By J. C. Lester

To explain the correct libertarian approach to immigration, a thought–experiment posits a minimal–state libertarian UK and then the introduction of several relevant
anti–libertarian policies with their increasingly disastrous effects. It is argued that the reverse of these imagined policies, as far as is politically possible, must be the correct
way forward. This framing is intended to counter the tendency for many articles to misapply libertarian principles to the current messy situation on the mistaken
assumption that a state need only stop interfering without rectifying or adjusting for its previous interferences. The relevant parts of various open–border texts are then
criticised in light of this and for other errors, in particular for overlooking the likely huge scale of immigration as indicated by Gallup surveys. Additional criticisms are
addressed in footnotes throughout. The conclusion outlines three broad options on immigration and suggests that directionally–libertarian policies are both more
libertarian and practical than having states open their borders. The readers that might be interested in this subject matter include those engaging in libertarian
philosophy, economics, and political theory.

Key words: libertarianism; immigration policy; philosophy; private property; open borders; directionalism; thought–experiment

Introduction

There has long been a debate in the libertarian literature as to the correct state policy on immigration. This essay does not attempt a comprehensive account and evaluation of all the different arguments in that vast debate. It primarily compares directionally–libertarian policies with the open–borders option. It does this by first assuming, arguendo, a functional minimal–state UK and then how this might relevantly be undermined. The inference is then made and defended that the reverse of this, as far as is practical, must be the correct libertarian policy. Without such a libertarian framing there seems to be a tendency for many articles to misapply libertarian principles to the current messy situation. Next, various crucial parts of open–border texts are responded to in light of this argument and for other errors. This appears to be sufficient to constitute a prima facie refutation of open borders (a state with no immigration restrictions) and a defence of directionally–libertarian policies.

READ MORE