Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul...Thus, with this as guidance, I am suspicious of all government actions, rules and laws. My default position on all of them is that I am against them unless I can be shown how such an action rule or law will advance liberty
[T]he radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State...
[T]he radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it's to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished...
When it comes to immigration, my view is that
if an immigrant has a place to stay (in the private sector), it is none of my business if he enters the country or not.
The idea that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans is an absurd idea promoted by President Trump's immigrant-hating adviser Steven Miller.
It is true that to the degree they are allowed to go on the government dole, immigrants increase government expenditures, but it is truly a pre-crime notion to ban all immigrants because some might go on the dole. The solution is not complicated for the libertarian, it is to call for a welfare wall that prevents immigrants to go on the dole.
To advocate the banning of immigrants by government to stop any from going on the dole is ass-backward libertarianism. It is calling for more government to attempt to move toward liberty.
This was a problem with Milton Friedman, he was a government technocrat always finding a role for government instead of calling for government to be torn down.
As Rothbard put it:
There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary — while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.
It should be noted here that many of Milton [Friedman]'s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money — are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.
Some have objected to the fact that some immigrants are crossing on private land to enter the United States, I have no objection to landowners of such properties acting to stop this if they so desire. But it should be noted that this occurs because undocumented aliens are prevented by the state from entering the United States at traditional border entry points and further it is because of government regulations that a pro-immigrant charitable organization doesn't buy up some private land area for entry.
Thus, there is nothing to cheer here in government actions. It is the state distorting the natural flows of people. Pulling ICE out of border enforcement would result in natural flows that would keep immigrants crossing the borders in areas away from where private landowners would object.
Further, Greyhound bus and airline service would be available to new immigrants.
The argument that new immigrants from south of the border would distort voting patterns in a more leftist direction is based on a total lack of understanding of the history of Catholic voting. It should be noted that we aren't exactly going in a libertarian direction in the country right now and Murray Rothbard has traced this leftist movement to the progressive era that, as Rothbard pointed, was in many ways was also a movement against Catholics (See: The Progressive Era).
Although Catholics from south of the border are likely leaning leftist, they are probably a lot easier to flip in a libertarian direction than the current American non-Catholic elitist progressives who have been brought up and maintain an obnoxious elitist central planning thought process.
All this said, how does one present the libertarian perspective on the government child separation issue to the non-libertarian?
First, it should be made clear that the separation of children from their parents, and the general horrific immigration policy, is caused by rulings from a central power. In the current case with Trump being at the center of the power.
This is the problem that Ludwig von Mises warned about when he said:
The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends.He could have just as easily have said that the worst thing that could happen for a person seeking to influence the center of power is to be ruled by others that have gained the power who are not his friends.
Thus, it is the central power itself that should be attacked so that free exchange can take place. Supporting free exchange is support against dictators.
Further, Freidrich Hayek in Chapter 10: "Why The Worst Get On Top" of The Road to Serfdom warned us that the worst get to the top of central power.
It is naive to think a benevolent dictator would gain a top power spot. And if one somehow did, it would still be impossible to centrally plan a society and economy that is always changing and adjusting to new ideas and developments from many different directions. A central power ruler who does not simply allow freedom must by his very plan create great stagnation---at a minimum.
If a central power can be dangerous and do nothing but create some type of stagnation, then why support and advocate for such a power spot in the first place?