Rockwell: The Market Absurdity of Open Borders

[LibertyEagle]

The Absurdity of Open Borders
by Lew Rockwell

http://https://mises.org/power-market/absurdity-open-borders

The answer is quite clear. “Open borders” would be a. disastrous mistake. The policy would subject the United States to hordes of people with alien ideologies and cultures. As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed out, it would have made no sense to allow immigration from Germany and Japan during World War II. “Neither does it mean that there can be any question of appeasing aggressors by removing migration barriers. As conditions are today, the Americas and Australia in admitting German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants merely open their doors to the vanguards of hostile armies.” We face exactly the same situation today. We have a hard enough problem coping with the alien ideologies and cultures that are already here. Why compound our problem?

[Swordsmyth]

Let me know when the whole world is libertarian.

[ClaytonB]

Let me know when the whole world is libertarian.

Border-defense can be privately funded. Compare the security of a gated community to the security of most national borders. A stray cat cannot cross into the gated community at any time of day or night without their security knowing about it. So, libertarian defense is much stronger than public (tragedy-of-the-commons) defense. AKA be careful what you wish for...

[Swordsmyth]

Border-defense can be privately funded. Compare the security of a gated community to the security of most national borders. A stray cat cannot cross into the gated community at any time of day or night without their security knowing about it. So, libertarian defense is much stronger than public (tragedy-of-the-commons) defense. AKA be careful what you wish for...

Doesn't work on a national scale.

[ClaytonB]

Doesn't work on a national scale.

Neither does the Constitution, apparently. I'm not arguing to "privatize the border" or "eliminate national border patrol", I'm only pointing out that "libertarian" does not equal or even imply loose-border policy. Hans Hoppe is one of the strongest border-control intellectuals out there, and he is also rabidly anti-State. And he is one of the most logical thinkers out there. Open borders, he argues, is anti-libertarian, and I agree...

PS: The video below has terrible audio quality. Here is a good article on the topic explaining Hoppean border policy. There used to be more Hoppe videos on YT, the censors have been very busy wiping him from the Net...

[Madison320]

Border-defense can be privately funded. Compare the security of a gated community to the security of most national borders. A stray cat cannot cross into the gated community at any time of day or night without their security knowing about it. So, libertarian defense is much stronger than public (tragedy-of-the-commons) defense. AKA be careful what you wish for...

What's to stop Jose from buying a piece of land on the mexican border and putting up a big "ENTER HERE" sign?

I'm against open borders but I'm not sure we need a wall to close the border.

[ClaytonB]

What's to stop Jose from buying a piece of land on the mexican border and putting up a big "ENTER HERE" sign?

Any HOA with gated entrance is going to have rules about that. You can't remove a section of the outer wall, you can't remove the gate, you can't change the gate-code, you may not loan your code to someone else, you may not tailgate others, you may not allow others to tailgate you, certain types of visitors may have to follow a sign-in procedure, and so on, and so forth.

I'm against open borders but I'm not sure we need a wall to close the border.

Sure, it may be possible to have a wall-less border (that is also secure). But the deeper issue is that if you want to achieve Goal X, you have to choose a tool from among the set of available tools that can actually accomplish Goal X. If Goal X is to dig a powerline ditch but you choose Tool A which is a children's sandbox scoop, have fun trying to dig a ditch with that. You need to choose an appropriate tool, such as a proper steel shovel, or a Ditch-Witch, or whatever.

