Libertarians and Conservatives on Immigration

This is an interesting video. I think it illustrates nicely the tension between Libertarians and Conservatives with regard to the controversy surrounding the Arizona immigration law. Generally, Libertarians are more concerned than Conservatives about granting law enforcement the authority to demand a citizen's "papers" on threat of detention. (Although it should be noted that the federal government has had this authority for 60 years. The Arizona law only grants state government the authority to enforce it.)



Conservatives realize that there are necessary limits to the libertarian desire to get government out of every area of our lives. Libertarianism is like Socialism and Communism in this way: It has merits only as a guiding philosophy; only a lunatic would try to implement it as a practical form of government. If individual liberty were not subjected to the rule of law, the result would be a society completely at odds with genuine freedom.

Conservatives value individual liberty as highly as Libertarians do, but conservatives also acknowledge the necessity of the "social contract." We understand that if individuals wish to remain truly free they must be willing to cede a measure of their freedom to their fellow man, in exchange for his willingness to give up a measure of his freedom in return. G.K. Chesterton put it this way: "The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people."

Of course, very few Americans - libertarian or conservative - would ever question the necessity of the rule of law. Instead, we squabble over the appropriate scope of the law. But the Libertarian argument falls flat particularly with regard to immigration.

Protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate justifications for the centralization of political power. A "nation" is defined by its borders - by which I mean that a nation without borders is not a nation in any meaningful sense. Governments - and especially the American constitutional republic - have only a very few affirmative obligations to the citizenry. Providing for the common defense and defending the national borders are among those obligations.

Does it violate a lawful citizen's liberty to be stopped, detained, and questioned about their citizenship status? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely. There are strong arguments against such government intrusion. But the argument for limiting individual liberty in order to enforce a state border is significantly stronger than arguments for most other limitations.

The citizens of Arizona have chosen to sacrifice a measure of their liberty because they believe the harm being caused by illegal immigration in Arizona justifies the limitation. That is a legitimate expression of the public's willingness to be subjected to the rule of law. It's something that all of us should be able to respect.