-19 votes

Can you be open border and a Libertarian?

There are a couple issues that Libertarians are divided on. One is immigration. There are those who would have you believe that to be Libertarian you must be open border. They equate free markets with open borders. The problem with that is the rest of the world does not comply with free market philosophy. We have millions of illegal Mexicans in the US because Mexico is a slave state that hemorrhages people over here and thus gets rid of people who would probably overthrow the Mexican regime if they did not have the US crutch to lean on. Open borders are only practical in theory.There is a real honest concern for national security both from real terrorism and crime perpetrated by illegals. I am not demonizing .It is simply a fact that with millions of people there will be criminals among them. Our prisons are filled with proof of this fact. There is also the theory that illegals are good for the economy? Again that only works in theory or if you are only really concerned with management. From a workers perspective illegals do lower our standard of living. There is also a controversial cultural perspective. Even if you are Hispanic do you feel that the Spanish language should supplant English? You may say "well if the majority speak Spanish yes" The problem with that is there has always been an unspoken rule in this country. You come here you work hard and you might bring and celebrate privately your culture but you become an American. You do not live here as a foreigner. If we are ok with the majority of people speaking Spanish in America (as has happened in some places in America , to include Spanish only public school programs ..etc) simply because of a simple majority than how about throwing out the bill of rights?Or the 2nd Amendment? The vast majority of illegals seem to support a kind of slave/ socialist govt so if they become the simple majority should we not bow to this "new" America. The answer is of course no.Cultures do supplant others it has happened all the time in history. Weaker people's ways are overtaken by more aggressive people. The problem with that is American culture is superior to Mexican culture and Irish and English and Iranian culture. Taking freedom of speech as a given is an American trait. What happened in 1776 was a fusion of ideas from thousands of years of humans living in bondage to other humans. "Liberty is young , tyranny is old" Personally on immigration I am a Buchanan man. I want a complete moratorium on immigration . As near as I can tell we have more than enough low skilled labor We must end the welfare state but the people who remain should be compelled to "become Americans" Local schools should do away with Spanish only programs, employers should be encouraged to only hire people who speak English and our history OUR ancient traditions should be taught again in schools and universities. Do not take this as an attack on Mexicans. Mexican culture is family orientated is hard working and we have many great Americans here who can trace their lineage to Mexico. We are Americans . If you do not want to be an American you should not be here.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the Bill of Rights

is not a suicide pact. And as a sovereign nation Americans have every right to preserve our borders. In fact I'd say we have a duty

Wow, I quote the Declaration

Wow, I quote the Declaration Of Independence and apply it to the local debate and I get down voted. So much for sticking to those founding principles, and no 'liberty for all' from the 'liberty movement'. Then I have a reply that vests the sovereignty in the state, and attaches rights to the state, which completely absolves a republican form of government, and they get up voted!

The 'liberty movement' is such a farce it is unreal.

Republican form of government; That form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised by the people directly.

Constitutional Republican form of government; That form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised by the people or representatives who's powers are specifically enumerated.

Democratic form of government; That form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in a whole body of free citizens and exercised by elected representatives of that body.

The exercise of sovereignty is law. The very meaning of sovereignty is the the decree of the sovereign is law.

Like myself...

...I would think "Libertarians" who support the idea of open borders would also be anti-tax and anti-minimum wage. You cant have open borders as long as the State is giving away tax resources for free and is controlling entry into the job market via the minimum wage. Open borders can only be achieved once all incentive from the state goes away.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

pil45, thank you! I was going

pil45, thank you! I was going to post essentially the same response.

By the way, is pil for Public Image Limited?

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Cause and effect.

Your argument seems to be that we need to curtail freedom in order to make the socialist welfare state possible.

How about we turn that argument on its head? Let's legalize the freedom to travel, work and live wherever one pleases -- making the socialist welfare state impossible.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

We have a tough enough time

We have a tough enough time influencing the debate and policy in the US...now we are supposed to influence the debate in other countries?!?

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Playing games with unintended consequences.

The Democrats want to open the borders because they think the new immigrants (or newly legalized immigrants) will vote Democrat. Their purpose will be to expand the welfare state, not to promote freedom either here or abroad.

Liberty Republicans don't need to influence this debate at all -- it's something the Democrats already want. And I think we ought to let them have it, good and hard.

