The disagreement between anarchists is, while the state exists, whether some state enforced border controls can be preferable to none at all.
I believe some such controls can be preferable. In the sense that there is likely to be a set of such controls, for every taxed population, that minimises injustice (beyond the injustices the state already creates).
Here's the idea: The indigenous population have preferences about who they wish to associate with. And who they would allow into their territory, if they were not ruled by the state. The closer the state border controls approximate the wishes of the subjugated population, the less injustice exists. By enforcing border policies that align with the preferences of the victim population, partial restitution is being given to that population. Which is better than no restitution at all.
I call it the argument from imperfect restitution. Kinsella put it like this:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/09/stephan-kinsella/a-simple-libertarian-argument/
Your post calls people who find this argument compelling 'immoral, fearful idiots' (me included) but hasn't addressed it.
One can be an anarchist but think that while the state exists, having border control would help to improve the citizens' lives in the short term. The problem is that having border control can also strengthen the state, and I am not willing to risk that.
That's possible. Whether any specific border control policy for any specific state will end up strengthening that state is an empirical question (about which reasonable people can disagree without name-calling).
Very true. I think it would in the case of the U.S. (but that's a separate argument) and I think it perpetuates nationalism and other current attitudes.
can't have freedom because collectivist coercion still exists? ... seems like faulty logic.
The time for justice/voluntary exchange is always right now. Not in the future when you think it's suitable for every party...If an anarchist is going to be consistent rather than a hypocritical statist, then they should promote voluntary exchanges at all time. Regardless of your fears.
I haven't made that claim. So that's a straw man.
I'm saying {state + state enforced border control} is not necessarily a less libertarian outcome than {state with 'open borders' policy}.
The time for restitution (part of justice) is right now too of course. And state border control can be a form of restitution to the people subject to that state's predations. A consistent anarchist needs to recognise that, regardless of their fears.
I'm down w/AnCaps, but far too many of them operate under the delusion that a stateless society already exists...