Why you can't be pro-immigration and call yourself Libertarian
It is common knowledge that libertarians and classical liberals are, like international socialists, very fervent advocates of globalism and open-border societies. This common knowledge is wrong philosophically, wrong historically and wrong politically.
Find out why you can't be pro-immigration and label yourself a libertarian (no matter how electorally profitable).
Why you can't be both libertarian and pro-immigration
Philosophical reasons
The main reasons why a pro-immigration position and the libertarian ideology are incompatible are philosophical.
There has been a massive disinformation campaign waged on libertarianism from the globalists, who don't want to see a resurgence of free-market economics and national identity in the United States of America. Going from falsely claiming certain ideologies are libertarian to down-right ridiculing the entire political movement, the damage has apparently been done since no one seems to understand what libertarianism truly is anymore.
The libertarian, by definition, believes in free-market economics, private property, national independence and the absence of spoliation from governments or foreign entities. It has nothing to do with homosexuals being able to marry, and even less to do with allowing illegal Mexicans to become US citizens.
The pro-immigration doctrine goes against the libertarian philosophy because it doesn't recognize the right for a nation to govern itself. Allowing foreigners to invade a nation such as the USA is in violation with the very concepts of national independence, sovereignty and self-determination as seen in Why multi-nationalism is a threat. That is the definition of spoliation.
Not very libertarian you say ? That not all. Those who favor massive immigration don't support private property since they don't recognize the US territory as the property of the American people.
So basically what the immigrationist New World Order lobbies want is a society without any property laws (either national or individual), where the foreigners can impose on us their policies, where Americans can't even decide who enters or not their own country and where free-markets and individual freedom can't exist because there are no borders. This is the antithesis of actual libertarianism, but I guess if MSNBC says it's libertarian to be for open-borders it must be so.
Historical reasons
Now let's see why libertarianism can't be pro-immigration for historical reasons.
Libertarianism is not about allowing gays to marry or illegals to vote.
Libertarianism and classical liberalism are ideologies that were created to address economic issues, namely government impotence and state interventionism.
In fact if you look at the first true liberal compositions, by chronological order Founding Fathers, Smith, Austrian School, Chicago School, there is nothing ever mentioned concerning social issue. In fact to find any form of vague association between approximate libertarianism and social progressivism you have to look at Lysander Spooner's "Vices are not crimes". But then again, Spooner was an anarcho-capitalist and principally wrote about social issues. He never considered himself libertarian.
If you look at most foreign libertarian parties, their positions on immigration are very clear and differ in all points from the politically correct xenocratic propaganda of what is considered libertarianism in the USA.
The fabricated doxa that wants libertarians to be pro-gay and favorable to open-borders and massive immigration is not only absolutely stupid in itself, it also has no historical basis !
Political reasons
Finally, the political reasons that make the libertarian and immigrationist ideologies are divergent, if not antagonistic.
The globalist propaganda wants you to believe that being libertarian, classical liberal, conservative or in any way attached to personal freedom means absolute submission to the globalist doctrine (illegal immigration being only one facet of their agenda).
Nothing is further from the truth. Libertarianism never meant submission to progressive ideologies. There is no absolute freedom, the same way there is no "freedom to" anything. These are substantive laws that come from positive rights, aka fake rights, and are not freedoms nor should they be defended by libertarians (or anyone).
Unfortunately the globalist propaganda made a lot of people believe their demands were legitimate rights, or freedoms, and thus even illegals now consider themselves libertarians for demanding amnesty.
This is not the only case of progressive propaganda being falsely attributed to libertarianism. Under the globalist doctrine, anything becomes a freedom.
- The invasion of our nation by illegal aliens becomes the "freedom" to migrate
- The spoliation of American workers becomes the "freedom" to receive welfare
- The constructivist "anti-racist" affirmative action laws become the "freedom" from racist
- The criminalization of opinions become the "freedom" to not be offended
And if you oppose any of it, they want you to believe that you are an anti-libertarian freedom hating fascist.
This all or nothing dogma is quite reminiscent of another fake libertarian/true globalist politician. "You're either with freedom, or you're with the (racists/fascists/terrorists/war on women/[insert patented vocabulary])".
And in this process, the real freedoms we possess, those that come from our natural rights, are the ones being suppressed for this pseudo-libertarian ideology.
The right to sovereignty, the right to self-determination, the right to private property, the right to national independence are all being revoked for this progressive globalist doctrine that parades as libertarianism.
In reality, libertarianism and conservatism aren't about absolute freedom as in theory that becomes anomia, and in practice it becomes nothing more than tribal feudalism. Libertarianism is about freedom and responsibility, as one cannot go without the other.
The so-called libertarians commit here the same error as the socialists who obtusely oppose ideology and society. They seek to create an unattainable perfect system in which Men could be "remolded" into something new. We find the same credo with the cosmopolitan socialists who want to create a stateless "citizen of the world" to fit their agenda. That is the basis of constructivism, which is the opposite of individual liberty.
On a final note, it's always interesting to see these so-called libertarians claim their adherence to the Constitution of the United States, when they aren't even willing to defend the civilization that wrote it.
Those that would allow massive immigration to occur and support the demographic and cultural alterations that result from it aren't constitutionalists, since they don't want to preserve and protect the civilization from which the Constitution was born.
The Constitution on the United States, as is the American civilization, is a border in and of itself.
It's the separation between freedom and tyranny, between individual responsibility and collective oppression and most importantly between America and the foreign.