The case against open borders can be made from two points of view: deontological/natural rights-based, and consequentialist. I will develop both.

My argument against borders is simple: State enforcement of borders works as a (flawed) self-defense mechanism. In a natural order society, all property would be owned by private individuals. However, in the modern world, property ownership is mixed between individuals and the State. The State cannot legitimately homestead, and all of the property it claims was either expropriated, or claimed using expropriated means. Ergo, the State's property is based on widespread theft, directly or indirectly.

Since the State is not the rightful *owner* of that land, its decisions over it are, inevitably, illegitimate. However, treating this land as unowned is incoherent. If the State were to expropriate your house, it doesn't become unowned land; it still has an owner, namely you. Similarly, all the land the State claims was, at some point, either owned by private individuals, or claimed using private individuals' expropriated wealth. Where there is land once owned by private individuals, it should be preferably transferred to any traceable heir(s), and any other land that has been claimed by the State, but without previous owners, should best be expropriated and put into the hands of the highest bidder.

Therefore, the State does not any land, but the land it claims is also not unowned. The State works as a trustee over the land until it is rightfully expropriated and put into private hands. Therefore, the State *has* to treat this land in the way that most closely approximates how its private owner would treat it.

One must also understand that there is no such thing as a "freedom of migration." In a natural order society, one can only move to any one place (which would be owned privately) provided they have been invited by the property owner. The property owner has full rights over their property and, therefore, has the right to invite or exclude any person from his property. In essence, all migration is contractual, based on invitation. This prevents "forced integration", since entry is always contingent on the property owner's desires.

In the current world, where "public" property exists, the free movement of individuals is unlike the free movement of goods. Whereas, goods can only be moved if there is a mutual agreement between seller and buyer, people can migrate under the invitation of the State, which manages its land illegitimately and, therefore, has no right to invite people into said territory against the wishes of the people from which it was expropriated and/or the wishes of those who are coerced into continuously funding the mechanisms by which the State claims said territory. In other words, State-promoted immigration constitutes an unwanted invasion of socialized property, as well as forced integration, since the people who use said socialized property (often in absence of private alternatives) must associate with said people. For a practical example, imagine the Spaniards who have to fend off Moroccans on the street, or the Italians whose streets in cities like Rome end up filled with immigrants littering, begging or committing other such nuances at the expense of the taxpayer. These people cannot disassociate with these immigrants, because they cannot forcefully remove them from property they have no control over.

When the State allows an immigrant, it does so at the expense of the taxpayer. Not only is the immigrant allowed into the territory the State claims, but he is granted permits to access all public facilities and services: roads, parks, schools, hospitals, buses, trains, and else. In most cases, these immigrants do not pay the full cost of their presence, which effectively socializes the costs of immigration onto the domestic taxpayer, who did not issue an invitation. On top of this, immigrants are normally protected by anti-discrimination laws, which limit the free speech of the domestic citizen, and forces association. Therefore, you may not refuse service to an immigrant or insult them, under the threat of State violence.

All of this is, by all means, an imposition from the State onto its unwilling subjects. When widespread, it results in a social breakdown, increased crime, a strain on State services (subsidized by the contributor), and forced multiculturalism, which leads to social dehomogenization and conflict. This leads, naturally, to an array of clear consequences of various magnitudes, and these can be seen in the real world:

* Argentina: Bolivian immigrants would enter Argentina through northern provinces (like Salta) in order to obtain healthcare at public hospitals at the expense of the domestic taxpayer [1]. Immigrants are also had their studies at Argentine universities subsidized by the taxpayer [2]. Because their presence is fully subsidized by domestic taxpayers, some immigrants even engage in academic fraud without greater repercussions [3].

* Spain: Multiple immigrants from certain South American nations and Northern Africa (namely Morocco) have illegally occupied private property [4] and been practically protected by the State. Moroccan immigrants have become Spain's largest immigrant labor force, and have entered Spain in the hundreds of thousands, which has been used as a tool by the Moroccan State to undermine Spain since the Ceuta crisis [5].

