Libertarians tend to come to a consensus on most core issues, simple or complex. Whether the issue under discussion is taxation, gun ownership, or the war on drugs, they usually have an easily-identified stance with little room for deviation. After all, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is so clear on the Libertarian ethic it can almost be interpreted as self-evident.

However, the issue of immigration does not appear to be so clear-cut among Libertarian communities. Many have interpreted open borders as a violation of the NAP, while others recognize closed borders as an act of aggression. Evidently, open borders and immigration are subject to highly contested discussion within Libertarian circles.

The stance I take on Immigration is with the latter group: closed borders and the restriction of immigration are not only a violation of the NAP, but also ignorant of a sound principle of causal-realist economics that all Libertarians claim to support. In this piece, I will lay out the argument for open borders, and why any self-described Libertarian must follow the NAP to the same logical conclusion as I.

Preventing the free movement of people is unethical

From a basic standpoint, this idea is rather simple; utilizing force to prevent someone from another region from entering the property of others upon a voluntary basis (such as entering the grounds of a store), from purchasing property (such as a home) from a willing seller and live on said property, or from working a job which an employer has agreed to hire him for, is a clear act of aggression which stands to undermine the property rights and voluntary transactions between people and businesses. Ultimately, preventing the free movement of people is a violation of the NAP and Libertarian property ethics.

There are no collective rights

Many "bordertarians"—self-described libertarians in support of closed borders/immigration restrictions—would refute this point by passionately exclaiming something along the lines of, "But the illegal immigrant is attempting to violate the property rights of the people who's majority has voted against their entering!" Matter of fact, Stefan Molyneux (A Libertarian-leaning conservative) has expressed this sentiment very well, when he absurdly related open borders to rape:

But from a Libertarian standpoint, this argument carries no weight. The people do not have a collective "will". For example, the majority of the people may vote against the sale of cigarettes, but banning the sale of cigarettes would still be violation of the NAP, in that such a ban would interfere with the ability of private citizens to conduct voluntary transactions.

Furthermore, immigration does not violate someone else's right to self-ownership as non-consensual sex does; an immigrant entering a foreign land to buy goods/services, get a job, purchase/rent a home, or any other activity a private citizen performs does not harm anybody else or their property. The feelings of a population's majority confined to a given geological location location are irrelevant, especially when discussing immigration. If the population's majority passes legislation that interferes with the property/self-ownership rights of others, then they are violating the NAP. This form of democracy is more accurately described as oppression by the majority.

I find it silly that people like Stefan Molyneux think that people moving to where they wish to do as they please is somehow an action that requires consent from the native peoples. In his mind, people must ask for approval first before practicing their inalienable rights.

Comparative advantage

A core economic principle of causal-realist economics which Libertarians hold dear is the universally-accepted pattern of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is defined as:

The ability of an individual or group to carry out a particular economic activity (such as making a specific product) more efficiently than another activity.

Without diving into great length into what exactly comparative advantage is (as that is outside the scope of this discussion), comparative advantage can be simply put as the natural tendency for people to do what they're best at and what they enjoy doing. To figure out what exactly someone is best at, cash/profits are used as a tool of economic calculation to measure the efficiency of a given person while performing a given task. This is part of the reason why comparative advantage cannot accurately take place in Socialist countries; they lack a tool of economic calculation.

Ultimately, the entire economy benefits from people doing what they are best at. If we attempt to restrict its potential, we are consequently restricting our own.

Comparative advantage is limited in the wake of closed borders

Comparative advantage completely relies on people all over the world being able to move to where they need, to perform the job they are most efficient at. Without this free movement, human capital cannot be allocated to where it will be used most efficiently. Consequently, economies will be pushed farther away from reaching full productivity. This is, of course, harmful to everyone. In short, everyone has a mutual interest in allowing the pattern of comparative advantage to naturally expand its scope.

Restrictions on immigration, however, prevent comparative advantage from naturally spreading. Legislators suddenly decide whether or not people may enter a given country to perform the task they are most efficient at. Arbitrary borders intervene in the allocation of human capital. Economies are made less efficient as their potential production is limited. By passing any level of immigration restrictions, nations are shooting themselves in the foot. Unless, of course, legislators are not interested in the economic welfare of their private citizens, in which case the private citizens need to re-evaluate the purpose of their current government.