The government is the wrong tool for almost everything that modern man wants to use it for. He says, "I will now dig a ditch (or seal the border)" and he proceeds to grab the plastic toy sand-shovel of the government. He does so with great ceremony and pomp, as though he were a priest performing some ancient liturgy. But no matter how deeply he believes in his heart that this plastic toy shovel will help him dig a 5-foot deep, mile-long trench, it will not help him at all. He would do just as well scratching at the dirt with his bare paws. If you want to dig a ditch, use a proper shovel. If you want to seal a border, have proper security. If your political apparatus makes it impossible to have public security agencies do the job, then contract it out. If the contractors are corruptible, then privatize the whole system. The root problem in almost all public policy failures is tragedy of the commons... no one individual has any vested interest in the outcome, so the outcome is never achieved. Privatization is not magic pixie-dust. What makes it work is what economists call internalization of costs and benefits. When I fix up my house, I am the beneficiary in two ways. First, I get to live in a nicer house, because I just fixed it up. And when I sell it, it will get a better price (because I fixed it up). So, almost all the benefits of fixing my house up go to me. For this reason, nobody needs to pass a law saying, "People need to fix up their houses. There need to be at least 10,000 remodels per year." Nobody needs to do that because the incentives are already aligned -- everyone who can benefit from fixing up their house has already done so, because it was the most beneficial thing they could do with their spare money. Therefore, everyone who doesn't fix up their house must have had some other, more pressing thing to spend their money on.

When you collectivize resources (e.g. parks, roads, borders, etc.) you break internality. You make both the costs and benefits of maintaining that resource into an externality. Since nobody in particular benefits, nobody in particular has an interest in seeing to it that that resource is maintained. And so you get blight. The US southern border is exactly such a blight. The Democrats are the main beneficiary of that particular blight, which is why the Republicans bitch and moan about it so much. But there are plenty of other blights that the Republicans benefit from (e.g. the MIC), and you will never hear them complain about those. And it is precisely because of this root hypocrisy (the desire to "keep the good thing going") that the Republicans will never take a principled stand on the border. They will not enforce it, neither will they allow local polities to enforce it in their place. They don't actually want change, they just want you to think they want change, so they make a big show of complaining about it. And nothing ever changes.

This is a MUST-WATCH video, it's just 2 minutes. Everyone go watch it!

[Invisible Man]

Any HOA with gated entrance is going to rules about that.

But HOAs are small areas of land that are completely filled by occupied parcels and their appurtenant streets, parks, right-of-ways, and other such things. And rightly so.

The ethical justification for putting up a wall around such an area can't be extrapolated to justify putting one up around a land mass the size of the USA, complete with all its empty and unused land.

[LibertyEagle]

Let me know when the whole world is libertarian.

Huh? Are you taking issue with the article? Did you even read the article? Because he is explaining, mostly to libertarians, why open borders is absolutely nuts. Especially with the welfare state that we have. It is at least the second time that he has written an article about this. The other time is in my sig .

What exactly did you take issue with?

[Swordsmyth]

Huh? Are you taking issue with the article? Did you even read the article? Because he is explaining, mostly to libertarians, why open borders is absolutely nuts. Especially with the welfare state that we have. It is at least the second time that he has written an article about this. The other time is in my sig .

What exactly did you take issue with?

I'm not taking issue with the article, I'm agreeing with the article that Open Borders are absurd.
They only cease being absurd when the whole world is ideologically homogenous, which will never happen.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not taking issue with the article, I'm agreeing with the article that Open Borders are absurd.
They only cease being absurd when the whole world is ideologically homogenous, which will never happen.

I was confused because the author of the article is Lew Rockwell, who runs Mises.org. Both are very libertarian. Just remember that just as is the case with Republicans, not all libertarians agree on everything, either. Lew wrote this article to explain to those libertarians who want open borders, why it won’t work.

[jmdrake]

The Absurdity of Open Borders
by Lew Rockwell

http://https://mises.org/power-market/absurdity-open-borders

I remember as a child in the 1970s going to Mexico. It was so anti climatic. Were were at a border town in California (I don't remember the name) and we just walked across into Mexico. My parents bought a guitar pinata that we later used for my birthday. There was no wall, no fence, no checkpoint. And...during the 1970s, illegal immigration was low. Sometime in the 1980s it suddenly became a problem. Why? I'm not sure. Some was certainly driven by refugees fleeing wars in Central America that Ronald Reagan was funding. Funny Reagan's immigration reform bill from 1986 seems to have caused more harm than good. This person seems to have had a balanced approach though.

