immigration to a libertarian "nation" - by personal sponsorhip only?

[Zenaan Harkness]

This could be a policy breakthrough - cutting edge grounded rationalism,
inspired by libertarian principles (only one small step, but why throw
out the good stuff just because we can't have utopia in a single hit?):


Libertarian country/ nation - premises:

 - all land is either privately or collectively owned (e.g. by the
   people who use the land, or who are otherwise permitted by the locals
   to use that land)

 - the world's only (hypothetical) libertarian nation, the USA, is
   bordered by fascist democracies, e.g. Mexico and Canada

 - coastal land is highly prized, and also well protected/ defended by
   owners/ residents

 - "corporations" are just individuals or collectives doing business
   with other individuals and or collectives, and may own land and
   buildings



So, Habib and Dindu each wish to emmigrate from their respective
current homelands (Iraq and Somalia), to this utopian libertarian USA.

Habib is a young man chasing work.

Dindu has a family and they are fleeing Somali terrorism.


In this hypothetical "utopian libertarian USA," Habib, and Dindu and his
family require direct sponsorship from individuals and/ or collectives
of individuals operating together in "mutually beneficial commerce".

Or possibly they land somehow by boat, or plane, and make their way to
some isolated location in the hopes of being left alone as squatters?

Remember:
 - No taxes, so no sanctuary cities.

 - No taxes, so no refugee camps except those run voluntarily by free
   lovin hippies who might likely get jack of the "freely taken" "love".

 - No taxes, so no free money / handouts, except by personal direct
   sponsorship.

 - No taxes, so no police, so most folk self armed (and knowing how to
   use said arms), and higher consciousness around communal alertness
   and protection of others.


Perhaps if say Trump's administration wanted to pre-empt this
particular libertarian conclusion as a policy, he could (besides all the
rest he's doing e.g. "extreme vetting") sign an EO to:

   require every individual and or family that immigrates, to first
   have an actual sponsoring individual or family with whom they
   directly live with for some minimum period of time like 3 years;

   sponsor has absolute veto to say "no, go home" at any time in
   that 3 years.


This would imply a few things:
 - greater awareness of the needs of immigrants in the community (you
   better be up to speed if you're going to personally sponsor and live
   with an immigrant individual or family), especially if you've got
   children to protect

 - the natives ("White invaders" for you Lefties), may be less inclined
   to accept immigration

 - immigrants may possibly be more likely to 'integrate'

 - the number of 'spots' available for immigration (quota) is only ever
   as many as there are actual individual or family sponsors

 - ghettoization would no longer occur - if you can't make it with your
   sponsor, you go back home, or possibly try with a second sponsor


I'm thinking there are some folks who might appreciate the inescapable
libertarian conclusion re immigration, yes?