If Borders Are Imaginary, Why Should We Control Ours?

A libertarian argument against libertarian policies

One of the great beliefs that run through most libertarian circles is that borders aren’t real and that it’s immoral for one group to prevent somebody from crossing borders. I think that most Americans would agree that it’s immoral to stop a person who wants to move from Seattle, Washington to Spokane, Washington. The same goes for somebody who wants to move from Texas to Illinois. (Though let’s be realistic, it’s WAY more likely somebody moves from Illinois to Texas!)

However, when advocating policy, it’s important to remember that such policies are enacted in the real world, not the world that libertarians would like to live in. (In which government doesn’t have so much control over your life!) When viewed from that perspective, we see a stark difference between movement of free people from one state to another and movement between another country and the United States itself.

That difference can be summed up as POLITICS.

One of the most basic functions of government is to set immigration policy. As Oregonians know all too well, when you import a bunch of non-Oregonians, you end up in a place that no longer resembles Oregon. Californians…..errr…..non-Oregonians come into Oregon and they use their political power guaranteed by our Constitution to alter the political landscape. (Oregon is far from the only example. Colorado and Arizona are feeling the same effects.)

The same exact thing is true of America and importing non-Americans. Sooner or later you end up in a place that no longer resembles America. (One Reason commenter says “Import not-Americans, get not-America”)

Of course, in Libertopia, immigration would be fairly easy — anybody who wants to come and make their own way in America would be able to do so with few requirements (health screening/background check maybe?), but once they are here they must MAKE THEIR OWN WAY.

That is far from the world we live in today. Think back to my two-part series about incentives and how they distort the free market. When government promises goodies to illegal immigrants, obviously we get more illegal immigrants.

In 2020, all 10 Democratic candidates wanted to provide free healthcare to illegals

And while the open borders crowd loves to talk about how immigration is a net positive and can’t wait to tell you how racist you are if you disagree, the fact is that illegal immigrants must be fed, clothed, and housed — especially if you’ve declared yourself a sanctuary city that won’t ask questions about immigration status.

That care comes with a cost, as blue cities are starting to understand.

This coming as only a tiny fraction of illegals make their way (or are sent) to New York City. As I like to say, reality has come crashing into the conversation, exposing Mayor Adams’ virtue signaling as nothing more than a political maneuver.

The situation has gotten so bad that New York is “housing” illegals in schools.

Did I mention that those schools ARE STILL OPEN? Although the gyms are “freestanding” and separate from the rest of the school, parents are not happy about this move. Frantic New York City officials are now shipping illegal immigrants to the rest of the state — a move that’s basically genocide if Greg Abbott does it, but elicits no media response when Mayor Adams does it.

And New York isn’t the only place feeling the strain.

Is there a more perfect illustration of Democratic promises versus reality? “Come here and we’ll provide for you,” they say. Then once you show up, you’re “housed” in a police station eating expired food while trying to dodge bedbugs and lice.

And this is causing the citizens of Chicago themselves to talk like MAGA “racists”:

And honestly, it’s not too difficult to understand why:

Original estimate: $200 million

Fun fact: Roughly 12.5 million people live in Illinois, meaning each resident “contributes” about $90 to this program — which is only one of many designed for illegals. All this while Illinois spends itself into oblivion.

While the left loves to say that “no illegal gets welfare”, the reality on the ground is much different. And that’s before we get into state-run benefit programs, like the one being bandied about in California:

Click to enlarge

What could POSSIBLY go wrong by incentivizing people to come across the border illegally and then NOT work? Gavin Newsom doesn’t know, so that’s good enough for California!

But as we know from the Martha’s Vineyard debacle in which the community used the military to remove their meager 50 illegals roughly 44 hours after arrival, democrats aren’t promoting nearly open borders because they are kind-hearted. As always, there’s a political angle to their actions.

Their goal is simmering in the background for now, but you can see it if you look closely at a few areas around the country:

Put your ear to the ground and you can already hear the whispers about how non-citizens should be able to vote. “They live here, too” will almost certainly be the “reasoning” behind the upcoming push to allow not-Americans to turn America into not-America. (And with our wonderful new election rules, Democrats don’t even need illegals to vote for them — they just need that “legal” ballot.)

Remember when “The Great Replacement” was a racist conspiracy theory? (Just a few years after “Demographics is Destiny”!)

Seems like a good explanation of what’s going on to me!

And the best part — from a Democratic standpoint — is that these new immigrants will be stuck in this sort of limbo in which they “pick the crops” but are always looking over their shoulder for fear of government denying an asylum claim or proceeding with deportation.

In other words, they’ll be a permanent underclass that’s completely dependent on government for its continued existence in the country. That might be great for the Democratic party, but it’s terrible for the people they supposedly “support.” (I guess that’s par for the course!)