I don't even know how this would work, but basically as a libertarian I started as against borders because they are government-created boundaries
Then I recognized that without borders it seemed difficult to decide who was and wasn't a citizen and that wasn't fair, and that it seemed like certain people in government wanted to bring in more people to get them to vote to destroy freedom, so actually the libertarian position would be for borders to protect freedom
However, now with covid we also see borders being used to prevent people from moving - some people have been stuck in countries they attempted to live in temporarily or were on vacation at, or haven't been able to visit countries because of border restrictions
The libertarian (ancap) position on borders is that private borders are fine (like, on land that a person owns, they can choose who can "immigrate" to it or not, or like private cities can decide who is allowed to visit)
So are any conservatives against borders or what do you think of this issue in light of recent developments?
Countries only exist because they had natural borders they could defend. If they didn't have natural borders, they wouldn't have been able to successfully defend those portions of land and would have had to recede back until they find a defendable position, i.e. a natural border. The only alternative is to make a border.
Borders can be deserts, oceans, rivers, mountains, but they can also be walls, canals, moats, or even traps.
I am pro border, pro wall, and pro State Sovereignty (not just US States).
What that means is that each State should exist not only independent from one another but also in COMPETITION with one another.
Such competition for the Citizenry should be the only incentive of a governing body. That includes two main functions:
With both, policies will lead to the success of the State. Production is key to this end.
Borders ensure States are able to take in Citizenry that will bring it most benefit while also providing a deterrent for other States' Citizenry to leave instead of voting for winning policies.
If a State's Citizenry leaves en masse, without correcting the policies that have resulted in their Citizenry leaving, they have only to lose with this exchange. In such a scenario, they lose an actionable portion of their Citizenry, which means less industrial potential. More notably, they lose the only Citizenry which would have voted failed policies out of the State's governance.
In effect, it is in every State's best interest to have sufficient Border Policy to prevent such exodus events, going OR coming. Exodus events prevent the State from correcting it's failed path while simultaneously placing undue burden on neighboring State's resources in having to deal with the fallout of an imploding nation.
This is true with any group or governing body. Mexico is a prime example. Their failed policies are the reason for the immigration crisis. If they were successful on their own merits, people wouldn't wish to flee.
In other words, each State's secure border is responsible for their neighbor's stability. By taking Mexico's actionable Citizenry, the US is leaving Mexico to its corruption, which then metastasizes and spreads into the US.
Remember this:
If those who recognize corruption flee because it is easier than to confront it, then all that will be left is the corruption and the lingering scent of cowardice upon which corruption happily gives chase.