One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Cato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

-We begin the blotter with a bone-chilling story focusing upon a particularly senseless, brutal murder by a 27 year-old Mexican national in Stark County, Ohio. The heartless, illegal killer of 61 year-old taxi company owner and driver Jerry Laury-a man who, as his sister points out, had survived both a kidney transplant and open heart surgery-was given a 33 year sentence, after which he can be deported, although I’m sure that’s small solace to Mr. Laury’s surviving family members. The death of Jerry Laury at the hands of this piece of sub-human detritus concretizes the senselessness of our country’s open borders policies. 

-Meanwhile, on the Left Coast, jury selection began in the trial of another 27 year-old illegal alien who gunned down 60 year-old Charles Ellsworth Richardson in front of his trailer repair shop in Riverside County, California. This charming fellow, in addition to being a cold-blooded killer, has already been convicted of the following crimes:

...possession of marijuana for sale, transportation of marijuana for sale, possession of an assault weapon and a misdemeanor count of carrying a loaded firearm in public.

Aren’t you glad this “undocumented American” is part of the wonderful new mosaic of California? 

-Next, we move a bit north, to the Pacific Northwest, where another Mexican national who had been deported just three weeks prior murdered his 21 year-old former girlfriend, who was the mother of his five year-old son, Griselda Ocampo Meza. A statutory rapist with previous convictions for domestic violence? Good to know that in the future such pettifogging crimes won’t merit the attention of American immigration enforcement.  

-Finally, we head south to the Sunshine State where, courtesy of the New American, comes word of the 13 year sentence handed down to a 26 year-old, illegal border jumper convicted of vehicular manslaughter in Sarasota, Florida. We wish we could say this was an isolated incident, but as the New American points out-and as has been reported on American Rattlesnake in the past-the link between drunk driving and illegal aliens is one that continually reappears, and one that will keep cropping up if our government persists in its lackadaisical policies, re: immigration enforcement.

The bill that can’t seem to die an honorable death is once again being resurrected, thanks to the efforts of Lindsay Grahamnesty and Juan McCain. Mark Krikorian has the bad news.

There isn’t much in his analysis that I disagree with, although I’m probably more anxious about the prospects of an amnesty push in the new Congress than he is. You would think that with Republicans exercising a substantial governing majority the idea of another broad-based amnesty would be dead on arrival. However, nothing is ever certain when you have a political class of such dubious moral character, always eager to cut deals that would encroach upon or negate entirely the birthright of their constituents.

We all know what Speaker Boehner thinks about the idea of amnesty, and if his past statements are any indication, he is not a fan. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has also spoken out-as recently as last week-against the concept of conferring permanent citizenship upon millions of illegal aliens. However, we can’t rely upon words in order to keep this nation secure from yet another disastrous immigration bill. Despite the slightly more favorable makeup of the current Congress, there are still dozens upon dozens of members who are fighting to enact their retrograde open borders policies. Whether it’s the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Majority Leader Reid-who want to drum up reliable voters for future elections-or the consistently wrongheaded path of Senators McCain and Graham, the drive to turn back the clock has not slackened one bit since the voters chastised our politicians in the previous election cycle.

That is why you need to work harder than ever to prevent these bad ideas from being enacted into law. If Congress had its way, we would already be greenlighting citizenship for over 20 million illegals, including potential future terrorists, right now. The only thing standing in the way of this horrible scenario is the energized, aggravated American electorate. That’s why we need to keep our eye on the ball and continue to fight the likes of Senator Graham until they get the message that their ideas on immigration are not welcome in the halls of Congress.

It’s time to bury amnesty, once and for all.

One of the most persistent, pernicious myths about the U.S. Constitution is the mistaken belief that the 14th Amendment, ratified shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War, confers automatic citizenship upon anyone born within United States territory. This misimpression has led to the catastrophic wave of anchor babies, i.e. children birthed in the country by foreigners with the specific intent of wedding their parents to this nation in perpetuity, which continues to plague the United States government at a national, state, and muncipal level.

In fact, the myth of the 14th Amendment granting birthright citizenship to anchor babies is inextricably linked to a series of  Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Wong Kim Ark, and culminating in the contemporary judicial precedent of Plyler vs. Doe. Although the ostensible outcome of the former was to confer citizenship upon a child born of Chinese immigrants, and the latter to invalidate a Texas statute denying public education to children who are in this country illegally, the judicial precedent established by both cases has had a much broader, more baleful impact. Namely, to establish the concept of birthright citizenship that entices so many to come to this country illegally, then to give birth on American soil.

With that historical background in mind, I suggest you visit a wonderful site developed by a Constitutional scholar who’s spent many years trying to debunk the myths surrounding this vital part of our Constitution. John Eastman is an articulate spokesman for the millions of Americans who want to see a return to more thoughtful jurisprudence regarding the issue of birthright citizenship, and while political opportunists-such as Lindsay “Amnesty” Graham-try to manipulate the public by spouting nonsense about repealing the 14 Amendment, he has carefully explained how we can return this clause of the Constitution to its original intent.