At Washington town hall, candidates clash over open-borders pitch and voter strategy

An audience member asked Jacob Horenberger whether open borders would allow migrants to vote for more government programs. Horenberger defended open borders as consistent with the non-aggression principle and said that open movement would not change a person’s citizenship or immediate voting rights. "Just because you have open borders doesn't mean that a person changes his citizenship," he said, arguing migrant families represent an "opportunity the likes of which may never come in the history of this party."

Horenberger said migrants who work seasonally typically retain their home citizenship and "they vote in Japan" or their original countries while living in the U.S., and therefore would not immediately alter U.S. election outcomes. He framed open borders as a strategic voter-outreach opportunity that could bring millions of new voters into the party’s fold.

Other candidates and audience members pushed back by framing immigration as a politically sensitive issue for voters. Chase Oliver and others called for targeted, practical outreach to bring new members in without oversimplifying the issue; Charles Belay emphasized the need to appeal to a broad range of voters, including those disaffected with both major parties. The exchange highlighted a split inside the party between more absolutist positions on immigration and those prioritizing short-term electability.

The question underscored broader campaign tradeoffs delegates face at the national convention: whether to pursue purist, principle-driven stances that differentiate the party or to adapt positions toward messages that may have broader electoral appeal.