Once upon a time there was a man who decided he wanted to leave his country and enter another country (for reasons known but to him and God). This required him to cross a border, where there were custom checkpoints that the other nation required people enter through. But the immigrant decided to enter without going through this customs, against the law of the nation he wished to enter.
Before he set about his journey, he armed himself with a hand gun. As he was attempting to cross the border on state-controlled land, against the law of the nation he wished to enter, a border patrol agent of that nation saw him and called out for him to stop. The immigrant ignored him and kept going. The border patrol agent followed after him, ordering him to stop. Still, the immigrant kept running.
Finally, the border patrol agent caught up with the immigrant, still on state-controlled land, and stated he was going to place him under arrest. The immigrant said he would not allow himself to be arrested and produced his hand gun and aimed it at the border patrol agent, who in turn took out his weapon.
Who in this situation is committing an act of coercion at this point? And if they both fire their weapons, who will be justified in killing the other?
If the immigrant has a right to cross the border (open borders), then he is justified because the border patrol agent is attempting to kidnap him or restrict his freedom of movement. If he does not have a right to cross the border and enter the state-owned property, however, then he is trespassing and the border patrol agent is justified in preventing him.
It’s one or the other, but it gets to the heart of the matter.
If there is a flaw to my reasoning or logic I am more than willing to be shown where.