In a free society, people would be able to decide who they do business with, and who is allowed onto their property.

There used to be legal contracts between property owners called restrictive covenants, in which property owners essentially made promises with one another that they wouldn't sell property to "undesirables" such as jews, blacks, or catholics. These contracts were declared illegal by the Supreme Court back in the 40's or 50's, but in a real anarchist society, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't make a comeback.

So in a free society, there would be measures that one could take to ensure that they lived in the kind of social setting that they desired. There would not be "open borders" in the way that we have them now, where the government owns these vast swaths of land, that land would be owned, and movement upon it would be determined by property holders.

And in the interest of promoting liberty, I don't think that it's a good idea to invite millions of people from different, often antagonistic cultures here. First off, they (undocumented immigrants) are living off of our tax dollars at extremely high rates, even higher than blacks. This is a violation of the NAP itself. They have very high rates of criminality. And they tend to be fans of big government. Their presence here is likely to lead to more racial conflict, more riots, more violence in the streets, and it will serve as a rationale to expand the police state even more.

This is an appeal to authority, but I think it has some merit to it nonetheless- look at the libertarian pantheon. Most of the heavy hitters would be on Chris' (and my) side on this. Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, almost everyone in the whole Mises wing of the movement, Hoppe, and the most important ancap of all time, Murray Rothbard.

I don't deny that your side of the argument is completely without merit, but don't call us "statists." It's been said before, but the government is currently monopolizing many of the functions that the market would provide for us. As long as the state is keeping the market from solving these issues, I'd like it to perform those functions in the way that I'd pay a private institution to do in its absence. For instance, I don't think that it's "statist" of me to hope that a swat team comes to save me when ISIS attacks me at the grocery store. I don't think it's "statist" to hope that the Federal Reserve behaves responsibly.

And our position is not inherently any more statist than yours, because while you pay lip service to the cause of ending the welfare state, you simultaneously invite people here to come mooch off of it, vote in bigger government, and sow seeds of discord in an already teetering society.