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

[Mechanics]

Seeing as the only people who would then immigrate to the U.S are productive people who want to work and not live on government handouts, are most libertarians then for unrestricted immigration provided that first all social assistance and government assistance programs are abolished? I mean, once that is done, wouldn't it be considered anti-libtertarian for the government to then interfere with immigration which harms the potential of the free-market?

[scottso360]

unrestricted immigration is part of capitalism.

[Nicholas J]

The idea of government sanctioned citizenship is contrary to some aspects of true libertarianism.

[joshuahowitt]

Libertarianism advocates the minimization of the state and the maximization of individual liberty and freedom. However, there differences amongst libertarians, for example, there are some who support private ownership and others who advocate collective ownership of the means of production. Those who support private ownership tend to support the capitalist economy, these libertarians are likely to support unrestricted immigration for the reasons your question points to. In America free-market capitalist libertarians are the most common, and there are many organisations which promote the abolishment of much of the welfare state - for example capitalist libertarians are prominent in the Tea Party. But there are are clearly tensions between traditional conservatives (as well as other right wing ideologies which make up the tea party) and capitalist libertarians, because the the former often supports greater restrictions on immigration whilst the latter does not.

Whilst capitalist libertarians support a reduction of the state because they believe it as coercive to individual liberty, libertarians who support collective ownership go further and see the the social relations of capitalism as also coercive to individual liberty. But these libertarians (often described as libertarian socialists) are also likely to support unrestricted immigration but for different reasons. Rather than aiming to maximise the potential of the free market, libertarian socialists see immigration as an issue of individual rights and liberty - i.e. we should all have the right to live and work where we want to.

In summary the the answer to your question would be yes, most libertarians support unrestricted immigration. But not all libertarians agree that the reason is for this is to support the capitalist economy. Hope this helps.

[Zee-ster]

That's an interesting question because it does TEST the beliefs of Libertarians, who by and large consider themselves advocates of personal freedom as well as strict constitutionalists. They do oppose the Welfare system but would they oppose open borders and a responsible path to citizenship based on work history and overall assimilation into a new culture? I think not and I consider myself "some kind" of libertarian. The kind who believes in a small government (because the bigger the government, the more control it will have and therefore the more likely it will be to be taken over by special and powerful interests) and personal freedom so long as it does not harm and/or take away from another. Of course those ideals are predicated on a fair economic system that rewards merit and not "who you know" and also be able to support the contributions of people willing to work. I don't believe true Libertarian ideas have to be limited by geography and, personally, I don't dig on hating a bunch of poor, exploited people just because they weren't born in this country.

[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.