I'd say the same about libertarians. Whose rights does an immigrant violate which requires the state to violate the NAP, "defensively"? Not directed at you Feeding, I know your on the good side.
Self defense is not aggression, period. And for the state to
exercise self defense is not a violation of the NAP. All the libertarians debating this issue are on the good side, they just honestly differ on the application of principles to all the elements of this issue. As I wrote on a thread last month:
Protected borders is a NAP-compliant position, in that a government has a proper defensive role with regards to its borders, as part of its delegated power to defend life, liberty and property. All people have rights, but a particular government's obligation to honor or protect those rights can be reasonably restricted to those persons or families who have voluntarily made themselves participants, or citizens, under that government though acts of allegiance, such as completing a naturalization or resident process.
A foreigner who is visiting the country is not a citizen, nor is a foreign worker with an expired visa a citizen, nor is an invading soldier a citizen, simply because he is physically 'here.' None have undertaken to switch allegiance to the country, so as to oblige the government to provide automatic access to its protections and resources. So there are victims in illegal immigration, namely the native allegiant citizens, who are expected to involuntarily support (through their delegated government) a population who has not entered voluntary allegiance to that government. Their non-performance of the legal process makes them aliens and aggressors until they rectify the situation, every bit as much as people taking up residence without entering into a lease agreement are not legal tenants, but trespassers.
Of course, due to logistical issues it may be impracticable to remove them, a point well expressed earlier, but it does not follow that compounding the problem by granting amnesty is a practical solution, let alone a libertarian approach. As is plain from the Reagan amnesty example from the '80's, amnesty simply encouraged a larger expression of illegal immigration, and a larger population of non-allegiant aliens who have forced access to American resources. A new round of amnesty would likely trigger another, probably bigger wave.
The actual practical way out would be to adopt the "individual responsibility" approach, where current aliens are given a choice of either never receiving amnesty or any form of legal status, OR self-deporting and going through the process. This approach 1) puts the obligation on the alien to put things right, 2) does NOT obligate anybody to support impractical mass-deportation or 2,000 mile fence schemes, 3) would not encourage further waves of illegal immigration by setting aside completion of the established naturalization laws, and 4) makes it clear that full recognition, rights and benefits as an American, requires formally volunteering to be an American--anything less, is the equivalent of extended trespassing.
