THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS

Immigration is a highly contentious matter for libertarians. Though it is widely assumed that a
policy of unrestricted immigration is the default position of libertarians this is patently false. On
the contrary, provocative libertarian arguments can be adduced to rebuff the case for open
immigration. Some libertarians incautiously interpret immigration restrictions as a violation of
one’s right to free movement. The reasoning is that if people possess the right to self-ownership
then said right cannot be imperiled by third parties seeking to restrict one’s movement.
However, such a proposition is mistaken. Although individuals have a right to travel freely
without constraints on their movements, this does not imply that the state is obligated to grant
them entry.
Steve can always express an interest in migrating and might even pursue action to become a
citizen of America, but the state is not entitled to recommend citizenship. Libertarians display a
healthy dose of contempt for the state, but it must be moderated by realism. Like other bodies in
society, the state is a legal entity and therefore has the right to exclude. Voluntary associations,
social clubs, and corporations all discriminate when choosing potential members and the state is
similar in this regard. Because we respect the legal personhood of corporations, for example, we
desist from shunning companies refusing to hire unqualified applicants. Neither do we deride
universities for rejecting students with subpar grades. Likewise, the principle of freedom of
association can equally be applied to the state.
Furthermore, libertarians are yet to recognize that since the state is an innately forceful body,
there can never be a truly libertarian state. Essentially, the concept of a libertarian state is a
misnomer. Therefore, in the absence of a libertarian state, the best option available to
libertarians is a pro-liberty administration. Contrary to public perceptions, a pro-liberty
administration would only be required to protect the rights of citizens. Notwithstanding its
primary commitment to protecting the rights of citizens, this administration would eschew
annexing a foreign power, since doing so constitutes a denial of the victim’s territorial
sovereignty. Further, directly harming citizens of another state is also morally objectionable. For
example, if America invades Canada and, in the process, destroyed property and killed citizens,
the former must be held accountable for its atrocities.
A pro-liberty administration has no positive duty to migrants, nor can it be asserted that harm
was done to prospective immigrants by denying them entry, since they were never owed
citizenship. Invariably, an administration serious about preserving liberties will discriminate
against potential citizens. For instance, let us consider the following: “John is a Nigerian with a
considerable criminal record, he claims that migrating to America may avail him of numerous
opportunities thus curtailing his appetite for illicit activities. In contrast, Stewart is an affluent,
Brazilian doctor who thinks that migrating to America is a smart strategy to build his business.”
Using the track record of both candidates some may posit that Stewart is a stronger candidate.
Upon migrating to America, Stewart may start a booming business, hence generating
employment or he may even receive venture funding that would assist him to create an
innovative technology able to lower costs. Judging from his past John could pose a risk to the
security of American citizens, so prudent thinking requires that the state rejects his application.
Closer introspection, however, reveals that the state may be misguided in favoring Stewart over
John. By migrating to a developed country, John could be offered the institutional and financial
assistance he needs to become a dynamic entrepreneur. Running a serious criminal racket
necessitates managerial acumen, so if America allows John to transfer his skills to productive use
its citizens may flourish as a result. Whereas Stewart could change plans after arriving in him
America, by instead choosing to start a new career as a musician or a fitness instructor.
Interestingly, if Stewart discards his entrepreneurial ambition, he may prove to be no more useful
than the thousands of other doctors residing in America. So, selecting Stewart may not add
value. But irrespective of the choice, the point elucidated is that the state must exercise
discretion when admitting migrants.
On another note, advocates of open immigration are seemingly unaware that their firm
endorsement of open immigration may encourage unjust redistribution. Critics of open
immigration contend that as beneficiaries of government assistance illegal immigrants are
depriving native-born Americans of resources. Several critics are also outraged that they benefit
from government largesse, even though many of them may not be taxpayers. Usually, the
libertarian retort is to dismantle the welfare state thereby allaying the fear of undocumented
immigrants obtaining benefits. Yet this suggestion fails to solve the problem.
Abandoning the welfare state is not an indication that bureaucrats will not monitor welfare
projects. Please observe the fictitious example of Ruritania: “Ruritania is governed by a pro-
liberty administration and hence, taxation is voluntary. Expectedly, some citizens declare that
their taxes should be used to finance scholarships, hospitals, and other public amenities for
citizens. Nevertheless, scores of taxpayers object to aiding undocumented immigrants.
