Immigration regulations are opposed by the Libertarian Party. Politicians often say that they do not want immigrants to trespass on 'our land.' This falsely implies that America's land is owned collectively, and that they therefore have the authority to dictate who will be allowed on that property. This is not the case. Rather, the United States is a country of private property rights. If a landlord, business owner or any other person wishes to permit immigrants to live or work on his property, then he has every right to do so. If others do not agree with that decision, they are free to boycott and ostracize the property owner, but they should not use the government to forcibly interfere.
The Libertarian Party supports full amnesty for all immigrants who entered the country illegally. Some argue that amnesty would be unfair to those who have waited to come here legally. But if we permanently and completely open the borders to everyone in the world, that it will not matter so much to those who waited. They will be focused on building a new future for themselves in America.
 Impact on voting and government
The majority of immigrants, the majority of them of them illegal, are coming from Mexico and elsewhere in latin america. Such people are disproportionately leftist theocrats- fundamentalist catholics who oppose abortion rights, suicide rights, and gun rights, and support unnatural socialist egalitarianism. That is why they are immigrating and breeding so much- to impose leftist-theocratic ideology onto the United States and it's constituent states. They are mainly using the democratic party as a conduit for said agenda, rather than the republican party. Since spreading leftist-theocratic ideology is an aggressive act, private individuals have the natural right to defend themselves from it.
 Impact on employment
Immigrants will not increase unemployment by taking away jobs from Americans. Studies have not shown any correlation between periods of high immigration and high unemployment. If anything, immigration reduces unemployment. In 2006, there were 21 million foreign born workers in the United States. If immigrants were stealing jobs, then we should have had 21 unemployed Americans, but there were only 7 million unemployed. Likewise, in the 1970s, when there were high rates of immigration to southern California, that region's unemployment rate was rising slower than the rest of the country. The presence of that additional labor made it possible to create jobs that otherwise would not have existed. Immigrants also help fuel the economy by patronizing American businesses. Moreover, immigrants create jobs through their entrepreneurialism. The Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity shows that immigrants are 70% more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans. Google, Yahoo, eBay and Sun Microsystems were all founded by immigrants.
 Impact on prices and wages
Immigrants help drive down the cost of labor, making American businesses more competitive in the global marketplace. Inexpensive labor is vital to U.S. companies in industries such as light manufacturing, agriculture, textiles, and meatpacking, that might otherwise have to outsource or shut down. Immigrants reduce the cost of basic products such as food, in turn benefiting sectors such as the restaurant industry, which employs 12.5 million people nationwide. Low-wage workers make it possible for American businesses to stay profitable and, in doing so, continue to employ higher-wage staff such as managers, secretaries, advertisers, and accountants. Ultimately, consumers reap rewards as well, as the inexpensive goods and services produced by plentiful immigrants reduce their cost of living.
 Impact on government services
Some local governments have felt the pinch as immigrants put extra demands on their services. The solution is to completely abolish taxpayer-funded social assistance and pay for services such as libraries, schools, roads and so on with user fees. This way, everyone will be required to pay their fair share, whether they are native- or foreign-born. Privatization is long overdue anyway. The quality and price of municipal services will become more attractive once we remove them from government control and open them up to competition.
Freedom of movement, when not infringing on the private property rights of others, is a fundamental human right which should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Governments have no legitimate authority to limit who may enter and leave these usually vast areas. Detaining people at national borders without probable cause is just as wrong as detaining them in similar unprovoked fashion at their homes or in the streets.
Immigration laws are founded on racism. We don't argue against letting Coloradans cross a border and work in Arizona, yet we argue against letting Mexicans cross a border and work in Arizona. The economic laws that apply to both situations are the same. It's just easier to get voters on board a proposal to ban Mexicans because they don't want these Spanish-speaking brown people "taking over" by coming to work for us. What, do we think they're undercover Hitlers bent on reconquering the southwest? "Today, the toilet-cleaning, lawn-mowing, fruit-picking, and burger-flipping industries. Mañana, the world"? Give me a break. Spanish is also an easier language to learn, so if we really want to boost productivity, Americans should become Spanish speakers and invite people from all over the world to come here and enter our workforce without having to learn such a difficult language as English.
