I find it interesting that this debate is so heated and that people think this is a legitimate claim.
As I said, this is more of a continuation of feudalism than a conception of Lockean property norms.
What right does the State have to tell you that you can’t be “here” ?
Immigration and emigration are both false concepts and improper to use in regards to human movement, since countries are false concepts and those words/ideas are entirely dependent on the concept of countries. The proper term would simply be migration.
As countries do not actually exist, that is, they are not legitimate property boundaries or constructs, there are no “immigrants,” only migrants who are being extorted by way of “immigration laws.”
Individuals who say they favor “immigration laws” due to the potential threat of “immigrants” either threatening them directly or by way of “voting” for the expansion of State intrusion must logically advocate perpetual “immigration control,” for one can never know who might be a terrorist, Democrat, or Republican.
It is true that migrants may one day threaten you, but “immigration laws” necessarily imply a threat against everyone living in the “country” for the potential crimes of others.
It’s logically impossible for state borders to be consistent with individual property rights. State borders and “immigration control” are conceptually an assault on private property rights by default, as the State arrogates to itself the “power” to decide who can and cannot live “here,” which includes all properties within their alleged “jurisdiction,” implying that no one but the State actually owns any property.
The argument that “immigration control” can be legitimate only rings true when it comes to explicitly “private” communities where such rules as “no advocating communism” are explicitly stated by a clearly defined owner or group of “owners/tenants in common.” Attempting to apply it to the current situation regarding State borders fails since “we” do not currently live in a “private” community, are not “joint-owners” of the “country,” “tenants in common,” or any such thing.
Applying the argument to the current situation can only come about through the delusion that the “country” exists and “we” own it.
State immigration control is simply the violent manipulation of the housing and labor markets. The manipulation of “society.”
“Immigration control” advocates have gone off the deep end and begun to claim that they are the owners of all “lands” said to be held by the State, but the illegitimacy of “national parks” is not based on the fact that the State is an extortionist, it’s more-so based on the fact that no one actually homesteaded expanses of those lands. Apparently they have completely forgotten about the Lockean conception of property which itself is the logical basis for rightful ownership (production).
A “tax payer” is not justified in stopping an “illegal” from homesteading in some open forest the State pretends it owns, any more than a random “capitalist” or “communist” is justified in stopping people from homesteading such areas.
Are they going to show up in some former “national park” and kick someone out who has already built a home there, because they were robbed by the gang called the united states and he was born “in Mexico” ? Would they do that now, as they are currently being robbed by the state? If so then they are the aggressors, as paying taxes doesn’t mean you own something the State says they own but do not, just because they force you to pay and lie about their ownership. Clearly no one owns lands which have not actually been homesteaded.If they think they own huge expanses forests because the state robs them, they’re delusional. That’s more of a throwback to feudalism than a Lockean conception of property, as they are making the claim that anyone can own land without actually laboring on it; without actually exerting their will upon it.