Are most Libertarians for unrestricted immigration provided that welfare is abolished?

[Socrates]

This is a very good question for a couple of reasons. It will probably make a lot of self-described libertarians stop and think.

The 'liberty movement' (for lack of a better term) in the US right now generally aligns itself with a pro-sovereignty position, and often complains that the federal government does not seem interested in securing the borders or enforcing immigration laws. They are also careful to point out the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. They have no problem with the legal kind.

(And of course, if immigration were unrestricted, there would be no such thing as illegal immigration.)

My sense is that if social entitlement programs and government handouts were abolished, (and if unemployment weren't such a severe issue) then many of those complaining would have no problem with immigration of any kind. However, there would still be the 'cheap labor driving down wages' issue, which incidentally could have something to do with current immigration policy. Big corporations love cheap labor almost as much as they love big government.

As Joshua's exceptionally good answer explains, there are different schools of thought within libertarianism. At the core, I am a pure individualist anarchist. I believe the individual to be ultimately sovereign, period. But as a pragmatist, I often adopt the compromise of anarcho-capitalism (as opposed to anarcho-syndicalism). These are basically synonymous with "libertarian capitalism" and "libertarian socialism" (respectively).

Unfortunately, not many people know what anarcho-capitalism means, and you can't describe yourself as "anarch"---- ANYTHING without the negative connotations associated with anarchism leading people to react in unpredictable ways. So, for this and other reasons, I often call myself a "libertarian."

I personally agree with the premise of your question, and I would welcome unrestricted immigration if the government were properly limited, and didn't involve itself in social or economic affairs. As such, I already don't take issue with illegal immigration the way some of my fellow "radical right wingers" do. The way I see it, if the goddamn bankers weren't perched on this country like carrion birds tearing our hearts out while our Frankenstein's monster of a government held down our arms and legs, laughing like a halfwit, there would be so much prosperity to go around that we could welcome all immigrants with open arms. The more the merrier, as each human being adds value to our economy and deepens the pool of skill and ingenuity.

However, more moderate libertarians and "limited government conservatives" may argue from a national security perspective. They might say that immigration should be regulated but not restricted, not because of government handouts (if they had their way, there wouldn't be any) but because of the threat of invasion by a foreign enemy. Of course, many libertarians argue that if we had a non-interventionist foreign policy and a strong national defense, we would not have to worry so much about enemies. Well I agree, but that hasn't been the case for the last 70 years so I don't know how the world would react if libertarians suddenly took over the USA and said "that's it, we're done, we're sorry, it won't happen again." Don't know how well that would fly... but I think a strong national defense and a well-armed, FREE population would be enough of a deterrent that we should be able to leave the doors unlocked, so to speak.

Good question. Answer: I would be.