to be "conservative" and yet support "diversity"

[MechAg94]

Yeah, but consistent enforcement of laws that restrict the market does not lead to a free market.  By that reasoning socialism could be a free market, as long as its rules are consistent and enforceable.

Forcing people to get special permission from the government before they can choose to enter into a mutually agreeable economic relationship is the antithesis of the free market.  But that's exactly what US and European immigration laws both do.  So, to reiterate the point, I can see why libertarians were opposed to it - that's the only intellectually consistent stance you can take if you favor free markets.

If you believe in immigration controls, you do not believe in free markets, at least to the degree that the employer/employee relationship is a feature of the marketplace.

The primary purpose of laws is not necessarily to promote a free market.  As longeyes pointed out, the free market is not the goal of all laws.  Also, socialism/communism could not be a free market by any means as it strives for basically no market at all.  

Immigration laws are not anti-free market IMO.  They enhance security and provide some uniformity to the employment market which helps the free market.  Employers know that immigrants applying for jobs are who they say they are, are not likely to be criminals, and are often better than the average person in their own country.  Also, the movement of labor within the US is unimpeded.  Free movement of labor is only a help to the free market within a consistent system of law and order.  That might exist between countries or it might not.  The business environment in Mexico and the US are not really the same. 

[Rudy Kohn]

Open borders work in a state in which government coercion, especially public welfare taxation and spending, are limited, with the government (or people) having little or no recourse to increase that level of coercion, at least beyond a certain level.  To advocate for open borders in a welfare state (esp. one that has a functioning democratic apparatus, and especially one that is already a shining beacon of freedom and wealth) with the intention of decreasing government coercion is counterproductive, as it makes it possible for immigrants to simply vote themselves wealth from the productive.

Once the welfare state is severely limited or dismantled--at least semi-permanently so--then borders can and should be opened.  Without government handouts and wealth redistribution, the perverse incentives for immigration vanish, and there is no longer any reason to restrict movement.

That some libertarians recognize this necessity is not a matter of failing to believe in free markets, it is a matter of stepping toward their end goals with understanding of the present situation, and the limitations it imposes on their strategy.  Failure to recognize this necessity could easily result in the addition of more coercion to the system.  Obviously, such an outcome is not what libertarian-minded individuals would want.

[Perd Hapley]

You're assuming progress is teleological.

Do you even know that means?  :|

[MicroBalrog]

Do you even know that means?  :|

You're assuming progress is moving from point A to point B in some form of predictable line, never to return. For example, liberals assume that progress is a movement from a mythical state of "social darwinism" as they call it to a "welfare state", and to repeal welfare would be "regressive".

[Perd Hapley]

No, you don't know what it means.    Teleology relates to purpose. 

Yes, progress could go in a different direction.  But why throw out something that works? 

[MicroBalrog]

Well, yes.

[My actual view on immigration is somewhat unique to me, and does not jive well with either conservatism or libertarianism or leftism].

[De Selby]

The crime is entering the country illegally. The purpose for which the person is trying to enter the country is irrelevant.

Note, I do not say no one should be able to come in. I simply say the fed.gov should be able to control it, so Mexico stops using us as the overflow valve on their prisons.

Also, you are ignoring my point. All laws by their very nature restrict the free market. You are arguing an anarchist point of view. I further submit your continued arguing for a view which as far as I can tell you don't actually hold is simply evidence that you use APS as a means of playing devil's advocate to train your lawyerly rhetoric, and I demand compensation for helping you polish your bs'ing skills.

Yeah, and again, the de facto result of this law is that you need a government issued license to do anything. 

This argument about "all laws" has been frequently raised by social democrats and labour parties around the world to justify market socialism.  It is false.  For example, a law that requires you to honor your contracts does not restrict the free market.  Neither  does a law requiring that you not harm other people's property.  It takes no rhetorical trick to recognise that there are indeed basic laws that clearly promote the free market, and then other laws that clearly restrict it (like immigration and price control laws.)

And I'd be happy to pay you if only we'd agreed on that first - you knew you were giving away for free the moment you posted though :).

[De Selby]

The sovereign nation-state, with citizenship and borders, is of a piece with modernity.  To call for open borders is to turn one's back on progress, and toward the cosmopolitanism of medieval times. 

Yeah, sorry, but open border systems have lasted far longer in prosperity over the historical record than any extant nation-state.  Technological development tends to mask inefficiencies, which is why people argue that the current system is the best of all possible worlds.  But then again, people were saying that in Russia when the communist actually did bring Russia out of medieval times and into the industrial world. 

Mech, your argument could just as easily be applied to full protectionism: "there is a free market for steel - you just can't buy any from anywhere except the 50 states!".  It simply doesn't add up to say "well, the market for labour is free, it's just that you can't hire anyone who doesn't have a government license."

 Why not let employers freely decide if they need all that protection of government issued records and citizenship? That would be the free market approach.

I realise many of you do not believe in the free market, but you should at least see how it's obvious that a true libertarian free market party would oppose immigration restrictions.

[Jamisjockey]

Free market only works when government removes restrictions on labor, as in Minimum wage restrictions.

[Balog]

I'm pretty sure I never said it was inconsistent for the L's to want open borders; I just said it was stupid.

I also disagree that the primary effect of border control is on wages.

[grampster]

The whole problem of open borders is that America has such an entrenched social welfare policy that consumes a huge portion of the country's wealth.  If Third and fourth worlders from the south, if borders were open, would be excluded from that system for a period of time, open borders would make more sense.
Undocumented people are a huge drain on the social welfare and eductional system.

