We recently lived through one of the worst government overreaches in recent history: COVID lockdowns. Children were forbidden to play with their friends. Employees were forbidden to work. Families were forbidden to gather.
But here is an interesting philosophical question: Whose rights were actually violated during lockdowns? Do I have an absolute right to go to a restaurant? Do I have a right to a job?
Thanks for reading Checkmate the State! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The answer is no. A restaurant owner can deny me service. They are NOT violating my rights if they do. A business owner can decide not to hire me. They are NOT violating my rights if they do. So whose rights were being violated by lockdowns?
Libertarian ethics is based on self-ownership and property rights. We believe that no one, including the government, has the right to violate the property rights of any individual.
Each property owner has the right to invite people onto his or her property. This is an essential property right. Government lockdowns violated your essential right to invite people onto your property.
Businesses have the right to invite their employees and customers onto their property. Moms have the right to invite their neighbors over for a play date. Grandmas have the right to invite their family over for Christmas dinner. When public health institutions forbade these practices, they were violating the property rights of business and home owners.
This is no small matter. Property rights are the foundation of all human rights. The non-libertarian might scoff at our emphasis on property rights, but libertarians understand that violating a person’s property is stealing their labor and time. Slavery is stealing labor and time directly. Property violations are stealing labor and time indirectly.
When government restricts immigration, it is violating property rights in the same way government violated rights during lockdowns. Government is using violent force to prevent business owners from hiring Mexicans or renting their apartment to Costa Ricans or selling groceries to Somalians. They are forbidding multi-national families to gather on their own property. This is a direct violation of libertarian ethics.
If we want to take a principled stand against lockdowns, it is essential that we champion the principle that property owners have the right to invite people onto their property without government interference. Whether the excuse is preventing the spread of disease or that the person lived in Mexico, government bureaucrats should never have the right to prohibit you from inviting people onto your property.
Border hawks often object to open borders by pointing out that it makes sense to lock the doors of our homes. Doesn’t it make sense to lock the doors of our country? It is ironic that border restrictionists are using the right to defend your own property as a justification to violate the right of other property owners to hire immigrants, rent to immigrants or sell to immigrants. As libertarians, we fully support your right to deny entrance to your own property. We object when you close the doors to property that you do not own. That is what immigration law does, in effect. If you prefer not to hire immigrants, that is your right. You don’t have the right to force your own hiring preferences on businesses you don’t own. Neither does the government.
Some border restrictionists argue that most immigrants did not receive a direct invitation from a property owner, so they don’t have a right to come. This doesn’t matter. Any person who puts out a “For Rent” sign on their apartment or posts a wanted ad for a new employee is sending an invitation to these immigrants. Immigrants have as much right to respond to open invitations as they do to direct invitations.
That is the first reason libertarians should support laissez-faire immigration policy. Government immigration controls violate property rights and are, therefore, antithetical to libertarian ethics. But there are many more reasons for libertarians to reject government immigration controls.
ECONOMIC CENTRAL PLANNING IS SOCIALISM
The second reason libertarians support laissez-faire immigration is that immigration controls are economic central planning. Central planning is textbook socialism. Immigration socialism comes with all the negative consequences of socialism. Under a controlled immigration regime, the government makes economic decisions for individuals such as where people can live and who companies can hire. Central planners dictate which customers a business is allowed to sell their products to.
Economic central planning is ALWAYS economically inefficient.
It’s easy to see that immigration socialism is economically inefficient. A worker’s labor is 5-10 times more productive in the US than it is in Mexico. This is because the US has much more productive capital than Mexico (productive capital consists of everything that makes labor more productive, like tractors, trucks, roads, factories, tools and equipment). Economic central planners force Mexican workers to continue to work in far less productive jobs. This hurts Mexican workers the most, but it hurts us all. A productive economy benefits everyone.
Some border hawks claim that immigrants are bad for the economy because they suppress wages. “It’s basic supply and demand,” they say. “Immigrants increase the supply of labor and that necessarily reduces the price of labor.” They are partially correct. The Law of Supply states that an increase in the supply of labor will put downward pressure on wages. But these border hawks conveniently forget the Law of Demand. More immigrants means more customers for businesses. Immigrants also start businesses disproportionately more than natives. An increase in the number of customers and businesses increases the demand for labor, which has an upward pressure on wages.