When people who are willing to endure difficult journeys for the possibility of a better life for themselves and their family are turned into outlaws, they are incentivized to commit actual crimes. Immigrants can’t just hop onto a bike and ride down the road to opportunity; they often must trespass or hire outlaws who have little oversight to their smuggling business. Barred from legal employment and on the run from authorities, an immigrant has more reason to engage in violent drug business or theft than they would if they were considered full human beings by society. And those who are involved in the illegal business of moving people across borders have little recourse when they are wronged – they can’t go to the cops, and few underground arbitration agencies exist.
 Civil liberties
This is a pressing human rights issue. Border controls enforced by governments of wealthy countries have created black markets in human smuggling, with tragic and deadly consequences. Each year, numerous migrants seeking to cross the border unmolested die in the deserts of the southwestern United States or in overheated vehicles without adequate food and water, while others are trafficked into the country as virtual slaves, forced to work in exploitative, sub-market conditions in order to pay off their smugglers, and afraid to leave these workplaces lest they be deported.
We strongly condemn the construction of the walls and fences which are slowly turning the United States, home to about five percent of the world's population, into the equivalent of a wealthy, gated community. Such barriers are also the silent killers of millions who never attempt to migrate, taking years off their lives by denying them the opportunity to relocate in places where their life expectancy would have been extended through access to cleaner drinking water, better health care, etc. Equally ominously, with the United States in danger of becoming a police state, the militarization of the border represents a potential Berlin Wall which could be used to prevent people from leaving the country as well as entering it.
While we understand the concerns of those who resent migrants as an added drain on taxpayer-funded government services, and would like to see the welfare state ended before opening the borders, basic rights are not conditional. If we were not allowed to own guns until there were no shootings, or free speech were put on hold until it was no longer used to express bigoted views, we would wait forever. There is no justice in criminalizing whole groups of people because some members of those groups take advantage of government largess. Per capita, immigrants to the United States actually receive less in total government benefits than do U.S. residents born in the country. The promise of freedom must be extended to all peaceful refugees and migrants to the United States, whether they come to escape tyranny or poverty. Toward this end, we call for the elimination of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, an end to the massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing certain government documents, and the repeal of laws punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. Such laws hurt the economy and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics. Finally, we demand a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country without government approval, except in cases where such entry was in furtherance of committing an actual crime.
The bottom line is that every individual has the fundamental right to sell his/her time or talent at freely negotiated, market-driven prices. To the extent that government obstructs this right through support of trade unions, immigration policies, borders, racial discrimination, social security regulations, drivers license regulations, passport regulations, tax policies or any other process, those artificial barriers should be removed. This right is as basic as the right of free speech or the right to exist.
 Impact on disease
Immigration boosts the economy, and we've seen that stronger economies can better afford immunizations, doctors, etc. which benefit public health. Note too that the U.S. has lower rates of epidemics than poorer countries, despite the fact that Americans are more highly mobile than people in countries lacking very many automobiles. Do we really want poorer countries to remain reservoirs of disease, or would it be better to let their people migrate to countries with better medical care, and thereby solve that problem? As for the subject of terrorists deliberating infecting people with disease, they would have less motive to do so without the U.S. Government provoking them to seek revenge.
If policies are adopted that give infectious diseases more time to spread and mutate among populations where they cannot be as effectively controlled or treated, those diseases will be more likely to eventually reach the United States on a more widespread scale and perhaps in more virulent form as well. Diseases do not respect political borders, and with the number of people entering a large country like the U.S. on a daily basis, even considering only U.S. citizens returning from travel in other locales, it is simply unrealistic to think that government agents can successfully prevent a widespread infection from gaining a foothold here.
A terrorist deliberately seeking to spread an infectious disease to the U.S. would hardly need to enter the country himself. He could simply hang around an overseas airport mingling with passengers preparing to return to this country. By the time those folks started developing symptoms, they would likely have long since been home and past customs and border controls.