As with all other issues, the relevant initial inquiry is whether someone violates the 3L Legal Principle. No person has a right to trespass upon another person’s property. Trespass is always a violation of the 3L Legal Principle and should therefore always be outlawed. The converse is also true. The competent adult owner of real property always has the right to invite another competent adult, located wherever in the world, to enter the owner’s property. To the extent we have private property, including private roads, the immigration issue is simply a matter properly left to the private property owner’s discretion. The owner of private property has an absolute right to determine under what conditions another person may enter their property and when that person must exit. It is essential to observe that, to the extent we have private property, this resolves the issue of immigration for the person committed to the 3LP.

Even when viewing this issue in the context of both public property and a sovereign international border, the usual analysis applies. No person has a right to violate the 3L Legal Principle. This conclusion remains true regardless of which side of an international border a person stands on. If someone intends to violate the 3L Legal Principle from inside an international border, all people living there are justified in immediately stopping that person. The same remains valid for someone who intends to cross an international border. The people who live within the boundary, like everyone else everywhere, have a right to insist that the 3L Legal Principle not be violated. If we appropriately determine that someone plans to enter a country to violate the 3L Legal Principle, it is permissible to refuse to admit that person.

We should treat the person who poses a substantial threat of harm to others the same way regardless of where the person stands. For example, it is no violation of the 3L Legal Principle to prevent a person from entering a country who previously posted their credible intent on social media to detonate a bomb in a crowded mall in that country. By displaying credible evidence of an intention to detonate a bomb, such a person violates the 3L Legal Principle by posing a substantial threat of initiating physical force. It is reasonable to take such a person at their word that they intend to violate the 3L Legal Principle. It matters not whether such a person stands inside or outside an international border.

For the same reason, it makes sense to determine whether a person attempting to purchase a firearm is a convicted violent felon or mentally incompetent; such a check at an international border also makes sense. We have a right to insist the 3L Legal Principle not be violated. People who create substantial risks of harm to others, whether by merely possessing a firearm or simply by crossing an international border with the intent to injure others, should be immediately stopped. No person has a right to create a substantial risk of harming others. Doing so violates the 3L Legal Principle. As such, so long as we have public property and international political borders, it makes sense to briefly stop all people who intend to cross that border to reasonably and fairly determine whether they intend to violate the 3L Legal Principle. Such a brief check is not possible without an enforceable international border. As such, securing immediate control of the international border is a required first step.

Precisely what constitutes sufficient evidence to detain or deny entry to a person at an international border is a matter upon which reasonable minds can and do disagree. We can say the same about what hearings are required to challenge such determinations, the burdens of proof applicable at those hearings, and the relevant appellate procedures involved. That we need to resolve these legal issues does not defeat the principle from which we should reason. Of course, as should always be the case, we should enforce all laws and implementing rules in a scrupulously fair manner and with due process.

It is also important to note that the only relevant inquiry in this analysis is whether the person seeking entrance violates the 3L Legal Principle. The race, nationality, ethnic background, language, religious beliefs, sexual preference, cultural practices, or relative wealth of the person seeking entrance is entirely irrelevant to the analysis. While individuals are free to discriminate on any basis they choose, governments are not. As with the issue of free speech, recall that individuals and companies are allowed to censor the content of speech, but the government’s ability to act is intentionally limited. We do not allow the government to act as freely as a private individual or company for good reasons. This governmental restriction is the case with many other issues as well. Because of the unique problems associated with governments, to the extent they act to do anything at all, they should not be free to discriminate for any of these reasons.

It is important to note that, other than child and guardianship issues, no person has a right to live at the expense of another person. Because of this, some people object to immigration because they do not want to be forced to fund social programs for immigrants. This objection is entirely valid. We should not force anyone to fund social programs, whether for a citizen or non-citizen, as this would violate the 3L Legal Principle. Besides simply complying with the 3L Legal Principle, we should not force anyone to do anything.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s in the United States, people were legally allowed to immigrate to the United States. Their mere arrival in the United States did not entitle them to any compelled financial assistance from others. Like many immigrants today, what these immigrants came to the United States for was a chance to simply live and let live. Because immigrants, like citizens and other legal residents, become consumers who purchase local goods and services and offer their labor for sale, this policy turned out to be a win for the immigrant and the general community via an improved economy. Such an immigration policy is entirely consistent with the 3LP.

Today’s immigrant to the United States, and many other places, is legally entitled to claim financial benefits of all types funded through the coercive mechanisms of taxation. For the same reason that citizens and other residents should not be entitled to live at the expense of other people, neither should the immigrant. Although people of good character will always be inclined to voluntarily offer financial assistance to less fortunate immigrants, citizens, and other residents, forcing such a result is legislating morality and always violates the 3L Legal Principle. America’s immigration policy of the late 1800s and early 1900s is an excellent example of how peaceful and productive people can immigrate into a country resulting in a win/win that is entirely consistent with the 3LP. Like many issues, simply adhering to the 3LP presents an easy fix to an otherwise tricky problem.

As a final note on this topic, it is worth mentioning that some people object to immigration based on racial or cultural differences, such as speaking different languages, eating different foods, singing different songs, or even celebrating different holidays. Although people are entitled to feel any way they wish towards immigrants or anyone else, such objections are irrelevant to an analysis of the 3L Legal Principle and violate the 3L Moral Principle. Because such cultural differences, and differences in immutable characteristics, are irrelevant to an analysis of the 3L Legal Principle, such objections should fall on deaf ears as a legal matter. The 3LM and its promotion of the 3L Moral Principle attempt to promote specific aspirational values to create a world where civilized people only welcome and celebrate such differences.