It is impossible to know beforehand whether immigrants will increase or decrease wages. However, empirical work on the subject suggest that immigration does cause a slight decrease in wages for a small portion of workers but this effect appears to be temporary. The vast majority of workers increase their purchasing power when immigration levels are high. Anyone who understands economics won’t be surprised that a less controlled economy is a more prosperous economy.
THE POLICE STATE
A brutal police state is inevitable under central planning. Here’s why: socialist regimes will always make economic plans that are not in the best interest of some people. When individuals see that they can improve their economic situation by violating the government’s plans, many of them will disobey. This is what happens when people immigrate illegally. They are disobeying bureaucratic central planners.
Civil disobedience to central planners (such as illegal immigration) should not be condemned, it should be celebrated. In fact, civil disobedience to socialist policies is the core principle of a prominent subset of libertarians called Agorists. Whether illegal immigrants are philosophically libertarian or not, they are practicing libertarianism by resisting central planning.
I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” This certainly applies to unjust immigration laws.
Unfortunately, socialist central planners cannot tolerate disobedience. Their planned economy cannot work if no one follows the plan. The state only has one tool to enforce its rules: violence. That is why socialist regimes are always so brutal.
This pattern of brutality shows up under all central planning regimes, including centrally planned immigration regimes. DHS require a massive police and surveillance state in order to enforce their socialist border restrictions. This police state includes warrantless searches, confiscation of property, prison camps (prison camps for people who disobey central planners are called gulags), suspension of due process and death.
Deportations are an especially heinous manifestation of the police state. Families are torn apart for the simple reason that a worker didn’t get approval from a bureaucrat before he moved. This is nothing short of forced relocation and there is a very good reason that forced relocation has been considered a crime against humanity for a long time.
Some libertarians claim to support immigration controls but oppose deportation. This is like supporting AR-15 bans but opposing taking guns from law-abiding citizens. Or supporting war but opposing killing. You cannot have it both ways.
Let this be a warning to American socialists like Bernie and AOC: You may think the violent excesses of socialism cannot happen in America, but you are wrong. It is already happening in America with government centrally planned immigration.
For many would-be immigrants, border restrictions are so insurmountable that it rises to the level of immigration prohibition. As a result, our immigration system is riddled with all the problems common to prohibition regimes.
Just like during alcohol prohibition, we see a violent black market. Cartels make a significant portion of their income by helping undocumented immigrants avoid border patrol. Unfortunately, they often turn against their customers, leaving them to die of dehydration in the desert or kidnapping women and children and prostituting them against their will on the sex trafficking market. These tragedies are a direct result of immigration prohibition.
If we want to drastically reduce sex trafficking across the Southern border and weaken violent cartels, ending immigration prohibition is the ONLY way to do it. If immigrants can hire a Greyhound bus to bring them to the US instead of hiring the cartels, there will be far less opportunity for the cartels to capture and traffic their victims. This would also take a major income stream from the cartels.
Another negative consequence of immigration prohibition is rampant trespassing along the Southern border. Because immigrants aren’t able to use the roads to get to the US, they resort to sneaking across private ranches and homesteads. This is trespassing and it is a legitimate problem, but it is created entirely by immigration controls. If immigrants could simply drive on the roads without fear of border patrol, there would be no reason to trespass across private property.
Many border hawks cite sex trafficking and trespassing as a reason to strengthen border restrictions. This is idiotic. Doubling down on the very policies that caused these problems is a terrible way to solve them.
The only way to stop the violent unintended consequences of alcohol prohibition was to end it. The same is true of immigration prohibition. The only way to end the trespassing, sex trafficking and violent coyote industry is to eliminate immigration prohibition.
IMMIGRATION AND THE WELFARE STATE
Many libertarians argue that we cannot have laissez-faire immigration while the state has a welfare program. Immigrants are poorer than the native population so many of them will use welfare. This will put undue pressure on the welfare system and increase taxes.
I reject this argument on principle.
Government does NOT have the authority to enact central planning and an authoritarian police state on the grounds that it will save a few dollars in welfare spending.
If we foolishly accept the principle that governments can engage in central planning and authoritarianism as long as it will reduce welfare spending, on what grounds do libertarians object to soft drink bans? Soft drinks make you unhealthy. Unhealthy people spend more on Medicare and Medicaid. “We cannot have soft drinks and a welfare state.”
