A Reader Says That Is Immigration Wouldn't Be A Problem If The State Would Wither Away—We Say What If It Doesn't?

<!-- Start of Article --> NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email. 10/11/10 - A Reader Thinks Ann Coulter Is No Better Than She Ought To Be From: Michael Humphrey [Email him] Re Peter Brimelow's Thinking About Joe Sobran With respect to "invincible ignorance" on the immigration issue it seems to me that Peter Brimelow and VDARE.COM are yourselves guilty of this thing. To wit, you and everyone at VDARE.COM that I can remember having read regard borders as state borders, and trans-border migrations as a state problem and you ignore the fact that private property has borders. However, every area where there is a problem of massive and unwanted immigration into an area is an area where a state is dominant and where the state massively violates property rights and disables the defense of property borders. In the United States, for example,  

• People are forced into paying for compulsory "education" which is provided to unwanted immigrants,
• Hospitals are forced to provide medical services to immigrants who do not pay,
• Property owners are restricted as to the defense they may make of their lands being crossed and despoiled by unwanted immigrants,
• People are forced into paying for and putting up with the importation into communities of masses of immigrants not desired as workers or tenants by any business or property owner.
• Business owners are forced to provide services to those whom they may not wish to at the orders of the state,
• Business people are required to hire workers not by their own preferences but according to state criteria,
• Landlords are required to follow the state's criteria and not their own as to whom they may rent out or lease habitations,

It is certain that the face of the immigration problem would change radically and would substantially diminish if property rights were respected, for

1. Property owners including business owners would be able to include or exclude whom they chose without being subject to state compulsion,
2. Property owners as members of contractual communities would be restricted from inviting or hiring specified persons not wanted,
3. Property owners as members of sympathetic communities would not want to introduce into the community persons not desired by the community

It should be clear as a bell that there is no "immigration problem" in and of itself—there is a problem of the state and of the denial of property rights. The modern state creates the "tragedy of the commons" that is characteristic of mass immigration, for in the modern state everyone's property is up for grabs—is common—and those who become rulers find it useful to import masses of immigrants to help them plunder the commons. I do not think I have ever seen this issue mentioned at Vdare.com. James Fulford writes: Yes, we are aware of this issue—see my Libertarians and Immigration, written ten years ago, but still valid. Peter Brimelow regularly attends the meetings of the Property And Freedom Society and spoke there on the subject. The VDARE.com article Democracy vs. Freedom (And The Nation-State)? By Jared Taylor contains a pretty good discussion of these ideas. However, in point form:

1. The American state is not going away any time soon, it has all those government employees and armies and things. That's what we have to work with—or sometimes work against.
2. If the American state did wither away, there's a good chance that people would come from next door and set up their own nation-state—and call it Mexico.