I think issues like this began the process of turning away from libertarianism:
This [policy of allowing massive immigration to the US from Haiti, which is being advocated by nearly all mainstream libertarians] is an example of what I am christening the "libertarian paradox". Because of the governing systems currently in place, libertarian moral philosophy compels us to advocate for bad policies that nobody really wants. Because the roads and borders are not private property, it would be immoral for us to use government force to prevent some immigrants from using them to move here.
And then libertarians wonder why their message is so unpopular, all the while they are advocating policies that nobody, not even most libertarians, would voluntarily choose to live under if they had the personal free choice.
I think we can all agree that living next to a bunch of new immigrants from Haiti would not be ideal. I don’t see any libertarians that are advocating for massive immigration being willing to move into New Port-au-Prince in Florida. There will be crime, massive transfers of wealth from you to the new immigrants, shitty schools, etc. Also, these new immigrants will not vote for libertarians policies or candidates, so that the net results will be a US that is less libertarian in one of the major swing states.
Mass immigration from Haiti is therefore a terrible idea. If libertarianism doesn’t allow one to call it a terrible idea, something is wrong with libertarianism (at least the mainstream variety).