China’s one-child policy almost certainly reduces welfare spending for the CCP. Are libertarians to support the CCP’s authoritarian reign of forced abortions and medical tyranny on the grounds that it reduces welfare spending? “We cannot have unrestricted procreation and a welfare state?”
This was the exact argument that the Nazis used to justify the mass murder of the sick and the handicapped. The weak were a drain on the welfare state. Their solution: kill them. Libertarianism is the ideology furthest from fascism. Why would libertarians accept the exact same principle fascists used to justify murder?
Reducing welfare spending can never be a justification for a police state or central planning.
A slightly more sophisticated argument goes like this: “If we open the borders, immigration will still be subsidized by welfare. More people will come to America than would come in a truly free market because you get more of what you subsidize. Because immigration can never be truly free while it is subsidized, a strictly controlled border is acceptable until welfare is eliminated.”
This argument reminds me of the common libertarian slogan: “If the government can have unlimited power in an emergency, there will always be an emergency.” Except it is now libertarians who are arguing: “The government can centrally plan immigration as long as the government subsidizes immigration.” If we accept the principle that the government can control anything it subsidizes, the government will subsidize everything.
Government has subsidized oil production. Does that mean the government can put quotas on gas purchases to combat climate change? Government has subsidized medical research. Does that mean government can initiate death panels to decide who is worthy of medical treatment? Government subsidizes gun manufacturers through the military industrial complex. Does that mean the government can ban guns?
To be consistent, these border restrictionists should argue that, as long as government subsidizes gun manufacturers, the gun market will never be fully laissez-faire, so gun control is acceptable. It’s easy to see how ridiculous this argument is when applied to gun control, but it is every bit as ridiculous when applied to immigration.
This is the mistaken idea that one injustice justifies another. The fact that government engages in the unjust practice of redistributing wealth is not a valid reason for government to engage in another unjust practice of violently restricting the movement of peaceful people.
I’m not in the business of waiting for an impossible policy change before I start fighting for liberty. Eliminating welfare isn’t on the table, politically. Having more sane immigration policy is on the table. If you can’t fight for liberty until something impossible happens, do you truly believe in liberty?
PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IMMIGRATION
Dave Smith is a prominent libertarian. He advocates that libertarians should abandon our traditional support of laissez-faire border policy.
I like Dave and I am glad that he is using his platform to promote libertarian philosophy. However, I strongly disagree that libertarians should ever support government central planning of immigration and the police and surveillance state that comes with it.
Dave’s chief objection to laissez-faire immigration is the existence of public property. It may be true that you have the right to invite immigrants onto your own property, but what about the property that the public owns collectively such as government roads? If the vast majority of Americans want to keep immigrants off the government’s roads, shouldn’t the government accede to the citizen’s wishes and keep immigrants off the roads?
Dave and I would agree that the ideal solution to this problem is to privatize public property. The owners of the privatized property would decide who is allowed to use it. Unfortunately, this is not politically viable, so we need to find another solution.
Dave contrasted two solutions for dealing with public property. The first is to have no rules on public property. The second (the solution he prefers) is to have the government administer public property the way the vast majority of citizens would prefer for it to be administered since the citizens are the legitimate owners of public property.
Dave correctly points out that the first solution is absurd. Schools should not allow random people into classrooms with kindergarteners. Homeless people shouldn’t be shooting up heroine under the slide while kids try to play. Public nudity is simply unacceptable to most people. No sane person supports reckless driving on public roads.
We can safely rule out that option.
Dave clearly explained why a total free-for-all on public property is unacceptable. But he neglected to grapple with the problems with his preferred solution: administering public property according to the will of the vast majority of citizens.
If we accept that government can restrict activity on public property as long as the vast majority accepts it, we open the doors to every form of tyranny. The government could simply ban the transportation of guns and ammunition on public roads. If we accept Dave’s principle that government can administer public property according to the will of the majority, we have no principled grounds to contest gun control, as long as the majority supports it.
To remain consistent, a libertarian who accepts Dave’s standard for administering public property should support the drug war because the vast majority of people don’t want heroine coming into America. Shouldn’t we administer public property the way the majority of Americans want by forbidding that heroine be transported on public roads?
Libertarians should also support vaccine passports in cities like Washington DC by this logic. The majority of people in DC support vaccine passports. Shouldn’t libertarians support government administering public property the way the majority of DC citizens prefer and requiring vaccines on public roads and sidewalks?
