For much of its history, America has had what were essentially open borders. This was both before and after the establishment of the United States government. This ended in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act.

The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910.[3] This meant that people from northern European countries had a higher quota and were more likely to be admitted to the U.S. than people from eastern Europe, southern Europe, or other, non-European countries. Professionals were to be admitted without regard to their country of origin.

Remember this pro-European bias, as it will pop up again later in the course of this article.

SOURCE: http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/30/open-borders-in-america

---

Here are two sets of ordinally ranked preferences:

1. Private "Borders" > Open Government Borders > Closed Government Borders

2. Private "Borders" > Closed Government Borders > Open Government Borders

---

For some reason, many libertarians are arguing over vehemently and speculating as to which preference set is "least destructive."

Those pressing this issue favor preference set two, claiming that most immigrants are "big government leftists" who vote for the expansion of the welfare state. They claim that immigrants are largely a strain on the system, milking it and using infrastructure and services without paying.

These individuals claim that immigrants are cultural intruders, and basically overall freeloaders who will be allowed access to American individuals' capital, time, services, resources and goods via the forced integration which would be necessitated (and indeed forced integration would) by open state borders.

While I take issue with this arbitrary dichotomy for many reasons (not least of which being that both the "closed" and "open" state borders positions are immoral and incompatible with Voluntaryist principle), I want to address and attack the ideas presented by this school of thought, assuming for a moment--for the purpose of debate--that state borders are legitimate (they're not).

The following points are simply raised for the purpose of debate. Let's assume for the time being the state is legitimate and argue for preference set number one.

---

CLAIM:

Most immigrants are leftists who will put a strain on "the system" via voting for and receiving welfare.

REBUTTAL:

• Most immigrants pay taxes. In fact, according to several studies, the average immigrant pays more in taxes than he or she receives in benefits from public goods and services.

• Low-income immigrants use public benefits like Medicaid and the food stamp program at a lower rate than low-income native-born citizens.

• It is also very important to remember that illegal immigrants cannot receive welfare benefits until after being a citizen for five years! Illegal immigrants also cannot vote, by law. This makes it fairly challenging to vote to expand the welfare state.

• While most studies show that immigrants who are politically active usually vote Democrat, the numbers show a sizable amount who are active Republicans. What is more striking is that roughly the same amount of people as there are on the left, if not more, don't identify politically at all.

NOTE:

There is one study by CIS.org which is often referenced as disproving the statement that immigrants contribute more than they take in regard to public benefits, but this study's methodology is flawed for more than one reason, and conflicts of interest within this organization itself should raise more than just a few eyebrows.

SOURCES:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/erp2013/full_2013_economic_report_of_the_president.pdf (pg. 155)

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/edb17.pdf

http://fair.org/home/usa-today-echoes-report-by-anti-immigration-think-tank-with-ties-to-white-supremacist-groups/

Before moving on to claim two, I would like to also make a rebuttal to this claim based not on statistics, but on logic.

If Mexican immigrants (or any immigrants) crossing the illegitimate national border are in effect stealing from US taxpayers, aren't US taxpayers who engage in interstate travel within the US aggressing against individuals in other states by using their goods, services. and infrastructure?

If we reduce the pro-closed borders camp's argument enough, it becomes absurd.

"Don't go to Texas if you are from Oklahoma! You are using infrastructure, goods, and services paid for by Texans! That money was stolen from them! Now you are an accomplice!"

"Don't drive 15 minutes over to the next city! You didn't pay for those roads and sidewalks! The residents of that town did!"

"Don't leave your house! That street out front was paid for by stolen money!"

If you yourself, by your own standards are an accomplice to state theft, by what right do you call others who have been stolen from by the same political bodies, thieves!?

Have not the Mexicans had their sovereignty, property, and capital stolen from them by violence-back legislation such as NAFTA? Five million farm workers put to the dirt road, but hey, when we steal it's different. Why?

Some may say the focus should by on the largest scale theft first. That is why interstate, US theft is okay, but International theft and subsidization of that theft must be done away with first. By what right? Aren't all individual rights to their property equally valid, regardless of the number of people in the mob which disagrees?

To argue anything other than the primacy of individual self-ownership is not to argue as a Voluntaryist. Period.

