It seems amazing to me that some libertarians like Ron Paul defend controls on immigration. I think many argue on consequentialist grounds: that there are too many government handouts that would intice immigrants who would not work and sponge off the state. While I think there is some is some truth in this, wouldn't free immigration also punish those states who have the most state welfare programs? Wouldn't this be ideal? It seems to me that free immigration would, by punishing the most welfare intensive states, in fact encourage privatization.
Also, are not our rights being violated by immigration laws? Take the following example:
Let us say that Adam lives in Country A, which is predominantly French-speaking. He has been offered a job by Gemma, who lives in Country B, which is predominantly English-speaking. Adam is unable to move to Country B to take the job, because Country B has a cap on immigration and gives preference to native English speakers. Have Adam’s rights been violated? Have Gemma’s rights been violated?
Ron Paul supported open immigration, but he didn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants. His stances seem contradictory to me, I think it might be a stance he took as a political move.
Political Atheists Blog
troutndeer:While I think there is some is some truth in this, wouldn't free immigration also punish those states who have the most state welfare programs?
No, it would punish the taxpayers of those states that have the biggest welfare programs. And that isn't the only issue with open borders.
troutndeer:It seems to me that free immigration would, by punishing the most welfare intensive states, in fact encourage privatization.
I don't see why. If you import a large number of have-nots and give them (or their children) the right to vote, you are encouraging the growth of the welfare state.
troutndeer:Let us say that Adam lives in Country A, which is predominantly French-speaking. He has been offered a job by Gemma, who lives in Country B, which is predominantly English-speaking. Adam is unable to move to Country B to take the job, because Country B has a cap on immigration and gives preference to native English speakers. Have Adam’s rights been violated? Have Gemma’s rights been violated?
Yes. They have been violated.
The problem of immigration controls is twofold. There is the problem of forced exclusion and the problem of forced integration. Forced exclusion (your example, for instance) occurs when the state excludes prevents someone from migrating to a location where the relevant property owners welcome them.
Forced exclusion is a little more difficult to explain so bear with me. In an An-Cap society, all roads and means of transportation would be privately owned and it would be up to these owners who they would like to invite onto their property and who they would prefer to exclude. Now, in the current statist system, public transportation is owned by government. Now government, unlike private organizations, expropriates instead of produces. Therefore all roads currently owned by the state are either roads which it had previously taken from private road owners, or purchased by expropriating taxpayers. Now, because of public ownership of the roads, the taxpayers and expropriated are unable to exclude uninvited guests at their own discretion. It would merely be a partial return of property title if the state were to provide the taxpayers and expropriated with the service of excluding individuals who the taxpayers and expropriated do not want using the public transportation.