I'm not exactly a libertarian, but I am probably closer to being one than any other label (I'm not exactly neoconservative or Religious Right either), so I can't answer Chris Bertram's charge to Stephen Den Beste and other libertarians, but I will tackle it from a quasi-libertarian standpoint.

Chris says (achiving buggy, search for "transnat" if you need to):

I'm willing to bet that Den Beste believes that members of some groups should have some rights that others just don't have. Citizens of the US, for example, typically find there are fewer legal obstacles to becoming resident in New York City than citizens of, say, Syria do. Of course, if Den Beste really thinks it outrageous that "You don't get to choose your group" and "Someone else will categorize you into your group" then, presumably he will support the right of Syrians just to renounce their Syrian citizenship and adopt, at will, US citizenship. I take it that he doesn't support such an unrestricted right, and that he supports the right of the US government - "someone else" - to assign those individuals to a group (the group of those who are not US citizens).

First of all, Bertram's view of the libertarians views are not entirely accurate. I don't know that there is a consensus at all on the matter. However, the Libertarian Party (which to be sure does not speak for all libertarians) platform states:

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

So I'm willing to bet that Bertram might be surprised at many libertarians view on the matter. As it turns out, I part company with both the Libertarian Party's platform and Bertram's suppositions on how libertarians would view immigration.

In the case of Chris's Syrian, I actually would support his right to come to the United States and become a citizen. I oppose arbitrary limits on immigration. However, when in Rome they ought to be expected to do as the Romans do to some extent. Therefore, I would support an open immigration policy with the following limitations:

(1) They must be able to speak English fluently. I don't support making English our national language, but I firmly believe that if a significant portion of the country is unable to speak it, the productivity that makes us so strong will diminish. This is particularly true if they don't know our primary (English) or secondary (Spanish) languages. However, I also believe that the government ought to take the initiative and offer English classes to anyone who wishes to take them free of cost. Libertarians won't like this idea too much because it means more government, but this is definitely a case where it would be well-applied. Liberals might object because they don't feel that English ought to be a requirement, but they might like government-spending aspect of it. At some point before naturalization, they would have to take a test demonstrating basic understanding of the language.

(2) Current naturalization requirements be left in tact. They need to know about our history and culture. They don't need to adopt it all (in fact, I would hope they wouldn't), but they do at least need to know why we believe what we do and where we are coming from.

(3) They must accept the principles on which this country was founded. In other words, if they want to come here and turn the United States into a religious or communist state, then they don't really want to be Americans, do they? While we can't read there minds, they ought to take an allegiance of some sort or sign some document pledging allegiance to the concept of individual liberty.

(4) I believe that we ought to have some sort of visa or green-card system but that it ought to be applied to those seeking citizenship or those that plan to go back after a specified amount of time. They should not last any more than a couple of years during which they ought to have the time to do what they need to in order to become citizens or make the money they need to in order to go home.

I'm writing this on the fly, so there may be something I'm missing, but there ya go. Bertram may still argue that this is arbitrary since people born in this country need not meet all these requirements in order to be citizens, but I believe that anyone that supports the notion of an American Muslim or Communist state, or has no inclination whatsoever to learn English ought to move to a country which is more closely aligned with their beliefs or customs. I'm not saying "love it or leave it," but I am saying "if you want the United States to be like Europe or Lebanon, you ought to live in Europe or Lebanon."

(Bertram's article found via What She Really Thinks)