---

CLAIM 2:

Immigration encourages government undermining of property norms and the nuclear family.

REBUTTAL:

Some of the individuals from the "pro-borders" camp are self-proclaimed "culture warriors." I am left wondering which culture--in a country built by immigrants from hundreds of foreign countries passing through virtually open state borders for years and years--they are "warring" against, and which to preserve.

Hans Herman Hoppe makes it fairly evident that the culture he was afraid would be compromised was "European." Like the founder of CIS.org (the organization that conducted the flawed study referenced above) Hoppe believed that Europeans in general were more likely to have higher IQs than individuals from other cultures. This hearkens back a bit to the implied xenophobia of the Emergency Quota--or Anti-Immigration--Act of 1921 (which, by the way, was originally intended as a temporary measure, ostensibly to assuage economic bruises and limit mass waves of immigration brought about by the death, famine, and destruction wreaked in Russia and Europe in World War I).

• Immigrants naturalize and assimilate quickly, most immigrants seek to become citizens, climb the socioeconomic ladder, become homeowners.

• Immigrants today are more than twice as likely as native-born citizens to start small businesses and to be entrepreneurs.

I'll quote an article I recently read:

Risky? Yes. But increasingly, it is immigrant entrepreneurs like Cha who are most willing to take the risk of starting a business--and without the growth of immigrant-owned businesses like Cha's, the recession would have been much worse. From 1996 to 2011, the business startup rate of immigrants increased by more than 50 percent, while the native-born startup rate declined by 10 percent, to a 30-year low. Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born citizens.

Immigrants have been moving virtually unhindered, on and off, to the United States since it's birth. Only relatively recently have the regulations and restrictions become more draconian and nativist/authoritarian.

SOURCES:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html

---

NOW, (FINALLY!) DOWN TO BRASS TACKS:

Asking if more rape is preferable to less rape is a no brainer. The problem is, first, that both rape and more rape cannot be supported, advocated for, or encouraged under Voluntaryist property ethic, and second, that this is a false dichotomy based on speculation and statistics which are opposed by counter-speculation and counter-statistics, thus rendering the argument on either side at least partially speculative and fully subjective.

Who is getting raped? Will it be me? My family? If I vote for "less rape" can you guarantee that it happens to those other fuckers, and not me!?

Are there not other options?
How about, fight back against the rapists?
No longer vote for any rapist?
Starve the rapists by refusing to use the currency of rapists.

I find it funny that often folks who laugh and make fun of agorists and non-compliers for "doing nothing" or "raising awareness" themselves often do not follow through on their preferences and vote for this or that measure, but instead criticize others for their "idealistic inactivity" while timidly encouraging those who do take action and vote--almost like a PETA activist sending his servant out to slaughter a pig because, well, he prefers bacon--to vote for this or that specific violence-backed measure.

What's the point?

The objective fact remains, that Voluntaryism as a philosophy and in practice, leaves no room for any individual to be violated in the name of the "greater good."

Subjective preferences are fine, but the law of non-contradiction dictates that one cannot both support and not support something at the same time in the same sense.

My question then, for all the "preferrers" out there is simply this: are non-private property lines legitimate?

• To answer in the affirmative is to answer as something other than a Voluntaryist, and this goes without saying in view of the Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalist property ethic founded upon self-ownership, the homesteading principle, and free and voluntary exchange.

• To answer in the negative is to preclude oneself from supporting the initiation of force against any and all individuals crossing these lines.

You can only pick one. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. It is BLACK and WHITE.

IN CLOSING

So...some people have certain preferences about state borders. Great. So....what?
If you support any policy which by its very nature must violate individuals it is safe to say you are not supporting this policy as a Voluntaryist. You may be a Voluntaryist, but you'd be a confused one.

Prefer all day long. That's great. Different preferences don't change a thing about the reality of the immoral nature of the violation.

I guess I just really want to know what action, if any, a preference such as closed state borders anticipates? None? Then why talk about it?

Both open and closed STATE borders require violence against non-violent individuals! Both positions are illegitimate, because the STATE ITSELF is illegitimate!

Peace on, Voluntaryists!!!!

~GS

---

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. Hit me up! I can stop writing about myself in the third person now. It's creepy.