Immigration and the Nation State

American Rattlesnake ^ | November 12, 2015 | Gerard Perry

[OddLane]

One of the enduring arguments between me and my anarcho-capitalist friends is the ideal immigration policy in a society where the state-and all of its many interventions-still, unfortunately, exists. While generally well-grounded philosophically, they seem to take an ad hoc, emotionally-laden, irrational approach to what is arguably the most important domestic policy issue of the 21st century.

Often relying upon ad hominem attacks, or a misguided interpretation of the non-aggression principle, they insist upon defending the dissolution of borders, even if it means transgressing against the property and lives of people who do want to be enriched by third world migration.

A perfect illustration of this debating strategy occurred several days ago, when I was embroiled in a discussion with an acquaintance who insisted that Middle Eastern and African migrants had the universal human right to migrate, i.e. invade, Europe, and that any attempt to deter them was motivated by fascist, and presumably anti-libertarian, hatred. In other words, these people were entitled to make a physical-often violent-incursion into a sovereign state-or several, in this case-extract the resources from the citizens of that state without their consent, and permanently settle in that state-again, without their consent-because libertarianism?

[jimt]

Reductio ad absurdum is common in Libertarian arguments, especially with anarcho-purist types.