They look forward to having more Democrat voters, to cement their hold on power and to build a bigger welfare state. Let's assume they get what they want. We're already broke. When you find yourself in a hole, the smart thing to do is to stop digging. They are not smart. Digging deeper, they will soon hit rock bottom as the world ditches the dollar for sounder currencies. They will not be able to continue funding the welfare state, and will be forced to curtail benefits. This is already happening.

Now look at those new immigrants. Mostly NOT folks looking for handouts. They're looking for work, and absent legal barriers to their obtaining legal employment, they will find it. That will make our country MORE prosperous, not less. Will they vote to keep the welfare state rolling along? If they're smart enough to vote with their feet, I'm going to guess they're smart enough not to elect the kind of people who forced them to do so.

But wait, there's more! As the law of unintended consequences pushes the USA closer to freedom (kicking and screaming against it every step of the way), the brightest, most ambitious and most productive people from other countries are going to want a piece of our action. That's what made this country great, once upon a time. The opposite of a "brain drain."

Will foreign governments be smart enough to emulate our deregulation and liberalization, when they see their best and brightest heading our way? If they do, the world will become a better place; if they don't, only our country will. Works for me, either way. That's the only way we can or should "influence debate in other countries."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

you nailed it! Bravo!

you nailed it! Bravo!

But you are not free to live,

But you are not free to live, work, etc in countries that border the U.S. If the word were all Libertarian, this might work. For now I think we need a comprimise that we have to have a closed border until such time arrises that an open border would not negatively impact the U.S. or bordering states.


Many other countries do not allow their citizens to travel freely, or allow foreigners to enter freely -- therefore we need to outlaw freedom here, too . . . why, exactly?

Other countries do not allow their citizens to own private firearms. Guess we'd better back off that Second Amendment thing until they're more like us. Same reasoning?

Other countries have high tariffs that keep out American products, therefore we should put high tariffs on THEIR products, forcing U.S. consumers to pay higher prices for foreign goods and funneling more money into our government's coffers. Screwing consumers and bloating government -- that's desirable? Same reasoning?

Here's a thought: let's do the right thing, and let the rest of the world copy us.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Of course. There's no excuse

Of course you can. All libertarians should be for open borders EVENTUALLY. And that's the key word. I would very much like open borders here in the U.S.. But you can not have open borders here until the welfare state is completely abolished. Until then, no open borders. But if we ever got to ending the welfare state in this country, of course I'm for a free society.

That is basically Ron Paul's position.

Although I believe that one should never use the existence of one form of tyranny as an excuse to implement another (to correct for the problems created by the first), and therefore call for open borders now, I commend you for not bearing any ill will or xenophobia toward immigrants. If only all the members of this forum could be so open minded.

illegal immigration costs us 11 billion dollars annualy

According to the reputable Conservative “Think Tank” giving a legitimized path to stay in America will cost us $2.4 TRILLION DOLLARS by the time they have been processed and assigned a Social Security number. Even with that breathless amount of money the hordes that enter America daily is costing the state’s $113 Billion dollars annually, that taxpayers are given the bill. Hundreds of thousands of average Americans who are either citizens or green card holders have a lot to complain about, but remain silent when it comes to contacting directly their Senate or Congressional House members in Washington. These usually prudent people put up a merry dance on the internet or even in the print newspapers but do not contact their Representatives at either the federal or state level. Have they no sense of commitment to the honest immigrants, who had to hire an immigration attorney, pay fees, take a medical examination, and check any criminal backgrounds, while illegal aliens are smuggled in and use their children to live of the rest of us. How are they able to do this? By smuggling their unborn or ready to conceive babies into our country through a highly controversial border, or passing undetected immigration agents as tourists, visitors or students. Once inside our nation they claim instant citizenship for the child/children, which give them access to all the citizen rights. Hundreds of billions of dollars in your taxes in education, section 8 housing and health care and free baby deliveries. While citizens work to put food on the table, the illegal mothers are akin to parasites feeding of the host—the United States population. Once here they deliver as many babies as they can, because they know the federal, state and municipal government will support them. Programs included are TANF, (cash payments) SSI, general assistance, Food Stamps, WIC, free/subsidized school lunch, public/rent subsidized housing, and Medicaid. The biggest difference in program use is for Medicaid and food aid programs. For state governments, Medicaid is a particular worry because between one-third to one-half of the program’s costs are on average borne by state taxpayers for the growing number of children, either borne to illegal parents or smuggled across the border, or remaining undetected in the Mother’s womb. The traitors have drafted a law that will give these criminals all a Path to Citizenship, while honest immigrants sit at home in some foreign country sometimes for years waiting to be processed. The gang of 8, is about to sign a financial death warrant, because all these 11 million to 25 million plus illegal aliens, who can later sponsor their aging parents will need welfare, health care and a place to live. Visas for top skilled workers should be tightly scrutinized and manual Guest labor should be regulated and must leave when their visa runs out. Right now both skilled workers are poorly officially organized and illegal Guest Workers not at all? When the illegal immigration is ignored as it has for decades, the “Cause and effect” is THE DREAM ACT, FAMILY CHAIN MIGRATION, SANCTUARY CITIES and millions of more illegal immigrants feeding off the working taxpayer.


