Among libertarians, immigration is one of the most hotly debated topics. We see a divide of viewpoints between those who view the immigrant as a non-aggressive traveler, versus those who view the immigrant as an invader on land that is not rightfully theirs to tread. In this article, I’m going to be going over arguments proposed by distinguished libertarian scholars, and other common arguments against free immigration that I feel miss the mark. I’ve often debated this topic on social media off and on, and I feel I can not properly do justice to the argument in short form. One of my goals for this article is to cover as much of this topic as extensively as I can from a libertarian rights perspective and reduce the arguments against free immigration down to their fundamental essence (and hopefully show why they’re wrong.)
Just tell people: "I firmly believe that net taxpayers want open borders and we should best approximate that." Any objection also applies to the opposite.
Great writing and detail -- as someone who's still got plenty of libertarian literature to learn, I found what you had to say very informative. I definitely agree that libertarians should never be tempted into the trap of utilitarian thinking even if it may seem the most palpable and familiar.
And I liked your analogies highlighting the danger of punishing someone for what they might do. I employ a similar argument against the covidian fanatics who support covid vaccine passports and justify it because it forcefully segregates x person (the unvaccinated) due to their propensity or possibility of spreading x germ (covid). It's an egregious fallacy that as I have often brought up, would justify the incarceration of black youth because of their statistical likelihood to commit crime.
What happens to the public property if the State were to just vanish is definitely a complex and difficult question to answer. There really is no "right" answer, albeit maybe the most theoretically consistent. I am similarly inclined to favor, naturally, those whom occupy or use it presently. For example, a government housing unit would go to the tenants actually living there. Albeit I see issues that could arise -- and it could get rather messy when it comes to schools and libraries where there is a lot of people involved in its upkeep and use.
For example, in a school there are teachers, students, parents, janitors, the bookkeepers and other executive positions that are involved in its maintenance, etc. . Implying the school or library became a sort of homesteading 'unclaimed' space, I suppose for any sort of profitable future the inhabitants of the school for example may collectively decide to auction it off or some other means as to further privatize it into a more efficient business.
The immigration-border issue is one I admit I am still pondering but it was insightful to see your excerpts and rationales. I am definitely in favor of whatever solution being as decentralized as possible and to throw any and all centralization out of the window. I look forward to reading more of your work and I hope my two cents has proved useful in some kind.
And with all that said, it's good to see more fellow liberty-minded writers carving out the liberty space on the Substack platform. I'm similarly doing some libertarian writing of my own, feel free to check my Substack out and subscribe if you wish <3
it's obvious that the real reason why bordertarians want borders is none of the arguments that they actually make but just because they are worried that western civilisation will get overrun by immigrants who will destroy a free society, the arguments they make are just a cover, they are still playing around being called racists or bigoted etc. but if you don't actually say the real reason why you support a position then you can't investigate whether that belief is justified. Maybe it's true. Maybe open borders would be a disaster for Western Civilisation. If that's what you believe then just say it.
In my personal opinion, no. I think you could make some consequentialist case for closed borders, but I actually think there are even better consequentialist arguments for open borders.
as a foreigner, I am very in favour of open borders for ME. I was a principled, open border libertarian, until I was dragged kicking and screaming to the regulated borders position along with may other people who changed their minds on the issue circa 2016. After seeing places like Miami which seem to take their character from "excessive" immigration I softened on it, and from hearing stories about how illegal immigrants are treated. In principle there seems to be no good argument for regulated borders as you have to tax people (at gunpoint) and then stop people from crossing the border by force, both of which are NAP violations. However, I share the fear of most people that if an infinite number of million immigrated to the USA and Europe from South America, Africa and The Middle East it would be a disaster and I don't really know how to counteract that fear.
I think having those fears can be understandable, but I'd stop short of saying they justify state action. To bring back an analogy, one might fear children being raised in impoverished environments, as poverty is heavily correlated with crime. This fear alone would not justify restricting reproduction to only affluent areas, etc.
I enjoyed the article and generally agree with your theoretical analysis, but I'm a little confused by the conclusion. You said:
"Thus, for most cases of “Public Property” in the U.S., I would claim the actual owners are the consistent users of the property in general"
And then said border abolition is the only libertarian position. Wouldn't the above imply that those who live in the communities near the border would have the right to restrict access as any other property owners do?
I was referring to state border abolition, not private borders. A person who has a house on the US border can absolutely restrict immigrants from crossing, but that is a different issue than the immigrants being allowed to cross the state's line.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, I'm talking about immigrants entering the communities. If they are the legitimate owners of the public property in their community, it seems to me that they would retain the right to restrict access to those who are not members of that community, in this case immigrants, but also applicable to any outsider who has not "homesteaded" that community.
If so, would they be justified in creating a border around their own community? This would in effect be a state but a much smaller scale, a hopmean community in a sense. This does not justify Washington DC creating a border in El Paso for example, just trying to clarify boundaries as I respect the arguments you forwarded
They would not be justified in creating a border around their entire community, but rather a border which emerges from each individual person's property would be what the immigrants could be excluded from, rather than a whole community.
Also, a person having private property borders does not entail that they are a state, as a state is a territorial monopoly on the legal use of violence over their respective area. The private owner does not justly possess such a monopoly.
