Having argued with open border libertarians (outside of this site) for long enough, I’ll leave a simple challenge from now on:
First, I’ll define “open borders” as: The unrestricted flow of humans on state-controlled land in and out of a political jurisdiction, irrespective of the internal and external factors involved.
So here’s the question (heh):
If open borders are the proper libertarian position and will result in greater freedom within the defined area where said open borders exist, why do Progressives and Leftists, i.e. people who favor greater government control over all aspects of life, adamantly support open borders for the USA and make it a major plank of their party platform? Why did Hillary Clinton say (in private) “I support open borders”?
There are only three possible hypothesis:
- Because in this rare instance they actually favor reduced government control for a variety of potential reasons.
- Because they mistakenly think it will lead to greater government power, when it won’t.
- Because they act in self-interest and believe (as all evidence shows) that open borders results in people entering the jurisdiction of the USA who are more likely to support and vote for their preferred policies expanding the power of the state.
In other words, it’s Occam’s Razor v. Open Border Libertarians.
I could also ask them how open borders has worked toward making California a libertarian paradise, but that would simply belabor the point.