Open Borders

[DimeBagHo]

Libertarians typically start any analysis of a political question from the following assumptions: (1) Individuals are the ultimate bearers of both interests and rights, so the state exists for the benefit of individuals, and exercises rights that are ultimately derived from its individual citizens. (2) Individuals should be free to do what they like so long as they do no harm to others. (3) Rights in general can not be taken away, they can only be forfieted through harming others.

On the question of immigration these assumptions lead most libertarians to support an open borders policy. People should be free to travel, settle, and work where they like, so long as they do no harm to others. Typically the only limitations accepted are on individuals who have a criminal history, or individuals who pose some significant public health threat.

For some this view is predicated on the existence of a libertarian political order. Some libertarians, who would be willing to accept open borders against the background of a libertarian political order, would accept a more restrictive policy against the backgound of some other political order. For example, libertarians typically reject any policy that requires some people to economocally support other people. So in a society which has a significant welfare state some libertarians might accept an immigration policy that excluded people who are unable to support themselves. But still, most libertarians would see the welfare policy as the ultimate problem.

So that's the typical libertarian view. No doubt roughly the same policy could be supported from other theoretical starting points. What I'm interested in is whether people are generally willing to accept an open border policy, with these modest restrictions, and what reasons they have either for or against it.

[SLN445]

I base my views on who can enter a country on the current state of that country and the qualities and effect those people will bring. In my home country of Australia for instance, i would prefer Immigration restricted to maintaning the current level of population until we can build the infastructure and access to Water/Food to support a higher population.

[DimeBagHo]

I base my views on who can enter a country on the current state of that country and the qualities and effect those people will bring. In my home country of Australia for instance, i would prefer Immigration restricted to maintaning the current level of population until we can build the infastructure and access to Water/Food to support a higher population.

But isn't that sort of thing always going to follow population increases? The infrastructure will be improved and expanded as more people show up. If it is literally a case of people running out of drinking water if too many show up at once then that sounds like a simple public health concern, but I doubt if that would ever be a real issue.

[SLN445]

But isn't that sort of thing always going to follow population increases? The infrastructure will be improved and expanded as more people show up. If it is literally a case of people running out of drinking water if too many show up at once then that sounds like a simple public health concern, but I doubt if that would ever be a real issue.

Sure it does follow, but its much better to have everything running beforehand then having to improve things as a result. I would rather a slow progressive increase while fixing issue we have then to allow the flood gates to be open and trying to fix everything afterwards.
Theirs also the problem of what happens to a country with culture clashing if you got too large of immigration if you were to have open borders, time is needed for assimulation.

Its not a literal issue of running out of water, but their is a fair amount of strain on the systems at times and continual hissy fits between who gets access to what, an increase in desalination plants and so forth is needed to support a larger population then Australia can maintain.

Edit: realy need to get this firefox autospell thing working >.<;;

[DimeBagHo]

Sure it does follow, but its much better to have everything running beforehand then having to improve things as a result. I would rather a slow progressive increase while fixing issue we have then to allow the flood gates to be open and trying to fix everything afterwards.

Planning ahead makes sense, but it's in the nature of things that no one wants to pay for stuff until after it becomes a significant problem.

Theirs also the problem of what happens to a country with culture clashing if you got too large of immigration if you were to have open borders, time is needed for assimulation.

Most libertarians don't regard culture as intrinsically important, so it doesn't matter much if the current culture gets significantly changed or even replaced. Harm to people can justify limiting immigration, but not harm to something abstract like culture.

[SLN445]

Planning ahead makes sense, but it's in the nature of things that no one wants to pay for stuff until after it becomes a significant problem.

Which is how we always get screwed over so much could be solved with a bit of redundancy planning.

Most libertarians don't regard culture as intrinsically important, so it doesn't matter much if the current culture gets significantly changed or even replaced. Harm to people can justify limiting immigration, but not harm to something abstract like culture.

The problem is harming culture atleast if done in a small timeframe, can create considerable Instability in a society which is harmful to people. Be it backlashes from the present culture or changing of laws/customs by a new one ect, it can create considerable issues.

[Condottiere 40K]

Sounds like the EU, where open borders, freedom to travel and right to employment are requirements. Greater Britain (ie Ireland as well) being exceptions to the Schengen Agreement.

[Enemy of the State]

I've seen some more moderate libertarians oppose open borders as long as the welfare state still exists, arguing that the country would go bankrupt. I don't see the problem, opening the borders would only strengthen the argument that the welfare state is unsustainable and harmful.

