Now it should seem at first glance that this dual issue, as it were, is an easily resolvable one from any even basic grasp of libertarian concepts: Since each individual human being is a self-owner (and I think here we can skip the semantical arguments that term raises on occasion), it follows that people should have the freedom to travel and live where they wish, so long as they do not violate the property rights of any other individual. Hence, immigration laws, and the arbitrary government boundaries within which they are enforced, are entirely illegitimate threats and uses of force against innocent people.

Seems fairly solid and noncontroversial, right? If only.

There exists a sizable wing of self-proclaimed libertarian thought wherein it is posited that while the above line of logic might hold true under more idealized circumstances, current ones dictate a divergence away from such permissiveness as both a cultural and philosophical preservation tactic. To simplify, we must use this one aspect of the State (such thinking goes) in order to keep out populations whose political or social orientations are antagonistic or even anathema towards traditional Western/American values of capitalism, individual initiative, and private property, in order to slow down – if not reverse – trends leaning away from these foundational attributes of any free society. Allowing unchecked immigration will render us overrun by such people as are enthralled by and culturally acclimated to socialism, collectivism, and welfare statism. If we hold true to purist libertarian principles in this regard, it is argued, we will lose the final vestiges of Western thinking. All will, in short order, come to ruin and apocalypse.