians in the strict sense.

[Elwar]

In a libertarian society people would be assetts, not burdens. More people would mean more productivity, everyone bringing something to the table...if they had nothing to bring, they'd get nothing in return from a free market society.

It'd be like a wide open farmer's market...everyone bringing fruit of some sort...people either bring unique fruit, or they bring the same as someone else and competition brings the prices down. It benefits the market over all.

We do not live in a free market society. Most libertarians are for open borders but not under our current US socialist system of society creating a "safety net" for everyone and their brother leaving the burden to the productive members of society.

Ideally, open borders promote freedom and prosperity...but most libertarians are willing to accept immigration control under the current socialist system.

[Peace&Freedom]

That's the position of the Libertarian Party. But it isn't the small-l libertarian position, which, as the OP correctly observed, is the position that national borders are just imaginary lines. The word libertarian gets thrown around awfully casually by Ron Paul supporters, most of whom (myself included) are not small-l libertarians in the strict sense.

No, the "imaginary lines" idea is a staple of anarchistic or anarco-capitalist libertarians, who presume their position is the 'real' small-l libertarian position. Since anarcos reject the concept of nations or the legitimacy of government force, they naturally reject the idea there are national borders to protect.

Most libertarians are minarchists (believe the state has legitimate power so long as it is strictly limited to defending rights to life, liberty and property) and so believe in the defensive use of force as practiced by individuals, or as delegated to the state. This means the state has the right to define and protect its borders, as far as such action defends the basic rights of its citizens.

[erowe1]

No, the "imaginary lines" idea is a staple of anarchistic or anarco-capitalist libertarians, who presume their position is the 'real' small-l libertarian position. Since anarcos reject the concept of nations or the legitimacy of government force, they naturally reject the idea there are national borders to protect.

Most libertarians are minarchists (believe the state has legitimate power so long as it is strictly limited to defending rights to life, liberty and property) and so believe in the defensive use of force as practiced by individuals, or as delegated to the state. This means the state has the right to define and protect its borders, as far as such action defends the basic rights of its citizens.

Right, but minarchists aren't necessarily libertarians in the strict sense. They may populate the Libertarian Party, but that's something different.

A libertarian in the strict sense adheres to the zero-aggression principle, which is a corollary of the belief in self-ownership.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

An-caps are one kind of libertarian. Whether or not there are others is beside the point (though I suspect there are, not really having bothered to work out the whole taxonomy of libertarianism, since, after all, like Ron Paul, I'm not one).

The concept of people being forced against their wills to recognize borders as defined by any state is contrary to libertarianism in the strict sense, despite the fact that some minarchists and self-professed libertarians may accept the idea. Mind you, I'm not saying that we should cease to recognize borders, only that as long as we don't, we aren't being libertarians in the strict sense.

There is also nothing wrong with using the term "libertarian" in a relative sense, such that Ron Paul is relatively more libertarian than Paul Broun, and Paul Broun is relatively more libertarian than Jim Demint. But when used in that sense, the term has no absolute objective meaning, and so is not useful in being able to say who is and isn't a libertarian. It's like arguing about who is and isn't tall.

[YumYum]

True enough. But, just make sure they STAY on your property.

Let's say I want to bring a bunch of illegals on my property. Can I walk them across your property if there is no other way, and I have an easement allowing me to cross your property? Can you stop me from bringing them on my property?

[Flash]

I've come to the conclusion that an open border would be harmful for America. Even in an Anarchist 'society' open borders (which would be the norm) would be a horrid idea. Mostly Aztlan & La Raza radical groups would migrate en masse and set up new countries (oh believe me, they will) and start their own society. Slowly America will be taken over.

Under a Libertarian/Minarchist state, I would still be in favor of closed borders. I don't see how welcoming mass amounts of immigration would be helpful for our country. Why should we accept people who WILL just change our ideas on government through voting? We learned that the hard way through the Catholic big-government types that swarmed here in mass numbers.

[erowe1]

Let's say I want to bring a bunch of illegals on my property. Can I walk them across your property if there is no other way, and I have an easement allowing me to cross your property? Can you stop me from bringing them on my property?

I assume that when you say "can" you mean, would it be ethical. No, assuming a libertarian perspective, which is what the OP asked about, it would not. My property is mine, and you should have to get my permission before bringing those so-called illegal aliens through it. However, with my permission (which I may give you at a price) it would be completely wrong for any government to force you not to bring those so-called illegal immigrants through my property and onto yours or to force me not to allow it or to accept money in exchange for doing that. At least, that is, from a libertarian perspective.

Edit: Oh wait, I just reread what you said and saw the part about the easement. If you have an easement, then that easement is your property, so it's not an issue. Or if the easement is such that we have some kind of contractual arrangement defining what it can be used for, then the rightness or wrongness of the action would be defined by the contract.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives the thesis on why "open borders" is a bad all around idea. Personally, I wouldn't be as against it if there were zero Government subsidies (Meaning, no "safety net", no public schools, no grants, no "freebies"), because at least then they would have to be a productive member of society. As it is now, they just mass immigrate here and live off the taxpayers dollar (mostly), and have a better life than they otherwise would have in their native country. This in turn creates a system that is all but enivatable to collapse and when it does we then have social strife because of the drastic differences in culture.

Let me see if I can find it....

I believe it's in this:

YouTube - The Advantages of Small States and the Dangers of Centralization (Hans Hoppe)

[Brian4Liberty]

That's the position of the Libertarian Party. But it isn't the small-l libertarian position...

