Open borders libertarianism

Politruk

Loves Spam
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
18,471
I normally have little patience with Libertarians, but there are some few who have been consistent enough in their libertarian principles to propose a constitutional amendment reading only, "There shall be open borders." No customs, no tariffs, no immigration controls.

At least worth considering in light of the present administration's policies.
 
Yeah sounds a good idea but with the likes of Putin and co it won't work and who would be the leader of this one world community.
 
The EU has tried it with the Schengen Area and it hasn't led to any break-down of civilisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

Not has tried, we are doing it.
- But it is worth to explain, that except, a lot of countries, some EU economic territories: The Schengen is a closed party.

It is kinda difficult to get the rights of an EU citizen. But once you have it.
- Well, knock yourself out!! The whole EU is open for you. 👍🏻

The Nordics (Scandinavia) takes it a bit further, we can change citizenship and so much more. And did so before the Schengen was as much as an hypothetical idea on some paper.
 
I saw a senior member of French Intelligence being interviewed after the Bataclan massacre and he asked: "What chance do we stand when one of our borders is the coastline of Greece?"

As a result of Covid, terrorist attacks and uncontrolled immigration quite a few Schengen countries have reintroduced border controls.
Yes, and those border controls doesn't stop uncontrolled immigration. They just delay the rest of us trying to travel around as we were suposed to.
If someone is desperate enough or really want to get into a country they often succeed, and if that's not uncontrolled immigration........
The border controls stop the people who really need help and those who are here for terrorist or other illegal stuff gets in to the country somehow anyway.
 
The current UK government campaigned the last election with 'shut down illegal immigration'. In fairness, so did the opposition, the previous Tory government, who set up the silly scheme to deport all immigrants to Rwanda (which was never going to get through the European Court of Human Rights). More UK Home Secretaries went to Rwanda than immigrants.

The government have paid money to France to stop people from crossing the channel in small boats which is just as silly. For at least two reasons; the French want them to leave ASAP, and there is no legal way of stopping someone from launching a boat from a beach.

Also, the government have no way of stopping the boats from landing on a UK beach. Nigel Farage can bleat as much as he likes, but the options are either open fire with machine guns or shut up.
 
the silly scheme to deport all immigrants to Rwanda (which was never going to get through the European Court of Human Rights). More UK Home Secretaries went to Rwanda than immigrants.
And yet migrants left UK and went to the Republic of Ireland as they feared the Rwanda scheme was going to get off the ground. As for the ECHR, UK should dump that.

The government have paid money to France to stop people from crossing the channel in small boats which is just as silly. For at least two reasons; the French want them to leave ASAP, and there is no legal way of stopping someone from launching a boat from a beach.

Also, the government have no way of stopping the boats from landing on a UK beach. Nigel Farage can bleat as much as he likes, but the options are either open fire with machine guns or shut up.
Or turn the boats back as Australia successfully did. I have no idea why UK politicians are so worried about upsetting France when the French navy is quite happy to escort illegals into UK waters and wave them off.

I would also suggest:
A compulsory 20 year sentence for whoever is driving the boat ( i.e. whoever is nearest the motor ).
A compulsory 20 year sentence for everybody on the boat if a child is on board.
Any lawyer or official that prevents the UK from deporting an illegal immigrant immediately becomes guilty of joint enterprise if that immigrant then goes on to commit a serious crime.
 
Yeah sounds a good idea but with the likes of Putin and co it won't work and who would be the leader of this one world community.
The scenario assumes the U.S. simply opening its borders unilaterally, not that any other country does the same.
 
Last edited:
All rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as "gang rights".
If that is true, then the American gang has no business keeping non-member individuals out of its territory, which it cannot even claim to own collectively.
 
America's resources are finite, and most of us are tired of being robbed of our money
so that you can feel magnanimous towards shit hole countries.
Raging much this morning? Someone pissed in your cornflakes again?
 
There still are Libertarian Republicans, aren't there? They didn't all leave the GOP when the Tea Party/MAGA took it over?
 
The current UK government campaigned the last election with 'shut down illegal immigration'.
Based on what we can see from over here, the immigrant population does not appear to be in any way bad for the country. There are not really any "no-go areas" in the UK -- nor on the continent, either -- though some PB posters persist in that canard. And of course the whole Eurabia thing is dishonest nonsense.
 
Of course, Europe is only of marginal relevance here, because Libertarianism is a uniquely American political tradition, with very different roots from Anarchism.
 
Starting to look like we could really use some open borders libertarianism!
 
There is already an 'open border' policy as far as Trump is concerned.

He's giving Chinese agents guided tours of the White House on payment of a few dollars into his fake crypto scam and during his first term allowed them access to Mar y Stinko where they walked around the insecure server room that also housed the spare pool noodles. That was after Don the Dumber met with Chinese spies at Trump Tower.
 
Back
Top