Subscribe now

No. It is true that libertarians firmly believe in property rights. A property boundary marks where one owner’s claim begins and another’s ends. That boundary should only be enforceable if the owner really owns the tract of land within. But that is where the analogy comparing government borders to private property breaks down. Government does not own all of the property within its borders. Though government-held lands are extensive in the United States, the majority of American ground is privately owned. Not all of these private owners agree about how to enforce the national borders, or even the idea that they should be enforced by government at all.

Libertarians would agree that a person should not trespass on another person’s property. But unlawful immigrants usually are not trespassers. The vast majority (approximately two-thirds) of such immigrants enter their destination country legally and simply overstay their entry visa. This means that they do not enter by trespassing. Instead, they enter the country by the same means as any other traveler. These immigrants then rent apartments from willing landlords, obtain employment from eager employers, and buy goods from eager retailers. The accusation that they are trespassers is simply false. A person who moves from Mexico to Texas is no more a trespasser than a person who moves from Georgia to Texas, whether they have government approval or not.

Aggressive border enforcement encroaches on private property and disrupts the normal movement of labor and capital. It also creates dangerous black markets in transportation, housing, and employment. Even worse, restrictive immigration policies interfere with the performance of our Christian duty to be charitable to immigrants and to reach all nations with the good news of the gospel.

Subscribe now

It’s important to recognize that free migration isn’t destined for conflict (see Question 116). People are adaptable, and markets reward peaceful cooperation. Yet open immigration under modern state conditions can create unintended challenges, since governments control land, welfare, and public property—distortions that lead to forced association and perverse incentives. In a free society, migration is regulated by the market. State interventions in borders, welfare, drug policy, and the economy disrupt the market dynamics that would otherwise harmonize migration with demand.

The more we decentralize government, the closer we get to a true polycentric order where society is shaped by markets and local decision-making, not central planners. Rather than federal bureaucracies managing welfare programs or vast tracts of public land, those functions should devolve to the local level—or better yet, to private ownership and market institutions. Local and private stewardship ties decisions to those who bear their costs and benefits, curbing waste, reducing moral hazard, and aligning incentives with genuine community needs. Decentralization and privatization directly reduce the friction and fear associated with open immigration by replacing coercive, one-size-fits-all systems with voluntary cooperation rooted in consent and property rights.

Inflationary policies, taxes, and regulations erode prosperity and drive up housing costs, trapping both natives and newcomers in artificial scarcity that breeds resentment. Likewise, ending the War on Drugs and U.S. military interventions abroad would remove major sources of violence, displacement, and black-market chaos that fuel mass migration. Freer markets and a peaceful foreign policy allow people to move, build, and work where demand exists, turning competition into cooperation. When paired with a fair justice system that neither discriminates against newcomers nor excuses crime, these reforms foster trust, opportunity, and liberty.

Subscribe now

From the economic point of view, laborers who migrate from a low wage area to a high wage area are performing an arbitrage and making the market function more efficiently in the satisfaction of human wants. But human beings are not merely laborers, and they bring with them more than labor hours.

Immigrants bring with them their own experiences and customs, and often their own languages. It is true that a culturally heterogeneous population can experience social friction because different cultures can dictate dramatically different expectations from one another. For example, in some cultures, direct eye contact may be considered presumptuous and aggressive. In others, avoiding eye contact may be viewed with suspicion. This is not only true of international immigration. Cultural differences may also be present within different populations in the same nation-state, such as those between New Englanders and southerners in the United States.

People as social creatures are also immensely adaptable. Customs can be consciously learned, and linguistic features are often acquired without conscious effort or awareness. Every person grows and changes over their lifetime, including in their customary behaviors and language, and they will adapt to their environment.

While some traditions and customs may indeed be ancient in origin, local culture is by its nature a transient and dynamic thing. Attempts to freeze a culture in time to preserve it are based on the mistaken idea that culture is static and stable. It is not. Even if some cultural clashes may greatly annoy adults, such displeasure need not persist in succeeding generations. Indeed, combinations of previously unacquainted peoples have sometimes resulted in explosions of cultural creativity, such as the innovative jazz and blues styles of music that developed in the culturally complex Mississippi Delta region.

Subscribe now

The nations described in the Bible were not nation-states in the modern sense, but rather extended family groups or tribes who shared a common language and culture. The original division of nations occurred early in post-deluge history. Nations are first mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 10, in a passage naming the first generations born after the great flood subsided: the offspring of Japheth, Ham, and Shem. Genesis 11 then focuses on the particular events that led to the division of the nations by language and physical distance. The efforts of a united humanity to construct a tower to their own glory (“let us make a name for ourselves,” v. 4) displeased God. God responded by confounding their language, leading them to abandon their construction project and “scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth” (Gen 11:8–9).

The children of Israel were selected as a nation set apart as God’s chosen people, and they were commanded to keep away from the corruption and idol worship of other nations. Even before that, the first great order of separation for Israel was an internal schism. Moses separated the wandering people of Israel into groups of faithful and reprobate before the Lord caused the earth to swallow up the followers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16:23–35).

The good news is that national divisions that came about due to sin and corruption can be overcome by the grace of God. Foreigners who worshipped the one true God were to be welcomed by the nation of Israel (Isa 56:1–8). In the Great Commission, Christ commanded his followers to go to all nations teaching his commands (Matt 28:19–20). Peter preached that God had revealed to him that he “should not call any man common or unclean,” and told his listeners about a faith that offered hope to God-fearing people of all nations (Acts 10:28; 35). National divisions are a consequence of sin. Everyone who repents and believes in Christ can join the eternal, holy nation of God (1 Pet 2:9–10).

Subscribe now

The Bible tells immigrant story after immigrant story: Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden, made refugees by their own sin. Joseph was the victim of fraternal violence and was sold into bondage in the strange land of Egypt. Israel made its exodus from Egypt to the then-unfamiliar Promised Land. Ruth was a foreigner who immigrated to Israel. Christ traveled in foreign lands as an infant fleeing for safety from Herod the Great’s Massacre of the Innocents. Our savior identified with the immigrant, and he included the “stranger” as one of the groups whom he called the “least of these” (Matt 25:34–46).

Scripture speaks clearly on the topic of how God’s faithful are to treat immigrants. The Bible tells us that foreigners who come to our country must be afforded equal legal rights to people who are native-born (Exod 12:49, Lev 24:22). More than that, we are to love them as we love ourselves (Lev 19:33–34). Immigrants are a segment of the community who are worthy objects of our charity (Deut 10:14–22). Indeed, it is an outward mark of a righteous man that his door is “always open to the traveler” (Job 31:32). Israel was reminded by God of its heritage as a people who were once strangers in a strange land, and instructed that it would be hypocritical for them to mistreat the alien (Deut 24:19–22). God warns of judgment for those who “deprive aliens of justice” (Mal 3:5, Deut 27:19). Widespread mistreatment of immigrants can lead to national judgment (Ezek 22:7, 29–31; Jer 22:3–5). Treating immigrants justly was one of the conditions for Israel’s continuing to enjoy the blessings of the Promised Land (Jer 7:6–7).