You are the only writer that I feel is willing to follow his libertarianism wherever it goes, however uncomfortable (most have their pet positions they just won't let go of). We are kindred spirits in this sense. But I confess to not understanding your position on open borders.
Obviously, with actual private property, "immigration" is just people buying or renting property somewhere, and living in it; the local common law and the NAP would then guide their behavior to the extent that they wanted to interact with others. But that is, equally obviously, not the situation that exists. There are many things that someone would/could do in a PPS that would be ridiculous to try before you actually get to a PPS.
So, given that the US has a massive welfare state; given that the US has a "democracy" and for the most part refuses to even check who is voting (I never have, btw, as I see it as pointless and aggressive); given that no one is "inviting" most of these people, let alone vouching for or bonding them; given that the entire point of a State, its very existence, depends on securing and defending borders against outside-people; ... ; given all of these reasons, why do you feel like the position to take is to support open borders?
The PPS doesn't have "open borders," and for much the same reason that the US should not have "open borders." (Perhaps you'll say you don't support "open borders," but also don't support the criminalization of "hard working undocumenteds." But these are effectively the same thing. Actually, maybe it's worse, because with non-open borders but lax enforcement of the border and border crossers you create moral hazard and adverse selection.)
And to head off the objection that the "undocumented" are just hard-working regular non-criminals, I submit that I (and they) know that if I sneaked into a country that I would be a criminal, so I have never done it, even though at times I wanted to. I legally have visited and lived in dozens of countries. So my point is that they all knew they were committing criminal acts; that they all have shown by revealed preference that they are willing to violate the laws/norms of someone else's culture/country/property in order to gain for themselves.
It's just an odd group for you to consistently defend, a group of obvious rights violators.RW response:
Am I missing something about your position?
Full disclosure: When I was an Econ undergrad I was all for open borders. But then I thought about the welfare state and culture and the private property of taxpayers (already stolen, but ostensibly "for your own good, and that of your posterity") being used against them and for non-taxpayers. So I'm definitely not some restrictionist. I hate the State more than enough to make Murray proud.
You are correct, I am not an advocate of "open borders." My view is to always advocate moving toward a greater state of liberty. When it comes to immigrants, this means if they come here to work, vacation, retire. whatever that is fine with me.
I am against immigrants being provided welfare and other government handouts, that is taking by coercion from some and giving to others.
You call people crossing the border without the permission of the state "criminals" but this is only if you recognize the legitimacy of the government to prevent such border crossing. A criminal to me is someone that violates NAP, not someone who crosses a border to, say, enter into a voluntary agreement to work for someone else.
"Open borders," and "the criminalization of hard working undocumenteds" is not as you put it "effectively the same thing." It is two very different things. One, open borders, moves away from liberty because of the welfare state, the other, allowing hard working undocumented to enter, moves towards private transactions between willing parties and liberty.
You also write: "It's just an odd group for you to consistently defend, a group of obvious rights violators." First, I don't recognize "rights," (I fall into the Henry Hazliit camp on this.)but if I did, I don't see how hardworking undocumented would be violating the "rights" of anyone.
It is not difficult to understand where I fall on policy issues, when they increase voluntary transactions between people I am for them, when they involve coercion and the limiting of voluntary transactions, I am against them.
Further, I do not take ass-backward libertarian positions by calling for more infringements on freedom as a way "to increase freedom."