It makes more sense to secure the ports and borders, but have a realistic and workable guest worker program that allows immigrants to earn their citizenship by assimilation into society.

[longeyes]

The borders issue is about more than labor, it is also about culture.  This nation is already in danger of losing its spiritual birthright by failing to educate its citizens about the nature and essence of America.  It seems to have lost control of its own legal population, and from what I can see--at ground zero in Los Angeles--it has even lost control of its illegal population in terms of inculcating core values.  America is more than just a workplace and it will stand or fall on whether it effectively communicates that to those who are here and wish to be here.

[melllyn]

The humanity decision is sort of BS at this point.  Abortion is legal so the Federal Decision that currently stands pretty much says a fetus is not human.  The states really can't go anywhere but up from there. 

I find it interesting though that a couple years back (in Alabama at least, not sure if this was a national thing or not) they passed a lwa that if you killed a pregnant woman you were charged with two murders...1 for the mother and 1 for the unborn child.  SO, how does the gov't, pro-abortion, SC, bring those two ideas togeether?  An aborted fetus is not murder, but a murdered fetus is murder...hmmm...quite a pickle.

[MicroBalrog]

The humanity decision is sort of BS at this point.  Abortion is legal so the Federal Decision that currently stands pretty much says a fetus is not human.  The states really can't go anywhere but up from there.

No. It doesn't say that.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The point you're arguing isn't the libertarian, it's the anarchist.

Yup.  Free market != anarchy.

[MicroBalrog]

The point you're arguing isn't the libertarian, it's the anarchist.

Anarchism is a legitimate part of the libertarian movement.

[Balog]

Anarchism is a legitimate part of the libertarian movement.

More reason the libbies are so ineffective.

[RocketMan]

The borders issue is about more than labor, it is also about culture.  This nation is already in danger of losing its spiritual birthright by failing to educate its citizens about the nature and essence of America.  It seems to have lost control of its own legal population, and from what I can see--at ground zero in Los Angeles--it has even lost control of its illegal population in terms of inculcating core values.  America is more than just a workplace and it will stand or fall on whether it effectively communicates that to those who are here and wish to be here.

You are quite right, longeyes.  But this very important aspect of the question will continued to be ignored by all parties to the discussion.  Those that dare to bring it up will be accused, falsely, of racism or other vile things.

[roo_ster]

Anarchism is a legitimate part of the libertarian movement.

And a good part of the reason it is a failure as a political movement.

[MicroBalrog]

And a good part of the reason it is a failure as a political movement.

The libertarian movement is plenty effective as a political movement. The movement =/= the party.

[Balog]

The libertarian movement is plenty effective as a political movement. The movement =/= the party.

What're you basing that little nugget on?

[MicroBalrog]

What're you basing that little nugget on?

Let's review.

Libertarianism as we know it only dates back to the 1930's, and guys like A. Jay Nock, Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson, and so forth (although you can find its intellectual roots in earlier movements, it's really not fair to claim "the Founding Fathers were libertarians"). It only really gets "formed" as a movement in the 1970's, and its really very, very small.

So the libertarian movement advances its goals by several means:

1. Separating the "libertarian agenda" into separate ideas and marketing them to a larger movement. School vouchers are an awesome example of this, and the larger separation of school and state agenda.

2. Marketing efforts on the intellectual/academic level. Libertarianism is now at about the stage socialism was in the late 19th century, where it was mostly the province of intellectuals and exciteable 16-year-olds, and it promoted itself from there. This is where anarchists like Rothbard excel - because to recruit academics it's entirely unnecessary to discuss politically achievable goals. That's not what this game is about at all.

3. Political activism. This is arguably the least effective front at the moment, but libertarians do excel in those venues which reward activism and dedication more than they reward sheer numbers - for example, the courts. It is libertarian attorneys and Free State Project members that gave you Heller.

[Gewehr98]

The borders issue is about more than labor, it is also about culture.  This nation is already in danger of losing its spiritual birthright by failing to educate its citizens about the nature and essence of America.

No. America is a melting pot.

It started that way, and there's no reason to stifle the cultural diversity that we've had since well before the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence.

While I bristle at the thought of Sacramento schoolteachers being forced to hold classes in Spanish, I bristle even more at those pushing some sort of Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda.  Diversity is but one thing that makes America great.   

[RocketMan]

No. America is a melting pot.

Very true, and that is America's culture.  It is based on assimilation, and is unique in that respect. That is the essence and spiritual birthright that longeyes was referring to.
But many of today's immigrants have no desire to assimilate, they have no desire to contribute to America's unique culture by adding parts of their own.  They wish to stand apart, stand separately.  To their and our nation's detriment.

And no one here is pushing that "Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda" sickness.

[longeyes]

You call yourself "Gewehr98" and yet you imply that my view smacks of pro-Aryanism?  Uh, what's wrong with this picture?   

But seriously...look, neither of us are Nazis, and I am certainly in favor of the proverbial melting pot.  All four of my grandparents were European-born.  You know quite well what I am talking about and it is not about DNA or skin tone or what's in the pantry for dinner.  It's about recognizing the shared values that define America and make it strong.  It is also about not pretending that those values are universally shared, because plainly they are not.  America has always been about where you are going and not where you came from; unfortunately, the pro-tribalists and pro-ethnicists would have you think otherwise.  There is too much pride in one's genetic and cultural origins and not nearly enough pride in and, more important, awareness of the spiritual and cultural aorta of America.