It’s really a rather minor issue and not to belabor it, but while in the past libertarians have aligned with conservatives that’ s been changing for a while. Libertarians have been drifting towards the Democratic party the past few election cycles and in this past presidential election the majority actually went for Obama. Wilkinson, along with many other folks from Cato, endorsed and voted for Obama. Wilkerson, who I like a lot, is a leading voice in a movement among some libertarians to try and align themselves more with social progressives (he often uses the term ‘liberalterian’ to describe his own views).

One of the big fissures with conservatives and libertarians is immigration (along with the war and cultural values), and the Bush comprehensive immigration reform that was shredded by his own party for being too liberal was based on a Cato penned plan. The libertarian take on immigration is, and always has been, far more aligned with the Democratic party’s take than the Republicans’. For those reasons I’d just caution about inferring conservative trends from someone who so vocally disagrees with their immigration policies and publicly battles them over it.

Hope all the transitioning is going well,
David

I’d suggest reading the full column by Wilkinson, as it puts in perspective the ‘flood’ metaphor you use. Nobody is “drowning in immigration” — migration is correlated with better livelihoods and economic performance. There may be local social strains associated with rapid and high rates of immigration, but they don’t seem overwhelming in Toronto and Vancouver.

Isn’t he ignoring the flood of immigration from Central America, all of whom are lumped under one ethnicity.
By my recall, Los Angeles was drowning in immigration.
Phil

Wilkinson (and Cato) are libertarian, not conservative and so are long-time supporters of rather liberal immigration policies. Immigration policy is certainly one of the biggest divides between American conservatives and libertarians.

Best,
David