On the immigration debacle: It’s all a false dichotomy. The GOP wants to create more criminals (and, horribly and against their own alleged conservatism, round ’em up, tear apart families, and separate them from their employers) and give the Federal Government more militaristic control over the borders as if we were an impending police state while the Dem Party is seeking forced integration, larger agency (especially welfare) subsidies, and a larger voting constituency. They are both seeking power and control and are opportunistically playing off of each other in order to push their own narratives. The real solution is private property and local control. If certain counties in Texas want to handle things differently than certain counties in California then so be it. But it’s ridiculous for the Federal Government to expand its control via Federal means A or Federal means B, as are the current options. (This is clearly a tenth amendment issue)
Private property by definition implies a border, a line which defines what is and what is not one’s property. But for the Federal Government to come in and either prevent people from coming who would otherwise have been accepted by the local citizens; or else allow people to come in who the local property owners may have not been prepared for, is not only unconstitutional, but it is also anti-liberty and authoritarian. I do not think there is a dogmatic opinion for libertarians to hold on the immigration issue (and I do think that completely open or completely sealed off borders is a false dichotomy), but my own position, if anyone is interested, is Hans Hoppe’s (here –starting with section III is the most relevant) and Murray Rothbard (here –go to the open borders section on page 6). I at the very least, I think the border question should be a local, if not completely private (ideally), issue.