It's very rare thing in my life to feel threatened by individuals who aren't government agents. The "close the borders" mantra is smoke-screen fear mongering to cover up the real enemy.

P.S. You left an incomplete "/center" tag  at the end of point #5

If the  big guys shared more with everyone and didn't keep it all to themselfs the world would be better place

Not voting for Trump then?

In the distance ... the sound of ... rustling jimmies.

I like it.

@dragonanarchist 

<h1>borders are silly because they are arbitarily drawn lines on a rock floating through a desolate space</h1>

People aren't as uninvolved and unaffected as that. Immigration en masse is highly destructive. If someone breaks into your property using force to respond isn't groundless.

I wish I could upvote this 10 more times!! the "Closed Borders" camp literally make arguments that sound like arguments being made by  a communist or being made by a normal Statist saying that we need government because somebody somewhere MIGHT commit an evil act.

It's just amazing that imaginary lines can become part of 'reality' for a society that has been subjected to the right programming.

i am for open borders as long as those that cross the borders cannot point more guns at me to steal my property.

I am a illegal immigrant and I support this....No Victim No Crime

@larkenrose There are times when you incite me to argue with myself. Thanks

Open borders only work if it goes both ways. Try taking a stroll into Mexico.  Also we must end welfare for illegals, and stop arming ISIS and their ilk. Then I'll be all for it. Til that time, asking for open borders is delusional and insane.

Its so funny they want to build a wall, because you know they are laughing like we have 289 tunnels to get to your country :)

If you reject the very idea of the nation state, it follows that you reject any immigration restriction whatsoever. This is comparable to a vegetarian saying they don't eat beef.
  If, however, you do not reject the idea of the  nation state, then some type of control of immigration because the nation state is a cultural zone, a mostly voluntary association of those who identify themselves as community of shared values and interest.

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.

> My problem is the fucking masters, not the other slaves, and FEAR of other slaves and what they MIGHT DO

You don't have to choose.

Nature, from the cellular plasma membrane to the stratosphere, is replete with regulatory borders. Without borders life would cease to exist. Nature is hierarchical too,  oftentimes times brutally so. Organisms are innately self-interested and exploitative and so it is with humans. Strength respects strength, not weakness. The weak get recycled back into the carbon pool sooner rather than later and nature will throw something else into the arena that is life.