6 votes

Can you be closed border and libertarian?

What is the libertarian justification for closed borders?

Is the justification, "The goals I seek to achieve through government would be foiled by a more open immigration policy"?

Is that a libertarian justification?

If you don't stand on your principles, someone else will.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

If this were a free & prosperous republic, I would say open them

Since it is a depressed welfare state that craps all over the constitution for sport, I think it would be suicide to keep the borders open.

Why the emphasis on the welfare state burden

of immigrants? Why don't we just abolish the welfare state for EVERYONE? Now, THAT would save the taxpayer a bundle.

I agree, You abolish the welfare state and I drive down

and pick up the aliens.

What is a border?

You mean those lines on the map drawn up by the power elite?

Yes, those,

but keep in mind I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the comment posted just below that says "No".

I will for the sake of worthy commentary here, accept your existence of "the power elite". Consider history, the present, and the future. Look at the trend. There was a time when it was beneficial for the power elite to establish borders. I will assume you have your own idea about why borders came to be, based on your rhetoric. Whatever idea that is, shall suffice here. The trend into modern day, for anyone who believes that borders are drawn by the power elite, has shown that borders are increasingly advantageous in keeping populations from leaving. Once the power elite establishes a cheap labor force, they don't want it to disperse or migrate. Consider the future and the increasing technologically savvy surveillance state. The power elite envisions a globe without geographical borders, but virtual borders defined by corporate and socio-economic factors. These virtual borders shall be global but not tied to latitude and longitude per se. These lines shall be drawn on your passport. Travel shall be categorized and virtually rationed, much like health care, milk, and gasoline. Borders shall no longer be drawn side to side horizontally, but vertically.

No, they are not just lines

drawn by the elites, they represent borders of a sovereign nation. You can't be sovereign if you don't have boundaries. If you allow the free flow of 3rd world cultured socialists into a sovereign nation, it won't take long before the socialist plague begins to takeover. The Democrats are never going to allow the social programs to end, so if you allow socialists to flow in they will continue to support the Democrats. If you want to live in a socialist cesspool of serfdom, move to Mexico, I want to live in a sovereign Republic. The first key to stop the socialist, really Fascist/Corporatist agenda, is to stop the flow of socialist minded people into the country. This also means to stop the flow of legal immigration from India and other socialist nations.
The Libertarian theories were written before all the nations of the world were Socialist, Communist. Fascist, Dictatorships and the like. This was prior to our Republic becoming a Fascist/Corporatist dominated governance, where power, greed, and wealth reign superior over following a Constitutional government to protect the 'General Welfare' of it's people. Many of the theories are still good practice, but 'open borders' are definitely not a good practice at our present state of governance.

Respectfully I say nope!

While I understand closing the physical borders in dire situations, the free market should welcome all trade, including workers, America is a land of foreigners.

I think the borders should be closed now as we retool our government, but the idea of nationalization needs to be removed. There are no illegals in a free country, imposing a border goes against all men being created equal, as well as the philosophy of leaving people alone if they have not violated another's rights.

Of course you can, especially

Of course you can, especially in the current environment. The best justification even in a perfect world would be to keep statists OUT.

Ventura 2012

Giving the government the legal authority to

determine who is and is not an ideologically acceptable immigrant is not an acceptable position for a libertarian to take. Are you so naive as to believe that those in power would use this power to try to increase the support for liberty in the population?

Immigrants are potentially a very large and self-sustaining constituency for liberty. They just need an outspoken liberty advocate to promote their liberties. Ron Paul received tremendous support by Republican standards from immigrants and their families because honest immigrants see that the free market is the system which tends to promote their interests the most.

An ideological litmus test for the exercise of ones rights is NOT libertarian.

They don't have to

They don't have to discriminate based on ideology, just overall so as to avoid influx of toxic foreign ideas. Hoppe discusses how essential this is in his writing and it is implied in any anarchist model that assumes common law courts(Including Rothbard).

Really not a difficult concept to grasp. Why do you think the globalists are subverting the law to pack the nation with illegal, because they love freedoms and capitalism? Lol.

Ventura 2012

People for open borders are NUTS !

All one has to do is read statistics on Illegal Immigration that will blow these pro open border LIARS out of the water! I especially like the 'They Pay Taxes' comment..you just cant get any dumber than that...

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

Have to completely disagree with you.

If they want to cross the border, they will. We have to stop the magnets causing them to want to come over here. It's a little obvious that not paying taxes while receiving free medical care and education is a big motivation to come here.

