Replies

That is true to some extent, but misleading if you leave out the remaining part of Libertarian positions with respect to immigration. First off, no Libertarian I know of is advocating illegal immigration when they advocate reducing restrictions on where and how people can travel and work. This is totally consistent with conservative positions, where the opposition is to illegal immigration, not immigration per se. But the most important part of the Libertarian position is not providing any government benefits for immigrants:

"However, the answer to this problem lies not in cutting off immigration, but in cutting the services that immigrants consume. The right to immigrate does not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service."

Not really. That particular libertarian argument doesn't really hold much water because illegal immigration to this country from Mexico and Central America began occurring in large numbers prior to the introduction of serious social welfare spending by the United States (LBJ's "Great Society" nonsense). Even today, while illegal immigrants do indeed take advantage of free social services such as emergency rooms, food stamps, etc., this does not necessarily argue that they come across the border because of those welfare benefits. They would still come across the border, even if they couldn't get welfare, because of the fact that they make so much more money working here than working in Mexico (that is, if you can even find a job down there). As such, the welfare argument is something of a red herring when we talk about illegal immigration, per se. We still see, as your quote above seems to explicitly suggest, that libertarians believe in some non-existent "right" to emigrate across borders, in contravention of the laws of the country to which they are emigrating.

that libertarians believe in some non-existent "right" to emigrate across borders, in contravention of the laws of the country to which they are emigrating.

Not this libertarian.

One has no more right to violate a national boundary than one does to violate the boundary of my front door.

We still see, as your quote above seems to explicitly suggest, that libertarians believe in some non-existent "right" to emigrate across borders, in contravention of the laws of the country to which they are emigrating.

No, you misunderstand the sentence, or you are trying to read some nefarious intent into the position of the Libertarians. Nobody is suggesting that anyone should be able to emigrate across borders in contravention of the law. What the Libertarians are suggesting is that obtaining a visa to enter the country should be fairly easy -- as it is today -- but anyone doing so would simultaneously agree to forgo any government benefits for them and their children, including such things as attending public schools, social security, etc. The "right to immigrate" mentioned in the quote isn't a fundamental right, but one conferred by law, like the right to drive a truck which is conferred by obtaining a CDL.