[Swordsmyth]

I remember as a child in the 1970s going to Mexico. It was so anti climatic. Were were at a border town in California (I don't remember the name) and we just walked across into Mexico. My parents bought a guitar pinata that we later used for my birthday. There was no wall, no fence, no checkpoint. And...during the 1970s, illegal immigration was low. Sometime in the 1980s it suddenly became a problem. Why? I'm not sure. Some was certainly driven by refugees fleeing wars in Central America that Ronald Reagan was funding. Funny Reagan's immigration reform bill from 1986 seems to have caused more harm than good. This person seems to have had a balanced approach though.

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Ron Paul also voted for the war in Afghanistan then came to regret that vote. Ron Paul in 2008.



A war on drugs led to more drugs.

A war on poverty led to more poverty.

A war on immigration in some ways has led to more illegal immigration.

[Swordsmyth]

A war on immigration in some ways has led to more illegal immigration.

Bunk.

And Ron never repudiated the position he held and campaigned on in 2008, unlike the Afghan war vote.

[Swordsmyth]

A war on immigration in some ways has led to more illegal immigration.

I do thank you for admitting you are advocating for open borders.

[jmdrake]

Bunk.

No. It's provably true. Amnesty was part of the 1986 bill that Ronald Reagan passed to fight the illegal immigration problem that Reagan helped create by destabilizing Central America. Ron Paul talks about that in the video I already posted. Here it is again.

And Ron never repudiated the position he held and campaigned on in 2008, unlike the Afghan war vote.

I do thank you for admitting you are advocating for open borders.

I never advocated a position one way or the other. But unlike you I actually listened to what Ron Paul said about the danger to Americans of a border wall.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

That was reason Number One why I jumped in whole hog supporting him back in 2007.

His "absolutist" position on the guns and the 2nd was my second reason.

[Snowball]

I remember as a child in the 1970s going to Mexico. It was so anti climatic. Were were at a border town in California (I don't remember the name) and we just walked across into Mexico. My parents bought a guitar pinata that we later used for my birthday. There was no wall, no fence, no checkpoint. And...during the 1970s, illegal immigration was low. Sometime in the 1980s it suddenly became a problem. Why? I'm not sure.

CIA regime change ops and drug running.

[jmdrake]

CIA regime change ops and drug running.

You are of course correct.

[Voluntarist]

What does it take to "close" the border?

Are we talking about an impenetrable wall along the land borders. A wall with gaps obviously doesn't work. In fact, you'd probably need two parallel walls with a "No Man's Land" between them. You'd probably need manned towers at intervals (like you'd see in those WWII Staglag movies) to catch the stragglers who enter the "No Man's Land" by climbing over or digging under the outside barrier (barrier walls don't stop people from crossing, they just slow those people down so they can be caught by security forces). And you'd need "gates" in the walls, manned with some security personnel to assure that only citizens could pass. I suppose the existing passport system would be a sufficient bureaucracy to identify citizens - though maybe that "Secure ID" thing they're rolling out would work too. And the existing visa bureaucracy would probably suffice for granting access to non-citizens; though you'd probably need to majorly beef up the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to keep up better monitoring of non-citizens once they're inside of the US (so they don't slip out of the system).

What about the sea borders? An undersea barrier would be quite impractical; so you'd probably need some type of barrier a few hundred yards or so inland. Again, a double barrier with a "No Man's Land" between them with gates/openings to allow citizens with access to/from the beaches. It'd be basically the same thing as the infrastructure and bureaucracy for the barriers used to secure the land borders. I can see people with beachfront properties complaining about this though. Maybe we should just ignore putting barriers along the coast; but the thing is, once you secure the land borders from leakage, the flow will move to those areas that aren't secured. But I really think you'd at least have to check every vessel entering a seaport to assure it's not smuggling in non-citizens.

