"I’d like to begin with a hypothetical scenario. If I got together with some like-minded individuals to buy up a large parcel of land and set up a private community, membership by invitation only, we wouldn’t be infringing upon anyone's liberty by refusing entry to some people. We'd be exercising our liberty, our freedom to associate and disassociate.
Suppose we continue to grow and built out infrastructure, begin to operate our own security services, and become self-sufficient. We don't need local, state, or federal governments for anything. We wish to be left alone, unburdened by demands for taxes from governments from which we’ve disassociated. So at some point we all unanimously vote to secede and become a sovereign nation. Maybe it’s unlikely we’d be successful. But let’s suppose we had weapons powerful enough to disincentivize the government from using force to try to prevent us from seceding.
This is the best I have come across: A paper By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The more I begin to read his stuff the more I find myself agreeing to his ideas.
The problem is that you mix up the state with private owners. In your example, you are completely within your rights to deny entrance to whomever you wish. A state which does not actually own its land (like the US), however, has no right to prevent immigrants from coming to the US.
It's not my argument, by the way.