Libertarians should support open borders, with possible exceptions for the exclusion of convicted criminals and people carrying disease. – The Libertarian Argument for Open Borders by Grant Babcock, 10/16/14
Fact Check: The article above appeared on the website of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that promotes open borders. It proposes to justify unhindered immigration in positive terms and answers objections to it. But more than anything else, the article reveals an ideological fixation detached from reality.
It begins by claiming that more trade means more prosperity, and that free movement of goods requires the free movement of people. Not necessarily. One can trade and prosper without immigration. Just ask the Japanese and Chinese.
Next it claims that open borders allow people living under bad governments to leave, thereby forcing those governments to reform lest they lose more people. But would these people, steeped in the habits of bad government, necessarily benefit us? And in point of fact, many bad governments don’t mind getting rid of what they regard as excess people as a means to avoid having to make changes. An outstanding case in point is Mexico, the origin of the largest number of our immigrants.
Many from Mexico and elsewhere are poor, and they end up taking advantage of our generous system of public welfare. And with open borders many more of the world’s teeming numbers of poor people will feel encouragement to come. The author answers this objection by stating that we simply should abolish the welfare state to deactivate this magnet. But how would that be possible as immigration builds up the political constituency to vote for public benefits?
The author says that there is no proof that immigrants would vote in this fashion, but if he simply would remove his libertarian blinders he would be able to view the state of California. There the votes of immigrants and their children have turned that once fairly conservative state into a solid bastion of tax and spend liberalism.
The article further maintains that an open border is necessary to uphold the “fundamental human right” of free association. But where in this formulation is the right of Americans not to associate with people, particularly those they would prefer not to have as their countrymen? To be specific, Americans might not want to welcome millions of Muslim immigrants whose goal is to impose Sharia law.
A homeowner is under no obligation to admit a stranger who climbs over his fence and demands admission—in the name of free association. The homeowner, on his private property, has the right to choose his associates. Similarly a country, in effect, is the private property of its citizens who have the right to decide who crosses their borders. Open borders in effect mean no borders, and no borders mean no country.
But that isn’t a problem for many libertarians because they don’t really believe in countries, but only atomized individuals pursuing their own self-interest. For them, patriotism is a difficult concept to grasp.