* Poland: Belarus attempted to use immigrants to generate a border crisis in Poland, which would spread onto the European Union, during the Russo-Ukrainian War [6].

* United Kingdom: High levels of immigration into low-skilled service sectors have depreciated wages for local workers in said industries by 2.1% [7], while these immigrants were subsidized by said workers. 4 in 10 British believe that Muslim immigration in the UK has been negative (in other words, they *did not* provide invitation for these immigrants) [8]. This immigration has also caused a housing shortage of 2.5 million homes, which is simply not helped by the existing regulations to building and renting houses in the UK. Public infrastructure and services, like the NHS, have been strained by immigrants, subsidized by the taxpayer. At least 27% of the prison population in the UK is Muslim [9]. The British State now works to censor any "islamophobia" [10]. Cities like London, Brighton, Oldham, Blackburn or Solihull have now Muslim mayors. This undermines the social and cultural fabric of a nation historically Christian. An increase in Muslim influence will inevitably result in a steer of State policy towards further censorship against "islamophobia", and potentially into greater immigration, and potentially theocratic policy. None of these things are voluntary, nor preferable for liberty. Additionally, 52% of Britons would like immigration to be reduced [11], which simply supports the invitation argument.

* United States: Illegal immigration into certain states that have historically received fewer immigrants (New Hampshire, Mississippi, Wyoming) have caused a net tax deficit of $4000-$6500 annually [12]. This means the domestic taxpayer has been stolen *more* of their wealth to cover these losses caused by uninvited guests, protected by the State.

* Canada: Mass immigration has led to a housing crisis; the Canadian population grew by 410,000 people just in the first third of 2024. This has also caused a sharp decrease in GDP per capita and has strained infrastructure (at the cost of the domestic taxpayer) without providing any long-term economic benefits [13].

All of these examples, beyond just being consequentialist arguments, also support the deontological basis of my argument: this mass immigration was done without the invitation of property owners and taxpayers, who were forced to subsidize the presence of said immigrants, and were also forced to associate with them under the threat of coercion or violence by the State. In countries like the United States, this inevitably lead to the political victory of figures like Donald Trump, whose populist policies have also seen legal immigrants, and even US citizens, be detained or deported, as well as an overall increase in spending on surveillance and law enforcement in order to remove illegal immigrants which already incurred a socialized cost onto the taxpayer.

To better understand all of this, let's use an analogy:

You own a parcel of land. I come and take it from you by force, and prevent you from getting it back. I have committed an act of aggression. I am not the legitimate owner of this parcel of land. I do not have any right to invite any person into it, because doing so would also constitute an aggression, since these people would not be invited by you—the rightful owner—into said parcel of land. Since I cannot *own* that land legitimately—since I stole it—, I am only an unlawful trustee of it, and I manage that property until you get it back from me. Therefore, as its trustee, it would be in *your* best interest, and it would be the *least amount and category of aggression* to *not* invite people into the land, and to *not* damage or modify the land itself against *your* will.

Once again, as long as you do not get control back over that land, any presence by a third party, granted by its unlawful trustee (me), is illegitimate and unwanted. Even if your neighbor says "but I want to associate with these people, and they must walk through your land!", for him to associate with them necessarily means that *your* property rights must be violated.

Now, not only did I steal that land of yours, but now, I also go to your house and force you to pay me to maintain it, or else I may shoot you. Now, it would still be in your best interests, and be the least amount of coercion, for you to only have to pay the regular maintenance of the land being used by *one* person (me). However, the cost of maintaining the land will inevitably increase the more demand over its use there is. If I invite 10 people on a daily basis to use your property, then its maintenance costs will increase, which means I will necessarily have to steal more from you in order to fund this.

Then, to worsen things, I also threaten you with violence if you insult anyone whom I invite into the land I expropriated from you. I also allow people to walk through your land, and enter any other property you own, and keep threatening you with violence if you do not allow them in.