On the other hand, open borders allow comparative advantage to expand in a way that benefits everyone. The lack of arbitrary restrictions allow people to move to where they need to go to do what they are best at, for human capital to be allocated to where it can be most efficiently used. Everyone taking part in the economy benefits from this free movement of labor, as the potential for full productivity increases, thus creating more value in the world.

What this means for business

Via immigration restrictions, the State utilizes brutish force to prevent companies from hiring who they want, regardless of location. This further reinforces the theme of misallocating human labor, as business are made to settle with hiring someone who already lives in a particular geographical location over that of a foreigner who is more skilled at the task in which the company is hiring for. In other words, the state initiates aggression against two parties wishing to partake in a voluntary transaction, on the basis that one party lives in another region of the world.

Closed borders/immigration as a tool for tyranny

Thus far, we have seen why restrictions on immigration are economically unsound and unethical. However, it is also important to consider how governments can use shady strategies and tactics to wield a national border as a weapon of tyranny.

Thought control

Governments may easily utilize borders to control what materials, books, ideas, media, etc. are allowed to enter their domain of control. If they decide that a given item expresses ideas opposed to that of the State, they can violate an immigrant's property rights by confiscating said item or by forcing him to leave it behind. This level of totalitarian censorship should be abhorred by all of those who claim to value liberty above all else.

Probably the most obvious implication of immigration laws, governments decide who goes in to a country and who is allowed to leave a country. What is not so apparent are the esoteric motives for keeping certain people in and other people out. Government regimes may decide that immigrants from Region X are more likely to hold ideas/values opposed to the status quo than immigrants from Region Y. By barring Region X immigrants from entering the country, the government is actively resisting ideological diversity and dissent. Conversely, governments may decide to allow an influx of immigrants from Region Y, because they are more likely to be in support of the current regime. This tactic is generally referred to as "voter importing".

Tearing families apart

By deciding who can enter a country and who cannot, the government puts itself in the position of deciding which families remain whole and which are fractured. Through an inhumane process, the State separates families by allowing the passage of some members while barring the passage of others. Traveling to a country with the intention of making a better life for one's self should not require the abandonment of one's family. Such a cruel ultimatum only stands to undermine the familial unit and humanitarian values.

Attack on private property

Although we have already touched down on how immigration restrictions violate property rights, it is important to summarize the tyranny involved as the State infringes the property rights of immigrants in order to uphold the collective will of the people. When the government prevents the free movement of peoples from other regions of the world, it is effectively preventing those who hold their own cash balances from purchasing private transport onto property in which they have been sold the title of ownership to, and work a job which has been contracted to them, and to purchase goods from stores that would be more than happy to sell to them.

By placing immigration restrictions, the state is intervening on the property rights and voluntary contracts of not only the immigrants, but of the private citizens who would otherwise do business with them. Such action is clearly identified as aggression by the NAP.

National Imprisonment

Many Americans question the effectiveness of a border wall to keep people out, but they do not consider its ability to keep people in. Given the will of a totalitarian regime, the same border control measures used to prevent the illegal entrance into a nation can be used to keep private citizens from fleeing its tyrannical grasp. A recent example being the IRS's move to revoke passports belonging to 362,000 Americans who owed them $50,000 or more.

In short, you should trust your government to keep immigrants out as much as you trust it to not lock you in.

Counter arguments

There are some valid counter arguments which do raise serious concerns among libertarians. After all, had there not been some convincing criticisms of open borders, this topic would not be under such constant heated debate. Although these arguments do raise serious concern, they ultimately supply no justifications for restricting the free movement of people.

The Welfare State

Many "bodertarians", when faced with a proposal for open borders, immediately fall back on the classic economic concern that a lack of immigration restrictions will result in waves of immigrants rushing in to take advantage of the United States' bolstered Welfare State, possibly toppling it in the process. Matter of fact, this assumption is likely true; a large influx of immigrants probably would seek their way to the United States, with the intent of taking advantage of its large Welfare State, in the event that open borders were introduced.

Statistically speaking, over half of all illegal immigrants utilize welfare, while only about a third of native-born citizens are on welfare:

Meanwhile, about half of all legal immigrants are on welfare:

It certainly appears to be true that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, utilize the Welfare State in much larger proportions per capita than native-born citizens. Therefore, the fear of the Welfare State collapsing is a valid one. However, this trend in immigration is not natural; artificial factors are responsible for immigrants moving into the United Stats, not because they found the U.S. to be a better place to perform a task/skill in which they have a comparative advantage, but rather because they are escaping dangers from home or have come to the U.S. with pure intention of taking advantage of the Welfare State, or perhaps both. These artificial push/pull factors tend to move people around who are not trying to specialize in a valuable task/skill, but rather are interested in remaining unproductive and (often times) committing criminal acts.

