There are many debates that occur within the libertarian movement.  There are arguments between minarchists, anarchists, and constitutionalists.  There are never-ending arguments over tactics.  There are debates over seemingly small issues.

Abortion can be a contentious debate, but I think most libertarians have actually come to accept both sides on this.  It is not an argument over the non-aggression principle.  It is really an argument over when life begins and when a person becomes a person with rights.

Those who are “pro-life” typically believe that life begins at conception.  Therefore, it makes sense that they believe abortion is murder.  Those who are “pro-choice” typically don’t believe that life begins at conception, or at least don’t recognize the fetus as a person with rights.  Therefore, it makes sense that they believe it should be a woman’s right to choose.  There are certainly varying positions on the subject, but most libertarians have really come to grips with the subject in that most at least respect most opposing views.

There is one issue though where the same can’t be said.  The issue of immigration is front and center now and libertarian opinion varies greatly on this.  And while many will respect the people on the other side of the issue, they really don’t respect the position at all.  We know this is a difficult issue just because it is so hard for libertarians to agree.

And we are not just talking about all self-identified libertarians.  After all, Glenn Beck has referred to himself as a libertarian even though he is nowhere close.  I am talking about hardcore libertarians, most of whom believe in voluntarism or some form of the non-aggression principle.

This debate really hit home for me this week when I saw a complete difference of opinion from two of my favorite and most respected libertarians.  They are Lew Rockwell (of LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute) and Jim Babka (of DownsizeDC.org).

Rockwell published a piece called “Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal“.  It was based on a talk that he delivered at a Mises Institute event.

As the title suggests, Rockwell considers the idea of open borders to not be a libertarian solution.  He suggests the immigration debate should revolve around private property rights.  On this, I don’t think he would get a lot of disagreement from hardcore libertarians, although I can’t be sure.

It is more interesting when Rockwell addresses the issue of access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, etc.  He basically says that taxpayers are the true owners of the public property.  This is probably the more controversial point with libertarians in his piece.  He also suggests decentralization, which is of course hard for any libertarian to argue with.

Jim Babka responded to Lew Rockwell’s piece.  Babka’s piece was published by Students for Liberty.  He asked Rockwell if he wanted to publish it on his site, but Rockwell politely declined.  Babka said he understands, and it is understandable that Rockwell doesn’t want to get into a big debate about it on his great website.

Babka takes issue with the claim that public spaces are really private property.  He takes issue with Rockwell for referring to “forced association” for property owners.

It is hard for me to do justice to both pieces and I would encourage people to read both sides.

I think Babka’s most powerful argument is where he wrote the following:

“This new, forced association principle clashes with the ZAP.  To stop aliens who are walking, job seeking, purchasing, and house renting, there will be cases where someone must be prepared to shoot them. Who, amongst the libertarians, is willing to pull the first trigger?”

When Babka refers to the ZAP, he is referring to the zero-aggression principle.  This is by far his most powerful argument because that is always the dilemma libertarians face.  If you believe in some law, are you prepared to shoot somebody who violates it?

I have used this argument before when talking about laws that would require banks to engage in 100% reserve requirements.  If banks are openly lending via fractional reserves and making voluntary contracts with other parties, who is going to step in with a gun to tell them they can’t do this?  Are you going to point the gun at the banker or the person depositing the money?

It is possible to have laws and penalties that don’t require the use of a gun, but we don’t need to get into that issue here.

In terms of immigration, if you want someone out of the country, then you are basically going to have to use force.  It becomes even trickier if the person is not on “public property”.

What if I invite someone from a foreign land to stay at my house?  Are there libertarians who would advocate that the government police bust down my door to capture the immigrant who is here illegally?  Or will he only be kidnapped once he steps foot on a public sidewalk or road?

There could be legitimate answers to these questions, but I feel the need to ask them.  For me, they have not been satisfactorily answered.

Even on the immigration issue, there is far more common ground between most libertarians than what they might realize.  The major debate arises because we don’t live in a libertarian society.  It is like trying to have a debate over whether there should be prayer in the public schools.  How can you even take a position if you don’t believe in government schools?

If the U.S. government did not have an interventionist foreign policy, then this would likely end most threats of terrorism from overseas.  We can’t be 100% safe, but that includes the people who already live here.

Another major factor is welfare.  Many people – libertarians included – criticize immigration because so many people come here and collect welfare benefits.  Of course, in a libertarian society, there would be no government-financed welfare.  All welfare would be voluntary.

I have found it funny for a long time now how Americans get so worked up over welfare going to immigrants.  Why don’t they get so worked up about Americans on welfare?

If welfare actually worked and helped people in the long run (which it doesn’t), then I would think that immigrants might be more justified in getting welfare.  Someone born and raised in the United States has a lot more opportunity than some Mexican from a poor rural village.  Who would be more deserving of welfare if anyone is deserving of it?

Of course, a third issue – which plays a major role in this debate – is that government simply owns too much.  If we didn’t have all of this government-owned land, government roads, government buildings, etc., then it would be much easier to resolve on the basis of private property rights.

Libertarians can keep debating the immigration issue, but I don’t think it will have a lot of impact one way or another.  I have seen too many anti-immigration arguments based on utilitarian arguments though.  I have been hearing too many libertarians saying that more immigration will lead to less liberty in the future and that is why we need to oppose it.  But if that is the case, then you could just as easily say that about almost anything.  “We can’t legalize the use of cocaine because all of the drug addicts will keep us from having a more libertarian society.”  I hope you see my point here.

Libertarians must stay united on the most important questions of foreign policy and government welfare and government ownership.  If we move in a more libertarian direction on these issues, then the immigration “problem” will not be so much of a problem any more.