The parcel of land next to the one I took from you was not homesteaded, but using the wealth I regularly steal from you, I lay claim on it. To lay claim on it, I used stolen means. Ergo, I cannot own that property legitimately. Therefore, the person with the most right over this other parcel of land is *you*. You have more of a rightful claim to that land that I do, and you would then be justified to take it. Since this other land is also involuntarily funded by you, it will also be in your interest that it is treated the closest possible to how *you* would treat it, and a manner that reduces the coercion of my stewardship the most possible.

In this scenario, it would be *completely compatible with property rights* for me to enforce strict admission rights onto your land until you get it back from me. Anybody who uses it should fully cover the costs of their presence, so that you are not burdened with them. I should not use your land as a means to force assimilation, integration or association between you and any uninvited guests, or anyone else. Failure to do this constitutes various degrees and layers of aggression against you and/or your property. My duty would therefore be that of damage control as a form of self-defense by proxy.

Finally, as I said at the beginning of this impromptu essay: my theft of your land did *not* make it "unowned." Even if you died without getting it back, it would still not be "unowned"; any heir of yours would come to have that claim, and even if they die, the claim would still remain, until the original owner (you) can no longer be traceable. If that land doesn't become "unowned" when I steal it, then it'd be absurd to pretend that any socialized land managed by the State is "unowned", otherwise, any eminent domain seizures of property would have the victim's property rights voided because the land has become "unowned", and anyone could theoretically claim it as long as the State steals it first. This would obviously mean that the State could steal land from anyone, and allow any of its cronyies to homestead it, granting them a fully legitimate property title over the land that was no longer in dispute, but was "unowned."

Past this analogy, does this mean ALL immigration should cease? No, that's be rather ridiculous. However, immigrants should have to bear the cost of their presence in any territory. They should have to abide by the same laws and terms that the domestic taxpayer does. Otherwise, you increase the coercive burden onto a territory's citizens, and you create inequality before the law by creating protected groups with privileges which are, obviously, possible only through State coercion. The border should resemble a natural order society the most possible: in other words, the border must be treated as if it were private.

To refuse border control is to *explicitly* advocate for State violence. It is to *explicitly* advocate for theft to fund the uninvited presence of people protected by the State's monopoly on the initiation of violence. It is to *explicitly* advocate for the undermining of property and association rights. It is to legitimize the State by recognizing its control over stolen property as valid or acceptable. If the right to "free migration" would not exist in an anarchy (given that all legitimate presence in any place would necessarily have to be from invitation or ownership), then it is absurd to assume that it is a valid right today. It is a positive right, not a negative right.

Open borders are violence. The only true border is a private border, and in the absence of it, the State has the duty to treat its borders in the way most conducting to a private border, and to its taxpayers' interests.

1: https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/09/10/el-hospital-de-oran-paso-de-atender-300-personas-por-semana-a-un-promedio-de-5/
2: chequeado.com/el-explicador/extranjeros-en-las-universidades-argentinas-representan-menos-del-5-del-total-de-estudiantes/
3: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/residencias-medicas-que-nota-saco-en-el-segundo-examen-el-medico-ecuatoriano-acusado-de-copiarse-nid08082025/
4: https://www.infobae.com/peru/2025/02/01/okupas-peruanos-en-espana-piden-hasta-15-mil-euros-para-desalojar-viviendas-de-carabanchel/
5: https://www.unav.edu/web/global-affairs/espana-y-el-magreb-la-crisis-sigilosa
6: https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/06/12/the-renewed-poland-belarus-border-crisis-explained/
7: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem
8: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islam-muslim-britons-angela-rayner-hampshire-b2795651.html
9: https://bcbn.org.uk/blog-post/post-title-date/
10: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-working-group-on-anti-muslim-hatredislamophobia-definition
11: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/
12: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mass-immigration-has-oversized-negative-impact-on-low-immigration-states-finds-new-fair-analysis-300999556.html
13: https://sustainablesociety.com/research-material/immigration/