The War on Drugs

More aptly named the War of Drugs, this endless attempt at demonizing the voluntary transactions between multiple parties has resulted in destabilization throughout regions such as Central America. The Mises Institute, for example, wrote about the thousands of migrant children being sent to the U.S. border by their parents with the pipe dream of escaping the devastating War on Drugs which has leveled their homelands and torn apart their families. Although the U.S. government is hellbent on the position that such a war can be won, The Economist disagrees:

Such schemes will not, however, solve the fundamental problem: that as long as drugs that people want to consume are prohibited, and therefore provided by criminals, driving the trade out of one bloodstained area will only push it into some other godforsaken place. But unless and until drugs are legalised, that is the best Central America can hope to do.

It is clear that the War on Drugs, as it cannot be won through the brute force of the State, only stands to disrupt the naturally-spreading pattern of comparative advantage by aggressively displacing people from their homelands, where they would have otherwise continued working at what they do best. In other words, the War on Drugs is also an artificial factor as previously mentioned. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs is not the only endless conflict that the United States of Eurasia has involved itself in. However, seeing as this piece is written strictly within the context of immigration, the War on Terrorism and other aspects of the War on Poverty are out of scope.

Violence

Statistically, illegal immigrants (who currently make up about 3.5% of the country) commit about 37% of homicides. It is undeniable that, currently, that immigrants who are not approved by a bureaucracy commit an unproportional amount of homicides.

The sources of this violent culture are difficult to determine; the War on Drugs and the resulting poverty is likely playing the largest part in its development. Perhaps the amount of homicides committed by unchecked immigrants will decrease as the War on Drugs is fazed out.

More importantly, on the basis of the Libertarian ethic and NAP, one cannot prevent the free movement of a migrant on the basis of a prediction of future crime. If an immigrant has committed a crime, then he shall face a proportional administration of justice in accordance to his crime. If a person has already faced justice for a crime committed, then there is no valid reason to apprehend him or turn him around at the border. He must be allowed passage, and if he commits a crime once again, then he must face retaliatory justice once again. But on no grounds may an immigrant be denied their right to free travel on a hunch that they may commit a crime in the near future.

Voter Importing

"Voter importing" is when a political party/regime adjusts immigration policy in order to process immigrants who are more likely to vote for said political party/regime as citizens. Stefan Molyneux is a strong proponent of the argument claiming that looser immigration policy would allow the left to import immigrants who are likely to vote democrat, and effectively erode away conservative/liberty oriented ideals. And to be quite frank, he does have a point:

From these statistics, it is clear that the majority of Hispanic immigrants are likely to vote in favor of democrats. The incentive is present, and combined with the fact that democrats are radically anti-border, one can correlate that an underlying reason for this stance is the prospect of shipping in more voters from Central America (who are perhaps escaping the War on Drugs) who will further reinforce the DNC.

However, regardless of whether malicious intent is or is not present among leftist, the Libertarian ethic still stands; one cannot be turned away at an arbitrary border. Such an act would be especially gross if it was committed with the intent to retain ideological purity. The right has always boasted to be ideologically diverse, while condemning the left for its lack of acceptance of new ideas. However, a "Bordertarian" stance on immigration for the sake of preventing voter importation is a blatant example of hypocrisy.

To prevent unfair voter importation, what ultimately needs to happen are open borders for all; we must not allow any particular group easier access to the United States than others. The open border stance provides an equal playing field, regardless of an individual's philosophy.

Ethics above all else

Many sympathetic "bordertarians" are willing to advocate for open borders on the condition that the Welfare State and War on Drugs be abolished. However, they are unknowingly deploying the Greater Good™ argument: they are willing to commit injustices in the interim as to secure temporary economic stability. This line of thinking is unethical. But more importantly, nothing good can come of the absence of justice. As libertarians, we must put ethic above all else, and let the economy re-adjust to our acceptance of liberty; let the War on Drugs end and the Welfare State collapse when they can no longer stand on their own.

Summary