We've probably already got air travel covered with the existing TSA system using passports or "Real ID" to identify citizens, and visas granting access to non-citizens. But you'd have to set it up at every landing strip that a plane from across the border could touch down at. It could get a little dicey controlling entry/exit of non-conventional aircraft (I can remember flying my hang glider in close proximity to the US/Mexico border - often unsure of who's airspace we were actually in).

And of course you're not just interested in securing the border, but monitoring and controlling what non-citizens do within the US once they've been granted access to enter. You don't want them working or attending school when they haven't been granted such privileges. So you're going to need a governmental bureaucracy that's large enough and adequately funded to perform the monitoring of non-citizens within the US, as well as periodic monitoring of US schools and employers to assure that they're following the rules. The current system isn't funded well enough to do that (the violators they catch now are just the tip of the iceberg).
=== Edited to add===
You'd have to supercharge E-Verify and make sure it's utilized for every single employee to assure they're authorized to work. It wouldn't be enough to simply check that the prospective employee is authorized to work, because those here illegally often use the identities of US citizens to get work. So you'd need to report each prospective employee to a central federal authority in order to assure that the individual isn't working another job somewhere else (that would be a ref flag for one of the two being employed illegally).

You'd probably also have to expand E-Verify such that it'd be utilized to screen students for enrollment at public and private schools, colleges, community colleges, universities and trade schools. And likewise report each student to a central federal authority that could check for duplicate students at other educational and training institutions.
=== End edit

This is just "back of the envelope" thinking, so I've probably missed some things. Anything else we need to consider?

[LibertyEagle]

Offering them incentives to come here illegally, is why they come. Free education, free healthcare, birthright citizenship, etc. It is never going to stop until these goodies are taken away.

But, when I get really pissed off at this, I imagine having a double wall, with coin or debit card operated guns mounted atop the most inside wall. Where fathers can take their sons to teach them to shoot. “No son. You have to lead them a bit. Try again.” Seriously, I am sick of letting our country be overrun by all kinds of countries and who knows how many terrorists and diseases long ago eradicated here, that are being brought in. At least let Texas citizens go deal with the issue, if government won’t!!!!

We are just sitting on our asses while our country has been driven off of a cliff. I am getting older. At this point, I just hope the country doesn’t finish falling while I am still alive. But, we are leaving young people and their kids with far less than we were born into. It is sad.

If we stand any chance at all, we need a whole lot of more people that do what Thomas Massie did, all over our state and local governments. But, it is going to require more than being a keyboard warrior. The question is, how badly do we really want to turn this around? Are we willing to go all out like Thomas did?

[jmdrake]

Offering them incentives to come here illegally, is why they come. Free education, free healthcare, birthright citizenship, etc. It is never going to stop until these goodies are taken away.

Yeah. Ron Paul has been saying that for years and I know you appreciate that about him.

But, when I get really pissed off at this, I imagine having a double wall, with coin or debit card operated guns mounted atop the most inside wall. Where fathers can take their sons to teach them to shoot. “No son. You have to lead them a bit. Try again.” Seriously, I am sick of letting our country be overrun by all kinds of countries and who knows how many terrorists and diseases long ago eradicated here, that are being brought in. At least let Texas citizens go deal with the issue, if government won’t!!!!

Ummm.....okay. I imagine we quit trying to overthrow Latin American governments. I imagine a system where "have a program where individuals can work and go home and take care of their families. But we should remove the incentive for them to bring their families and get free care." I wonder where I got that from?

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah. Ron Paul has been saying that for years and I know you appreciate that about him.



Ummm.....okay. I imagine we quit trying to overthrow Latin American governments. I imagine a system where "have a program where individuals can work and go home and take care of their families. But we should remove the incentive for them to bring their families and get free care." I wonder where I got that from?

I hope you know that I would be fine with that in the long run. But, right now, I am concerned about AMERICAN citizens! Oh, and I also want to deport all of the illegal aliens. Color me pushed WAY too far!!

