Libertarian law professor Ilya Somin previously wrote a book titled Free to Move, which advocates in favor of considerably more open borders than we currently have. (A "presumption in favor of open borders", in Ilya Somin's words--albeit not a completely irrebuttable one.) Somin has also compared immigration restrictions to racial discrimination--for instance, over here:

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/527392-immigration-restrictions-and-racial-discrimination-share-similar

Honestly, I was impressed by some of Somin's arguments--even though they did not take me quite as far as he would have probably wanted me to. Let's focus on my birth country of Israel, for instance--in part because I have a personal interest there and in part because the alt-right loves to use it as a talking point and to view it as an inspiration. OK, here goes:

Israeli Jews presumably argue that their country should have a categorical (or near-categorical) exclusion on gentile immigrants who don't have any close Jewish relatives or family members because otherwise the changes that will occur to Israel's demographic character could result in Israeli Jews becoming more vulnerable to pogroms, hate crimes, inter-religious violence, and the sort. However, as Ilya Somin points out, many of the arguments that are used to justify immigration restrictions can also be used to justify restrictions on internal migration. For instance, by that same logic, what exactly is to prevent a group of Israeli Jews from creating Jewish-only communities, whether through restrictive covenants or through some other means, in order to protect themselves from any potential pogroms, hate crimes, and inter-religious violence that could occur if non-Jews (aka gentiles) were to settle in these communities? Yet if one is going to argue that a categorical prohibition on gentiles living in Jewish cities/town/communities/neighborhoods would be too broad, one could legitimately ask whether a categorical (or near-categorical) prohibition on gentiles without any close Jewish relatives or family members moving to Israel would likewise be too broad. After all, Ilya Somin points out how, in the domestic context, differential treatment of citizens based on their race, ethnicity, or religion would be subject to strict scrutiny and would thus have to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/us-immigration-laws-unconstitutional-double-standards/599140/

Granted, Israel isn't the US, but I suspect that Israeli Jews, at least of the more liberal variety, would agree with Somin's logic in the domestic context here. If so, then one could legitimately wonder why exactly discrimination in immigration policy should not likewise be narrowly tailored as much as possible in order to serve a compelling state interest. Indeed, why the double-standard here?

Also, in regards to demographic change, even without any immigration, there would still *theoretically* be ways for Israel to lose its Jewish character. For instance, non-Jews could out-reproduce Jews in Israel over a sufficiently long time period. If, purely hypothetically, the only way to preserve Israel's Jewish character would have been through a discriminatory fertility policy where non-Jews would have been strongly encouraged (with financial incentives) to have small families whereas Jews would have been strongly encouraged (with financial incentives) to have larger families, would that have been perfectly acceptable? If having Jews become a minority in Israel is so horrible (even if Israeli Jews aren't "replaced" by Arabs or Muslims but are instead replaced with, say, Russians or Belarusians or Chinese or Vietnamese or Thai people or Filipinos or Hindus or Latin Americans), then why exactly would the Israeli state interest in regards to this not be sufficiently compelling to justify a discriminatory fertility policy if, purely hypothetically, such a policy would have literally been the only way to maintain Israel's Jewish character?

And for that matter, why stop there? If having Jews become a minority in Israel is so horrible, why not have Israel impose a tax on apostasy and/or on any speech that encourages apostasy in a hypothetical scenario where large numbers of Israeli Jews would have already left Judaism and joined other religions and where there is a very serious fear that many more Israeli Jews will eventually follow in their footsteps if nothing is done to stop this trend? Sure, an apostasy tax--as well as a tax on speech that encourages apostasy--would certainly be illiberal, but at the same time, if there is a scenario where imposing such taxes would literally be the only way for Israel to maintain its Jewish character, then what exactly would be so unacceptable about this? (This is, of course, based on the premise that Jews who leave Judaism and join another religion would no longer be considered Jews, a position that Israel does, in fact, appear to hold: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/swedish-daughter-of-holocaust-survivor-faces-deportation-from-israel-514734 ) After all, imposing such taxes would literally be the only way to prevent an alleged great evil in such a scenario--assuming that having Jews become a minority in Israel would genuinely be as awful as some Israeli Jews actually suggest, of course.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about all of this?