Regarding the charge of “xenophobia,” Lew Rockwell writes that “that’s the leftist smear term for anyone who disagrees with the state’s welfarite importation schemes. Why, you must be mentally ill to oppose government demographic revolution.”
And again, the result of mass immigration is “artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market.”
The puzzle here is the significance of “demographics.” Why does anyone have a libertarian-Rothbardian right to a particular demographic around the area he lives in? Do I have a right to be surrounded by “my kind of people”?
Maybe I do, in my own gated community or business firm I own. If refugees flood that community as a result of some judge’s contempt for the property rights of the owners, then we are straightforwardly harmed. But to say that I have a right to the state of affairs in which only hetero while males exist within the 500-mile radius of me seems a little preposterous.
Again, national governments or any government larger in scope than the government of a gated community can never force integration; they can only force exclusion. Maybe Hoppe ignored that obvious point because he felt that roads are owned by the taxpayers with the government being hired solely to manage the roads in the taxpayers’ interests, and if those interests include closing the roads to non-natives, then so be it. I disagree: roads are by their essence publicly accessible and are a civilized way to respect everyone’s natural right to “walk the earth.” Freedom of travel is a human right.
So, Rockwell’s argument must be not libertarian but pragmatic. Mass migrations are very disruptive; they put greater pressures on the taxpayers; the people thereby imported are hardly liberty-lovers, etc. Even if we are against “government policies” as such, a close-border policy is still superior to an open-border one. Works for me, more or less.