Dave sometimes applies a second standard to his preferred solution: reasonableness. He might argue that restricting immigration passes the standard of reasonableness, whereas vaccine passports and gun control do not. But whose standard of reasonableness are we to use? Why is Dave’s standard of reasonableness more valid than David Hogg’s or Dr. Fauci’s?
It’s safe to say that libertarians should reject the principle that public property should be administered according to the will of the majority, even if Dave claims that the majority is being reasonable.
So if neither of these options are acceptable, what policies are libertarians supposed to support on public property?
Fortunately, Dave is giving us a false dichotomy. There is a third option. That solution is to administer public property as closely as possible to the way it would be administered if it was privatized. This is far from a perfect solution because it is sometimes difficult to determine how private individuals would act if they were free, but it is the next best option to full privatization.
Here’s how that would work:
It is obvious that if public schools were privatized, the owners of the schools would not let random people into the classrooms. There is very strong evidence for this. Private schools exist, and they have rules about who can interact with their young students. Therefore, it is best for libertarians to support public schools restricting who can enter their campuses.
It is likely that privatized schools would provide a wide range of options for families to choose from, so it is best for libertarians to support charter schools and other school choice initiatives. It is likely that private owners of parks wouldn’t allow homeless people to camp on their playgrounds, so it is okay for libertarians to support removing homeless people from parks (Although I do think some public property should be designate for homeless people to camp). Most owners of public venues do not allow nudity, so it is okay for libertarians to support restriction against nudity on most public property.
We are not stuck with Dave’s nightmare scenario of pedophiles in classrooms and people driving the wrong direction on the freeway.
Nor are we forced to support vaccine passports, the drug war and gun control on public property.
We can safely assume that a private owner of a road would not care very much that people were transporting guns on their property as long as they paid the toll. If one road owner decided to make a rule that guns weren’t allowed on their property, gun owners would almost certainly be able to drive on other roads. Therefore, libertarians should reject restrictions on guns being transported on public roads.
It’s possible that some private road owners would require vaccines to use the road, but it is extremely unlikely that all private road owners would require vaccines to use their roads, so libertarians shouldn’t support vaccine passports to use public streets.
So how does this apply to immigration? We should apply the same rules to public roads regarding immigrants that private road owners would apply. No owner of a private road that went from El Paso to Juarez would have a rule that immigrants weren’t allowed to use his road. That would cut out half his customers. If, for some reason there was a rule that no immigrants were allowed on one particular private road from El Paso to Juarez, immigrants could simply drive on one of the competing private roads.
So what laws should libertarians support regarding public roads and immigrants? We should support allowing immigrants on public roads because that is almost certainly how the roads would be administered if privatized.
OPEN BORDERS WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE
Dave’s second objection to open borders is much better than his first. He points out that mass immigration would be chaotic and disruptive.
He is probably correct about this.
With a laissez-faire immigration policy, immigration would not be disruptive. The market would control the flow of immigrants the same way it controls the flow everything else. When the demand for immigrant labor increases, job openings for immigrants would be plentiful, leading more immigrants to come. When the demand for immigrant labor decreases, immigrant job postings would decrease, leading to a reduction in immigration. No central planning is needed and there would be very little disruption to society or the economy. Immigration would be naturally limited by housing supply, infrastructure and available jobs.
However, the transition from a restricted immigration policy to a laissez-faire immigration policy could be chaotic. There is a backlog of people who have been waiting to come to America. They may all come at once when border restrictions are lifted. A massive in-flow of people would probably lead to demand shocks throughout the economy.
This is one reason it is so important for libertarians to resist central planning before it starts. Once central planning begins, it is difficult and painful to unwind.
Immigration is far from the only anti-libertarian government program that will be difficult to unwind. Think of the Federal Reserve. What will happen if libertarians achieve their long-standing goal of ending the Fed? All the bubbles the Fed inflated will suddenly pop. Does that mean we should support the Fed? No! The short term will be painful, but the new economy will be built on a much firmer foundation instead of Fed-fueled bubbles.
Think of the War in Afghanistan. When the US military pulled out, there were massive disruptions as the Taliban and Afghan warlords fought to achieve a new equilibrium. Does that mean libertarians should support endless wars? No! It was still the right decision to leave Afghanistan.
Libertarians should be fully aware that many of the policies we advocate may be disruptive in the short run. We should still support them because they will be far better in the long run. Libertarianism is like the “diet and exercise” of politics. Painful in the short-run, but the only way for America to be truly healthy.
