https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/bionic-mosquito/open-borders-anti-libertarian/
This piece appeals to vague notions of nations, and preserving languages and cultures, but doesn't really say anything about how open borders supposedly violate the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle and thus are (allegedly) anti-libertarian. The problem faced by anyone trying to make such an assertion is a difficult one – if having open borders between countries is bad, why is having open borders between states/provinces, cities, and neighborhoods good? Adjacent provinces, cities, and even neighborhoods, after all, can have cultural and linguistic differences as marked as those of different countries. Nor is it a proper role of government to get involved in cultural engineering – seeking to promote or preserve one culture or language over others (as the French government has famously, and ineffectively, attempted to do with the French language in preserving it against contamination by English words).
The article by "Bionic Mosquito" notes Murray Rothbard's concerns about Russian emigration to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, which came to greater public attention when the Soviet Union collapsed. I think Rothbard's concerns in that instance were legitimate. But the emigration in question was not so much the fault of open borders as the result of a deliberate strategy by the Soviet regime of using migration to cement its control over the Baltic countries, much as the Chinese regime has done vis-a-vis Tibet. We can support open borders and still condemn such government efforts at social engineering and furthering their political control.
The author goes on to argue that open border supporting libertarians have ignored government intervention when it comes in the form of government-encouraged and government-subsidized migration. But again these things are not the same as open borders, and not a necessary or desirable part of open border policies. Clearly all such spending is illegitimate, but subsidies of migrants are a pittance compared to the amounts spent by governments seeking to prevent, regulate, and control migration, including detaining and deporting non-government-approved migrants.
As for "encouraging" migration, that's a pretty vague term, and the author does not clarify what type of "encouragement" s/he is talking about. If a politician says "America is a nation of immigrants" for example, is that "encouraging" migration? Perhaps, but it's really no different from a mayor saying "San Francisco is open for business". I see nothing improper in such comments, as long as there are no subsidies or special privileges being offered, even though some local businesses might not appreciate their competitors being invited to do business in the city. If it's okay for elected officials to try to make a jurisdiction appear attractive to businesses that might want to relocate there, then it's okay to extend a similar rhetorical welcome mat to individuals.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
This argument always strikes me as rather astounding on the face of it. There are some thorny issues where the correct application of the Non-Aggression Principle is unclear – abortion, intellectual property, countering an aggressor with military force which is itself not aggression-free – but I do not think border controls are among them. From a libertarian perspective, this seems to me an open-and-shut question (pardon the phrase). I believe it just goes to show what a strong hold the collectivist ideology of nationalism still has on people, including on many people who are pro-freedom in most other respects.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))