Liberty, Borders, and the Future of the American Experiment

The following Student View by Barrett Tefft, Anthony Storer, and Alexander “Noel” Tokarev appears in the April 2025 When Free to Choose, a signature publication by Northwood University.

Some see immigration as a human right. If that’s true, we need open borders. Others say the failure of the previous administration to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into America threatens our national security. Those who agree with this assessment want to build the wall.

Some argue for letting persecuted foreigners settle here on humanitarian grounds. Shall we let them in? Others fear that our failed border security allows gangsters and terrorists to turn our cities into war zones. Perhaps we should send them back?

Some note that immigrants generate prosperity by working, saving, investing, and starting new businesses. To get more growth, we need more of them. Others point out that unchecked immigration into a welfare state will bankrupt us and we should be highly selective at the border.

According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, illegal immigration hit an all-time high in 2023. Did the Democrats fail to protect our borders? Or did they pursue such lenient immigration policies under Obama and Biden for political gains — to import future voters?

The 2024 elections proved that Democrats can’t take the political support of immigrants for granted. Many of those who migrate from Catholic Latin American countries are culturally much more conservative than the Party’s elites and their white college-educated base.

Macroeconomic estimates show that illegal immigrants are contributing roughly $76 billion per year in taxes. That, however, did not persuade many lifelong blue-collar Democrats who flipped to Trump’s GOP, fearing that the influx of illegals threatens their jobs.

Democrats could communicate better the benefits of our foreign-born neighbors. We may appreciate the value of a larger and younger labor force with $1.5 trillion in additional spending power. Immigration could lower our budget deficits, thus lowering future tax rates for all of us.

The cultural benefits of immigration should also be considered. Cultural diversity, both inside and outside of the workplace, allows for deeper connections with the world outside of the United States. It can inspire creativity, drive innovation, and allow for faster problem-solving. On top of higher living standards, immigration gives millions of persecuted individuals an escape from dangerous situations, whether cartel violence in Mexico, civil wars in the Middle East, or political repressions in dictatorships. And that is the liberal moral case for open borders.

Republicans fear that mass immigration can lead to fraudulent voting and violent crimes. But if Congress passes proper voter ID laws and implements effective background checks for those who cross our borders, they will pose no significant threat to election integrity or internal safety.

No political party has any reason to be hostile to immigrants if hospitality could win you votes when those people become citizens. Think of it as an additional demographic for voter competition. Be nice to immigrants, and they’ll support you in return.

If our government schools cease DEI practices that demonize American history, cultural assimilation will prevent radical political changes, even with mass migration. A bipartisan support for open borders would not threaten the chances of either party in future elections.

Advocates for open borders also reference the many hard, low-paying jobs migrant workers fill in agriculture and raw material processing. If we deport them, no citizen will want to replace them. Creating artificial labor shortages and reducing tax revenue is self-sabotage for an administration that wants to restore America’s greatness.

The conservative case against free immigration rests on three pillars: politics (national sovereignty and legislative authority), philosophy (nature of citizenship and moral obligations), and economics (labor markets and the costs of public welfare).

By signing executive orders restricting immigration at the start of his second term, President Trump underscored his administration’s core political objective: redefining the permissible scope of federal and state authority in determining who may reside within U.S. borders.

Underlying such political decisions is a philosophical viewpoint that a nation’s borders mark the boundary of the social contract. Aligning with Locke’s belief that “where there is no law, there is no freedom,” strict border controls safeguard the community’s right to self-determination.

Conservatives argue that lax border enforcement can lower local wages and strain welfare programs intended for legal residents. Allocating federal funds to accommodate illegal entrants misdirects resources that could otherwise bolster domestic economic development.

Tom Homan, the current border czar, encapsulates the conservative stance: “There are consequences for entering the country illegally.” This clear, rule-based approach is closely tied to the conservative political belief in upholding legislative integrity.

From a philosophical standpoint, conservatives invoke the idea of mutual obligation. The Constitution’s requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1) underscores the centrality of allegiance.

The social contract demands that individuals entering a nation must abide by its laws and assume the responsibilities of membership. Violating immigration statutes is a breach of this fundamental covenant. That fuels the push for deportations to reassert societal norms.

Conservatives claim the influx of undocumented individuals can lead to disproportionate burdens on public services, such as healthcare and education. Deportations are a method of rebalancing economic responsibilities and ensuring that taxpayer funds serve lawful residents.
Conservatives also regard citizenship as a conscious commitment, not a geographic accident. Hence, limiting automatic citizenship reflects a philosophical premise: membership in a political community should be predicated on allegiance and mutual recognition.

With access to robust institutions, markets, and public resources, being a U.S. citizen confers a distinct advantage. Narrowing the path to citizenship helps preserve these benefits for those who formally and legally join the social compact.

Is it even possible to reconcile such diverse viewpoints? Yes, but only if all sides agree to use the government as a tool to protect life, liberty, and property. An ideal system of immigration should respect the rights of every individual, foreign and domestic.

To create the best policy in an imperfect world, we need to imagine how things would work in a perfect one. In a society founded on libertarian principles, all land, housing, and businesses will be privately owned. The government will have one job: to secure the rights of the owners.

Americans will have the right to invite foreigners to live on their land and work in their companies. Someone who lives outside the United States will have no right to trespass without invitation. The government will stop all acts of invasion and secure safe passage to all invited.

Some regions will attract large numbers of foreign-born residents and reap huge material benefits. However, people value many things, not just wealth. Consequently, some will gladly pay the cost of lower living standards if it keeps away people they don’t like.

An ideal system of immigration must respect the right of every citizen to associate (or not associate) with people from other countries. To accomplish this, we need additional reforms that will make invited immigration easy and lower the incentives for the uninvited to cross our border.

First, we need to privatize most public properties and end welfare benefits for immigrants. If they are invited, the host takes full legal and financial responsibility for them. If they come without invitation, we should deport them at the expense of the countries from which they come.

Second, the government must remove all barriers to trade between our citizens and foreign producers. When Americans are free to buy goods made by poor workers in the Third World, we’ll consume more, and they’ll make more money without the need to come here.

Finally, immigration policy has to be decentralized. These duties shouldn’t be exercised by politicians who live in gated communities far from the border. Let’s gradually hand them over to each state, county, township, neighborhood, and individual property owner.

About the Authors
Anthony Storer, of Midland, Michigan, is double majoring in finance and economics. He also serves as a Student Research Scholar for the McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at Northwood University. Barrett Tefft, of Davison, Michigan, is studying accounting. Alexander “Noel” Tokarev is a student from Midland, Michigan, who has authored multiple essays for Northwood’s signature publication, When Free to Choose, and Students in Defense of Freedom, an annual collection of student essays. three students who attended the 2025 Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE) League Competition hosted by the Gwartney Institute at Ottawa University in Kansas. The competition focused on immigration and gave students a chance to show their creativity and ability to educate an audience through policy solutions that address this very real issue. This essay is featured in the April 2025 edition of When Free to Choose. Click here to subscribe to When Free to Choose at no cost.