Granted, there are a lot of different people that call themselves "libertarian". I am not yet ready to completely dismiss the platform of the "Libertarian" Party as not being "libertarian" though.

A libertarian in the strict sense adheres to the zero-aggression principle, which is a corollary of the belief in self-ownership.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

One guy's opinion.

There is also nothing wrong with using the term "libertarian" in a relative sense, such that Ron Paul is relatively more libertarian than Paul Broun, and Paul Broun is relatively more libertarian than Jim Demint. But when used in that sense, the term has no absolute objective meaning, and so is not useful in being able to say who is and isn't a libertarian. It's like arguing about who is and isn't tall.

What was the point again? You seem to have gone in a circle. Should we say that the "Libertarian" party is more libertarian than any other Party?

Are an-caps more libertarian than Libertarians?

[erowe1]

What was the point again? You seem to have gone in a circle. Should we say that the "Libertarian" party is more libertarian than any other Party?

Are an-caps more libertarian than Libertarians?

I haven't gone in a circle. Being a Libertarian (a member of a particular party) has nothing to do with being a libertarian (an adherent to a philosophy), any more than being a Republican means being republican, or being a Democrat means being democrat, or being a Green means being green. There are libertarians as well as non-libertarians in the Libertarian party, but considerably more of the latter than the former. There are an-caps in the Libertarian Party. So I don't think that one can say whether an an-cap is more libertarian than a Libertarian, since those are not mutually exclusive categories. However, I explained the need for using an absolute definition, such as that widely accepted one by Neill Smith that I provided, when it comes to the question of who is and isn't a libertarian. Such absolute questions, demanding a simple yes or no answer, only work with absolute categories. An alternative definition that I've seen is that a libertarian is someone who holds consistently to the principle of self-ownership, which is another way of presenting the same idea as Smith's widely accepted definition. At any rate, the question in the OP wasn't about what the Libertarian position is (or if it was, I stand corrected), it was about what the libertarian position is. In this case, the official position of the Libertarian party is not the strictly libertarian position on this issue.

To answer your question of whether the LP is the most libertarian party, my understanding is that it is not. I believe the Boston Tea Party was created to be a more libertarian party (although I do not know if they are strictly small-l libertarians or not). And one can quibble about whether or not the Constitution Party is more libertarian than the Libertarian party. At the very least, their presidential candidate in 2008 ran on a more libertarian platform than the LP candidate that year did. But neither were libertarians.

Similarly, it may be fair to describe Ron Paul as a libertarian, when speaking only in comparison to other candidates. But if someone asks the simple yes or no question, "Is Ron Paul a libertarian?" then that question can only be understood in the absolute sense if it is to have any clear answer (otherwise its allowable answers are just as variant as if someone were to ask if he's tall). In the absolute sense, the answer, at least as far as the policies he supports officially, is clearly, no, he is not. My observation has been that, usually, when members of the media casually label him as a libertarian, it's used as a way to marginalize him.

[YumYum]

I assume that when you say "can" you mean, would it be ethical. No, assuming a libertarian perspective, which is what the OP asked about, it would not. My property is mine, and you should have to get my permission before bringing those so-called illegal aliens through it. However, with my permission (which I may give you at a price) it would be completely wrong for any government to force you not to bring those so-called illegal immigrants through my property and onto yours or to force me not to allow it or to accept money in exchange for doing that. At least, that is, from a libertarian perspective.

Edit: Oh wait, I just reread what you said and saw the part about the easement. If you have an easement, then that easement is your property, so it's not an issue. Or if the easement is such that we have some kind of contractual arrangement defining what it can be used for, then the rightness or wrongness of the action would be defined by the contract.

I don't know enough to ask meaningful questions. Do you have a site that addresses these views. This is a complex issue and it raises another question for me: Do Libertarians want a new form of government, or do they want to keep the one we have got under the Constitution? If we keep the Constitution we will be back where we are now. Also, the only reason we have "government lands" is that this land was the land that nobody wanted. You can't grow crops on a mountain property, even when it is breathtakingly beautiful. This was the old school of thought. Somebody posted that Lincoln didn't do anything important as president. One thing he did do that would be considered favorable by Libertarians was the Homestead Act. He was trying to turn government land into private property. Lincoln was for property rights(except for those who were against the North).

[Brian4Liberty]

Being a Libertarian (a member of a particular party) has nothing to do with being a libertarian (an adherent to a philosophy), any more than being a Republican means being republican, or being a Democrat means being democrat, or being a Green means being green. There are libertarians as well as non-libertarians in the Libertarian party, but considerably more of the latter than the former
...
My observation has been that, usually, when members of the media casually label him as a libertarian, it's used as a way to marginalize him.

I agree. The use of either "libertarian" or "Libertarian" is a code word for "wacko" in the eyes of the general public. Of course the public opinion is shaped by the mainstream media...

Assuming that you are correct about the "Libertarian" party, a name change would be highly recommended, as it would be both inaccurate and damaging.

[NYgs23]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives the thesis on why "open borders" is a bad all around idea. Personally, I wouldn't be as against it if there were zero Government subsidies (Meaning, no "safety net", no public schools, no grants, no "freebies"), because at least then they would have to be a productive member of society. As it is now, they just mass immigrate here and live off the taxpayers dollar (mostly), and have a better life than they otherwise would have in their native country. This in turn creates a system that is all but enivatable to collapse and when it does we then have social strife because of the drastic differences in culture.

Walter Block and Anthony Gregory wrote a rebuttal Hoppean position that swung me to an anti-immigration control position: On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.