[Thorn777]

I've seen some more moderate libertarians oppose open borders as long as the welfare state still exists, arguing that the country would go bankrupt. I don't see the problem, opening the borders would only strengthen the argument that the welfare state is unsustainable and harmful.

great argument...spoken like a true "libertarian"

[Dr. Croccer]

I've seen some more moderate libertarians oppose open borders as long as the welfare state still exists, arguing that the country would go bankrupt. I don't see the problem, opening the borders would only strengthen the argument that the welfare state is unsustainable and harmful.

That's like saying you need a burglar alarm because you purposefully left all your doors and windows open.

[AqD]

Of course not. Immigration should always be selective - it should bring benefit, or at least not cause more negative effect on the target country.

You talk about harms - what about minor harms such as spitting phlegm or throwing trash on streets, or doing nothing but begging money in a welfare state? Unless all such things are considered crimes serious enough for the government to ban the criminals from entry, I wouldn't accept the open border policy.

[Col. Tartleton]

Open borders is like leaving your door unlocked.

Bona fides is nice, but how much faith can you have in strangers? Not locking up your belongings doesn't make it your fault that things are stolen, but weakness is bound to be exploited. I think it's naive that enemies will not exploit weakness.

I think the alternative of controlled borders is going to wind up being increased intelligence gathering internally. What is more invasive?

The US has open borders between member states but controlled borders with non member states. I think that's the best we can do.

I think we should have low standards for letting people in. I don't think we need some high bar, but I think it's critical that we preserve our liberal values. You don't want the Taliban to immigrate en mass and overthrow Oregon and establish a Theocracy...

[Treize]

No, I do not like where this is going at all, with the collapse of Southern-Europe and Romanians and such. Besides of that, the Italians and Spanish have proven incompetent in keeping Africans out of Europe.

[Blaze86420]

No, I do not like where this is going at all, with the collapse of Southern-Europe and Romanians and such. Besides of that, the Italians and Spanish have proven incompetent in keeping Africans out of Europe.

And we all know we can't have Africans in Europe.

[ash874]

And we all know we can't have Africans in Europe.

there are millions of africans in europe
how many europeans are in africa?

[Rolling Thunder]

there are millions of africans in europe
how many europeans are in africa?

A few hundred thousand, assuming we exclude white Africans.

[ash874]

A few hundred thousand, assuming we exclude white Africans.

i asked how many europeans in africa
and you answered with "assuming we exclude white africans"
interesting

[Treize]

And we all know we can't have Africans in Europe.

Damn right.

Have you ever been to a beach in Southern-Europe? It's hell.

Every five minutes some illegal Senegalese guy tries to sell you towels and sunglasses.
And with open borders it is just a day trip North if their slavemasters 'employers' would allow it.

Just round them up, put them on a boat and send they back to Africa.
All the left wingers and self proclamed liberals of the American kind (luckily a tiny tiny minority here in the EUSSR) can cry me rivers.

[Inkie]

I'm not sure if I believe current cultural norms, even in the most "advanced" states are ready to support such measures. Even if things went peacefully and national security wasn't put into jeopardy, there would be a strong cultural backlash within the states which would be receiving the largest influx of migrants. Moderate cosmopolitanism - already under strain as it is - would dissolve and increasingly individuals would be drawn into loose ethno-cultural groups without any bridging or binding social capital among them. Even without violence, there would still be intense unease, paranoia and conflict between such groups which could result in a collapse of the nation's social cohesion and the outward energy of the state.

If you look at the situation currently, there is already a strong fringe movement against the current process of inter-connectivity and the opening up of sovereign territories, and that's currently, where the situation is controlled and monitored by the state. I can't imagine the resistance which would meet a measure where the only real "entry requirement" is a search for a criminal past, which may or may not be accurate, and will often simply be insufficient to gauge an individual's capacity to "contribute" without adding to the conflict, if that's something which can be gauged at all.

I think that the opening up of borders will turn out to be a good thing over time, but you have to look at it as an organic process contained and managed artificially, rather than an instantaneous, engineered transformation which would leave you at the mercy of uncontrolled fluxes of population. As I said above, even if these fluxes don't contain noxious elements within them, they would result in changes which would be too fast, and not controlled enough for the current "cultural establishment" to tolerate.

[Jaketh]

I voted for the first option, the United States and Canada need to implement something like this.