Therefore, to hinder fraud Ruritania creates mechanisms to obstruct the provision of amenities to
non-citizens. Yet, despite the sophistication of these controls unscrupulous characters manage to
undermine the system.’’ Although, fraud can be minimized there is no guarantee that measures
employed by Ruritania can eliminate avenues for corruption. Similarly, the intention to deter
fraud can result in a regulatory state that assaults the rights of citizens. Moreover, based on this
example, it is evident that counter to proponents of open immigration, this policy can be
inconsistent with the tenets of libertarianism by creating a conduit for unsavoury personalities to
unjustly extract resources from third parties.
Also, the immigration debate must be nuanced by the distinctions between the golden age of
mass immigration in the nineteenth century and contemporary realities. Kay Hymowitz in an
intriguing essay for City Journal lucidly explains why earlier periods of immigration proved to
be less costly for the state: “In the Ellis Island era, the country took in “the tired and poor,” but it
did not—it could not, in those hard-knock times—offer them more than a chance to manage on
their own…There was no Department of Health and Human Services, no state and city welfare
offices, no food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, no Department of Education with Title I
funds to augment local school budgets, no ESL classes or special education for immigrant
children.” 
Accordingly, as Priscilla Ferguson Clement recounts in Welfare and the Poor in the Nineteenth-
century City : Philadelphia 1800-1854 immigrants instead sought assistance from charitable
organizations: “The economic distress engendered by the Panic of 1837 prompted sympathetic
citizens to establish numerous work programs in houses of industry and charities for women…In
addition, the rapid flow of indigent immigrants to the city stimulated some Philadelphians both
to revive old and new immigrant-aid societies…Between 1840 and 1854, Philadelphia’s charity
leaders acted more quickly and willingly than public officials to aid recent immigrants as well as
the victims of economic depression.” During earlier epochs of mass immigration, migrants
acknowledged that they were taking a risk by relocating to America and as such the government
was not responsible for their wellbeing. Present circumstances are remarkably different, so pro-
immigration activists choosing to be wilfully oblivious to the new reality must free themselves
from delusions.
Additionally, notwithstanding the presumptions of libertarians supportive of open borders, under
the anarcho-capitalist model of governance borders would be more constrictive. In a
dispassionate tone Murray Rothbard adroitly argues that open borders would be inconsistent with
a fully privatized country: “Rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model,
it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have "open borders" at all. If
every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would
mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase,
property. A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and
property owners desire.”
So far, we have deduced that open immigration is incompatible with libertarianism even under
textbook examples. As such facilitating competition in the granting of citizenship is a more
plausible libertarian alternative. Foreigners seeking to visit America can apply through an
embassy to acquire a visa. However, those aiming to reside permanently in the United States
may opt to comply with the entry requirements of an Immigration Service Provider. For
example, a group of Information Technology professionals could offer citizenship to foreigners
willing to demonstrate that they possess the relevant skills to work in the industry and are also
competent to support themselves in the United States. To abate fraud, service providers will be
authorized to deport people who enter the country under false pretenses and undertake thorough
background checks.
An advantage of private providers is that unlike the government they are more inclined to
discriminate. An American citizen can petition the state to permit his unemployed son living in
Ghana to become a citizen, but there is no assurance that after migrating to America this
individual will secure a job. Whereas a private provider would rarely consider an unemployed
foreigner with no discernible skill. Without a doubt, privatization can improve the quality of
people who migrate to America. Consequently, if the government exited the immigration
business completely, then this suggests that citizens could no longer petition the state on behalf
of their relatives. As a result, only selective Immigration Service Providers would be positioned
to discriminately determine who enters America.
Not only is the notion of open immigration in conflict with the ideal of anarcho-capitalism, it
further distracts libertarians from envisioning an immigration strategy that will yield superior
outcomes. American citizens are consumers of immigration, and like their peers in other
markets, they deserve the best product. Since the state is not obliged to accept migrants then it
must act in the interests of citizens when doing so. Therefore, immigration reform should seek to
reduce risk to citizens by ensuring that immigrants with a history of success are preferred. The
fable of open immigration is an idea that libertarians must discount in favor of orchestrating a
sensible immigration policy premised on the privatization of citizenship to increase the
availability of quality immigrants thus enriching American citizens.