of course it costs money

but shouldn't that be beside the role of ethics? if our rights are given to us upon birth, and a citizen lives in a country that does not recognize their rights, shouldn't they be entitled to move somewhere that does? as fighters for liberty shouldn't we be willing to accept them no matter what the cost is?

I am open border and libertarian

because I feel that liberty and freedom are human rights, not just american rights. We are born with these rights, regardless of which soil we first step on. If an individual views the United States as the greatest chance of freedom and liberty, then come on in. Likewise if you view America as tyranical and over powering and aren't willing to change it, then get the fuck out.

You act as if people have no place, this is why your logic fails

You act like people coming here would have nothing to do but eat our food, or take away all our jobs, or land. You are missing the basic principle of self ownership.

You are saying that if "illegals"(as if such a word exists) flood a tyrannical state of welfare they break the system and leave us poor(but law abiding) shmucks out of work. If that is the case, than you are a slave already, you don't follow the libertarian lifestyle.

However if your saying that a flood of people into a free market society would do anything other than provide more labor where labor is needed, your seriously mistaken of exactly what immigration is about and how business models work.

Of course.

Libertarianism is about compliance with the Non-Aggression Principle, how does opposing arbitrary restrictions of the free movement of individuals violate the Non-Aggression Principle?

You have the right to restrict access to your own property, but you do not have the right to restrict access to that which you do not own.

And before someone says it, federal or state land does not belong to the government, and does not by extension belong to us because "we are the government".

Land claimed by government does not belong to it, just because a gang of thieves claims ownership of it, does not make it so.

In a free society, all property is private property and ONLY the owners of a property can decide who they want or do not want on their own property.

I can not decide who is allowed on your property, only you can.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Agree, and have a question

that is a little off topic but I was discussing it with friends recently. In private ownership, how far down do you own? As in, you own the land on the surface, but how far beneath the surface of your home do you own?

20 feet? 100? Can someone dig a tunnel under your house and claim that? To the other side of your home, claiming land in the southern hemisphere? It's a rhetorical question and off topic I know, but it's something to think about.

Are you familiar with the homesteading principle?


In order to gain ownership of previously unowned lands, you have to make use of them.

For example: a farmer homesteads property rights to a piece of land when he becomes the first to plow it and and plant it.

He cannot simply look at a piece of land and declare it his property, he has to be the original user.

Same applies to a mine shaft below the ground, somebody may have a farm 500 feet above you, but they did not homestead the soil 500 feet below them, you the miner have homesteaded it.

But also, consider if someone digging a tunnel under your house caused your house to collapse into it, they would be responsible for the damage as they have caused damage to your property, just as if a neighbors tree fell onto your house.

As for disputes of where your property extends too and where your neighbors property begins, private courts would be capable of solving these disputes.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard


what you said.

i get it. so as long as i do not damage your house, i would be entitled to the tunnel i dig because i make use of it.

how about mineral wealth?

what if, by digging the tunnel i find minerals. are you entitled to a portion of it?

Homesteading applies to all resources.

Just as it applies to land it applies other resources.

If you dig a mineshaft, and you are the first person to make use of that soil, and are the first person to make use minerals, then you have homesteaded them.

Even if the mineshaft you dug was below my house, so long as I did not homestead the space you are using first, I have no claim to it or the minerals, because you would be the homesteader.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard


then say i dig a tunnel under your house and live in it. do i own it, or am i renting it from you?

it's all hypothetical, but how far down SHOULD a person own? Center of the earth, and all mineral rights? Or as far down as the surface remains structurally sound?

For an opposing view, there

For an opposing view, there is an old maxim of law that says you own everything above and below the 2 dimensional plot.... unless someone has already homesteaded a part of it(such as an air lane for planes, or radio wave transmission).

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."