I believe it is quite the opposite. Let me provide a map of the argument (not including any personal attacks):
unexplainable point(s): The libertarian principle that if they do no harm, they receive no harm.
Fauscovai point(s): Doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.
unexplainable point(s): The goverments says so doesn't change the argument, like what they called "illegal".
Fauscovai point(s): No one wants to take care of the Mexicans.
unexplainable point(s): Doesn't change their human rights.
Fauscovai point(s): Nothing Fauscovai said is false. (Did not speak in third person)
unexplainable point(s): Summary and attack of Fauscovais points with examples of possible American citizens and government forcing ways.
Fauscovai: Alternative points: Possibility of murderers/rapists/etc... and crossing border deserves force.
unexplainable: Summary of Fauscovais points.
Fauscovai: Confirmation of unexplainables summary.
unexplainable: Counterpoint against muder/rapist point, never mentioned again. The point of this argument is to ask if it should be illegal in the first place.
Fauscovai: Regardless of legitimacy of laws, if they break the law then it doesn't matter. They committed a sufficient crime to get deported.
unexplainable: Attempt to use analogy to show how human rights are superior to goverment laws (as long as no harm is done), with analogy: One person telling another to not cross a line that they do not own, then questioning weither it is right to forcefully reverse the actions of the person who was commanded to not cross the line, if he did infact cross the line, all things considered.
Fauscovai: A line on the dirt is not the same as a nation's borde (does not answer nor state if the question is un-answerable, just claims irrelevancy of the question and attacks the assumed conclusion).
unexplainable: Doesn't answer the question.
Fauscovai: Yes it does. You can't compare this question to the nations border. (attacking the assumed conclusion). Second point: The land could've belonged to someone else so this question is ridiculous.
unexplainable: Makes improved version of question (that clarify that no rights were violated and the owner doesn't own the line).
Fauscovai: Attacks assumed conclusion of analogy.
unexplainable: Answer the question.
Fauscovai: Assumes the line was owned and points out the right of protection of property (contradicting the question).
unexplainable: Claims contradiction of question.