Libertarians on immigration

[The Douche]

Whats up with libertarians almost always having inconsistent views on immigration? I have a facebook friend (kid I knew in high school) who made this statement last night during the presidential debates:


If you come here illegally you are a criminal. There are millions waiting to come here legally. Don't cut in line! #reform



And of course it was quickly liked by his many conservative friends. I responded with this:


Borders are arbitrary, if you're a libertarian you should be for free movement.

Of course the only people who liked my comment are this kid I used to work with (who recently started getting into radical politics by reading Tiqqun at college), and some rando.

The OP responded thusly:


No, a country needs secure borders.

Again, liked by a number of his conservative friends, and so I replied:


Ok, well first of all, I will quote the LP platform:

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Clearly, individuals who cross the border simply looking for work do not "pose a credible threat to security, health or property".

Now, allow me to refer you to this link (http://mises.org/daily/1980). You'll notice its from the Mises institute, and organization I obviously despise, but one which I assume you respect, since it represents the height of intellectual libertarianism. And I would like to quote that article as well:

"The "immigration policies" of modern states is yet another licensing scheme of the 20th century: the state has enforced licensing of movement. It is virtually impossible to move across the artificial boundaries of the state's territory in the search for opportunity, love, or work; one needs a state-issued license to move one's body, be it across a river, over a mountain or through a forest. The Berlin Wall may be gone, but the basic principle of it lives and thrives."

Again, my comment was only liked by the aforementioned dude who just started reading Tiqqun. And this was all the OP offered as a response:


As a sovereign nation we need borders. It's not unreasonable to ask for applied citizenship with reformed immigration policy.

Then we had some back and forth about the inconsistency of his position, and I pointed out how he has not at any point formulated an argument for why he abandons his otherwise libertarian positions, but he, of course, couldn't present an actual argument.

Your move libertarians...

[Drosophila]

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this kind of libertarianism is the stupidest popular trend of thought out there at this time.

[The Douche]

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this kind of libertarianism is the stupidest popular trend of thought out there at this time.

Yeah, I really hate the new(ish) tendency of individuals to blend certain economic aspects of libertarianism with the social positions and foreign policy positions of neo-conservatives, it makes for literally the worst kind of politics.

But the dude I was discussing with in the OP is usually a pretty solid libertarian, he opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes drone strikes on sovereign nations, opposes drone flights/patriot act/NDAA in the US etc, I guess he's just conservative on the immigration issue.

[brigadista]

Yeah, I really hate the new(ish) tendency of individuals to blend certain economic aspects of libertarianism with the social positions and foreign policy positions of neo-conservatives, it makes for literally the worst kind of politics.

But the dude I was discussing with in the OP is usually a pretty solid libertarian, he opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes drone strikes on sovereign nations, opposes drone flights/patriot act/NDAA in the US etc, I guess he's just conservative on the immigration issue.

so what is his view on those seeking asylum from Iraq and afghanistan, pakistan or does he just object to dark skinned spanish speakers??:D

[The Douche]

so what is his view on those seeking asylum from Iraq and afghanistan, pakistan or does he just object to dark skinned spanish speakers??:D

Well, asylum seekers generally follow some sort of immigration process, no?

[Raúl Duke]

He's a xenophobe and a racist?
That's what I think. After all, being against free movement of people is not libertarian but there are some so-called libertarians who support such things. It's incompatible

[The Douche]

He's a xenophobe and a racist?
That's what I think. After all, being against free movement of people is not libertarian but there are some so-called libertarians who support such things. It's incompatible

I think its important to differentiate between those individuals who argue for a position which is racist in result, when they do not do so from a racially motivated position.

Not that we should dismiss the racism, but that we should be mindful of how we approach it. Calling this individual a raicst wouldn't help the discussion at all, I know they don't have racist motivations, and I know they're not consciously racist, so why talk about race when it would allow them to take the argument off on a tangent? Ideally you can point out those inconsistencies to make them evaluate their politics, and why they are inconsistent and get them to make adjustments.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I have an uncle who praised Obama for deporting immigrants. It's a totally ridiculous view.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Petty-bourgeois views are always self-contradictory if in modern Libertarian form or progressive form. They need the system but hate and feel crushed by different aspects of it and so it makes for some strange logic.