[LibertyEagle]

JmDrake, I live in Texas, so I am seeing it up close and personal. Where it is common for repairmen to be several who can’t speak a word of English and their supervisor speaks a little. I would guess everyone but the supervisor, and maybe him too, is an illegal alien. Wait until you are told that this country is theirs, that they are in the process of taking it back, and there is nothing I can do about it. Then, tell me how you feel.

When it is right in your face, for some reason that seems to take priority over pontificating over what we all wish our government would do with regard to foreign policy.

[jmdrake]

JmDrake, I live in Texas, so I am seeing it up close and personal. Where it is common for repairmen be several who can’t speak a word of English and their supervisor speaks a little. I would guess everyone but the supervisor, and maybe him too, is an illegal alien. Wait until you are told that this country is theirs, that they are in the process of taking it back, and there is nothing I can do about it. Then, tell me how you feel.

When it is right in your face, for some reason that seems to take priority over pontificating over what we all wish our government would do with regard to foreign policy.

Your chances are better than even that you'll get to re-elect someone who will give extend the border fence a little bit in order to placate you, make the overall problem worse through foreign policy, add in face scanning cameras in airports which has nothing to do with the problem he claims to be fixing and four years from now you'll be just as frustrated as you are right now. But okay. I want to see Brandon out too but for different reasons.

[LibertyEagle]

Your chances are better than even that you'll get to re-elect someone who will give extend the border fence a little bit in order to placate you, make the overall problem worse through foreign policy, add in face scanning cameras in airports which has nothing to do with the problem he claims to be fixing and four years from now you'll be just as frustrated as you are right now. But okay. I want to see Brandon out too but for different reasons.

Wow, i thought you were better than that. I never said I wanted all that other stuff you added on and you know it. I also have said that to really fix it … I am not going to repeat it. You saw it and have read me saying the same for YEARS. I don’t even know about the wall, but I can see up close and personal what is happening and also know that our piece of crap government is encouraging it for a reason and they aren’t going to stop. So what is your suggestion beyond pontificating?

[Anti Federalist]

Offering them incentives to come here illegally, is why they come. Free education, free healthcare, birthright citizenship, etc. It is never going to stop until these goodies are taken away.

But, when I get really pissed off at this, I imagine having a double wall, with coin or debit card operated guns mounted atop the most inside wall. Where fathers can take their sons to teach them to shoot. “No son. You have to lead them a bit. Try again.” Seriously, I am sick of letting our country be overrun by all kinds of countries and who knows how many terrorists and diseases long ago eradicated here, that are being brought in. At least let Texas citizens go deal with the issue, if government won’t!!!!

We are just sitting on our asses while our country has been driven off of a cliff. I am getting older. At this point, I just hope the country doesn’t finish falling while I am still alive. But, we are leaving young people and their kids with far less than we were born into. It is sad.

If we stand any chance at all, we need a whole lot of more people that do what Thomas Massie did, all over our state and local governments. But, it is going to require more than being a keyboard warrior. The question is, how badly do we really want to turn this around? Are we willing to go all out like Thomas did?

Well, I suggested mines, they are cheap, reliable and send a powerful message to the next invader in line behind the first one that just got turned into hamburger.

But everybody lost their $#@! and I got shouted down.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I didn’t know that about the facial scanning. Thanks bud

And yes, I agree about both parties. Absolutely.

Note: That wasn’t for Americans, per the article. But, no, I don’t trust them that it wouldn’t shortly be.

[acptulsa]

And you will never move towards no state or a minimal state if you allow every big statist in the world to waltz across your borders.

When the whole world is libertarian you can talk to me about open borders.

Um, like, imported criminals aren't exactly statists. As in, like, statists are copsuckers. Criminals? Not so much.

The statists are kind of the people using your taxes to import criminals so Trump can use stop and frisk as a selling point to a bunch of Constitutionalists hypocrites.