> and make rules about how their property lines will be defended with force

There is such a thing as proportionality in response, and standards of justice and transparency in the whole procedure of determining what someone is done and why a particular response is being chosen. That’s not exactly the same as one party just unilaterally kidnapping people off the street and locking them in warehouses for an indefinite period of time with no ability to even talk to anyone.

Because the area governed by the United States is not owned by anybody. The federal government has no legitimate claim to ownership, nor does some nebulous “we” have a legitimate claim to decide who I may interact with on land they do not own. I do not make decisions concerning whom the federal government deems geographically correct. That is done by a criminal enterprise that operates based on the needs of the ruling class.

Thought experiments aside, advocating border control means giving aid to the thugs who enforce federal policy in the real world.

Can private individuals own property, choose who is allowed on their property, and defended their property lines with force?

Can a group of people (a social club for example) own property, exclude non members from that property, and make rules about how their property lines will be defended with force, according to the methods that the groups charter specifies for making such rules?

If so, then how are US laws that specify who we choose to exclude and how how we choose to defend our national borders any different?