Hoppetarians vs. Open Immigration Libertarianism

Well articulated

The guy in the video defeats his own argument, if indeed he is arguing in favor of "open borders" and unlimited, unrestricted immigration being the defacto libertarian position, by conceding that if this is applied to Muslims, that they will destroy any chance at having a libertarian society, since they have a culture which is hostile to liberty (and lying to non-Muslims is actually encouraged in their culture). There might be individuals exceptions to this, but individual exceptions do not make the rule, and you can't set policy based on the possibility of rare exceptions. I would also add people with a Marxist or other totalitarian ideologies to this list, and if you examine the voting patterns of most modern day immigrant groups, you will find that a super-majority of them, and their offspring, are on one or more form of government welfare, and/or that after becoming eligible to vote, they vote in super-majority numbers for leftist politicians and/or ballot questions which increase the welfare state, increase taxes and government spending, and increase gun control laws. Look at election results in California and then examine demographic voting patterns. Want to know why Virginia, a once pro-gun rights state, "turned blue" and passed a bunch of control laws? Sure, Virginia has a bunch of government employees who work in DC and live in northern Virginia, and this was a contributing factor, but another big reason is that Virginia has been hit with mass immigration of foreigners, around 80% of whom vote Democrat. Given the demographic changes, the Democrats have no incentive anymore to even pretend to support the 2nd amendment, and so the most anti-gun rights and pro-socialism Democrats are the ones who tend to win the primaries. This is why Marxists and the global ruling elite push for "open borders" and unlimited, unrestricted immigration, and it is why any self professed libertarian who agrees with them ought to re-examine their position.

Response in regard to the park: If lots of bums start to "squat" in a park, turning it into a "shanty town," they will ruin the value of the park. A purist libertarian society would have private parks, but we don't live in a libertarian society, and the option of privatizing parks is not on the table. Reality is that taxpayers pay for parks, and they want to use parks for recreation. If say one or two bums show up in a park and sleep there, it is probably not going to be a big enough deal to ruin the value of the park, however, if the park turns into a "hang out" for bums, then yes, at some point, they will eventually ruin the value of the park for the rest of the public, and there is nothing unlibertarian about saying that the police should "physically remove" the bums from the park, just as a private property owner would be justified in removing bums from their property. Just because the government manages a function, it does not automatically invalidate the function. The government acts as a property manager/steward of the taxpayer funded commons and infrastructure. I'd be willing to bet that a super-majority of taxpayers, including most libertarians, do not want to see public parks turned into "shanty towns" for bums. Yes, homelessness is a real problem, and these people need help (from private charity), but this does not justify destroying the value of parks, nor would it justify causing property values of homes near a public park dropping because the public park is filled with bums and garbage because it has been turned into a "squatter camp" against the wishes of the majority of taxpayers. Now, as for the comments about Somalian migrants squatting in a park, it should be pointed out that the Somalian migrants came to this country not on their own merit, but rather as a part of a government welfare program known as The Refugee Resettlement Act, which uses taxpayer funds to bring people into the country, and then gets them signed up for as many welfare programs as possible once here. Statistics show that a super-majority of people brought in under the Refugee Resettlement Act are on welfare, and that they, and their offspring remain on welfare for many years, and even out of the ones who do work, the majority of them only work menial, low paying jobs, and a lot of them only work part time. Some of these people have in fact caused crime rates to go up, and since the example of Somailians squatting in a park was brought up, there was a case in Maine not that long ago where a gang of Somalians beat a man to death with sticks in a park. The government using taxpayer funds to bring people into the country who do not reciprocate the values of liberty, and who have a high welfare dependency rate, and who, after obtaining American citizenship and becoming registered voters, vote in super-majority numbers to increase the welfare state, has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. These people not only should be "physically removed" if they squat in large numbers in public parks, they should be "physically removed" from the country, and the politicians responsible for bringing them into the country (so they can add to their reliable big government voting block) should be "physically removed" from office, and brought up on criminal charges.