Just the opposite: so long as a government commands over a monopoly on land, you cannot take a closed border position without implicitly assuming the validity of that land monopoly. A “closed border” position reduces to a defense of the power of the state to be exclusive with land that it doesn’t legitimately own to begin with. You’re stuck lapsing into an interventionist, nationalistic kind of reasoning in order to defend it, since you’re left with “intervention X exists, therefore we need intervention Y to stave off the effects of intervention X” and appeals to a nationalistic sense of ownership over the “nation” by legally recognized citezens.
We’ve beaten this dead horse a million times over now, and clearly the nationalists won’t back down.