I have no problem with unrestricted
immigration or interracial heterosexual marriage.
I have no problem with unrestricted
emmigration or samerace heterosexual marriage.
you've got the libertarian position on immigration perfectly wrong.
It's true that open borders lead to more statism. Indeed, it takes a massive state to maintain open borders. So libertarian critics such as Steve Kubby are wrong, and Buchanan is right. Where he is not correct is in ascribing the open borders position to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and to all libertarians. Indeed, conservative or "paleo" libertarians oppose open borders based on the idea of exclusive property rights.
Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, has written extensively on this topic. He is the first theoretician to look at the immigration debate not through utilitarian concerns about increasing welfare in society, but from a rigorous argument focused strictly on property rights.
The increase of the immigration-fed welfare state aside, a fundamental right in any free society is that of property ownership as well as the right of exclusion pertaining to that property. After all, if I own land and buildings, and if I decide to exclude others from my property – whether they are immigrants or domestic residents – I surely must have that right. Hoppe points out that, because property owners have a right to exclude, then under the scenario where all land is privately owned, as it should be, "there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration." Libertarianism proper, then, does not uphold some right to "freedom of immigration," but rather the right of the property owner to decide whom to invite and whom to exclude.
Most readers will not immediately accept this view without first understanding the underlying concept of the state vs. freedom. In a free libertarian society, there can be no right of immigration. Individuals can move from one place to another so long as they receive permission from the owners of the property. But the right to "immigrate" does not exist because all movement of individuals is subject to the consent of the various property owners.
In fact, it is the mere existence of a state that gives meaning to the term "immigration" in the Hoppean sense. As Hoppe states:
With the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners moving across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with the private property owners or associations of such owners, but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties.
The current system of mass immigration allows for the trampling of private property by means of forced integration, and the harm done is immense. As it stands, property owners are limited by law from excluding individuals from their place of employment due to affirmative-action and discrimination laws, and from their neighborhoods by civil-rights legislation.
Immigration in that sense is forced integration, and according to Hoppe, when that is the case:
The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: The forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if the decision were left to them, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves.
Forced integration is the result of the existence of a state and its mob-rules democracy. Bear in mind that a representative form of government will tend toward legislating ownership away from the rightful owners of property to give to the majority participants of a politician-bred welfare lottery. And all taxpayers support this lottery through the coercive means of financial repossession on the part of government and its paid agents.