Why the "Public Property Argument" Doesn't Justify Immigration Restrictions
A number of “libertarians” argue that immigration restrictions are justified on the grounds that citizens may restrict access to public property as they see fit. Thus, if they decide to restrict immigrants’ access to public roads, airports, and so on, they may do so. Such restrictions would of course create significant barriers to immigration.
I’ve already given some reasons why we should reject this argument, but I want to say more about it here. First, I’ll grant the uncontroversial claim that *some* restrictions on the use of public property are justified (restrictions that apply to citizens as well as immigrants). A public library may set hours that prevent you from entering at midnight, the state may prevent drivers from using public roads that are undergoing repairs, and so on.
The key question, though, is what to make of the reasons given in favor of restricting immigrants’ access to public roads, etc. Here’s one way to evaluate those reasons: ask yourself what you’d make of them in cases that don’t involve immigration.
Suppose someone argues that the state may prevent immigrants from entering the US via public roads because immigrants will support non-libertarian policies. Let’s aside the empirical claim here and consider whether the state may restrict someone’s use of public property when such a restriction would increase the odds of enacting libertarian policies. May the state prevent someone sitting on a bench at a public park from offering passersby a pamphlet urging them to vote for Democrats? May it prevent drivers from placing GOP bumper stickers on their cars when driving on public roads? Definitely not.
Or consider the claim that the state may prevent immigrants from entering via public roads to prevent consumption of tax-funded goods and services. If someone is severely injured at their home, may the state prevent them from being transported on a public road to a hospital that receives government funding (where they will get expensive treatment)?Again, definitely not.
The point is simply that if you’re unwilling to endorse restrictions on the use of public property in these cases, you shouldn’t endorse restrictions on the use of public property in the case of immigration.
The idea that the main argument is about “restrictions on the use of public property” is a misinterpretation.
The existing populace of a country—excluding illegal immigrants—have the best libertarian claim to all “public” (state/government) property. They would own it all already but for the state. Therefore, all state-owned property should, as soon as possible, be distributed among the existing population on some sufficiently libertarian basis (perfect libertarian rectification being impossible). Maybe simply giving people shares to all state property and allowing people to trade them would work well enough. Only then should people be able to invite foreigners into their privately owned areas. And no one will have access to roads, libraries, airports, etc., without the permission of the relevant private owners. Arriving without evidence of invitation is likely to lead to denial of access and deportation.
If, in the current situation, foreigners are allowed unrestricted access to the country via state-owned roads, etc., then immigrants will inevitably keep arriving until the country is reduced to the level of poverty, disease, crime, etc., of the countries from which they are coming. They will thereby be hugely restricting the liberty of the indigenous population who have been denied their legitimate libertarian property rights. The situation is analogous with the state’s owning the doors, corridors, escalators, elevators, etc., of all buildings and then allowing everyone to have access to them.
Hence the initial privatisation scenario is about as libertarian as possible. But under the current system restriction of immigration is clearly more directionally libertarian than open borders. It is the confused open-border “libertarians” who merit the ironic quotation marks.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/immigration-and-libertarianism
"Suppose someone argues that the state may prevent immigrants from entering the US via public roads because immigrants will support non-libertarian policies."
If you argue that this can't be justified, how is that different from conceding that libertarianism as an ideology cannot protect itself? Maybe a libertarianism-prime is needed?
It's memetic warfare out there, you know. Out there meaning all the time, everywhere. The best ideas have to be self-protecting because they're the only ones that will endure. Paradox of intolerance yadda yadda.