Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Open Debate About Open Borders (Why Libertarians Are Wrong)
American Rattlesnake ^ | December 29, 2011 | Gerard Perry

Posted on 12/29/2011 5:40:29 AM PST by OddLane

One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...


TOPICS: Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: aliens; americanrattlesnake; borderwars; immigration; libertarianism

1 posted on 12/29/2011 5:40:37 AM PST by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PGalt; bcsco; Cacique; rmlew

ping


2 posted on 12/29/2011 5:43:34 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Rinos support illegal immigration. Enforcement works, see AZ, AL. Illegals self-deported themselves and unemployment went down.
I really, really hate people like Newt who say we can’t deport and hence, we must start the amnesty boards. The document fraud would be massive and local amnesty boards would turn into fast track amnesty machines. Would amnesty cover also legal workers whose visa is expiring? (Many h1b workers have lived here 15 years legally)
Would we still be deporting illegals who have been here, say, 10 years?
5 years?
Courts and admin could interpret the vague legal code in a way Newt and La Raza did not admit during their amnesty campaign.

This is the defining issue of our lifetime. If we surrender now, there is no going back. We would have permanent liberal welfare population in majority.


3 posted on 12/29/2011 5:56:38 AM PST by heiss (heartless and inhumane (radical rightwinger))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny.

Really silly argument.

The Founders may not have supported unfettered immigration in principle, but somehow this country didn't get around to putting ANY restrictions on immigration until 1875. With significant restrictions not being passed till the 1920s.

IOW, meaningful restrictions on immigration were in place for only about 50 or 60 years out of our 240 year history.

Such restrictions have excellent arguments for their passage. A consistent American tradition of restriction is not one of those arguments.

4 posted on 12/29/2011 6:07:37 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You are twisting things a bit. There may not have been quotas on immigration but there were laws and restrictions:

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.[1][2]

5 posted on 12/29/2011 6:16:43 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
Excellent post. Thank you.

Illegal immigration is, indeed, a form of corporate welfare. Business gets cheap labor and the rest of us are forced to support the laborers' families. The libertarians ignore that last part or pretend it's a negligible burden.

6 posted on 12/29/2011 6:19:37 AM PST by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

The 1790 law did not prohibit immigration of the groups listed, only their naturalization as citizens.

It wasn’t until 1875 that immigration of even convicts was prohibited.


7 posted on 12/29/2011 6:21:38 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
When the US/Canada boundary was finally determined occupants finding themselves on the wrong side were allowed to chose.

That was back in the 1830s. There was no argument over "citizenship", just right to keep living where you'd lived all along or move with the border.

I think that's the last time the US failed to extend citizenship along with the right to occupy as we absorbed new territories, but citizenship and right to occupy (or immigrate) were NOT dealt with simultaneously at that early time. They were considered separate bodies of law.

8 posted on 12/29/2011 6:39:13 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

I consider myself a small l libertarian... myself, and those I know, do not support open borders in any way shape or form... as a matter of fact, the so called “compassionate conservatives” and the commies are the ones that support this open border crap ( bush, perry, mccain, mcromney, etc.) now the nut job wing of the libertarians (ron paul) may buy into this crap, but not us small l types.... lumping all libertarians into one basket is like saying all republicans are conservative.....


9 posted on 12/29/2011 6:43:48 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
Wow, this article reads like it was written by a college freshman forced to write a 5,000 word essay. Way too much extraneous verbiage to offer up one simple, scarcity mentality-driven concept: "We can't let dumb people in or they will steal our way of life." But the process of letting unskilled immigrants in has nothing to do with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or Libertarians in general or any open borders concept, it has to do with saboteurs on the Left who want to change America into a Third World country with themselves at the top of the social order. And those saboteurs have already struck, way back in the Sixties. Their vision is the law of the land - today.

An "Open Borders/No Benefits" policy, if implemented correctly, would be vastly superior to what we have now - which is more like "Let's Help Terrorists Come Live With Their Mothers." :)

10 posted on 12/29/2011 6:51:51 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

While an “open debate” on this subject is long past-due, a full debate, a full exposition of the problem of illegal immigration would be more helpful. Perhaps I read too fast to catch its inclusion of VOTING and related ID-requirements, or immigrant welfare as provided by the kindness of strangers particularly via employers and churches rather than the federal or state governments. If those arguments were neglected, this article doesn’t even represent an open debate. And I’m not sure I could trust an overview of the immigration problem that didn’t connect the democrat (never mind libertarian!) dots between open borders and “open,” no-ID-required voting.


11 posted on 12/29/2011 7:11:23 AM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

I’m all for open borders. However, open borders and a welfare state are incompatible ... pick one!


12 posted on 12/29/2011 7:15:14 AM PST by taxcutisapayraise (Making Statism Unpopular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; OddLane

I, too, consider myself a small l libertarian, although my foreign policy views are anathema to almost all big L Libertarians.

Concerning immigration, I am 100% for open borders IF and only IF the immigrant is coming from a nation that is as free as this one and also allows open borders to Americans. There is currently no such nation. Therefore our borders must be guarded as closely as we guard our freedoms, lest we let the enemies of freedom use our Republic to vote away our Constitution and the legal recognition of our natural rights.

