Another thread brought to mind the main issue that for decades has prevented me from calling myself a Libertarian. It’s a shame because they get so many things right but I just won’t associate myself with advocacy for open borders. In fact I think it’s hypocritical for Libertarians to take that position.
Many argue that freedom of movement and association precludes borders. This ignores something Libertarians will argue passionately in favor of otherwise, which is property rights. Immigrants don’t enter the country looking to wander into the wilderness and live like mountain men. They come with the intent of using our infrastructure, which has been and is paid for by America’s taxpayers. Whether illegal immigrants pay taxes is irrelevant. They aren’t supposed to be here in the first place. It is collective property because labor was invested in it and I believe we therefore have a collective right to pick and choose who we allow to use it. I see it as a more fundamental right. Freedom of movement does not guarantee someone the right to enter my house. Freedom of association does not guarantee them a right to enter my house just because someone they know is there. I see the assertion that on one hand private property is sacrosanct but public property is not as ludicrous. Again, either requires the investment of labor and hence is the property of those who invested in it as much as private property. To me, all other arguments made by libertarians fall flat before that essential truth. This isn’t to say I’m opposed to immigration. I just take the position that borders and immigration laws are justified.
Of course there will be those who will argue about “stolen land” but until I see them giving their home to a Native American and leaving the country, it’s a hypocritical argument as well.