I support laissez-faire immigration even though it could be disruptive, but I do acknowledge that these are valid concerns. That’s why I support a slow unraveling of immigration restrictions, if possible. Immigration quotas should be gradually increased over 3-5 years so that we avoid demand shocks. Once we work through the initial backlog of immigrants over a few years, there will be no more need for immigration restrictions. There is no contradiction here. I prefer that the Fed slowly unwind its balance sheet before it is eliminated. I preferred that US troops leave Afghanistan in an orderly way. But I still want to end the Fed and I still opposed the Afghan War.
Libertarians are different than other political parties because we don’t base our beliefs on the short term. We are far-seeing enough to choose short-term inconvenience for long-term prosperity and justice. Libertarians should be willing to deal with short-term supply shocks from unwinding immigration restrictions for the long-term benefits of freedom.
OPEN BORDERS ARE UNPOPULAR
Dave’s final objection is that open borders are unpopular.
I was disappointed to hear this objection from Dave. One of the Dave’s most powerful ideas is that libertarians should be bold and be willing to speak unpopular truths. He points out that Ron Paul was highly effective at attracting new libertarians because of his bold, unpopular opposition to the War on Terror.
I believe libertarians missed a major opportunity to have another Ron Paul moment in 2016 because too many libertarians were scared to speak boldly in support for immigration.
I became I libertarian in 2016 because I hated Donald Trump’s immigration policies. I grew up in an area with a high immigrant population. Border hawks always made me angry. They were threatening to deport my friends or my friends’ parents.
When Donald Trump made the Republican Party unwelcoming to people like me (conservatives who valued immigration) I went searching for a new political home. When I learned that the Libertarian Party is pro-immigration I decided to research further. I read voraciously and discovered that I loved the philosophy.
The only reason I became a libertarian after Trump was because I made the effort to research different options. I wonder how many Republicans felt the same as me: uncomfortable with the anti-immigrant direction the GOP was going. Unfortunately, there were no bold libertarians inviting these disaffected Republicans to learn more about libertarianism and our support of freedom. How many people were looking for a sane, pro-immigrant party in 2016 but never heard of libertarians because we hid our beliefs?
Libertarians should boldly stand up for immigrants. What reason does a disaffected Republican or Independent have to become a libertarian if we insist on being the same as the GOP?
As Scott Horton says, “Attack the left from the left and the right from the right.” There is no better issue to use this tactic than immigration.
Democrats claim to support immigrants, but Democrat presidents constantly break deportation records. Obama built the cages that Democrats were so offended by. How can Democrats support centrally planning other aspects of the economy when they can see how brutal enforcement of immigration central planning is in America?
Republicans claim to oppose socialism, but they love when the government centrally plans where people can move. Republicans love decentralization, but they want to force immigration authoritarianism on sanctuary cities. Republicans claim to be for family values, but they cheer when families are torn apart by deportations.
Libertarians should be especially focused on supporting immigration sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are an example of decentralization and nullification. I sincerely believe that nullification is the path that is most likely to lead to liberty. If we support Second Amendment sanctuary cities and if we support states that nullified CDC COVID guidelines, shouldn’t we boldly support immigration sanctuary cities?
Supporting sanctuary cities is also a great way to introduce the concept of nullification to non-libertarians. If someone asks you about immigration and if you are hesitant to boldly say you want fully open borders, you can at least voice your support for all forms of nullification, including immigration nullification. Explain how nullification works and how anyone can use it to achieve the goals we have in common, whether that’s gun rights or ending the drug war.
A FEW MORE COMMON OBJECTIONS TO LAISSEZ-FAIRE IMMIGRATION
“Without borders we don’t have a country.”
I agree with this. I love national borders! Borders perform a very important function in society. But that function isn’t to give government control over where peaceful people can move.
Borders are meant to be a limit on government. The Bill of Rights limits the government by prohibiting Congress from passing certain types of laws. Borders limit the government by containing government power to a specific region. National borders prevent Justin Trudeau from exercising authority over me. But just because I love that Canada has a border so I don’t need to live under Trudeau’s idiotic laws, that doesn’t mean Canadians should be prohibited from escaping Justin Trudeau if they choose to.
The United States had no immigration controls for most of the 1800s. We were still a country. We can have sovereignty and open borders.
