Closed border advocates sometimes make the following argument:

You aren’t obligated to let poor Haitians live in your house or camp on your lawn. Even though they desperately need your help and would benefit tremendously from being allowed to live there, you aren’t required to let them move in. If it’s permissible for you to put up a fence around your property, why can’t the country put up a fence around its borders?

On its face, this is a weak analogy. When we close borders, we aren’t doing the same thing as putting fences around our houses. Suppose there is a neighborhood made up of 10 landowners. 8 out of 10 of them vote to keep out all foreigners.  1 out of 10, Larry, votes to let them in because he wants to rent his house to them. 1 of them votes to let them in because he’s a decent human being, but he doesn’t himself plan to rent his house. When the 8 put up a fence around the neighborhood, they don’t merely keep immigrants off their own property. Rather, they keep the immigrants off Larry’s property, against his will.

Maybe–according to the correct theory of justice and government legitimacy, whatever that is–that turns out to be permissible. But the analogy to houses doesn’t show us that.

Anti-immigration policies are like all protectionist policies. They aren’t about your prerogative not to trade with others, but instead about forcing your neighbors not to trade with foreigners.

The “It’s my house and I can put up a fence argument” could be parodied as follows:

I have a right as a white guy not to date black women if I don’t want to. Therefore, we have a right to pass a law saying white guys can’t date black women.

These laws–closed borders, anti-miscegenation–don’t enshrine your right to decide with whom you’ll associate. They instead use violence and threats of violence to stop others from associating with those with who they want to associate.