2 wrongs will never make a right. Tough pill to swallow for most libertarians. Lots of liberts, younger men in particular are angry at the governments placation to leftwing policies at the moment. Rightfully so, however that anger doesn't justify bad philosophy.
Excellent article. Dense info communicated concisely and eloquently. Thanks Ace. 🤙
Just tell people: "I firmly believe that net taxpayers want open borders and we should best approximate that." Any objection also applies to the opposite.
Great writing and detail -- as someone who's still got plenty of libertarian literature to learn, I found what you had to say very informative. I definitely agree that libertarians should never be tempted into the trap of utilitarian thinking even if it may seem the most palpable and familiar.
And I liked your analogies highlighting the danger of punishing someone for what they might do. I employ a similar argument against the covidian fanatics who support covid vaccine passports and justify it because it forcefully segregates x person (the unvaccinated) due to their propensity or possibility of spreading x germ (covid). It's an egregious fallacy that as I have often brought up, would justify the incarceration of black youth because of their statistical likelihood to commit crime.
What happens to the public property if the State were to just vanish is definitely a complex and difficult question to answer. There really is no "right" answer, albeit maybe the most theoretically consistent. I am similarly inclined to favor, naturally, those whom occupy or use it presently. For example, a government housing unit would go to the tenants actually living there. Albeit I see issues that could arise -- and it could get rather messy when it comes to schools and libraries where there is a lot of people involved in its upkeep and use.
For example, in a school there are teachers, students, parents, janitors, the bookkeepers and other executive positions that are involved in its maintenance, etc. . Implying the school or library became a sort of homesteading 'unclaimed' space, I suppose for any sort of profitable future the inhabitants of the school for example may collectively decide to auction it off or some other means as to further privatize it into a more efficient business.
The immigration-border issue is one I admit I am still pondering but it was insightful to see your excerpts and rationales. I am definitely in favor of whatever solution being as decentralized as possible and to throw any and all centralization out of the window. I look forward to reading more of your work and I hope my two cents has proved useful in some kind.
And with all that said, it's good to see more fellow liberty-minded writers carving out the liberty space on the Substack platform. I'm similarly doing some libertarian writing of my own, feel free to check my Substack out and subscribe if you wish <3
it's obvious that the real reason why bordertarians want borders is none of the arguments that they actually make but just because they are worried that western civilisation will get overrun by immigrants who will destroy a free society, the arguments they make are just a cover, they are still playing around being called racists or bigoted etc. but if you don't actually say the real reason why you support a position then you can't investigate whether that belief is justified. Maybe it's true. Maybe open borders would be a disaster for Western Civilisation. If that's what you believe then just say it.
spot on
are there any reasonable arguments from a libetarian perspective against open borders
In my personal opinion, no. I think you could make some consequentialist case for closed borders, but I actually think there are even better consequentialist arguments for open borders.
as a foreigner, I am very in favour of open borders for ME. I was a principled, open border libertarian, until I was dragged kicking and screaming to the regulated borders position along with may other people who changed their minds on the issue circa 2016. After seeing places like Miami which seem to take their character from "excessive" immigration I softened on it, and from hearing stories about how illegal immigrants are treated. In principle there seems to be no good argument for regulated borders as you have to tax people (at gunpoint) and then stop people from crossing the border by force, both of which are NAP violations. However, I share the fear of most people that if an infinite number of million immigrated to the USA and Europe from South America, Africa and The Middle East it would be a disaster and I don't really know how to counteract that fear.
I think having those fears can be understandable, but I'd stop short of saying they justify state action. To bring back an analogy, one might fear children being raised in impoverished environments, as poverty is heavily correlated with crime. This fear alone would not justify restricting reproduction to only affluent areas, etc.
solid
I enjoyed the article and generally agree with your theoretical analysis, but I'm a little confused by the conclusion. You said:
"Thus, for most cases of “Public Property” in the U.S., I would claim the actual owners are the consistent users of the property in general"
And then said border abolition is the only libertarian position. Wouldn't the above imply that those who live in the communities near the border would have the right to restrict access as any other property owners do?
I was referring to state border abolition, not private borders. A person who has a house on the US border can absolutely restrict immigrants from crossing, but that is a different issue than the immigrants being allowed to cross the state's line.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, I'm talking about immigrants entering the communities. If they are the legitimate owners of the public property in their community, it seems to me that they would retain the right to restrict access to those who are not members of that community, in this case immigrants, but also applicable to any outsider who has not "homesteaded" that community.
Yes they would.
If so, would they be justified in creating a border around their own community? This would in effect be a state but a much smaller scale, a hopmean community in a sense. This does not justify Washington DC creating a border in El Paso for example, just trying to clarify boundaries as I respect the arguments you forwarded
They would not be justified in creating a border around their entire community, but rather a border which emerges from each individual person's property would be what the immigrants could be excluded from, rather than a whole community.
Also, a person having private property borders does not entail that they are a state, as a state is a territorial monopoly on the legal use of violence over their respective area. The private owner does not justly possess such a monopoly.
Enjoyed your article. Thank you
Appreciate it, thank you!
2 wrongs will never make a right. Tough pill to swallow for most libertarians. Lots of liberts, younger men in particular are angry at the governments placation to leftwing policies at the moment. Rightfully so, however that anger doesn't justify bad philosophy.
Excellent article. Dense info communicated concisely and eloquently. Thanks Ace. 🤙
Precisely, thank you.