Too many libertarians fall for the common statist free rider justification of defending “our” borders. An-caps should tolerate immigration; here is why. A while ago there was an article about Texas regarding the state’s relation with immigrants and how they supposedly drain the budget. The article focused on medical services. (It was sent to me by email, and I do not recall its origin.) The usual reason cited for objecting to migrants is that they are parasites.

To begin, the concept that “all people are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” is axiomatic. The rights to life and liberty are not subject to affirmation by a political body. By virtue of being a creature, any person has the right to freedom. How can the right to cross a border be denied to a peaceful person? Independence includes the license to cross any border. If a rabbit is free to cross the boundary then a human is also, PERIOD! Borders are absolutely arbitrary and fictitious lines drawn by greedy politicians to enhance their control over people.

As the US boundaries take on an ever more similar appearance to the Berlin wall, the totalitarian noose tightens ever more firmly around our personal necks. In a paraphrase of Reagan: Mr. Obama, tear down this wall! The right of any peaceful person to cross a frontier is an absolute. Crossing the border, which is a fictitious line, should be as simple as crossing the street (which IS a visible line).

The émigré should not have to give his name or show any identification or be slowed down or intimidated in any other way. Regarding the effect of immigrants on the state budget, all Texas (or any other state) needs to do is to eliminate every single free “service” provided to migrants: or to anyone else for that matter. The problem of free ridership can be eliminated by adopting a policy of no complimentary hospital visits except as a privately owned and operated hospital, without any tax subsidies, choose to offer such facilities out of their own resources and free will.

Entry restrictions are but one more example of how an initial ordinance (free tax supported services) creates unintended consequences that in turn must be addressed with constraints (immigration prohibition). Better than adding an additional layer of legislation would be repeal of the first ill-conceived law.