We need borders. We don’t need to micromanage who crosses them.
“Some immigrants commit crimes. Even murders! Shouldn’t we stop them from coming here to protect American citizens?”
Remember, Minority Report was a warning. Not a manual.
As libertarians, we don’t support taking someone’s freedom before they commit a crime. We especially don’t support taking freedom from a whole group of people just because a few of them might commit a crime in the future.
Taking freedom of movement from ALL Mexicans, just because we anticipate that a few Mexicans will commit crimes after they move is even more heinous than Minority Report. Both are examples of pre-crime. But immigration restrictions are even worse because it is collectivist. We are punishing a whole group of individuals for future crimes most of them will never even commit.
Some of the most despicable government acts are done in the name of fighting crime. The Patriot Act. Warrantless surveillance. Gun control. Speech laws. China’s social credit system. Immigration central planning.
Hoppe’s covenant community argument
Hans-Herman Hoppe is a prominent libertarian who supports border controls. His argument goes something like this:
“In a fully libertarian society, there will still be community rules. Property owners will join together to form ‘covenant communities.’ They will make a covenant that all property owners in the community will enforce certain rules on their property. Some of these communities will place limits on immigration in their community. Because there will be some limits on immigration in a fully libertarian society, it is okay for the government to limit immigration now.”
This argument is nothing but motivated reasoning. You can tell it is motivated reasoning because Hoppeans never use this argument to justify any other government controls.
It’s probable that some covenant communities will forbid guns when we achieve a fully libertarian society. No Hoppean claims that means government gun control is justified.
It’s probable that some covenant communities will forbid hate speech. I’ve never met a Hoppean who used that argument to justify government speech codes.
Hoppe’s argument is complicated enough to sound impressive. But when you apply the argument to different policies besides immigration, it’s easy to see that the argument is deeply flawed and should be discarded.
“Democrats don’t care about freedom! They are just importing voters!”
I agree. It’s obvious that Democrats don’t value freedom. Their support of immigration is nothing but self-interest. They want to win elections and they think supporting more immigration will help them do it.
Many Republicans only support gun rights because they want money from the NRA. Just because they support gun rights for the wrong reason doesn’t mean I should start supporting gun control.
Democrats happen to be right about immigration for the wrong reason. That doesn’t mean I should choose to be wrong.
The truth is, immigration probably won’t help Democrats pass their socialist agenda. Immigrants do vote for Democrats more than Republicans, but they forget about the impact immigration has on the native population. During periods of high immigration, the general population becomes less supportive of big government. Immigration weakens labor unions, a powerful Democrat ally. And immigrants are conservative on many issues. It is far from inevitable that immigrants will always vote Democrat, especially if Republicans shed their anti-immigrant message and welcome immigrants into their party.
IMMIGRATION IS A PRIORITY
Many libertarians believe immigration should be a low priority. With issues like war, COVID restrictions, inflation and corporate welfare, why would we focus our efforts on immigration? I have news for these libertarians. Whether we would prefer to avoid it or not, immigration is a hot political issue. We can’t avoid it. Nor should we want to.
Think about this for a second. Imagine that your sister or mother was forcefully removed from her family, home and work just because she moved 20 years ago without filling out the proper paperwork with the government. How would you react?
I would be livid! I would do anything to stop it. I would say things like “this is why we have the 2nd Amendment.” I would be willing to risk my life to prevent it from happening.
If I would be willing to lay down my life to prevent this from happening to my mother, why can’t I make it a priority to speak up when the exact same thing is happening to immigrant families right now in this country?
Our economy is weaker because of immigration socialism in America. This doesn’t need to happen. Peaceful people are locked in gulags because they practiced civil disobedience of immigration central planners. This doesn’t need to happen. Children are dying of dehydration because of the immigration police state in America. This doesn’t need to happen.
I’m fully committed to standing up against socialism in America without exception. That includes immigration central planning. I hope you are committed, too.
If you can’t stand up against government central planning of immigration, do you really stand up against socialism?
Thanks for reading Checkmate the State! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Thank you for the article. I wish more people understood this concept.
This was a very convincing case for laissez-faire immigration policy. Well written and good arguments against the closed border sympathizers in our camp. I have always been on the fence and teetering either direction on the immigration issue because i think both sides have good concerns...but you summed it up pretty well. I have always been pro immigration but always erred on the side of caution because of the potential negative economic impact it could have if we have mass immigration.