Libertarian perspectives on immigration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on Libertarianism

Schools of thought Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Left-libertarianism Libertarian socialism Libertarian feminism Free-market anarchism Market socialism Minarchism Mutualism Neolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism Progressive libertarianism Propertarianism Right-libertarianism Rights libertarianism Voluntaryism Origins Objectivism Austrian School Chicago School Classical liberalism Individualist anarchism Ideas Civil liberties Counter-economics Decriminalization Economic freedom Free markets Free trade Free will Freedom of contract Homestead principle Humanism Individualism Laissez-faire Liberty Natural rights Night watchman state Non-aggression Non-interventionism Private property Self-government Self-ownership Subjectivism Tax resistance Topics History Movement Controversies within libertarianism Parties Theories of law Views of rights Criticism of libertarianism Related Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Republican Libertarian transhumanism Philosophy Portal Politics Portal  v • d • e

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (April 2008)

Immigration can be a controversial issue among libertarians. Most libertarians consider that governments should not have any authority on deciding who can migrate where. However, they also consider that individuals have the right to forbid people to trespass through their private property, and that ultimately, all land should be private property.

The controversy is thus mostly among libertarians interested in governmental policy, assuming government exists (independently of whether it should or not): what should governments do in absence of a free market for immigration? Some libertarians argue that because government is so deep into plunder via welfare-state, people who would increase plunder shouldn't be allowed to immigrate, or that since there are some kinds of immigrants that would be rejected even without excessive government intervention (be it only an invading foreign army), then government must at least reject these immigrants, since it has taken the responsibility to control immigration. Many libertarians think that the question is irrelevant to them, and that their purpose is to limit government: if welfare state is incompatible with free immigration, then welfare state should be abolished, rather than immigration regulated.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that if some immigrants must be refused, then the means to do that should be returned to all citizens, instead of being monopolized by the government. In any case, Anarcho-capitalists might differ as to what they think the final outcome would be regarding immigration, but agree that the optimal answer would emerge from a free market in justice and protection.

However, many leaders of the Libertarian Party USA, and the Libertarian International Organization take a view that they feel transcend these controversies: one grounded in actual law and paradigm shifting practices in various countries, a strict view of the Constitution, and common law practice in the early US and over the centuries as reflecting appropriate voluntary solutions.

First, they point out that politicians are mixing legal terms of opposite meaning. Thus many people confuse issues immigration and national culture and security, and a country's boundaries in peacetime (borders) and wartime (technically called marques). In addition, many people, including some Libertarians, assume policies or authorities that actually are not there or poorly grounded.

Thus in peacetime, boundaries--borders--are by definition unsupervised; in wartime or periods of national siege or exigency duly declared they become only then subject to security considerations. The US Constitution gives no total Federal authority to police the marque except by private persons bearing authorization to do so (letters of marque), a power the US gave up by international treaty in the 1800s. While other authority exists, it is limited--Federal or state response against invasion, prohibition of slave importation--but there is no general authority. The reason is the US left such policing to localities, and the current localist movement is a reflection that locali groups are indeed more responsive than waiting for a central Federal authority. Libertarians propose a system of free travel, encouraging specific actions to reduce security problems to that end by international negotiation and spread of democracy and freedom ideas such as Libertarianism (Source: LPUS Platform, sections dealing with Foreign Affairs and Free Travel }

As to immigration, historically this was done by individual or local sponsorship in the US, with some adjustment by States for trade and the Federal Government for cultural balance by incentives or guidelines, not restrictions, which in any event must be interpreted by local juries studying the case in disputes. This approach to some extent is still used by Switzerland and de facto large parts of Latin America, where people enter pretty much at will but residency tracking and immigration is traditionally viewed as a neighborhood, not primarily national, function, based on sponsorship and voucher for good behavior.

However, the US problems with Mexico, and Latin American countries in general, are actually governed by the Treaty of San Lorenzo, which guaranteed mutual free transit and immigration in perpetuity to all inhabitants of the US and the Successor States of the Spanish Empire. The US has been in default since primarily the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, when restrictions were suddenly imposed. Until then people went back and forth without any imbalances as work or travel required , but began to stay in the US beyond reason for fear they would not be re-admitted with the current policy. This also created a series of retaliations by the Latins, from general distrust of US citizens as dishonest treaty breakers to commercial investment restrictions to requirements US citizens show proof of income before immigrating to Latin countries where they were previously welcomed as brothers with open arms. Libertarians point out that if the US kept its obligations, the imbalances would disappear; and if anything, the US might suffer an emigration problem as they US citizens were again welcomed into Latin Countries as once before. The current US Platform states simply that Libertarians are prepared to welcome refugees, and the LP works against discriminatory policies. (Source: US LP Platform Summary, IMMIGRATION; members of US LP Platform Improvement Committee)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(April 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The correct short term solution is, in the US to Republicans and Democrats to stop interfering in foreign countries by supporting dictatorships or corrupt pseudo-democracies, attracting the ire of local revolutionaries; and leave nation building to local Libertarians and freedom movements who are actually getting the job done on a private and voluntary basis through education, teaching activism tools, and persuasion. For all countries, the long term solution to all these two separate problems is international and bi-lateral dialogue to free up the borders by mutual systems of free trade and jurisdiction recognition such as the US States possess among themselves; prodding legislators to work with localities to focus on solvable specifics instead of demanding more centralized policies; the restoration of individual sponsorship of immigrants as one of many tools; and the general spread of freedom and Libertarian ideas. This is what the Libertarians (Source: Libertarian International Organization) have been doing for decades in joint action.

[edit] Opponents of mass immigration within the libertarian movement

Within recent times, some libertarians, especially paleolibertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, have voiced concerns pertaining to the traditional "open borders" policy held by most libertarians.

It is believed by a number of libertarians that unrestricted immigration into a libertarian society may lead to the undermining of the values that exist inside a libertarian society. This is because large numbers of people may enter a country, who possess no attachment to libertarian ideals and mores or general Western concepts of liberty.

The British-based Libertarian Alliance are prominent advocates of a restricted immigration policy within a libertarian society.