I agree with your view on

the magnet social welfare systems, but disagree with open borders. You can have a sovereign nation if you allow free flow of 3rd world socialists into your country. The big irony of the majority midset of the Fed government is, that they are 5000+ miles away trying to force governments into an alleged democratic system, but refrain from doing so with our southern neighbors. If they really want to achieve something, that actually effects America, they should encourage a democratic government in Mexico. Since, this isn't really their goal, Mexico is just the way the Globalists desire. In fact, the Globalists would like America to mirror the serfdom found in Mexico, rather than the opposite. I guarantee the Founders wouldn't want to allow the free flow of those who knowingly will undermine their established Republic. It is also well know by many well documented articles, Mexicans are taught from their youth, that the Southeastern United States is their land and it's their goal to take it back. This would be like letting British infiltrators free flow into our country knowing they have the agenda to take back America for the King! Here's a site, though it's a site that stands for white rights, has many well documented articles about the Atzlan movement. http://whitelocust.wordpress.com/multiculturalism-and-the-wa...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

has an interesting argument I had not heard before:
"The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration"

Reformed neocon

Treg -- the Case for the BLUE VISA card


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

if private property owners

if private property owners have a right to form governments, they have a right to form borders, as an adjunct to their private borders. if you're against borders on principle, you also deny the legitimacy of government per se.

the government and the public spaces over which it has control are just the designated spaces of property owners to be overseen by common consent and laws. if you acknowledge those laws and governments as legitimate, then you acknowledge the right of a nation to formulate its immigration policy.

if you deny that right, you deny the legitimacy of the government.

you seem to be upholding the legitimacy of the government (you're not anarchocap) while denying the legitimacy of the border.

you're the inconsistent one!

I agree to some extent

But it is a bit dogmatic.

If you have a neighboring country that is extremely poor next door to a wealth country then there is likely to me massive immigration even without welfare being offered.

Along with this will be adverse social changes (okay there will be some benefits too) where the people immigrating want to live as they did in their home country which will be a threat to the local culture (sorry but this is a normal human reaction).

I am more for allowing people in other countries access to trade so that they can build wealth within their own borders. I do think that multiculturalism's main benefit is to reduce the conflict between peoples as we all know someone from another background and can see that generally all peoples are good but any change should not be to sudden and should also be able to be resisted by the existing peoples.

If immigration controls were totally relaxed then massive immigration would be a fact of life. This would cause social chaos in the host country and could result in a civil war as people are threatened by the other group.

Would it be okay if 10 million people from another country to move into a country overnight?

This would be a passive invasion and would be being so altruistic to open up your country to be taken by another group without firing a shot. In this context it is insane.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

There is not one.

Closed borders go against the fundamental principle of libertarianism. I am not sure why so many libertarians are inconsistent on this issue. Since I have never gotten even a remotely logical answer, I jump to the only reasonable conclusion: people are afraid of those who look and speak differently from them.

Open Borders

Just write a law forbidding welfare to immigrants, and then open borders is fine, most come over here and work anyway, it's false that there are substantial numbers of immigrants who collect welfare anyway and by the way they pay taxes, so Ann Coulter is full of shit.

you might as well have

you might as well have written 'just waive a magic wand' as 'just pass a law'

and pass this amnesty, and youll never, ever get such a rollback of the welfare state.

nonsense. that's very much

nonsense. that's very much possible, as the vast majority have consistently favored greater restriction, never asked for and never approved of this program of population replacement. population replacement is a common tactic of states that want to better manage and control recalcitrant or potentially rebellious, cohesive populations. the soviet unions routinely used population transfers and disruptions, and empires have been easier to manage with ethnic balkanization.

the government is using a policy of forced immigration to elect a new people, and once that's done, you can't roll it back. you won't have a country.

Private Property rights

As Libertarians, we believe in 2 really crucial issues (the way I see it, anyway):
1) Non-agression (not to be confused with pacifism)
2) Private Property Rights.

The latter, I believe, justifies the idea of being "closed border."

I remember that one story of a few years ago of a farmer that saw people from Mexico on his property---he held them at gunpoint til the "authorities" showed up---they were illegal aliens crossing the border. The "authorities" arrested the property owner because they were scumbags.

If we believe in Private Property, and if we believe that our country/states/backyards are, indeed, private property, then the best way to protect the border? Fences, walls, machine guns, etc.

Is it really un-Libertarian to say that we should protect our border from outsiders/potential criminals? I'm all for letting people come in to this country, but should we write a suicide note while we do it?

No takers?


Nicely put!

That pretty much sums it up when you think about it. ;)


What is the libertarian justification for closed borders?
There isn't such a thing as "the" libertarian justification for closed borders, but I've heard justifications for both closed and open from libertarians.

Can you be closed border and libertarian?

Is the justification, "The goals I seek to achieve through government would be foiled by a more open immigration policy"?

Is that a libertarian justification?
Absolutely not.

If you don't stand on your principles, someone else will.
I agree.

Step onto my property without

Step onto my property without invitation, and you'll find out.

Expand the notion from there...