by Jacob G. Hornberger

May 1, 2026

Ever since I discovered libertarianism almost 50 years ago, there has been an ongoing debate within the libertarian movement between those libertarians who favor a limited-government republic (often referred to as “minarchists”) and those libertarians who favor a system of no government at all (often referred to as “anarchists”). I fall within those who favor a limited-government republic.

There has also been an ongoing debate within the libertarian movement over immigration. One group favors open open borders and the other group favors a system of governmental control over borders. As longtime supporters of The Future of Freedom Foundation know, I fall within the open-borders group, not only because it is consistent with the core principle of the libertarian philosophy, which is the nonaggression principle, but also because it is consistent with the principles of liberty, morals, religion, ethics, and the free market — and also because it works, as we can see here inside the United States, where we have a system of open borders between the states.

Ironically, when it comes to immigration, some anarchists fall within the government-controlled border group.

Can you see why I employ the adverb “Ironically” when I write that sentence? Can you see the problem here?

The problem is this: Anarchists — genuine anarchists — favor the abolition of all government. Yet, when it comes to immigration, we have “anarchists” favoring a massive socialist program, one that is enforced by a massive immigration police state.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, a massive socialist program and a massive immigration police state are the opposite of anarchy, which, again, means no government at all. How does one reconcile support for a system of no government with support for a massive socialist program and a ruthless and brutal police state that enforces it?

Why do I say that America’s immigration-control system is a socialist system? Because it is based on the fundamental socialist principle of central planning. Rather than rely on the free market, including the law of supply and demand, with respect to the movements of people across borders, the federal government plans, in a top-down, command-and-control manner, the movements of people across borders. It determines the overall number of immigrants who will be permitted to enter and remain in the United States. It also allots a quota to each country. It determines credentials of foreigners who seek entry. The government and its central planners, not the free market, determine supply and demand.

As the great libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out, socialist central planning produces “planned chaos.” That is a perfect term for the situation that has existed along the U.S.-Mexico border all of our lives.

To resolve the government-manufactured planned chaos that results from its socialist system, the federal government, over the decades, has produced a massive immigration police state, one that has mostly been in the borderlands but that is now expanding nationwide. This brutal police state includes things like highway checkpoints inside the United States; roving Border Patrol checkpoints; warrantless searches of ranches and farms; the criminalization of hiring, transporting, or caring for illegal immigrants; a Berlin Wall that employs eminent-domain stealing of people’s property; violent raids on American businesses; squalid detention centers; massive secret surveillance of the citizenry; forced separation of children from parents; masked kidnappings of people on public streets; destruction of civil liberties; forced deportations; and much more.

So, how can a libertarian anarchist support a socialist system and a massive brutal immigrant police state? Remember: anarchism means no government. A socialist immigration-control system and a massive police state that enforces it means government — lots of government — big government — omnipotent government — government that kills and brutalizes innocent people, including both foreigners and Americans, with impunity and immunity.

Anarchist supporters of this socialist system and this police state have come to rationalize their abandonment of anarchism by making the following argument: They say that under total anarchy, there would no longer be an immigration “problem” because everything would be privately owned.

But notice that there is an underlying assumption behind the anarchist’s rationalization for supporting socialism and a police state. The assumption is that since all property would be privatized under anarchy, there would be no more foreigners coming into the United States. Given that assumption, the libertarian anarchist essentially says, “Since anarchy (that is, all property being privately owned) would mean no more foreigners would be entering what is now the United States (a nation-state that would no longer exist under anarchy since there would no longer be any government), there is nothing wrong with me, as an anarchist, supporting socialism and a police state until anarchy is achieved.”

As an aside, we should note that this rationalization would apply to the drug war as well. The libertarian anarchist would say, “Under anarchy, drugs would no longer be entering what was the United States. Since we don’t yet have anarchy, we libertarians need to continue supporting drug prohibition and the massive drug-war police state until anarchy arrives.”

But there are two major problems with this formulation:

One, any anarchist worth his salt would favor the dismantling of any government program or agency because it would get him closer to his goal of anarchy. To advocate the continuation and even expansion of a massive socialist program and the brutal and expanding police state that enforces it moves in an opposite direction from anarchism.

Two, the anarchist’s underlying assumption that anarchy — that is, all property is privately owned — would mean no more foreigners entering what was the United States — is patently wrong. After all, under anarchy there would be private airplanes and private airports. There would be nothing under anarchy that would prevent private owners of passenger planes from transporting foreigners to privately owned airports here in what was the United States. In other words, anarchists would not be able to stop the entry of foreigners under a system of anarchy.

Moreover, under anarchy there would be privately owned streets and roads. It’s a safe assumption that the private owners of streets and roads would not be checking people’s papers to determine where people are coming from. Why is that a safe assumption. The profit motive! The more customers, the more money!

After all, let’s not forget that some Americans love illegal immigrants. Those Americans consist of the private owners of housing that rent or sell their dwellings to some 10 million illegal immigrants today. There are also the countless employers who hire millions of illegal immigrants today. There are the millions of retail stores who don’t care who they are selling to, including those 10 million illegal immigrants living here today.

All those people who welcome illegal immigrants would not disappear under anarchism. They would continue to exist. And there is every reason to believe that their attitudes toward renting, selling, and catering to foreigners would continue. Again, it’s called the profit motive under free-market principles. There is nothing that anarchists could do to prevent it under anarchy.

So, what is really going on here with libertarian anarchists? They obviously don’t want a system in which the free market determines the movements of people across borders. That includes anarchy, which necessarily would be based on the principles of the free market. Thus, because preventing a natural flow of foreigners into the United States has become one of their top priorities, they have come to abandon anarchy in favor of a massive socialist immigration-control program and a massive brutal immigration police state that enforces it. Then, to rationalize their abandonment of anarchy, they have constructed an irrational rationalization for their abandonment by erroneously claiming no more foreigners would be entering the land of anarchy that used to be the United States.