This doesn't make it correct or even good policy. If it's wrong or bad policy you'd think some nation would have tried it at some point in time or another....why do you think they haven't?
I disagree. Its an intolerable disgrace to liberty and just hurts every person involved in the process of border restriction. The potential negative effects are weak compared with the benefits. [/quote]Potential negative effects? Say Sweden adopted your policy of totally open borders, you don't see any potential negative effects that would be worse than any of your perceived benefits? I can think of a few for you can't come up with any.
Many libertarians do hold that view, but so do many socialists. It's no more a libertarian position than gun rights or decriminalization of weed are.
It is if you put it in the broader context of the cost of living here which is quite expensive even in the lowest income brackets. I am, however, generalizing illegals as being low-skilled sub-minimum wage workers which is far from the universal truth among the few cases I'm privileged to know in real life.
[/quote]Sure, but why are they going to college? I doubt it would be to "expand their horizons" with some worthless liberal arts degree. No, it would be to gain valuable skills (one would at least hope) and that would mean more money coming in in the future. That's how college loans work for non illegals. You don't pay upfront because you have no money because you have no skills. After college you have the skills to make money, you then make money, you then pay off the loan. Hopefully at least. Some people don't get smart degrees. Some people just aren't smart enough or lack the drive for whatever reason. But that's the point of the loans and the work study programs....so people that can't pay for college can still go. Which is why I've been saying "it's too expensive so they are 'effectively' being conscripted" isn't a good argument.