On immigration there are some who would agree on open borders, but they tend to be kind of dilitantes. Like the equivalent of socialists who think that since it will take a revolution to solve many fundamental oppressions in society that sexism or racism aren't even problems worth talking about until after the revolution yadda-yadda. So they're the "we should have open borders and no drug laws and no police, but not until we have a truly free market" sort.

Then there's the mainstream who are essentially only concerned with freedom for capital and business but fully support the repressive side of the federal government - though usually a lighter version. So people like Ron Paul want the military to be defensive only, but from his own logic what does that mean if a nationalist government came to power in Egypt and blocked trade? Well the free market would need to be defended with military force.


I think its important to differentiate between those individuals who argue for a position which is racist in result, when they do not do so from a racially motivated position.Good point and good advice. The difficulty is that so many racist positions or assumptions have become so mainstream that people will say just blatantly racist things and not even realize it. I think we do need to call people out on that kind of thing though and I think to cut out some of the polarizing effect is to emphasize that the logic of the argument that the person is using based on racist/sexist myths or propaganda - not the person. People now tend to think of racism as a personal induvidual phenomena, not a social/political one, so saying "that's racist" without qualifying it more just get's read as "you're a stupid racist". Qualifying it may not cut out all of the defensiveness or polarization, but at least there's a better chance things won't instantly get derailed or turn into a "fucku" match.

[doesn't even make sense]

Petty-bourgeois views are always self-contradictory if in modern Libertarian form or progressive form. They need the system but hate and feel crushed by different aspects of it and so it makes for some strange logic.

This is the crux of it I think. The U.S. right is basically a mish mash of all kinds of petit-bourgeois loopiness.

[ВАЛТЕР]

They're fucking stupid. Fuck them and their lives.

Right libertarianism is the new capitalism in decay.

Also, fuck capitalism.


Thug life...

[Prometeo liberado]

These people, contrary to what they try and tell you, have a huge problem with reason of any kind. Much like liberals they tend to get flustered when their ideology gets in too up close and personal.

[The Douche]

These people, contrary to what they try and tell you, have a huge problem with reason of any kind. Much like liberals they tend to get flustered when their ideology gets in too up close and personal.

Yeah, this dude is just generally more consistent in his politics than either the republicans who claim to be "like libertarians" or the Paulbots.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Most of the democrats I know have the same, or a similar, position on immigration

[MarxSchmarx]

I think calling these people "illogical" "stupid" etc... isn't all that insightful about their behavior and frankly not very productive for a leftist analysis (although they are indeed morons). Stupidity and idiocy can be manifested in a lot of areas, so they cannot explain why right-libertarians hold this particular view.

Basically I think right-libertarians are just right-wingers that want marijuana legalized and thus racism has a lot to do with it.

But on some level, I actually think their position of immigration, while awful, is in fact quite internally consistent with their basic world view.

Remember that right-libertarians are statists. They believe in the role of the nation state. Most don't favor a world government, so they believe that countries like Belgium and Botswana should exist. They just believe those countries shouldn't do anything to really interfere in their citizens lives.

But they also believe in borders. And thus they must logically believe that states have to enforce those borders. It's therefore just a matter of degree how porous we make the border, but the state will allow some people in and deny entry to others. Most importantly, border policy is policy, not principle. Therefore, the state has a relatively free hand, the way it has a relatively free hand to decide what the optimal military technologies to invest in are given its limited resources.

Once upon a time, I think right-libertarians did have a mainstream view that peaceable people should be allowed to cross borders freely. This always struck me as a strange view, because then why even bother having borders? A lot of pre-state medieval societies basically just had fortresses and castles strewn about. And in fact I think old-school right libertarians were quite willing to abandon statism. For some of the reasons mentioned in this thread, such is no longer the case.

For right libertarians, that's a decision that leaves a lot of leeway about how much is too much. The xenophobic rightwingers that masquerade as "libertarians" in the hopes of gaining some respectability and distancing themselves from the Christian taliban will of course say that any real influx of undesirables is too much. But their position is consistent with their general philosophy.