The Massachusetts Libertarian position on immigration is not listed in our platform, but a related plank is "America should be a land of opportunity for every citizen. Massive expansions of the Federal Budget and Debt are strangling those opportunities. We need massive cuts in government spending or our grandchildren will be crushed by their grandparents' wasteful extravagance."

We believe that America was born of immigrants and that immigrants are vital to our nation's character today. Libertarians recognize that people of other countries desire to come to America for the freedoms and opportunities that it offers. We believe that liberty is a right that belongs not just to American citizens, but to all individuals.

Massachusetts Libertarians believe that government interferes with the opportunities of citizens and immigrants when it attempts to create laws to achieve equal outcome instead of equal opportunities. Immigrants have not and do not come to America for what others can provide them, but for the chance of what they can do for themselves.

Government has the responsibility to protect liberty for all - for the citizen who was born in America, for the immigrant who has become a citizen, and for the immigrant who will one day become a citizen. Libertarians believe that we should welcome and encourage immigrants who look to America as an opportunity for freedom.


The National LP position:

Libertarians believe that if someone is peaceful, they should be welcome to immigrate to the United States.

Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-06-24 12:48:03 -0400
    Many libertarians support what is called open borders – which essentially is based upon the view that public property is public to the world – what I consider a socialist view.

    The concept of public property has what I think are 2 possible views
    1) property owned by the state that it allows the public to use
    2) property owned by the public that the state manages for them

    The second is what most people have been taught to believe – maybe to just validate the concept; But I personally believe it is far more preferable to the first view of property owned by the state AND is more supportive of the concept of what public property is supposed to be.

    If you accept the 2nd definition as the more appropriate view as I do, then the concept of open borders falls apart as it allows the state ( which has ownership) to essentially claim anyone in the world has some ownership too or is allowed to use it – apart from citizens and guests.

    Open borders is a bad idea with a socialist premise about ownership of public property which will be dangerous to libertarian principles.



get updates