The Federal Government was given two jobs: protect the liberties of Americans (provide for the national defense, raise funds to provide for that defense and the operation of the Federal Government), make sure commerce *within the US* remains free (establish currency, deliver mail, make sure states aren’t impeding commerce). It does none of these adequately.


13 posted on 12/29/2011 7:31:17 AM PST by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: taxcutisapayraise

Milton Freidman made this observation years ago...’you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state’.


14 posted on 12/29/2011 7:38:39 AM PST by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: taxcutisapayraise

Milton Freidman made this observation years ago...’you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state’.


15 posted on 12/29/2011 7:38:39 AM PST by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
The number of legal immigrants to the U.S. today is unprecedented, and most of them come from countries with no tradition of limited govt. or even the rule of law. Very few bring skills which are needed in an technologically advanced economy. Most of the Pubbie candidates are fatally soft on this issue, which is going to sink our republic permanently. Bachmann has by far the best position.

http://www.numbersusa.org/

16 posted on 12/29/2011 8:20:13 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It wasn’t until 1875 that immigration of even convicts was prohibited.

Your post makes the USA sound like it was an open country nobody was ever questioned or detained or repatriated due to a lack of passport or credential. This was not an open country ever.

17 posted on 12/29/2011 8:37:55 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OddLane; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...
Ping!

Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.

18 posted on 12/29/2011 9:50:47 AM PST by HiJinx (I can see Mexico from my back porch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

If there are 30 million illegals in America its enough to create some 50 congressional districts based on census counts alone.

What’s it cost to administer a congressional district? How much average pork and earmarks are taken by a congressional district.

Think about an America with 50 fewer primarily democrat congressmen. A vote for amnesty is a vote for the elimination of America.


19 posted on 12/29/2011 9:57:55 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Your post makes the USA sound like it was an open country nobody was ever questioned or detained or repatriated due to a lack of passport or credential. This was not an open country ever.

Wrongo. The present passport system did not develop till after WWI, and the US did not fully enter into the system till just before WWII.

As far as I know there were few if any deportations from the USA until the 20th century. The few laws in place earlier were focused on preventing entry of individuals meeting certain criteria, not removing them once they were in the country.

The US did not even begin collecting records on immigration till the 1820s and records were sparse and incomplete for a long time after that. Nobody cared much.

If your claim is correct, you should have no trouble providing documentation about restrictions on immigration in the 18th and 19th centuries.

20 posted on 12/29/2011 11:44:21 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Been there, done that.
21 posted on 12/29/2011 12:29:37 PM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I don't think you can compare America during its expansion to this country after the frontier was settled.

The perception of the need for newcomers to settle the interior of the country was completely different in the 20th century than it was in the 19th-and especially the last part of the 18th century during the inception of the United States.

22 posted on 12/29/2011 1:17:33 PM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
I don't think you can compare America during its expansion to this country after the frontier was settled.

I quite agree. However, I was responding to the mistaken idea of the author that we should return to enforcement of immigration restrictions like those put in place by the Founders. Which of course would mean none.

As I understand it, till the later 19th century one generally docked in America, walked off the boat and into the country. There just wasn't any real federal customs or immigration enforcement mechanism in place in today's terms.

The initial immigration restrictions only referenced criminals, Chinese, prostitutes and other undesirables.

23 posted on 12/29/2011 2:14:09 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Woods wasn't implying that we had stringent immigration restrictions in place when this country was founded.

He was merely pointing out that the mythos created by open borders dogmatists in order to perpetuate their ideology in the arena of ideas is not based upon a house of cards.

This country isn't simply a "nation of immigrants," and many of the men responsible for creating it, including Alexander Hamilton, had quite prescient reservations about opening our country's borders to any and all comers.

24 posted on 12/29/2011 3:58:44 PM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: arasina

ping


25 posted on 12/30/2011 1:22:07 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OddLane; All

OUTSTANDING informative, educational article with tremendous links! Thanks, OddLane. A great thread, also.


26 posted on 12/30/2011 6:02:22 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

This seems, to me, an improper mixture of the notion of rights and powers. An individual may certainly have the right come to the United States, but the United States most definitely has the power to create rules, laws, or regulations governing who can come here and how they can come here. We're not, then, talking about our "right" to keep immigrants out, but creating a structure by which we can accept immigrants into the country and eventually become American citizens.

Is this really that difficult to understand? Why is this even an issue?

27 posted on 12/30/2011 6:10:03 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
Thanks, PGalt.

I'm glad you appreciated it.

28 posted on 12/30/2011 12:06:25 PM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
Hamilton, who was himself, born a bastard child out of the West Indies.

I still can't believe the open borders idiots who believe that virtually everyone has some sort of "right" to come here.

We also need to change the 14th Amendment with regards to giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

29 posted on 12/30/2011 12:10:48 PM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
Birthright citizenship Is a huge part of the problem we're facing.

It may not be numerically decisive, but it undermines the concept of citizenship to the point that it's become rendered meaningless.

It's dispiriting that Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who's even raised this issue when it should be part of the standard talking points of anyone running for the GOP nomination.

30 posted on 12/30/2011 12:31:05 PM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PGalt; HiJinx
FYI, American Rattlesnake now has a Facebook page.
31 posted on 12/31/2011 4:05:38 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson