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?

[Will]

theres a difference between unrestricted and undocumented. Borders exist for a reason, can't jet let people walk into the country without knowing who they are believe it or not.

Illegals get access to public schools, public infrastructure, public safety services, emergency medical care, etc.
All without paying a dime in income taxes. I don't mind people coming to the USA for a better life, or a better job, but they need to follow the law.

[Pat]

Everything you think you know aboiut welfare is wrong.
LEGAL Immigrants must be here at least five years to get public assistance.
Illegals don't get it at all.
Read.
Learn

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article...tml?cat=55

[Raelyn]

Gosh, I hope not, or I won't be voting Libertarian in 2012. China, India, and many other developing countries have minimal government assistance and billions of mostly industrious people who want to work but either can't find enough work to feed their families or don't earn enough money. The only thing holding back 2.5 billion potential immigrants is the Pacific Ocean and visa requirements. Being willing to work hard is not enough. The jobs have to be there. Population growth alone does not generate jobs as China, India, and so many other countries have shown. Maybe Libertarians are nostalgic for the Gilded Age when a wealthy few exercised oligarchic control over the economy, and hordes of desperately poor immigrants competed with natives for hard jobs that paid a pittance. The only relief for unemployed workers and struggling families came from private charities. Malnutrition was common, and diseases were rife thanks to a lack of medical care and squalid living conditions. Open the immigration flood gates? NO, THANK YOU!

[MarjaU]

Immigration doesn't violate anyone else's rights, so restricting immigration violates the immigrants' rights. And this is true with or without welfare policies.

[punymorning536]

Interesting question. A Libertarian ought to believe in free movement of people because losing your productive workforce is the most effective way to create better governance. Until recently, this was how the world always worked.

However, modern transport means that over the short and medium term it would create tremendous pressure on countries offering a better standard of living as they would be flooded with migrant workers.

And there would be the little problem that all countries would have to agree to this policy, not just one or two.

So I think you will find that most Libertarians advocate creating strong borders, work visas for productive people and and a stop to the flood of refugees.